Sandstein explains, "you will need to unequivocally withdraw your previous legal threats in order to be unblocked."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlastair_Haines&diff=281526220&oldid=281524426] I reply, please specify the substance of the threats you allege exist. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines#top|talk]]) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein explains, "you will need to unequivocally withdraw your previous legal threats in order to be unblocked."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlastair_Haines&diff=281526220&oldid=281524426] I reply, please specify the substance of the threats you allege exist. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines#top|talk]]) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:Durova's proposed statement comes to saying pretty much what I believe I've said already.
:Durova's wording is, "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future."
:I am happy to repeat myself in Durova's words, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't: (a) make people look silly for thinking there had been a threat; or (b) force me to assert that I made a threat when I intended none.
:"I promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future" is fine, I've already said it.
:I have ''also'' said that I am not presently intending any legal action. I understand that my words have been understood that way. Irrespective of those words and what they meant, the important thing is that I am ''not'' currently threatening any legal action.
:Once this is settled, I'll be archiving this discussion. What will stand in the record are the clear statements: "I am not currently threatening any legal action; and in future I promise to make no onsite threat of legal action."
:In essence, I think Durova is spot on. I can't reply to Durova, perhaps a reply could be posted here. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines#top|talk]]) 02:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
although you may b disappointed to learn that in the early years of Wikipedia everyone thought the same thing, and would have laughed at me for saying the obvious. Anyway, I hope your troubles are behind you. Many of the lessons of Wikipedia are about how to work with people who are way more different from us - including in style and form of expression, as well as manner of thinking - than ourselves and I hope you are able to negotiate all this effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. And for your note - I wish that the "wikipedia community" - I mean more editors - viewed this motion against SV as an opportunity to discuss as a community Wikipedia's valueas and where it is going for example on the talk page of the RFA discussion concerning SV. But most editors usually just ignore these things, where is there a community space for an honest and inclusive community conversation? I've never succeeded in getting one going ... Slrubenstein | Talk15:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair Haines!!!. I saw your name listed at WP:PRV as a general copyeditor. I was wondering if you can copyedit Goan Catholics, which is about a small Christian group, since I have noticed you are interested in Christianity. You can take your own time and copyedit the article whenever you are free. Also, if you have any suggestions, please do put it up. Thanks in anticipation, Sanfytalk13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Mangalorean Catholics
Hello Alastair. You are right. Just check Talk:Mangalorean Catholics#GA Review2, you'll find the article just failed due to reliability issues. I can prove that none of the references used are unreliable. Sources used although not the best, but works for the article. If the reviewer just gives me a day to explain why the sources are considered reliable, I can prove it, but failing the article just because the reviewer declares it unreliable, withouth even bothering to check it's reliabilty. This is totally unacceptable. Do you think the Prose is not of GA quality? The article has already been copyedited by User:Finetooth. If you think so, please do some light copyedits. Professional copyedits are not required as this is just a GA nominee. FA is not possible as the article is not complete.
I know this site is unreliable for contentious claims. But it is used only in the Organization section. Because for a organization of 200-300 people, there's no BBC, CNN or any other national newspaper. Such local e-papers have to be used for such non-contentious claims. KensplanetTalkContributions12:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a site widely used across Wikipedia. Looking at the sources, it is clear that the contents are updated directly from the Vatican http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/sources.html. Anyway, do you think it is unreliable.
I am proud that India's tragedy is Australia's also, may those who suffer together learn to love together.
Indiancatholics.com
"The Indiancatholic.com is owned and maintained by the Office of the Spokesperson and the Media/Information Office of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India." The Media/Information Office was established as the "Public Relations Office in 1992". They claim to be "the most popular Church News and Information Service on the Internet from India."
They are a public relations office, hence represent an authoritative, but self-interested, source of information regarding matters within their jurisdiction—the CBCI. This jurisdiction includes Mangalore Catholics. However, they are not a reliable source of their own popularity.
Some articles are written by contributors external to the Office, but reviewed by professionals. Regarding historical information, better sources should be obtained. Regarding contemporary and local opinions and matters of self-identification, it is a valid and reliable source.
Daijiworld.com
Daijiworld claim "100,000 individuals from around 180 countries" visit their site daily. I can only repeat that a Wiki editor who specialises in Wiki standards regarding RS has confirmed that an e-paper, with a named editor-in-chief and published head office address is acceptable.
Magalorean.com
Dear Ken, I consider this a reliable source, but you are right, controversial claims should not be sourced on this site. However, the photographic documentation of the events is outstanding. I think those underline the value of local e-papers to Wikipedia. I suppose photographs can be doctored or mis-captioned, but there is nothing controversial here. How better could we convince someone an event took place in a local community than to show photographs of that event published in a local e-paper?
Catholic-heirarchy.org
"This web site is not officially sanctioned or approved by any Catholic Church authority."
"The contents are purely the responsibility of David M. Cheney."
I trust David M. Cheney, but Wiki cannot. But we can cite the sources he cites, and those are reliable (the Bibliography, that is, and maybe the web-sites). Perhaps you need to isolate the references that he used to produce the information you use. Additionally, it is a convenient online summary of information based on those reliable sources, which contains no advertising and costs nothing to visit—an excellent External link.
I have found a something: The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research, p. 31.
I spent a nice time in Scotland. They have very particular way for pronounciation of English. It was problem. "Speak slower please". I was too short to learn this kind of pronounciation (letters: r, h). Sometimes I tought: "In what language he is speaking". I was surprised that everything (almost everything) is cheapper than in Poland. Films on DVD two times cheapper (I like Schwarzenegger, James Bond etc.). Prices in Poland are very expensive. Why? Corruption? In the next year I think about Israel (in October). It is most expensive country in the world. Every man, who loves Bible thinks about this country. Cordialement. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I look at the WP talk:Manual of Style discussion, the primary message i get is - Add notes, links, if necessary. Brackets or short explanations in the text do work. --RedtigerxyzTalk05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all - I'm hoping that I might persuade you along to a Wiki christmas celebration / meetup on december 18th :-) - The meetup regulars are a friendly bunch, and we're very much hoping to get a few new folk along to chat about all things Wiki (and there are apparently some exciting things in the pipeline! Come along to find out a bit more ;-) - you can sign up here - and do feel free to edit that page with any more ideas or suggestions too :-)
Hope to see you there - I've heard a rumour that the first drink is on the highest placed Australian in the current arbcom elections.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)ok, so I started that rumour too....[reply]
OMG. What a deep research. You are a genius. Please teach me the art of judging reliable sources. I cannot still digest it that this site can be unreliable in any way. All the contents are reviewed by professionals. The accuracy of the contents are thoroughly checked. There are a very very few online sources for the community which may be considered reliable. I think this is one of them. All others are Blogs, etc.. How can we forget, this is from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, the most reliable source which we can ever trust. There are hardly any reliable sources left if such reputed organizations are not considered reliable. KensplanetTalkContributions07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic-heirarchy.org
I am a fool. I should have read the About. Instead I just read the sources. The Site is unreliable then. Are you sure we can use the Bibliography sources. I haven't gone through any of them. KensplanetTalkContributions07:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say you have checked Indiancatholic.com is used to site British general Arthur Wellesley helped 10,000 of them return to South Canara and resettle on their lands.
Apart from that, it is also used as a Reference for (not mentioned as a Ref) in the Lead
Most of the ancestors of Mangalorean Catholics, were Goan Catholics, who had migrated to South Canara from towns in Goa, a state north of Canara, between 1500 and 1763 during the Goa Inquisition and the Portuguese-Maratha wars. (the date)
Gradually they learned the languages of South Canara but retained Konkani as their mother tongue.
Although the article appears in Mangalorean.Com, it is a Press release from the organization itself. Are Images, text and other stuff rom press releases in the Public domain?
No no I am not using it. If Press release images are in the public domain, then I think the Images of terrorists captured on CCTV can be put in the terrorist attacks article. I'll check it out. KensplanetTalkContributions08:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you are a professional writer. Anyone can guess that after analyzing your smart posts. Please use your Australian as well as American holiday. :) You can make money easily by your writings. Do you intend to become a writer. Do not forget to release all your contents under the Public Domain. Actually, I don wanna use any online URL's but have to sometimes. Anyway, I'll try to improve. I promise to use only books henceforth. Your sources above are excellent. I'll work on that. Please accept this Barnstar from me. I am too. much impressed with you.
yes, sorry, I was miffed that you had reverted the lead yet again. I should take (and did take) my own advice. As it stands, your final post to the talkpage is perfectly constructive, and as I state, I have no beef with the biological discussion, I simply insist that historical and sociological angles be given greater weight. Thanks, --dab(𒁳)12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you have seen my Heide Göttner-Abendroth article -- this is the kind of feminist pseudo-scholarship that makes you itch for rebuttals. But WP:DUE says we shouldn't devote space to debunking theories that don't have any support in the first place, at least not in articles that are really dedicated to a larger scope. --dab(𒁳)12:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Aland and some other articles of my recent editing
You requested about expansion of this article by translating it from the excellent de:Wiki page. Today I have translated section "Biograrfie" from de:wiki. Section "Zur theologischen Bedeutung Alands"... maybe later.
In Martin Schøyen Collection I wrote: "Ms 2650, Codex Schøyen, from the 4th century, the oldest Gospel of Matthew in Coptic dialect", but someone contested It on a Talk page. It is the oldest Coptic manuscript of Mathhew, not the oldest manuscript of NT at all. By the way, only 21 uncial mss remain. Do you want some of them? With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Codex BoreelianusUser:Textcrit - perhaps expert - add linkes and some information to the article. Links are very usefull (all images of the codex, history of the codex, collation). On the basis of this links we can axpand article succesfylly. Now we have access to every important information about this codex. His contribution is very important for this article (even crucial). I did not know, that this codex was digitalized. It is nice, that sometimes some experts correct and expand our work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today I made about 100 edits on the en-wiki articles, and only 3 on other wikis (pl-wiki - 1 edit, fr-wiki - 1 edit, and de-wiki - 1 edit). I have created a new section in the article Papyrus - Papyrus#Collections of papyri. I think in List of New Testament papyri we need to write about collections in a similar way. In suggest to create in the article Biblical manuscripts new sections: Palimpsests and diglot manuscripts.
I have ordered brochure "Codex Sinaiticus" hrsg. Ulrich Johannes Schneider, Leipzig im Universitätsverlag 2007, ISBN 978-3-86583-182-8. It has 48 pages, and 9.80 €. (See Leipziger Universitätsverlag).
They answered me: "in den nächsten Tagen zugestellt werden kann".
I need every information about every manuscript.
Yesterday I created article Minuscule 1739, I made some links to Church Fathers quoted on a margin of this manuscript, and to my surprise Clement of Rome is named as Pope Clement I. Why? It is anachronismus. I agree with your comments on the talk page.
What about biblical variants? Perhaps in Februar. For now I have a lot of other work (minuscules and expansion of uncials). I have expanded Uncial 0308. I think this article is complete. Do you want to see it? Maybe I will create "Princeton Papyri" (there are a lot of links). We have Michigan Papyrus Collection, we can have Princeton Papyrus Collection too.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only manuscripts
You know, Józef Antoni Poniatowski is complete enogh (for me). It is not my subject. In history of Poland only 17th century is interesting for me. But I created Hasta la vista, baby. I was intended to create this article even in April, but manuscripts are always primary target for me. On pl-wiki I created several articles about symphonies of Mendelssohn (they did not existed on pl-wiki before my editing), pl:Staffa, pl:Grota Fingala. They were translated from English (partly from German). Several articles about places and rivers of the Białowieża Forest (f.e. pl:Łutownia). It is my place. I was born there. Perhaps I should translate them into English... Maybe later. Manuscripts, libraries, collections are more interesting for me. 14 December I edited mainly on fr:wiki. I like this language, and I use wikipedia for learning. But I do not speak (completely). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for dropping by my talk page. While I still firmly believe I was right, obviously that conversation was past the point of doing anyone any good, and your calm, non-biased remarks were just what both of us needed. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to have a look at the article, and also for all your kind words and encouragements ! It looks much better now. This was so nice of you. Have a merry Christmas, Rosenknospe (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Masculine is not solely used to descibe males
Your recent edits to masculinity contradict reliable sources that use the word "masculine" to describe females as well as males. As "masculine" means having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man,[1] this means masculinity isn't just about maleness but also about traits considered masculine, and thus masculinity can be applied to things and people of either sex. Blackworm (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that reliable sources make it clear that masculinity is about much more than "maleness". Whether restoring previous text upheld that view, was consistent with it, or contradicts it we should discuss further, probably at the article's talk page. Comments to that effect are on your own talk page. Thanks for your reply there. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I happened to notice your excellent copyedit contributions in the current FAC article Vithoba. I authored the above article, which failed FAC about 6 months back, mostly for prose issues. I got busy with other successful FAC's thereafter. Do you have the time to do a copyedit to this well cited article which I am planning to bring to FAC again. PS: It has significant information on one of your favorite topics (Jainism). Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your respond. Having copy edited many of Dinesh's articles, and then being attacked by his supporters for copy editing Tamil-related articles, I am only concerned that articles be fair and not biased or supporting one ethnic group/language over another. That is purely my concern. As I am sure you are aware, no one owns an article on Wikipedia. That is true of this one also, whom ever the "main" editor is. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...and then being attacked by his supporters for copy editing Tamil-related articles,..." - do you have any evidence/diffs for your preposterous claims or is it just that you revel in shooting your mouth off? Sarvagnya17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friend Sarvagnya, please read my comment below, with gentleness I would ask you to respect my desire not to know of other people's past conflicts in this area. Please allow me room to enjoy meeting new people as though there is no past. I think Mattisse has said what he wants to say. I think it is over, he has moved on. Does what I say make sense, can you see that everyone is new to me and I'm just looking forward to enjoying learning new things with new friends? When you think of me, please think of ahimsa, that is what I seek at Wiki. It is possible, and I expect you and I may share that in future work together. Peace friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I do thank you, but I'm getting more of a picture than I need to know. I love contributors and copyeditors, hard working people. I hope people will forgive me for trying to be neutral. Politics is something I dislike. I am the kind of idiot that tries to be everyone's friend. ;)
Just now, Dinesh is a new friend. Thank you for leaving us space to build that independently of past and separate issues. There is a lot of history in India, like everywhere, and I can't take sides in what I don't understand. Yes, I will try hard to gently help people give me that space if we ever need to discuss that.
There is a lot of space at Wikipedia, very often we can move away from bad experiences. I wish you better luck in future copyediting work. It's such a great contribution to the encyclopedia. Have a really nice day, Mattisse. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for starting your work on this article. While you are at it, could you check the veracity of this claim by Fowler in the lead However, other scholars believe the literary tradition in Kannada to have begun with Kavirajamarga itself,[20][21] and point to the absence of references before the ninth century in the early literary works such as the Sabdamanidarpanam of Kesiraja.[22]. I know what Sheldon Pollock says (he is a Sanskrit scholar), but I am rather surprised at the citation provided citing Chidananda Murthy, who as far I know, claims 7th century Kannada literature (opus like) existed. Requesting for scanned copies for verification, in case a google search does not help is also a possibility. We want to make sure that there is no WP:SYN, putting togather two disparate sentences from multiple sources to convey one meaning. I have requested another user to verify this, if required from book sources in India.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not forgotten my promise, and have been looking forward to getting back to your excellent article, and to some of the fascinating research related to it.
My modem failed about 10 days ago, and my motherboard a few days later, so I've been offline for a while working on real life things.
Please give me a few days to get reorganized and your article will become my top priority project.
Sorry for not understanding your position in this article. I have never interacted with User:AzureFury before, but I think he has real problem understanding what constitutes original research. I am not the only one who has brought that up in that talk page. But reading your comments again, I get a feeling that you are a sweet-speaking person trying not to hurt others sentiments including AzureFury. Please forgive me if my understanding was and is wrong. I hope your constructive comments regarding the improvement of the article will also be taken into account in your absence.Docku:What up?15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice and wise words. I agree wih you that sourcing the article is going to be difficult but possible. Let us see how it all turns out. thanks for your offer of help and have great holidays. Docku:What up?01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL! ChildofMidnight that's brilliant! After all those years of wondering how one man could give gifts all over the world in a single night, finally someone tells me ... someone else is actually co-ordinating the operation! Perfect and so true!
I saw your response! :) I was glad you enjoyed it. I was going to say something about the elves getting all the credit, but I thought I better not push it. Merry Christmas. Happy Holidays. Bless you! ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair do you remember me User:Sanfy who sent you a message for copyediting for Goan Catholics. May the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Alastair Haines.SanfyTalk
It was already done. I just drew the table and time-frames. Also added some Images, It's not so difficult since the Governors of Bombay are well documented as can be seen from Primary Sources KensplanetTC05:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, friend. Please consider registering some time, any name or gender will do, I just find a tag other than a number easier to related to. ;) Very best to you too. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Category
I want create new category: "New Testament manuscripts" for articles like CSNTM, INTF, Family 1, Family 13, Jerusalem Colophon. Articles f1, f13 have wrong category for now (Category:New Testament text-types). They are not text-types, but sub-families of one of text-type. In that case Category:Caesarean text-type can be usefull, but I do not think we need multiply Categories.
I am intending to create several articles about families and subfamilies of manuscripts (like Family Π, "Family 1424" and other in impossible to immagine the future). These articles will need "Category:New Testament manuscripts". Of course we can create "families of New Testament manuscripts", but what we can do with articles Jerusalem Colophon, CSNTM, INTF, and others which still do not have precise categories. If you agreed with me do not answer. I use Gregory now. It is good for expanding articles. It will take a long time for me. I want to expand intro in lists of NT papyri, and NT uncials. These articles should be featered. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar awarded by Vithoba to Alastair Haines, to say Thanks for Alastair's great work in copyediting as well as his suggestions in other aspects, which made the article a FA. RedtigerxyzTalk05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Hi! We never crossed paths but I have seen that you have worked hard on many India-related articles. Just dropped by to say your efforts are appreciated. Thanks, --KnowledgeHegemonytalk17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank for your points in the BLP survey
Thank you Alastair for raising some very important points in the BLP survey. These are issues that many people seem to be running away from when they should be discussing them. Your points about the Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick case are very pertinent - especially for those of us living in jurisdictions where libel laws are far far stricter than the USA's--Caililtalk21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory
I am not so sure, but I know one your copy edit work is really excelent. It is not only my opinion. Did you see Codex Sinaiticus in last time? It was nominated to GA (it has above 39 000 scores). I do not know if you actually have a time, but just for the moment. Three days ago pl:Kodeks Watykański received GA (almost 30 000 scores). I will try to translate into English additional material, but for now Codex Sinaiticus is more important. I think also about expanding article Codex Alexandrinus, and Novum Instrumentum omne (it has 13 556 scores for now). You said about other languages, but not on every wiki "professional" articles are so welcome. "More popular style please". But the article Hasta la vista, baby is more fraquently visited, than any other created by me. It is not surprised for me. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created article Matthew 16:2b-3. You have a lot of edits in Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, and Comma Johanneum, it means subject is yours. You can edit. It has only 7 300 scores, but it can have 20 000. It is also like introduction to the list of textual variants. I did not know before that Minuscule 579 inserted this passage after verse 9. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar for my little gnoming effort on your article. Your acknowledgment enthuses me to do some more new page patrolling heh. Thank you for writing the article in the first place, as well as the huge effort you're putting in to List of Australian butterflies and numerous others before
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Frans Kasiepo, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Frans Kasiepo is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Frans Kasiepo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Mr Botsky, this has been organised well. Frans Kasiepo now links to Frans KaIsiepo, a hero of the Republic of Indonesia. Decidedly notable chap, and the mis-spelling can be found in even the best sources. It would be a bit curious, but I can provide both primary and secondary sources for the mis-spelling to argue for the retention of the redirect if necessary, but surely redirects don't need this kind of attention. ;)
I speak an old Flemish dialect which is a bit removed from current Dutch....but here goes..........
The Malino Conference on 25 July 1946 will be held in Malino on the island of Celeses (?). The Netherlands says that during the conference for states in to feed (not sure what is meant here). LG____________ launches the idea.
The idea is that the Dutch East Indies, in a/the future independant world (will exist) in the form of a federation of different states. The plan is that the federation remains part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with Queen Wilhelmina as Head of State. Sokarno gets a republic with its own states with the new United States of Indonesia.
The Republic wants to know nothing of the idea.
Sokarno doesn't agree with the idea. He wants, first, the complete independence of Indonesia in terms of a unitary state (not a federation).Then and only then will he consider keeping a link with the Netherlands.--Buster7 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the Gender of God article
Alastair, if I may make a contribution: I actually agree with much of what you'd like to write about vis-a-vis the Gender of God article. I think, however, you're making these contributions in the wrong Wikipedia entry. In other words, the other editors who have come to a consensus not to include this material are right about not placing that particular text within this particular article, yet you are right about the need to have these clarifications within Wikipedia articles.
The real problem seems to be one I have seen years ago on Wikipedia, back when I was a very active editor & contributor. Too many topics began to develop, in too much depth, for all of it to make sense within just one article. As such, we started splitting articles up into a series of related articles. Given what the consensus is for other articles, I think we should have the same sort of distinction in Gender of God. The gender of God article is already covering many topics. In line with what we do elsewhere, whenever possible we briefly discuss an issue, and link to the appropriate article which discusses that point in more depth. RK (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting RK, however the two editors are simply lying. There has never been consensus against the text. Both Skywriter and StormRider explictly stated they do not see any problem with the text. Their comments are in the top section of the talk page.
If the talk page is examined (and too much sidetracking makes that difficult) it is clear that some editors have been unclear about features of the usage of "God" and "god" in English and about the significant difference between sex and gender.
If you'd like to see work I've done in other articles regarding clarifying the meaning of gender and sex you can look at the Gender article. I feel no need to reproduce all that in Gender of God.
As for the OED on usage of "God", that is especially useful material to address questions raise by Andowney a long time ago. The English language itself is evidence for the masculinity of God in Christianity. If it's not said at the top of the article it is worth saying in the Christianity section. It's a profoundly important line of evidence, with the additional advantage that it clarifies a number of other issues.
I'm afraid, there is a lot of personal animosity expressed in endless repetitions of blatantly untrue statements about me and about discussion at the page, and the processes that are supposed to moderate these things have failed miserably. A Wikequette request by me, returned a verdict that Ilkali was allowed to delete talk page posts!
We are actually only dealing with two difficult editors who find it convenient to defame someone who makes life awkward for them by insisting on sources rather than anonymous opinions shaping an article.
I'm sorry, but until someone actually addresses these basic content issues at the article, it endlessly to falls to me to maintain it. If I delay, my delay is counted as "implicit consensus" for changes. If I act, I am threatened with blocking. I have tried both and will continue to do so until this is resolved.
It's not rocket-science, the OED on the gender of God in usage being shaped by religious views is obviously bang on topic, and something that leads to endless scepticism in talk page posts unless this sourced, academic consensus material is established.
It needs to be remembered that the same editors claiming the OED material is not useful, claimed previously that the definition of God was vitally important, and that they knew what it was--it excluded polytheism. They are happy to define what they think it means--one mediator claimed God is the God of Judaism, as though that settled the matter.
You can't ask people to take you seriously for considering the scope of the meaning of "God" or whether it should be capitalised, and then to take you seriously when you claim sources like the OED on precisely those issues are not relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Alynna (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everything is OK. I am really impressed by the List of Australian butterflies. I have initiated the article about one of the most notable Russian scientifist from the beginning of the 20th century. His life was very intersting and tragic. One of his work was translated into German and it was enough for accusing him as a traitor. Even for me it is difficult to imagine. If this people could born in Germany or Britain his carrier could be comparied with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, and Gregory, but unfortunatelly a big talent was not utilized enough. Byzantine culture wa main field of his interest, but he discovered three more freagments of Codex Sinaiticus and brought them to Petersburg (it is strong argument against arguments of Sinai monks that Codex Sinaiticus was lent to Tischendorf). Perhaps I should expand this article on the basis of the article from ru-wiki. His life is really interesting as much as his big talent. If you have a time you can copyedit the article Vladimir N. Beneshevich. You are welcome in every of my article. I see User:AlbertHerring watch my edits. It is good, I am gratiful for him. En-wiki is my place.
In last time I have discovered this F. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1912). This book can be usefull for the wikipedia articles and not only for the wikipedia articles. This book is really useful. Internet is very helpful. In last two days I initiated five articles on de-wiki, but unfortunatelly writing in German is more difficult for me than in French. I do not know why. French is more similar to English. Perhaps it is the reason. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lectionaries
"The codex is a lectionary, it contains Lessons from the Gospels: John, Matthew, Luke (Evangelistarium)." - How to put these words in perfect way? I think we need more lectionaries. Russian Caravan, interesting. Now editing on de-wiki is a little easier. Aller Anfang ist schwer. My last article - de:Codex Zakynthius. I see, on de-wiki manuscript's articles are more needed than on fr-wiki. They have more readers. Thanks for showing this counter. Not every wiki use it, but it is no problem. All the best. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:DevPsychBio.gif
Thanks for uploading File:DevPsychBio.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
To Alastair (about Mahakuta inscription): I visited this scerene and architecturally interesting place, Mahakuta, near Badami, last July, and was disappointed to hear that this inscription you mention (602 CE) has been moved to a museum in Bijapur, about 150 kms away. The interesting thing is, apart from the fact that a good pecentage of Badami Chalukya inscriptions are in their native Kannada language and script, most of their Sanskrit inscriptions are written in the Old-Kannada script, including the famous Badami fort inscription of Pulakesi I (543 CE) and the Aihole inscription (636 CE) of Ravi Kirti, court poet of Pulakesi II–an indication how well developed Kannada was as a written language by that time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protagoras: "No-one really knows anything!"
..Socrates: "How do you know?"
Is there an answer? Best to you and yours. Having fun rescuing articles. It beats knocking heads with the elite and the syops. In a way it embraces my goal with WikiKnights. Live Long and Prosper, good sir!--Buster7 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Backstage Pass: Powerhouse Museum
-You are recieving this message because you are listed as interested in wiki-meetups in Sydney-
The Powerhouse Museum will be giving Wikimedia Australia members (and friends) a personal tour through their collections - much of it not on public display. They'll take photos for us and give us access to their curators. Afterwards, they give us a meeting room and we help improve articles about their items. 20people Max.
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Badwa, there seems to be some confusion, but I cannot take credit for something that I have not done, I have been wrongly credited to the edit.
You really had a bad month! Sorry to hear about your allowance....seems you were a victim of Phishing scam! I (and many other guys) will be happy to see you now once again back in action. Take care my friend.--Anish (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alastair Haines. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia and I see that you're very active member (with important contributions to several featured articles??). If you have the time, I would really appreciate hearing some of your thoughts and experience about Wikipedia. The discussion is already underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.
Whoever you are, and whatever you're talking about, you are acting against a consensus including the testimony of ArbCom members citing hard evidence in my favour. This link establishes grounds for blocking Abtract, whose continuous disruptive and obstructive edits regarding my editing at any page are well known.
I'll kindly ask you to apologize for your uninvited interuption to the work of a valued Wikipedian, whose opportunity to keep promises to assist others, who keep seeking his help, is being blocked by the unilateral and unannounced actions of your good self. Please self correct, or I will have to ask a dispute resolution process to reconsider the wisdom of someone like you having access to tools intended to assist constructive editors, not obstruct them. Perhaps a suspension of your priveleges for a week would be a suitable comparable action.
I do hope you'll introduce yourself, ask for any clarification of whatever might concern you, and apologize. Then, perhaps, a good future working relationship might be the outcome. Good relationships need two people to agree. My willingness is clear, is yours?
Actually Alastair the link is an investigation into the whole situation. And Abtract has been blocked for a month becuase of it. However the consensus reached in that investigation was to impose a sanction (whatever sanction JHunterJ deemed appropriate[4]) on your account. I will have to ask you to retract & reconsider your remarks to JHunterJ here - his action is 'run of the mill' ArbCom enforcement, and you have an outstanding ArbCom ruling against you. Therefore if you infringe (or are seen to infringe) on the specified rulings of ArbCom you will continue to be blocked by sysops. JHunterJ is working in good faith, even if one disagrees with his decision, that is not in question and I would ask you to make an assumption of his good faith. On a personal level I am quite distressed to see you in this situation and it seems to me that you must be unclear on the terms of the ruling that was reached by the ArbCom - is that so? If it is I can see if someone will clarify the terms and how/why you have been seen to infringe upon them? Also due to the nature of Abtract's block I would like you to send me a list of any articles that you've worked on, since the ArbCom ruling, where Abtract was not previously active but where he has become active--Caililtalk15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cailil. Alastair Haines, I'm JHunterJ, one of the admins who was looking into your edits and Abtract's edits at Virginity. The relevant ones are listed in this discussion, and yours violate two of the rulings from the earlier arbitration: you reverted content without discussion, and you did not avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying things gentlemen. Apologies remain outstanding from both of you, though I expect you will offer them in due course. More of that later (probably much later) as I have little time for this at the moment, and will ultimately be putting it in professional hands if necessary.
I have outlined a good deal of evidence that has been ignored to this point. While it is heartwarming to see certain basics attended to, at this rather belated point, and I thank Hunter for that work, it remains disappointing that he can still misread some details so poorly.
It's a trivial oversight really, but if Hunter checks again, he will see that I was "requested" not required to avoid contact with Abtract, and no sanctions were specified. There is a very good reason for that. The ArbCom member delegated with looking into Abtract v Collectonian finally concluded Abtract was solely responsible for hounding Collectonian, and saw the same pattern in his dealings with me. Abtract admitted this freely only after painstaking and time consuming work by the ArbCom member, who commented on how an earlier admission would have saved a lot of time. Presumably, though I didn't confirm it personally, the intention of asking me to avoid Abtract was to "cover all bases". No one has ever suggested that I've ever pursued him, and the idea was to free me to edit without being hounded by Abtract, imposing sanctions does not liberate a victim.
Check these things. As regards Abtract, it was concluded that I was the victim. No apology, however, was offered either for concluding the original ArbCom without even making any ruling regarding Abtract, nor for publically discussing banning me, because of incidents that involved the personal persuit of Abtract.
In time, I expect apologies for both those matters. I also expect the behaviour of Ryusho, L'Aquatique, Cailil and Yamara to be suitably investigated, and apologies for their errors to be forthcoming, ideally from the individuals themselves; or, failing that, by ArbCom in a general way.
At the moment, gentlemen, the scandalous mishandling of the ArbCom is a blemish at Wikipedia, and it needs to be remedied. I've said plenty about it already, I have plenty more evidence to offer on request, but I am deliberately being generous in allowing time for Wiki reps to self-correct here. I am witholding further comment until such time as I will be forced, by a statute of limitations, to put it in the hands of a professional.
Gentlemen, you will remove (and oversight) all slander regarding me posted by Abtract, L'Aquatique and other intemperate participants in the discussions, within 12 months of their posting, or the foundation will be required to answer for your failure to do so. That's not a threat, it's a deadline. Gentlemen, you do not own my reputation, and others are forbidden by "no personal attacks" from pwning it.
The very fact that Hunter has misread an ArbCom ruling offered to protect me from Abtract in such a way that he's blocked me, proves how existing text at Wiki leads people to think less of me than is the truth. That is unacceptable. That will not continue. But I trust you to work it out for yourselves, without me needing to do anything further at all. It should never actually need to be discussed beyond our Wiki family.
I'm sure you catch my drift. Keep working on things, I'm a friendly guy and happy to help. If you do think some action on my part has been unreasonable, let me know, perhaps I'll be able to clarify the sense of it for you.
At the moment, the fact that people publish comments on my editing, without their being any evidence of specifying what they question or asking me to explain shows very poor process, but again, I trust that an internal review should be raising this to light.
You have work a lot of work to do gentlemen, I'll not detain you here longer while that remains to be done.
Sanctions need not be applied to Hunter under the circumstances, it was just an honest mistake.
I do assume the groundless block will be lifted as quickly as it was imposed. I have precious little enough time to fulfil promises already outstanding to people here, to need distractions like these to get in the way.
Let's help people get on with the job, not hinder them shall we?
Alastair please direct any request for oversight to one of the users listed here - as detailed in WP:OVERSIGHT this tool is not accessible to all sysops. If you have grounds for asking for my behaviour to be investigated then please explain the matter to ArbCom or to another sysop. Also, if you want your block re-examined or want to request unblocking please use the unblock template--Caililtalk00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Cailil, I have already asked for your (very mild) and others actions and statements to be considered by ArbCom, last year. The request for arbitration was accepted on the understanding that all involved parties would be investigated. ArbCom then concluded without keeping its promise, evidenced by Abtract, obviously, but not him alone.
The original arbitration is incomplete, which is precisely why it produced wrong findings, already proved by Abtract, but again, not him alone.
I can see no point in making the same request a second time. Either the system self-corrects, or, as I have mentioned, the system needs to be held to account.
I will add a couple more things. The ArbCom was initiated by L'Aquatique responding to your question at Admin incidents—the question was, did Alastair and Tim collude to block Lisa. The answer returned was "no", Lisa was agreed to have edit warred and Tim and I not to have colluded.
Wrong, Alastair. That's your opinion. It was absolutely clear that you and Tim colluded in blocking me. It's nice to see that you've finally been banned. "Passive aggressive" is an understatement. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, I happne to like you for peculiar reasons of my own; but I think you're wrong of course. Just like me, though, you are giving your opinion, and one that if believed would diminish people's opinion of me. It is also a claim that can be investigated and proved true or false, but this has not been done. As such, especially if articulated by an admin, it falls into a certain legal category, whether action is taken regarding it or not. PS also, I am not banned, just blocked pending resolving a legal question. Suggesting I am or ever have been banned, when this is not true, is also misinformation which if believed would diminish people's opinion of me. But don't worry about that. I specifically allow Lisa Liel of Chicago to say whatever she likes about me. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, it was established that there hadn't been grounds for L'Aquatique's request anyway. It has also been established that she has been too involved to represent an independent party.
I have several times made such points and requested action. I do so above and again here. You have an unhappy customer, who expects action, but I will not jump through hoops to get attention. Responsible people have heard my objections and provided no replies. I will not accept being told to "take a number and wait my turn". Wait I certainly shall, until the deadline requires me to act via a process I can rely on.
I'm pleased and impressed that Hunter seems to be part of a process of reviewing past cases. That's an excellent process if I'm hearing correctly what's been going on. That the process does not include "discussing action with involved parties before taking it" is very poor process. Hunter could have blocked me, but discussed things first. He still has the final say. However, as it stands, it is now clear to all who visit here that the process Hunter represents is not up to standard. I'm alleged to have acted without discussion in talk (which I deny I've ever done, and there is no proof that I have ever done this). However, this very thread proves the block for this alleged infringement has been imposed by doing precisely what it condemns.
The problems with the way the GoG conflict has been handled by Wiki processes are legion and all need to be addressed ... eventually. That work has to be done by others. I have frequently mentioned my availability for consultation, but never has this offer been taken up. From here on in, I will invest my time according to the options that provide best hope of resolution. Essentially that means, hopefully some common sense, or failing that, professional intervention.
I'm willing to answer questions, accept apologies, negotiate settlements. I'm not jumping through any more hoops. You owe me time, not vice versa. You're on trial here, not me. Thankfully, I'm far slower, more thorough, and non-punative.
The issues are actually very clear. Administrators have blocked me for restoring reliable, non-controversial sources like the Oxford, and protesting personal attacks. Those administrators are compromising Wiki foundations, but also happen to be breaking the law of civilized society. A range of comments regarding that by Wikipedians other than myself can be seen at the ridiculous escalation offered by an ArbCom member to ban me!
It simply doesn't need my input to get this cleared up, or if it does, I shall be the one that chooses the next forum and the next panel of judges. Please get it sorted without me.
An admin (me) has blocked you for violating the terms of your arbitration. The admin blocking Abtract has offered to remove the block if he show he understands and agrees to abide by the terms. I offer you the same approach: if you will stop reverting content without discussion and avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract, I will remove your block. The reversion of content without discussion includes the re-adding of the content in your slow edit war with Abtract at Virginity, which you re-started without discussion the day after the "re Abtract" part of the arbitration was finished. You could still make the request on the talk page for another editor to add the reliable sourced information to the article, or to show consensus for you to make the edit yourself. And of course you're welcome to escalate your dispute with my actions to another forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry Hunter, you seem to be a decent kind of chap, wrong, but well intentioned. I'm busy atm so the block doesn't concern me. Later, I will edit when and where I wish, as I wish, as I always have, in a manner that maintains and improves Wikipedia, and has never been demonstrated to be contrary to that.
However, if the defamatory material regarding me (that you have obviously read, and has given you the diminished regard for me that your comments above indicate) is not removed by Wikipedia review processes, after repeated urgings by me to that effect, within the period allowed by the revised statute of limitations in Australian defamation law, I shall regretably need to have a lawyer send a letter to the Foundation. It's not a matter of money, I'll bind myself in advance to any damages being donated to Wikipedia, it's simply that I desire to enjoy continued contribution here, without the nonsense that keeps coming up ... even when I've pretty much been offline for two months! Not to mention that I'm the one being stalked and obstructed.
I am very happy to assist others to help clear up this mess in private. You would be well advised to be scrupulously humble, recognising your capacity to overlook important information and to draw inadvertantly wrong conclusions. Retractions and apologies normally solve those sorts of things in quick time. However, in the current case, from ArbCom downwards, several people have made serious errors that have compromised my reputation and refused to acknowledge that either by retraction, or by public apology.
These are my last words in public on this particular matter. Please ensure that any posts refering to me that can be downloaded in Australia can be proven to be true, you will have had plenty of time to check your facts by the time you will be asked to answer for continuing to publish them. You might want to check if "smiting enemies" falls into the category of truth or slander.
Why not just apologize and retract your actions, admitting you may have outdistanced yourself? There is no shame in retracing what was done. It's called ...editing. Alastair is an elite Editor with miles of history as having the utmost in Good Faith. The other party in this continued altercation is a troublemaker. If you can not discern that simple unquestionable fact, this process is doomed!--Buster7 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous good behaviour is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and that legal threat went so far over the line you can't even see it from where you are standing. Ironholds (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ironholds, welcome to my talk page. Would you be so good as to introduce yourself, since you are new here? Also, may I request that you phrase yourself more irenically towards other posters here? From where you are standing, it appears you are overlooking both that personal attacks against Alastair went way over the line a long time ago, and that not only is Alastair's past behaviour good, but, to this point, there is no evidence to suggest it has ever been anything but the best. To suggest otherwise is a point of view you are welcome to articulate, just please do it in a manner that acknowledges that you are no expert. I'm sure you understand. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As my brief interaction I had with Alastiar goes, he is an excellent editor and nice person and we can not afford to let such wonderful editors go off wikipedia.... I have to admit that i dont know the details of the issues which led to this blocking, but, whatever the case may be, I would request Alastair to withdraw the legal threats and get unblocked. It is just not worth it. Just a friendly request... --Docku:What's up?18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Docku, kind words and good advice. Feel free to say, "I warned you", if I stuff up. Hang in there, let's see how we all go here. This is not all up to me. I'm not driving. I'm aiming for Wiki to be the winner and for us all to be together into the future. But it's a team thing, it depends on others participating. It's just a guess, but I'm pretty sure that's what nearly all of us want. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair, I would have blocked you, indeed almost any administrator would have blocked you, as soon as they saw the legal threat. You need to unequivocally withdraw it - please. dougweller (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you Doug, please trust me, I'm not the type to spit the dummy; and I do compromise myself for the sake of friendships quite often. I don't think this will end in tears, or court. It's just things aren't under my control to be able to make promises. Your gracious appeal makes a tight situation feel tighter, but that's a good thing, keep me honest. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, you're doing the right thing, no complaints from me.
However, I'll say just a bit to show a different way of thinking.
There is no legal threat in what I say above.
I am simply alerting concerned parties that my perception is that untrue statements regarding my motives and conduct at Wiki still exist in various places without having been retracted as publicly as they were made.
Ilkali "he wants to smite his enemies" L'Aquatique "he is passive agressive" Abtract <redacted, too many to mention>
As all can verify, I asked ArbCom to deal with this matter, however, in the first instance, they closed the case without doing so.
(Abtract was not investigated, despite his blatantly slanderous comments in the evidence section, most of us just ignored him, even ArbCom it would seem.)
However, I am completely confident that they will organize apologies, retractions and removals, given time.
I recently discovered that they are still working. Excellent! At some point we will get the final co::If the unverifiable misportrayals of Alastair are apologized for and removed, and of course they will be, legal action is impossible.
So there is no legal threat, there is just a deadline.
Consider also.
Wikipedia has higher standards than the law provides for. "No personal attacks" forbids much more than brute slander.
As far as I'm aware, Ilkali's "you're not cut out for this" and very many other provocative comments are still in the Talk:Gender of God archives (#1 for anyone interested). That's not slander, it's just a personal attack. What relevance it has to a talk page beats me, but what would I know?
The unanimous verdic of the ArbCom was that Ilkali's personal attacks are not personal attacks at all. Ten editors say they are, but that's outvoted by ten ArbCommers.
The ArbCom documentation suggests that there was something wrong with me for asking him to stop.
I can't figure that myself, but it's not a legal issue. It's not slander, it's just rude, but OK according to ArbCom; or more likely they just didn't get around to looking at Ilkali's style on talk pages, though many pages and many editors testify to it.
I will never take Wiki to court for continuing to publish via accessible archives, Ilkali's "you're not cut out for this" comment.
I'd be a fool. It's perfectly legal. (And perfectly civil at Wiki, apparently.)
I don't set the standards for talk page discourse at Wiki, that's ArbCom's responsibility. I stand corrected, language like Ilkali's must be allowed. I won't use it myself, but I won't complain if others do so.
However, publishing unverifiable statements that cause third parties to think less of a person constrain Wiki. BLP is an obvious case.
But here's the thing. So long as the dispute resolution procedures uphold "no personal attacks", there is no legal threat to Wiki. Wiki's standards are higher than the laws of any country I know.
As far as I can tell, the ArbCom I was involved in is actually still progressing in various ways. Presumably, one of the things they are doing is urging people to retract any unverifiable statements that diminish people's views of other editors involved in the case. That resolves disputes, which is what the process is all about. I can't even guess the details though, I'm not privy any of it.
So right back to the case at hand. Yes, I can see how what I wrote above looks like a legal threat, perhaps it is.
An adminstrator has called me "passive agressive" (and a fair few other things) and her conduct at Gender of God has not been questioned. She has offered no apology or retraction. An ArbCom member refered vaguely to Alastair's "problems". What these were was not specified, let alone verified.
Clearly a number of people have a dim view of me, but it's not clear even to me on what they base their conclusions.
Threatening and actioning blocks and bans can have a "chilling effect" on free expression and criticism necessary for the healthy functioning of Wikipedia. So too, personal attacks, allowed to continue because everyone is too busy to stop them, scare some people away from participating in debate. Several people I've asked to help at Gender of God have said, "No, I'm scared of what they'll say about me."
That's all for now good people. Something looks very wrong about what's going on. One admin makes a call, and another silences general criticism with a longer block. (I'm worried about the process, not good Hunter and Fram.) Responsible criticism has nothing to fear from the law, which only deals with irresponsible criticism.
If someone gives me their word that the "engine-room" of the ongoing dispute resolution process is indeed taking care to publish rejections of intemperate "evidence" presented to them regarding me, of course, I will certainly be very happy to make clear that this means laws above Wiki cannot and will not be invoked.
As is typical at Wikipedia nowadays a minor jaywalking offense is being escalated into a major face-off. Alastair's legal threat is just as easily retracted as the ban is. All Editor:Haines requests is an apology for his current diminished status as a valued Wikipedia editor. The previous altercation, not of his doing or intent, is on the record and IS being used against him. Visit Patriarch and witness editors threatening him because of a previous "run in with the admins." That ban and this one will cause fellow editors working with him to hold him (and his edits) in less regard than his fine contributions would normally accrue. The continued effort by some unsavory editors to goad him into battle cannot be ignored.
Consider, it's like a no-call in Basketball or Football.. No Harm, No foul! Editor:Haines is a mature and seasoned veteran. He is not asking for a get-out-of-jail-free card. He is claiming, "You've got to be kidding!!!!". Also, he does not play into the contact. In fact, he attempts to resist contrary editors and the negative contact that insues. But, sometimes, the contact happens...a bit, just a bit and a foul occurs. But he is entitled to a veterans call: no harm--no foul. Now, he may be expecting alot in asking for the referees to apologize but that is his perogitive. He makes a good point. A little bit of Diplomacy on the part of the Administrators will go a long way to sooth some ruffled feathers.--Buster7 (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hunter, I'm liking your style, mind chatting a bit more?
Thread closed: after one week Hunter could not quote any outstanding objection to the reliably sourced text Alastair restored, but still insisted, without sources or seconder, that it was contentious; nor could he quote any restriction on Alastair that forbids Alastair adding reliably sourced material to the encyclopedia in such circumstances.
Sorry I missed your "closing" of this thread before I posted my latest disagreement. You should use the box templates or move it to an archive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problems Hunter, I may disagree with you, but I really like you. I wish more people had your kind of cool head. Very, very best wishes to you at Wiki. I expect we'll meet again, and one day we'll be on the same side. We already are in many ways anyway. I heartily approve of your "even one editor makes it controversial and requires discussion" or words to that effect. Precisely what I argued at Gender of God, and I still haven't changed my mind. Your advice is great, but I don't know how to use box templates, and it's a bit early to archive. Please feel free to box the section for us. I'll learn and copy in it in future. Once again, all the very best. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an appointment cancelled, a little time and an idea.
Dear JHunterJ,
let's keep the indef block in place, and the legal things on the backburner for a while. Nasty sounding sensational stuff it is, but we can deal with it later.
I was just reading your "thank you" and "good faith" and "mistakes too" above.
Mate, you did not have to use the word "too"! Wow! I think you're the first person to sound open on that possibility (i.e. seriously admitting you might have overlooked something). And I think you might have made the least serious and most clearly good faith mistakes (if you have made any at all) of those I see in the handling of the World War III Gender of God case.
I'm sure you understand you could have broken your news a little more gently, but let me assure you, you are way ahead of some posters that have visited this page.
Your openness in your last post above screams good faith to me, and humility expressed by healthy confidence (rather than defensiveness) about your conclusions.
I also seem to recollect you mentioned receiving some good assurances from Abtract, which no one else has been able to do. Since I actually want Abtract writing his outstanding flowing intros (and whatever else he wants to do--except follow me around), I reckon I owe you one for rescuing an outstanding editor for Wiki.
Perhaps you and I could demonstrate reflective listening and win-win conflict resolution with one another in front of the good people currently watching this page, and they might see some magic unfolding before their eyes.
You're wonderfully concise and self-disciplined in tersely expressing your verdict and sentence. But what interests me is the sorts of questions you had in mind as you were trying to work out what has been going on. I'm interested in how you see talk page discussion handled in an ideal case and so on. Also, may I ask, how many hours you spent working on things? I bet it was a lot of time. Even if we don't change one another's minds much, I respect donations of time to Wiki, that's the real cost to people and their real gift.
Anyway, I'd hope you might have some questions you might like to ask me, given the opportunity, and once your confident I won't bite your head off for their "impertinence". Perhaps a part of growing friendship is space to be a little impertinent with one another, gently sharing the "sharp" things only friends care enough to point out, and that only friendship sweetens enough to make palatable to the receiver.
I'm purely guessing, but I think I detect a slightly "old fashioned gentleman" touch about you, reminds me a little of SLRubenstein, if you know him, outstanding Wikipedian.
Anyway, I would greatly appreciate a little interaction, one-to-one, though in this public venue. Would you be kind enough to accept? I have some starter questions in mind, not biggies, but starters, though I'm happy for you to kick off, even by giving me a piece of your mind if you wished, though I'm not sure that's your prefered style, nor the most helpful.
I'm a tad busy in real life, I imagine you are too, so we may patter on for a while. But as you can see, I've nothing else to do at Wiki right now. ;) Perhaps ArbCom have picked exactly the right man for the job. What do you say? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a tad busy (and rushing through the top of my watchlist right now), but I can go ahead with the quick response of sure, we can continue a tangent conversation here. -- JHunterJ (talk)
If you mean talk page discussion of edits, I usually make my article edits without talk page edits, unless talk page edits are indicated (by WP:BRD, for example). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I hear that you're comfortable making all manner of edits without talk page posting. It's more that certain circumstance, like "discussion" (which implies more than one active editor) may lead to talk page comments being helpful or mandatory.
It would appear, then, that, both in general, and especially in the case of GoG and Virginity, I have provided more talk page documentation than you would normally feel necessary. Indeed, it is my free use of talk pages that has been criticised. But, since you feel some documentation is missing, what, specifically is missing? Is a source lacking? Is a rationale lacking? Or is it the lack of someone else posting that is your main concern? Is it some combination? In fact, I would argue that all the above are present, both at GoG and at Virginity. One or both of us must be wrong (quite possibly only me), but if something is missing, please tell me what, or would my sig and timestamp have sufficed? Alastair Haines (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't questioned you about any documentation. The issue I had was one of arbitration: reverting content without discussion and interaction with Abtract; nothing on documentation or at Gender of God. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JHunter -- just to let you know, there's a long history with Alastair and Abtract, with Abtract having called to ban Alastair for life, etc (if I remember correctly). It was rather long, rude, and abusive toward Alastair, with him being railed upon for the audacity of suggesting he was innocent of whatever Abtract and someone else was claiming against him. I also remember that Alastair attempted to suggest that this is a public forum and requires courtesy, especially when people are using their real names. In any other forum some statements levelled against him would be legally slanderous. Although Alastair meant no legal threat (how could he from Australia anyway?), he did want to encourage people to treat each other as REAL human beings and not blips of data on the screen. In any case, the whole affair was so abusive toward Alastair that I went mostly silent in my own editing. I have a few pages I look into from time to time, but I definitely don't spend much time here because I want to stay away from such abusive behavior. It's quite apparent that Alastair simply didn't feel a need to continue to communicate with someone who he has already failed to reason with in the past. Talking any further would not only be a waste of time, but actually just bring the whole mess back onto Alastair even faster than it has now. I'd appreciate it if you looked into the history a little more and ask yourself if YOU would waste Wikipedia time trying to reason in this last case.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim, I think that sounds like a very good summary of a good fraction of the community's findings of fact over a number of incidents.
In reply to Hunter, I can't understand the difference between providing discussion supporting reversion and providing documentation for edits in general. As far as I have always acted at Wiki, I provide all documentation necessary. If I have failed to do so anywhere, naturally I'd be happy to supply it. Alternatively, I'm happy for others to supply it for me.
Additionally, there's potential for the two things I'm being accused of to guarantee I could always be "guilty". Say Abtract reverts me (which he typically does without discussion, it is his style, not mine), and I explain to him why I'm reverting him. Is that necessary interaction or unnecessary interaction? Damned if I do (unnec. interact), damned if I don't (no discuss). Strangely though, here I'm being accused of both!!!
Among other things, the incident shows how anti-social personal attacks are, and how dangerous it is for ArbCom to make sanctions. Although it is well-known that Alastair over-documents on talk pages (see my critics and John van at the last ArbCom discussion), a common-sense person reading the original ArbCom would think a sanction had been imposed because Alastair could improve his editing by providing more talk page discussion. Actually, fortunately for ArbCom, they never actually claimed (because they certainly couldn't prove) that there was any such flaw in my editing. Nevertheless, poor Hunter proves the effect of that printed sanction has been Wiki-defamatory. An experienced, intelligent, neutral admin (Hunter) expected to find less than adequate documentation from Alastair, though of course, anyone who knows my edit history and my style knows this is highly unlikely.
Misrepresentations of a person X is anti-social, not just because it may "hurt someone's feelings", but because third parties may waste time because they operate on wrong assumptions. Obviously, the more believable the misrepresentation, or the misrepresenters, the more serious the whole thing becomes.
Getting back to a specific question. What particular interaction with Abtract on the talk page did you think was necessary, that I failed to provide when reverting? And why could this not be provided by someone else, say yourself? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS My stats show 16,000 edits in the mainspace and 4,000 edits in mainspace talk. Is a ratio of 4:1 too low? I'd be curious to know just how many other editors "talk" as much as Alastair. It's a very crude statistic, perhaps I could be sneaky, leaving "stealth" edits undocumented in specific cases. However, I don't mean the stats to prove anything but that my critics are correct, I "talk" a lot. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Abstract may have gone overboard with his reactions to Alastair's incredibly annoying pattern of passive aggressive condescension (which could make a saint blow a gasket), the problem is Alastair's inability to get along with anyone who gets in his way. He is unable to accept any criticism from others, takes any criticism from others as a personal attack, makes legal threats (over and over, and how Tim can possibly read what he wrote this time and even suggest that there's a question as to whether it was a legal threat is absolutely beyond me), and belittles people in the most charming way possible. He is very much an Eddie Haskell type, and thinks that mannerly speech excuses poor behavior. Which it does not. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure to hear from you again Lisa. May I request we reserve this thread for Hunter and I? That goes for Tim also, as welcome as his comments also are. Generally though, the current circumstances (and the venue being my talk page), the relative merits and demerits of my editing in general are not the subject of discussion. The specifics of what I may have done, and/or failed to do at Virginity in respect of Abtract's repeated removal of sourced and stable text despite considerable interaction with both myself and John van ... those are the issues. And they are principally between Hunter and I only. Please feel free to start a new thread below. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts in question were undiscussed. Some discussion took place a month or two earlier, and then the day after Abtract received an ArbCom ruling, you reverted the contentious section without discussion, and you and Abtract continued to edit war over that section without further discussion. There is no "damned if you do(n't)" here -- discussing reverts of material on an article's talk page is not unnecessary interaction with Abtract. So, again, if you will agree to discuss those reverts and to avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract, that part of this activity will be done. And it will just leave the legal threats portion to be handled by a different admin. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear in what sense the section is contentious. I am unaware of any contention regarding it, other than Abtracts, which has already been answered.
Since the contention is only with Abtract, with whom, pray tell, am I supposed to discuss it?
John van and Cas Liber have both considered the text and Cas stated that he'd read stuff like that before. No surprise, because as previous comments noted, it merely summarises DM Buss' observations, described in the article in detail, with inline citations to page numbers.
So, you need to establish that there is something contentious, rather than presume it is so, simply because Abtract asserts so. When Abtract is answered, he is answered. It would be unnecessary interaction to nag him with repeats of the same facts, would it not?
If there is any objection to the text I restored, you need to specify precisely what that is, or admit that it is not in fact contentious at all, but already settled, which, I can assure you is the case.
Additionally, you need to explain how not interacting with Abtract regarding his repeated obstruction is unnecessary interaction with him. That, I imagine, should be a tad hard to prove.
Finally, there are no sanctions prescribed against me in regard of Abtract, so there is simply no mandate for you to apply any.
Responding to the things above is a bit of a tall order. A hearty good natured laugh and a "I can see your point", I share the humour, would go a long way to defusing things nicely, and raising my high opinion of you, Hunter, above what it already is now. Please respond specifically, and good naturedly, Hunter. Doing so may well make life a lot easier for a number of Wikipedians, busy enough with all sorts of other miscommunications. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter, there is no sanction against me in regard to Abtract. The Motion re Abtract reads:
"Abtract (talk · contribs) is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract." [emphasis added]
As you will observe, a "direction", followed by consequences, is given in regard to Abtract. On the other hand, Alastair (who is identified as the victim in the discussion preceding the motion) is "urged". No mention is made of violations, since ArbCom are doing me a favour in this specific case. No consequences are mentioned.
You misrepresent the "Definition of recently edited" discussion, which does not endorse your opinion—prior to your arrival people were concerned about Abtract continuing to revert me, no concern is expressed regarding my actions. You alone introduce that line of thinking, and do so by asserting without proof that there was some dispute regarding the Chastity text. You will find none, other than Abtract's. Which has been admitted to have been gaming, and which I had answered as though it were good faith anyway. You cannot point to your own incorrect observations as proof of established fact. You are merely pointing to yourself saying the same thing in a different place, indeed, one in which you received zero expert support for your claims.
Finally, regarding the original ArbCom restriction. Conveniently, you have proven its defamatory nature. It led you to assume I may revert contentious text without discussion. ArbCom never proved I had ever done this (and will never be able to because it has not happened), they just imposed the sanction, at the time doing so without investigating Abtract or other editors involved, hence both breaking a promise and showing lack of care in examining relevant evidence. The ArbCom sanctions, under such circumstances, have less credibility than I do, known as I am for excessive politeness and excessive use of talk pages.
Although it is not up to you to defend that ArbCom motion, just to uphold it, many people at this page can see how wrong the ruling was, the damage it is doing to Wikipedia, and the tardiness of ArbCom in correcting it. Still, there is nothing, even in that misleading motion by ArbCom, which applies in the current case.
You must provide a diff that shows an objection to the Chastity sentence prior to Abtract arriving with malice aforethough. Alternatively, you may be forgiven for taking Abtract's claim of that in good faith. Many of us know better than to do that. You may like to consider assuming good faith in regard to Alastair in future
All that remains outstanding is your apology. As I said, it will be accepted, because it involved merely discriminatory prejudice, you assume good faith regarding Abtract's unprovable claims, but assumed bad faith regarding my provable ones. But your discriminatory prejudice is merely following the instructions ArbCom have laid on you. You are not alone, and your responsibility is not as serious as that of those who pronounced judgment without examining evidence (which is prejudice).
My picture is of a man, generous with time, firm, fair, friendly and honest, walking into a minefield of deception his good conscience would not lead him to expect. You have my respect and my sympathy, but not my agreement; your apology will be warmly accepted and set a good example to others, who have shown no inclination to allow, hear or accept fair criticism and acknowledge error. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to draw this thread together for those watching. Hunter has claimed that one sentence at the end of the lead of an article was "contentious". He has not provided the names of any editors who objected to that sentence, other than Abtract.
If Hunter was correct that the sentence was contentious, then, he would be quite right to ask me to provide further evidence to support that sentence, or wait before editing, until someone else provided it.
However, the fact remains that only Abtract raised an objection (and one other editor asked for an RS). In fact, Abtract had to be pushed to make his objection specific, all his later specific comments are answered on the talk page, including comments from editors other than myself, and including support from at least one other editor.
But the point, despite it being in my favour, is moot anyway, because Abtract has acknowledged that he has deliberately acted to destabilize text supplied by Collectonian, and an generous ArbCom member, after time spent observing what Abtract had been doing in sufficient detail to prove it, saw that the same thing was being done by Abtract to my edits at several pages. The aim was to waste my time having to fight against his FUD campaign.
Unless Hunter can point to an objection to the text that has not been answered on the talk page, he has no grounds for the action he took, and because he took action before checking those facts, he owes an apology. It is no big deal. But no diff, no case. He has provided no diff. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said it all before: the content was contentious between you and Abtract. (Abtract was also blocked. There is no requirement thought that someone other than Abtract contend.) You reverted content without discussion. You did not avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract. Those (with diffs provided) were the grounds for the block, which has been reviewed here. You continue to avoid acknowledging the ArbCom terms and to avoid agreeing to follow the ArbCom terms. And in the course of doing so, you made legal threats. Suggestions on how to proceed constructively have been made. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to assert a generality without being specific. At least you are now admitting that the content was not contentious in any general way.
However, you argue as though unless there is some specific regulation that says "Alastair may do X" Alastair may not do anything. But, there is no such restriction on you or me. There are a couple of specific restrictions on me. Time and effort was spent being specific about those. No specific restriction applies to the action I took, for which you imposed a block. You have not quoted a restriction, nor pointed out all relevant factors in the context of any action of mine that could show that I'd breached a restriction. Restrictions are deliberately specific to make proving breaches easy. You have not proved, and you cannot prove a breach, because there was none. There was no outstanding contention, so says the talk page, and those who participated. That is why, even after a week, you have still been unable to quote an outstanding objection to the sourced text I restored.
Abtract reverted content, contrary to restrictions, you have not yet restored that content. You are failing to maintain the content of the encyclopedia. Instead, you are blocking an editor for performing precisely such maintenance. You have no mandate to do so. Additionally, you are making false allegations regarding legal threats, as though what is merely an allegation is fact. You also attempt deny me what ArbCom themselves explicitly acknowledged, that of offering fair and constructive criticism of their decisions.
You have been given an opportunity to explain yourself and failed to do so. You have been shown how you can proceed constructively (quote an outstanding objection to the sourced content I restored) and you have so far refused.
Once again I remind you that speaking as though you're an authority and I am not is an untrue and unhelpful way for this to be settled.
Since your action has triggered a very helpful turn of events, that allows scrutiny to be turned on those responsible for you drawing moderately reasonable assumptions given the amount of misinformation available to you, I bear you no ill will. Apologies are owed from others before they are owed by you. I expect that in due course you will hear the retractions from others and be able to follow suit.
In the mean time, I wish you well in your difficult and typically thankless mopping at Wiki. I'll simply close the thread noting that you were unable to specify any outstanding dispute regarding the reliable sourced text I restored, which has been seconded by other editors as well, yet insisted it was "contentious" regardless.
I disagree with what you have written about the contention or the lack of explanation, and I do not feel that anything will be gained by restating what I have already restated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to but in ... from an outside perspective Alastair you need to realize that there can be a problem with the way reverting occurs - an edit war (some times a 3RR issue and sometimes slower than that) - not necessarily the content. Sometimes it's a case of the manner rather than the substance of an edit that will be seen to be problematic--Caililtalk17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cailil, yes that's exactly the point, several people have colluded to engage in slow edit wars, and when I have asked for that to be addressed, both the manner and the substance, my requests have been ignored and instead false allegations have been upheld by repeated unwarranted blocks.
At no point has anyone come even close to establishing anything like inappropriate manner in regard to my edits, and, for obvious reasons, no one dares to suggest the substance of my edits have anything wrong with them.
You make things very easy by acknowledging how they are. Both substance and manner are important, they are related, time is not an issue (so restrictions regarding time are unwarranted), etc. etc. There is a good deal of evidence required before an allegation of edit warring can be determined. Thankfully, in practice, 3RR slows things down enough that we have plenty of time to address things (and no excuse for making a botch of it).
Hi all, it's Meetup time again :-) - Hopefully you'll be up for meeting on April 22nd at about 6pm at The Paragon, a pub in Circular Quay. It'll be the usual round of drinks and chit chats, with no particular agenda, just some friendly faces, and a shared interest in Wiki stuff. If you've thought about coming along before, but haven't made it - we'd love to see you - it'll be a relaxed, social chin wag about all things wiki - bring anyone along you fancy, and I hope you can make it :-)
Please do sign up on the meetup page, and do also feel free to nominate an alternative time / date / location if for whatever reason the 21st doesn't work for you - we're an accommodating bunch :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks friend. God and administrators willing, I trust I shall be able to reflect on those discussions in time, and perhaps offer additional sources that articulate the relevant PsOV. Always a pleasure to hear from you, brother. God bless, Alastair Haines (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to spoil the fun, but to defend Tim against Lisa's criticism and to answer her criticism regarding me and legal threats I'll drop in a little note.
Lisa, Tim, quite correctly, points out that prior to Hunter blocking me, I had never made any legal threat regarding the posts I allege to be defamatory, that are currently published by the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia via the internet, downloaded by family, friends and professional associates of mine.
Although I'd never want to anyway, there is no legal recourse for me against your untrue allegation, Lisa, that I "keep making legal threats". As I understand it, the Foundation, by being an incorporation, protects all of us editors from liability for what we post, by being registered in America to accept responsibility for what is published via the media it accepts donations to maintain. Indeed, this is why it is essential that the Foundation provides staff, volunteer or otherwise, to keep BLP free of unverifiable criticism; and, as it turns out, talk pages free of personal attacks, be they of named persons, or others who are people worthy of human dignity, anonymous as they may be. To this date, dispite minor hiccoughs, the Foundation continues to uphold exemplary standards in these matters.
“
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Both you, Lisa, and Hunter, are being extremely helpful in assisting people to see how two mature, intelligent people think less of Alastair's performance as a Wiki editor than is widely known to be the case. You have both cited or alluded to material available to you via the internet (and also to Australians) that has led you to believe unquestionably untrue and negative things about me. You are both inadvertently providing gold-standard evidence of defamation already having occurred. So, oddly I actually thank you both. I also consider you victims for believing untruth, rather than perpetrators spreading it.
Although what I posted recently above may be interpreted as a legal threat (and I can see the sense of that), it is not such a threat, as I clearly specify. It is a reminder that the Foundation would not want to be thought of as seeking to avoid fair criticism by reliable, independent third parties. For so indeed it would appear, were it to delay internal reviews of contentious decisions beyond the statutes of limitation specified by the responsible third-parties available to scrutinize such things.
“
A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.
Anyway, I'm not falling over myself to deny a legal threat on this occasion, because I think the POV that would see it that way is a fair criticism. Indeed, I suspect that if it is taken seriously that way, it may even work for good. However, returning to the earlier incident, I repeatedly denied making any legal threat, which strikes me as being a fairly poor way of making one, wouldn't you think? How can a legal threat "chill" people, if one repeatedly denies making it? The logic of such a position escapes me. Lisa claimed Alastair was making a legal threat, Alastair denied it. A few people, increadibly imo, actually believed Lisa knew what Alastair was doing better than he did himself. Strange but true. Additionally I was unblocked, without making any retraction, which indicates, though it would seem not sufficiently clearly, that my words were finally understood correctly. Sadly, the "legal threat alarm" was raised very publicly, but the "false alarm" message never got sent. Is this a case of "Alastair's reputation doesn't matter anyway"? It sounds to me like Wiki functioning a little less smoothly than usual. But all's well that ends well, only we haven't quite finished yet, because the bottom line clearly hasn't been spelled out so everyone has got the message—Alastair, investigated and cleared of all charges, apologies offered and accepted.
We'll get there, it's just a matter of time. And life should be nicer for everyone afterwards because we've clarified some important issues, and discovered we should give additional support to certain parts of the process, and the volunteers who strive to run them responsibly.
I think that a person who continually refers to himself in the third person might be suffering from a psychological disorder. Furthermore, I wasn't the first person to notice that you were in violation of WP:NLT; I simply agreed with it.
You haven't been defamed, Alastair, because everything that has been said about you has been true. Has it made people think poorly of you? Perhaps. The remedy, however, is not for people to stop saying things about you; it's for you to change your behavior. Something which you appear to consider inconceivable.
You ask "Is this a case of 'Alastair's reputation doesn't matter anyway'?" I have two answers to that question. One is that if you were really concerned about your reputation, you'd stop acting the strutting peacock on Wikipedia. The other is that, no, your reputation doesn't matter anyway. You choose to use your real name on Wikipedia. As, for that matter, do I. You don't have to. Very many people do not. If you're concerned about people outside of Wikipedia thinking poorly of you because people on Wikipedia have pointed out your unacceptable behavior, you can change the behavior, or you can use a handle rather than your real name. What you can't do is try and bludgeon people into not criticizing you by making legal threats. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LisaLiel, I wonder whether you could please refactor the comment you placed in your first sentence. It is an extremely rude personal attack. Please refrain from baiting Alastair on his talk page in future. You don't seem to be here to help him. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, I honestly didn't intent any of that to be gratuitous insult, and I wasn't trying to attack Alastair, either. I was trying very hard to find the precise descriptors that I felt were appropriate. I think that part of the problem with Alastair isn't even his fault. It's the fault of people who won't come out and tell him frankly how he is behaving. The comment about referring to onesself in the third person was a general observation. I qualified it with "might". There are other reasons one might do such a thing. Pompous affectation, for example. But I preferred to give the benefit of the doubt. As far as the strutting is concerned, if you can find a better descriptor for Alastair's behavior, I'll be indebted to you. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were right about the facts, Lisa, your conclusions would follow. But there is clear evidence against Ilkali, Abtract, yourself and a few others, there is none against me. What surprise is it that those I've exposed for obstructing improvement and maintenance of Wiki resort to personal attacks and collude, since the "enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The problem has been exacerbated by a few administrators "shooting first and asking questions later". Not surprisingly they find themselves in an embarassing position.
The only bludgeon currently in place is a Wiki rep threatening (and acting) to indefinitely block participation in the project. But he'll remove it, he no longer has grounds to maintain it, and it looks bad for Wiki, as though they're silencing criticism (and even self-defence). Wiki has rough edges, but it's not that bad. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@LisaLiel...Mathsci gratiously asks you to refactor your calculated insults and you choose "pompous affectation". Maybe it would be better for you not to attack a fellow Editor on his own page no matter how much you desire his exit. Alastair has been (and is) extremely well behaved for someone that has been taken to task for being frank and precise in his own defense. Instead of attacking, try coming to his defense in a "write for your enemy" kind of way. The insight from that experience might be enlightening.--Buster7 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time to lift the block
I observe that one week has now elapsed. The original block should now be lifted. There are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect. On the matter of whether I would take action to secure such a public retraction and apology, as requested, I withhold comment.
In regard to alleged legal threats I also, as requested, withhold comment. It is quite true that I am under no obligation to signal legal intentions in advance in the forum of a talk page. But it is also true that I cannot deny the fact that, among the uncertain possibilities of the future, such professional courts of appeal are deliberately made available, to allow suitably qualified persons to balance the vital necessities of both permitting responsible and fair criticism and preventing irresponsible unfounded criticism.
Although, as people correctly observed, it was indeed my intention in posts above, to signal my firm resolve to insist on my right of fair criticism of publications I allege to be prejudicial and to have created prejudice, I now consent to the request (despite the forcefulness of its setting) that I withhold public comment regarding what I may or may not do in regard to Wikipedia and external forums of professional review.
To repeat and clarify, because I am withdrawing my statements of intention above, people cannot conclude from them what I may or may not do. A legal threat may exist, but it is no longer being made. I cannot be compelled to resign freedoms to criticise in other forums, where my free speech is protected, but I am willing to accept the judgment of people who know Wiki better than I do, that discussing such hypotheticals may not be conducive to amicable outcomes here.
I disagree with both blocks, and expect apologies on both counts in due course (and within 12 months of being initiated), however, since there is no longer even the alleged basis for either to be maintained, they will be lifted forthwith. Thank you, Alastair Haines (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the original block should be lifted. It's indefinite; not week-long. Furthermore, even if you were withdrawing the legal threats (as opposed to playing a semantic game), it wouldn't mean that you should be reinstated. This isn't the first time you've done this, and it's quite clear that you see nothing wrong with what you did. The incredibly arrogant expectation of apologies (arrogant or delusional or both) is just more of the same attitude from you. Who even knows what you mean by "and within 12 months of being initiated"? Who do you think you are that you can make such a demand? You aren't above the rules here, Alastair. You aren't special.
But ultimately, not only are you not withdrawing the threats, you're reiterating them. There's no reason whatsoever that Wikipedia should risk allowing you to remain here. Whatever benefit has ever been gleaned from your editing is not worth it. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor:Lisaliel... The incredibly arrogant expectation of apologies (arrogant or delusional or both) is just more of the same attitude from you..Please refactor attacking comments and refrain from dis-courteous edits. They are improper, undeserved and over-wrought with animosity. --Buster7 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's another problem here too, Ed. Fram was very quick to place an indef ban. The system is being very slow to lift it, or even to comment. There's been a week to demonstrate a willingness to interact eith what I have said, and to defuse any issues. No such attempt has been made. It looks very bad. Can the system point to a place where issues have been discussed, and the reasoning for decisions is available for fair criticism? I guess we'll see. At the moment it looks like the system is being less than open, honest, full and frank; and certainly not encouraging fair criticism, but rather it's enforcing silence.
Ed, does the current handling by the processes, of my criticisms of certain errors in those processes, encourage you to offer fair criticism towards improvement, or do you feel "chilled" by the threat of summary actions like blocks, if people don't like hearing your criticisms?
The longer it takes for the block to be lifted, the worse it will look if it doesn't come with an apology, at least for the slowness of lifting what was quickly imposed, without discussion with the party most directly impacted. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post a note on WP:ANI to get some uninvolved admin to go over your statements, requests, or whatever they should be called. I'll not lift the block, and I'll not apologize for blocking you in the first place though. Fram (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was an indefinite block. If you want it to be lifted, use the template and an uninvolved admin may consider it. Personally, you have quite a long history of blocks here and semantics about whether legal threats still exist but aren't being made aren't encouraging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also sorry. Where does you suggestion that an apology should be forthcoming come from? I mean, really? You really don't seem to treat editing here as a privilege at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In spite of Alastair's slightly self-righteous tone (understandable in the circumstances), his subsequent statements show that the legal threat was not serious, just slightly over-the-top rhetoric. During his block, he has behaved in an exemplary way on his talk page, in spite of extreme provocation and baiting from LisaLiel. Coupled with his excellence as a mainspace editor, this should surely justify an unblock. No apology is due, but Alastair should probably be more careful in future with rhetoric that could easily be misunderstood. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you met any lawyers? They all use OTT rhetoric, I don't think anyone argues they aren't serious. Reiterating his legal threats (as he has above, albeit in slightly more vague terms) is not "behaving in an exemplary way". Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I don't think Alastair is a lawyer. He has written some rash things on this page. In the present circumstances, if Alastair writes one unequivocal sentence stating that his only intention here is to continue adding high quality content to WP, I hope he would be unblocked. Just one sentence - no sophistry, please :) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't how it works. "I'll write good articles - oh, I also might sue you in the future. Just saying." qualifies for unblocking under your standards; Wikipedia as a whole, however, would disagree. Good content contributions, in the past and in the future, are not get out of jail free cards. Regardless of how good said contributions are if legal threats are attached the user will not be passing go or collecting his £200. Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sample unequivocal sentence: "I do not now or in the future intend to take legal action against WMF and wish to carry on contributing to this encyclopedia." No hiding behind words :) Mathsci (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointed to this discussion from WP:ANI, and reviewed your statement. I totally respect that you'd like to retain the option of taking legal action against Wikipedia at some time in the future, and you have every right to do that. Under Wikipedia's rules, until you decide for certain whether you'll be taking legal action or not, you shouldn't continue to edit Wikipedia. When you decide for sure, if you decide to sue, then you can have your lawyer contact the Foundation's lawyer. If you decide that you're definitely not going to take legal action against Wikipedia, you can request unblocking with a very clear statement to that effect. Good luck to you as you make your decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, folks, Alastair's already made that statement -- and no one has ever pointed out anyplace that he HAS said he would sue anyone! Let's be real... and fair... can ANYONE show an unequivocal statement saying that he WOULD sue? If not, then list the block AS PER YOUR OWN STANDARDS.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some excellent posts and comments above. I should respond to Fram first. As I explained when he arrived, I understand why he made the block, it looked as though it was the right thing to do. I have no bad feelings about him doing that. In fact, I think it is good that people, like Fram, have the courage to put themselves in the way of possible conflict, on the basis that they think they might be able to help the right things to happen.
I don't expect Fram to apologize for doing what he thought best at the time. He explained himself, and he did so politely and with minimum fuss. As others familiar with quite a number of wrongful blocks of this account will confirm, Fram is way ahead of others who have performed similar actions.
I accept Fram's current resignation of responsibility for extending the block, with admiration and approval. However, the right thing to be done now is for someone who is willing to defend continuation of the block to impose another on the same grounds, and for Fram to unblock once he knows someone else is willing to take over. Essentially, what Fram has said is, "I think what I did was right in the first place, and my opinion is that there are no grounds to change the decision even now; however, I am not willing to continue to answer for those things, I'd prefer someone else takes over." I'm sure someone will do just that. Please organize for this to happen.
I wish you well at Wiki and in life Fram. I think it shows wise realism to hand the responsibility of maintaining a block against me to another member of the team. Your words and actions are completely in accord with good faith. If, instead of personally maintaining the block, all you are doing is expressing the opinion that it should be maintained, we have no outstanding personal conflict.
Replying to others in chronological order.
Ricky, your post is inflamatory. However, I thank you for posting it, because it proves the consequences of the irresponsible actions of others.
You are quite correct that a number of blocks have been imposed on this account. Nearly all of them rely on semantic games rather than facts. I have never made a legal threat. I've never said, "see you in court", for example. People cannot retract what they have not said. In fact, to do so is to insist they plead guilty when they know they are innocent.
Have you stopped beating your wife, Ricky? Yes or No? Don't play semantic games with me.
Life is a privelege Ricky. Contributing reliable sources is a gift to others that should be respected for the gift that it is. This page has a number of comments from confused people who think otherwise. People keep arguing that Wiki is about freedom of speech and the right to edit. It is not, never has been, never will be. There can be no "chilling" effect if one is merely offering the opinions of reliable sources. Unless, of course, one is slandered for doing so. This is, in fact, precisely what has been happening to me. Slowly, but surely, ArbCom has been coming 'round to seeing that. Our current discussion is part of finally clearing things up, so I'm actually thankful for the current situation.
Life is full of priveleges, but it is not about priveleges, it is about responsibilities and giving. For example, administration at Wiki is a responsibility, only a privelege in the sense that, when conducted responsibly, it is a gift of peace to the community.
Mathsci, you take precisely the kind of helpful stance I attempt when getting involved in discussions like the current one. The only quibbles I have with your kind suggestions are these: firstly, if I'm wrong about facts or what follows from them, then indeed I'm being self-righteous, however if I'm right, I'm not being self-righteous, I'm simply right. Check what I allege and you will find I'm simply right, this would all be a lot easier if I was wrong. No such luck I'm afraid. (One simple fact check, Hunter alleges I reverted "contentious" text, he has provided no link to any unanswered challenge. Another simple fact check, do wrongful blockings, if not clearly acknowledged as wrongful lead people to think less of someone? The answer is there in Ricky's post.)
Secondly, Mathsci, leaving aside that I can't retract legal threats I did not make, your statement goes beyond a retraction to saying effectively, "even if someone from the Foundation kills my daughter, I will not take legal action against them." Even were someone to give such an assurance, it would not protect Wiki in court. Additionally, anything I may say under the current circumstances could be considered to be said "under duress".
Although it may take some hard work checking for yourself what I've said and not said, I've been very careful in the words I've chosen so that they are precise. The only possible way in which my words refer to actual legal action is in hypothetical circumstances. Hypothetical means they are not actual circumstances.
Mathsci, despite the noise anonymous and unaccountable people may make, they are no authority on understanding my words better than I do. Indeed, the very fact that people presume they know what someone is saying better than the person himself is a strong indicator that they don't know what they're talking about.
Think about it Mathsci, is it possible that I'm not hiding behind words, but rather insisting people read what my words actually say, not play games with words that do not "belong" to them?
Mathsci, I am not being rash, I can't use that defence. I'm being very deliberate. I've ignored a bunch of wrongful decisions, but Hunter was the last straw. It's time for people to answer in public for those wrong decisions. They'll answer here at Wiki, of course, not in court in Sydney. But answer they shall, though if anyone dares to impose punishments on any of them, I'll start getting noisy and complainy. Apologies exist to avert retribution, not to invite it.
Ironholds, you've still not introduced yourself here, despite being requested to do so. Mind you, I'm sure we'll all learn a lot from an expert on lawyers like yourself, once we know who you are, and why you're here.
Dear FisherQueen, thank you for your sober and reasonable words. I'd ask you to look again at my words. Please note I am quite explicit that I've already decided to take no action at the present. As for what I would do in any hypothetical situation in future, I don't actually have to make promises, and I don't actually know what the future will hold. What's more, I can't be expected to know.
Perhaps FQ (I seem to recall seeing good work from you at FAC or somewhere) you might understand my convoluted expression better than others, be able to explain it to them better than I can, and give me an example of how I could say things better in the process. I'm serious here, not sarcastic (though perhaps a vote will establish my intention more accurately ;) ).
Finally, Tim, dear friend. Yes, you see truly and clearly as ever. I never have said I'm going to sue anyone.
No one has shown where I say I'm definitely, unequivocally going to sue.
Why on earth would I post when I can get a lawyer to send a letter to the Foundation. That's how it's done folks.
What ever happened to assuming good faith, providing sources and steering clear of personal attacks?
Wiki standards are brilliant, that's why I'm here. They are what I always uphold, and have never been shown to have done otherwise. If only we all lived up to these standards. If only administrators had the time to check through all the rubbish they often have to plow through.
But it does usually happen, it's just a question of how many volunteer hours are spent getting there.
Lift this block soon please, I've outstanding promises to keep here, and I'll be apologising for my slowness, albeit that I have a good excuse. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ending the impasse
Alastair, you are being stubborn and slightly obtuse. As my geography master from the late 1960's woud have said (the most reviled master in the school, mind you), at the moment you are acting as your own worst enemy. At present no wikipedia administrators seem to be in the slightest bit interested in your self-justifications which, as Dougweller has said on the WP:AN/I page, are hard to decipher - TLDR. As Durova has also said there and I have said here, one simple sentence unequivocally withdrawing present or future legal threats and stating your commitment to the project is all that is required. Otherwise unfortunately you will remain indefinitely blocked.
Just for perspective, surely in your current research venture, you make mistakes, not purposely, or fail to see something that's obvious - this happens to all academics - and you are put right by your academic advisor or somebody else. Could this not be a comparable situation? As long as you spend your time preaching to editors or administrators about the errors of their ways, you will remain blocked. And that is a terrible shame in view of your value to the project. Please Alastair, copy and paste Durova's sentence from WP:AN/I into a new section (or request unblock template), sign it and end this unfortunate situation. Best of luck, Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top work Mathsci. Thanks for posting the link to AN/I, I am busy and hadn't looked. It's very polite to point people to where they are being discussed, even when, or especially when they can't participate.
I noticed that someone posted a link to the ArbCom discussions, where the following sound remedy was proposed, "Administrators are banned from getting upset about the word 'defamation' until they've spent five minutes trying to find out if defamation is occurring." That proposal, sadly, wasn't adopted. But I mention it only because its wisdom is even more apparent now.
Here is your simple statement of "no threat": there is no letter in the mail to the Foundation.
Here is another one: if someone says they are not making a legal threat, then they are not making a legal threat, I am not making any legal threats.
Here are yet another two. Doug Weller almost absolutely correctly interprets my words, including "[no] immediate intent to take legal action". He uses the word "withdrawal" of intent, I differ with that wording, I never suggested any immediate intent to take legal action, as Tim correctly understood.
There are still a number of outstanding issues, Mathsci. Your use of "self-justification" is a bad sign. I don't need to justify myself, others need to prove there's something wrong. A week has passed without Hunter being able to justify his block, would you like to try for him? Additionally others have been unable to understand what Tim could see from the beginning, that there was no justification for the NLT block either.
On the other hand, I really admire Fram's co-operation and openness in passing on responsibility. Hunter really did try to answer questions and explain himself, which is great. Each time the issues are addressed, the situation improves, this bodes well for the future.
By the way, Jezebel being thrown from the window for the dogs to devour is a fairly bloodthirsty graphic for your page. Are you making a statement contra idolatry, or are you simply a fan of Doré?
(ec) Hello Alastair, my intent is to help you get things back to normal a.s.a.p., so I am sorry if any offense was caused. Yes, I'm a fan of Doré - the Juniper tree was a slightly more blood-thirsty previous illustration on my talk page. I was on wikibreak while lecturing in Cambridge in the Lent term, so my normal practice of changing these images each month has lapsed, but the captions are usually version originale. I don't play games alas only musical instruments - at the moment I'm slowly practicing the Trio super Allein Gott in der Höh sie Ehr, BWV 664. All the best, Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He, he, lecturing at Cambridge, I bet I wouldn't follow a word you were saying. I couldn't even understand my own thesis six months after I wrote it. I found pure maths required more and more concentrated attention, without the guarantee of actually attaining comprehension at the end of it. I concluded I was not a natural and should pass on to other things. Certain disciplines of thought appear to have become ingrained in my thinking because of time in the subject though. It certainly helped with writing APL apps in actuarial work. Brilliant, beautiful Bach. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he's SLIGHTLY obtuse, then I'm obtusely obtuse, because I can't see how he can withdraw something he never did -- and to claim to withdraw a fiction would be to create another a lie. You seem annoyed with Alastair because he refuses to lie to you. Well, a white lie is still a lie. Now, what he HAS done is to ask you to unequivocally show him just WHAT you want him to withdraw. Has he said he's been defamed? I think so, if I remember correctly -- but that's not saying HE's going to do something; it's only saying that SOMEONE ELSE has done something (namely, defamation). A responsible administrator would uphold Wikipedia standards to stop the problem (i.e. the defamation), rather than to stop the person pointing it out (the defamed). Alastair isn't appealing to a COURT -- he's appealing TO YOU. Well, that's what Wikipedia process is, isn't it? If he were going to a court, he wouldn't scream about it here first, would he? However, gagging him when he appeals to you is as insulting to yourself as you can be. He's honored you by treating you as the enforcer. Accept the honor.
Right now you're acting like the HR of most companies. If a person complains of harrassment, they find a way to cover up the problem and run off the victim, rather than to stop the perp -- because to do so would be to admit that a problem occurred.
But you can't escape the fact that a problem occurred. Either someone defamed Alastair or someone didn't. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to enforce Wikipedia standards: to get people to treat each other nicely. All Alastair ever asked for was an apology -- not damages. Instead you gave him damages yourself, didn't you?
Finally, I've seen another editor recently rail against Alastair for being polite! Don't you see a slight problem there?
Now -- if you don't show ME unequivocally where Alastair claimed he was going to get a lawyer and sue someone, and if you don't do it RIGHT NOW, then please apologize for your mistake and lift this ridiculous block.
Onorem, currently I'm being told, "do what we say or else". I agree that is unacceptable.
Whoever you are, I think you're doing the right thing, and pointing to the right issue.
You are doing the right thing by actually quoting what you find objectionable, and being honest about the objection.
No one likes being told what to do, especially if it involves being told to correct an error you don't believe you've made.
However, we might not like things, but they can be good for us. It's a wise and beneficial thing to hear accurate criticism, even if rudely presented, ignore the rudeness and address the accurate criticism.
Actually, all we are looking at here is a conflict of opinion about facts, and facts that can be checked. Please check them. I've quoted Abtract below, and described my "take" on how his words were dealt with (actually not dealt with) by ArbCom.
I would be interested in your opinion of whether my criticism of Abtract's words is fair, and whether something seems odd about an ArbCom process that is willing to impose civility restrictions, but lets such words stand as though there's nothing wrong with them.
My provable contention is that Alastair was restricted for offering fair criticism, while others who offered intemperate and invalid criticisms were not corrected. That is the problem here, if my contention is true, something needs to be done. In words I said, which you have not quoted, I beg that people address this, and soon. I don't indicate any begging in my tone, nor shall I, because that can be misread and misused just as easily as the way I chose to express myself.
Poke around a bit in the ArbCom case, check the history of talk at Gender of God, confirm what Tim says. He is quite correct. It is also worth knowing that Cailil has a couple of vested interests in how people view the case, since he triggered it, and did so because of his own involvement at another page. He is one of the "involved editors" that the ArbCom shows no evidence of having investigated. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quotes. I have not seen those before. You have definitely proven to me that you were very aware that the defamation was occurring. Having proven your awareness of the defamation, please tell me what you DID about the defamation. Oh, and "I gagged the victim" isn't a very good answer... I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia is an open forum. You can't hide evidence or pretend it never occurred. There are no "witnesses" per se because it's all on the record. Gagging the victim only damages Wikipedia. If someone ever WERE to take you to court it wouldn't go well. Fortunately, the worst Alastair ever threatened was to take zero money -- but to accept an apology. Uh, guys -- that's a real nasty legal threat, ain't it? How about just apologize? That's all the man ever asked for, and that's all he "threatened" to obtain. Well, go ahead.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of anything until I noticed the thread on AN/I and looked into this page's history a bit. I'm now aware of the claims of defamation, but have no idea where they supposedly are, and have no plans to hunt them down and fix them. I was simply providing the links that you requested. Taking zero money for himself doesn't make it less of a legal threat. --Onorem♠Dil13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me, and that's certainly not what I claimed. You asked for links. I provided them. I'm no fan of defamation. I think defamation should be removed and oversighted whenever possible. I think that should be handled by WP:OTRS without threat of legal action on talk pages here. --Onorem♠Dil13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what if they do the opposite of what's asked? What if they gag the victim instead of politely ask the defamer to play nice -- as per Wikipedia standards? What I see is a problem that should have never been, that could be called off instantly if everyone will blink at once, instead of pouncing and posturing over a prostrate pseudo-plaintiff. Let's all apologize, delete the defamation, and then Alastair can state that he's completely satisfied. It can all be cleaned up today. Or this can go on and on and on simply because some administrators want to flex their muscles.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, what you've written here is less than honest. Claiming that a list of claims of defamation by Alastair constitutes evidence of defamation is ridiculous. Claiming that not following up on such baseless claims means "not caring about defamation" is even more ridiculous. Alastair has taken criticism as defamation. That sort of hypersensitivity doesn't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone. And as to "gagging the witness", Alastair wasn't banned for claiming that he was defamed. He was banned for violating the rules of Wikipedia.
Alastair has, time and again, and even during this discussion, made legal threats. Sometimes overtly, sometimes trying to toe up to the very edge of what he thinks might be the boundary. Well, the boundary isn't where he thinks it is. Leaving threats of legal action open ("I don't know what will happen in the future") is explicitly intended to chill discussion. It's an argument by intimidation.
As to your "and if you don't do it RIGHT NOW" statement, rav lach, Tim. Honestly, who do you think you are to present such demands? Get off your high horse, recognize that Alastair has misbehaved, and stop defending him. Because I'll tell you, Tim, you're doing him no favors. Frankly, if I ever get in trouble, please don't even consider defending me. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of claims NOT RESPONDED TO is evidence that the non-respondents DON'T CARE. Whatever the reason, someone who cares would at least say so. I care, and I said so. Well, that isn't right, is it? Wikipedia has rules about civility, and having an admin not respond to a civility issue is a problem. My belief is that the word "defamation" caused everyone to circle the wagons because of the legal sounding nature of the word. As I said below, Wikipedia volunteers aren't equipped to deal with a problem once it reaches the severity it did. Did Alastair's word put a chill on everything? Of course it did -- especially because the word was precisely correct. It's not the legal threat that scared everyone but rather the legal liability. Participating in defamation is a bad place to be in, and no one wants to be liable for it. So, human nature being what it is, everyone claps their hands in terror trying to save themselves from liability -- when all that was necessary was to slap the offender for a "civility" problem. Like most folks here, I fault Alastair for using such a scary word. UNLIKE most folks here, I fault the admins for not correcting the problem. Nevertheless, I don't think that Alastair is the root of the problem and neither are the admins. I think that it's the unavoidable problem of the nature of Wikipedia itself. It's not equipped to handle incivility once it crosses a certain threshold, and I don't think there's any way it could be. If I were a judge looking at this, I'd chew everyone out on all sides -- but not award any monetary damages for the simple reason that there is no way to design Wikipedia to handle such a thing.
What should have happened? Well, the admins first handling this should have paid attention to the act of defamation instead of the term defamation. They should have slapped the offender with civility enforcement -- or if it were misapplied they should have explained to Alastair their genuine concern and investigation of the issue and had everyone shake hands all around. Oh, and Alastair should have stuck with the term "incivility" because apparently no one in sysops has a thesaurus handy and they couldn't figure out that defamation was an uncivil thing to do.
This was a small issue. This remains a small issue that can be resolved with the snap of a finger -- but no one will budge, and certain unhelpful people are coming in with terms like "passive agressive" and now perhaps "less than honest" in an arena where one person HAS made a claim of incivility and the admins HAVE NOT given any indication that they care about the rules Wikipedia has about that sort of thing. And, in fact, they are allowing certain unhelpful persons to rail against Alastair right in front of their noses and they are doing absolutely nothing about it.
Everyone should back down, play nice, and apologize. Alastair should apologize for using the term defamation to describe the defamation he was experiencing. He should have helped the admins out by using a term they were set up for. The admins should apologize for shooting the victim. I should apologize for a lack of concision. And in fact I will right now -- sorry for being too wordy, folks. I need to edit tighter.
In summary: the admins should stop compounding the liability and back off, and Alastair should back off any implied, overt, covert, or stated threats. They should stop ENABLING the defamation (or at least ignoring it) and he should state that he is now satisfied with their now satisfactory response of simply enforcing the civilty rules that exist here. Again, this whole issue can be solved in a single day. Everyone can back off, save face, and get back to real work. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim and Lisa please stop posting in this manner on wikipedia. This is not helpful for either of you or for Alastair. Please allow Alastair to deal with this in peace and if you wish to have a short civil exchange do so elsewhere (ie your talk spaces) not here--Caililtalk23:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Alastair. You're right, I can't help him, because I'm not the problem. But I'm right that he can't help himself, because he's not the problem. No one -- and I mean no one -- including yourself -- has responded to me here, on the arbcom, or on my own talk page about the subject of incivility toward Alastair. No investigation. No concern. Nothing. That, Calil, is completely irresponsible. Regardless, I'll bow to your request and stop posting here. Please bow to my own request and show some responsibility for your part in the problem here -- on my own talk page perhaps, but at least SOMEWHERE. This is completely unacceptable behavior on your part. I don't think you caused the problem. Again, it's systemic. But I most certainly think you CAN solve it. Try. Good day. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair has not been defamed. Period. Criticism, even criticism you disagree with, is not defamation. No one has a privileged position that places them above criticism. Someone tells Alastair he's being uncivil and "DEFAMATION!" But it doesn't work like that. Not a single person, Tim, not you, and not Alastair and not Buster and not anyone else, has posted a single example of this so-called defamation. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim at the beginning of this block I pointed Alastair towards the list of oversight enabled admins. He has actually refused to contact them. If he wont go half way he can't be met half way, and that is why there is no progress here. If people want to see a resolution it will be a process of give and take. And Alastair will have to examine his own actions in light of site policy - anyone can edit wikipedia but no-one has the right to this, if the ArbCom find against you then you need to stop and ask 'why? What could I do better?'. Is it not possible Alastair that you might be mistaken in thinking that they are wrong-headed in their findings? Also Tim, while your post below is made with the best of intentions it may have not helped at all. You do not represent the foundation. Therefore you cannot make such an apology. Also Alastair if you want to have material that you regard as libelous examined please read WP:Libel and follow its advice--Caililtalk13:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, I have refused nothing. I cannot seriously ask oversighters to remove and oversight things that others continue to insist are their considered opinion. The restrictions imposed by the first ArbCom need to be withdrawn with an explanation sufficient to satisfy people that due process has been followed. The ArbCom restrictions are clearly "wiki-defamatory"--some people actually think they might be based on some kind of real issue, which we happen to know is not so.
Of course I'm happy to be the one to request oversighting if needed. But it would be pointless (and rude) to ask for this without ArbCom agreeing to their words being removed, first. The natural people to ask for the oversighting are ArbCom: "we've reconsidered this and desire to recover our integrity by withdrawing it."
The less I have to do with the process personally, the better it is, the more obvious it is that Wikipedia self-reviews and corrects errors. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I do not represent the foundation. I merely represent myself. I figured that if I led by example SOMEONE would follow. And yes, I'd like to see ALL parties give and take here. This should really be a non-issue. A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away Alastair once asked for an apology. Apology for what? Well, being mean I suppose -- or impolite. The result? "We have a zero tolerance for impoliteness. We don't have it here, and to prove it we'll gag you if you claim it's happened." Oh well. When I was being "defamed" a while back I just took my real name off of my sign-on and called it a day. Now all that can be "defamed" is some dude called SkyWriter.
I did that because I do not have faith in the ability of Wikipedia administrators to properly govern the standards here (mostly because I saw them in action with Alastair).
Alastair did not remove his name because he's stubborn, perhaps -- stubborn in his idealism that Wikipedia standards CAN be properly enforced. One of these days everyone will finally prove to him that it can't be done, and he, too, will slip into anonymity to protect himself.
But as long as Alastair continues to use his real name he is showing faith in Wikipedia.
I don't know about that other process you offered, Calil. Perhaps Alastair has seen what happens with escalation in the past and seen how unpleasant that can be. I don't know. Perhaps he IS passive agressive. Perhaps he IS obtuse. Perhaps a billion things.
But one thing I do know to be true: Alastair asked for an apology and ultimately wound up being gagged. I asked for an apology when the same kind of thing happened to me, and gave up after a few requests.
I'm not a true believer in Wikipedia standards. I just want a bit of peace.
Or maybe none of that is what matters here. Maybe, just maybe, here's what happened instead: maybe Mr. Alastair Haines, known academic, has quite a history here and is well known both online and professionally as the same person. And maybe, just maybe, changing his name can't be a solution because everyone already knows who Batman's real name is.
And maybe, just maybe, Alastair has appealed to admins for help before -- and got whacked. Should he escalate again? Alastair strikes me as a bit of an idealist -- but he doesn't strike me as stupid. Had I experienced the fruits of escalation that Alastair did I'd be loath to follow your advice here.
We can all end this -- right now. As you said, I do not represent the foundation. I represent myself. But the admins can certainly follow my example, and they can at least start PRETENDING to care about people not being defamed.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I'm sorry but this aint helpful. Admins do not represent the foundation. Only the foundation represents itself. On the other point, if Alastair wants clarification on the ArbCom ruling, and/or reasons for it, he just needs to ask and I (as well as multiple others) will seek to clarify it for him. And BTW, before you talk about 'escalation' (in the dispute resolution sense) you should read the policy page at WP:Libel - this is handled by the Office not by sysops. There is always an open invitation to a blocked user to go half way, or to seek clarification but there is an onus upon them to do so. The same goes for oversight--Caililtalk15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any clarification that needs to be made regarding the arbcom ruling. Everyone here knows that Alastair claimed that he had been defamed and everyone here keeps repeating the same blissful lack of concern regarding Wikipedia standards against defamation (i.e. incivility). There's nothing to clarify. In fact, it seems VERY clear that a) the victim has been gagged, and b) no one will discuss whether or not incivility (i.e. defamation) occurred. I had this same problem some years ago when I experienced religious harassment in the workplace. I had another engineer deleting my work and blocking my access to resources, and she kept telling me that she was bigoted against me religiously (I'm not exaggerating -- she was bragging). I kept dealing with the work deletion and the access blocks with my managers. After the fourth time this happened, and after my managers said, "Gee we don't know why this accident keeps happening" I finally told them about the bragging -- and that I didn't CARE about religious insults... only that my ability to work not be blocked. HR became involved, and no one cared whether or not work was being blocked, but instead became concerned with covering it up because of liability problems. I had NO intention to sue. I didn't CARE about being insulted. As far as I was concerned I'd rather be insulted by someone who let me work than have someone politely delete my access. But it was all in vain. As soon as some legal issue raised its head everyone was in cover up mode. Well -- here's the difference -- everything on Wikipedia is permanently accessible (as far as I know). You CAN'T cover it up. You can only look silly once you've done so. And so, since it's permanently accessible, there is nothing to clarify. The onus is on the sysops to stop the harrassment, and to not enable it themselves (through unwarranted gagging). This is most embarassing to Wikipedia, and to me as a participant. It's time to voluntarily stop this behavior. Finally, since I had seen this kind of gag-the-victim behavior before, I changed my own screen name here in order to protect my own good name from being defamed just as Alastair's was (and is). I believe that we have seen public statements that Alastair is "passive aggressive" even on this talk page!!! Folks, we need to start acting like we are in the real world, dealing with real people, in an open forum in which every whisper is shouted from the housetops for all time. We should all apologize not only for ourselves, but for not standing up for Wikipedia's policies regarding civility.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I point out that the user in question has been blocked multiple times and then violated the conditions then laid apon him, when he was unblocked/came-to-the-end-of-the-block, multiple times. rdunnPLIB 14:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? It's also safe to say that this proves multiple opportunities on the part of administrators to solve this problem (as I've suggested). It's pretty simple -- if someone says there's a problem, check to see if there's a problem before gagging him. HR can get away with that in industry -- but here everything is out in the open. Hushing up the victim only includes the admin in the problem, and it does so on the record.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Dunn, thank you for clearly demonstrating what a patient man I am.
All but one of those blocks involved administrator error. Several of them were deliberately made because I pointed out errors that administrators refused to acknowledge, and others refused to review. You are simply pointing to the evidence that I have been extremely patient.
A block only shows the opinion of one person, it may be shared by more, many more people, but one needs to look at discussion to see what was going on. Blocks may be, and in this case have been, erroneous, repeatedly.
It appears that Wikipedians are better at counting than reading. Not an uncommon difficulty.
Two clear examples of typical wrongful blocks of this account are in front of you.
Firstly, Hunter failed to provide any evidence to support his block. Wrongful block, proven above. QED
Secondly, I have never and am not currently making a legal threat. Wrongful block, proven above. QED
I am saying what I am saying. It doesn't matter how many people might put words in my mouth, those are their words, not mine. Blocks should not be imposed on someone for what others say they are saying, in flagrant disregard for what they are actually saying themselves.
I've done my best to clarify things for people who found my first comments hard to understand. Extending the block only looks as though people know full-well that there is considerable defamation of me in a handfull of places at Wiki, which they want to protect by further claims that there's something wrong with me objecting to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs)
Please stop claiming that I failed to provide evidence. Diffs were provided and acted upon, and the actions of those diffs have been reviewed. You are welcome to disagree with the evidence provided, but that is different than your "QED" statement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter, what you said is recorded above, I had to repeat my request for evidence several times. I did so nicely. Everyone can see that, in the end, you did not provide any evidence to prove your allegation. You are simply reasserting you allegation instead of pointing to evidence to back it.
To prove the text was controversial is easy, show half a dozen users debating it. You could not do that because it has never been debated, it has never been controversial.
Even Abtract's objections were specifically addressed, not simply by myself, but by at least two other editors.
You have not proven that there was anything controversial about the text.
You have not proven that I did not document answers to Abtract's objections.
You have not proven that my restoring stable text in the circumstances was "unnecessary interaction with Abtract".
You have not answered direct questions.
You wrongfully blocked me. You were willing to discuss your block, which is much better than several people who have done so, however you still didn't actually address the direct questions asked, but rather kept repeating your unproven and unprovable assertions.
This is not an issue of you v. me, it is a matter of you v. the facts.
Please either defuse things by some kind of retraction, or I expect this to be addressed by formal review by third parties.
Unless you retract your provably false allegations, please stop posting at this page.
I have no ill will towards you, you were acting in good faith, but however sincere, you were sincerely wrong.
I sympathise with you, because your misjudgment in this matter can easily been seen to arise from misleading material published regarding me at various places at Wiki. But my sympathy does not extend to infinite patience.
also "It appears that Wikipedians are better at counting than reading. Not an uncommon difficulty" is something I find offencive. Consider this as a civilty warning. rdunnPLIB 10:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this a logic warning Mr Dunn. My block log proves I am slow about addressing administrator error.
Thanks for giving me a mandate to have each and every block reviewed.
You have just proven that users can review block logs illogically and irresponsibly. Wrongful blocks need to be erased to stop people like yourself being lazy, drawing wrong conclusions, and posting your two seconds of reflection as though it is fact.
This fatuitous fault-finding is fatiguing. Alastair's faux pas is his frenzy to be free from thr fetid framework of these fisticuffs so he can return to editing---a free man! A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality. William Churchill.....--Buster7 (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside
Since it is clear that some people commenting here are not aware of the facts. I shall provide an example of what ArbCom considered to be "fair criticism". They imposed a vague restriction on me regarding "civility", without providing any evidence that such a restriction was based on any facts. They imposed no such restrictions on anyone else, despite claiming to have considered all the evidence. Either they did not consider all evidence (in which case the ArbCom needs to be dismissed and reconstituted), or they approve of the following kind of post at Wiki.
I have found AH to be a self opinionated bully who acts as though he owns the articles he edits
I'm not sure what your problem is with this statement. "Self opinionated" is a silly term; it should just be "opinionated". But why quibble? Would Alastair deny being opinionated? "Bully". Well, that's a matter of opinion, I should think. I happen to agree with it. Is it defamatory for me to say so? "Acts as though he owns the articles he edits". Any number of diffs demonstrating this as fact were brought during the whole business last fall. Do you want me to copy them over here?
What we have is one person's opinion of Alastair's behavior. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that the opinion becomes "defamation". -LisaLiel (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much tha he edit wars (don't we all on occasions?) but he will consider no other opinion than his own because he is an expert and hasn't changed his ways clearly from this recent pompous edit. He is a bore of the first order and I have given up editing the article in question ...indeed even adding to this thread increases my frustration at the guy ... ban him for life is my advice. I could add more diffs but he just isn't worth it. Abtract (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiss bulying is subtle and effective. What we have here is an intelligent, well-educated, knowledgeable expert in his field who uses his skills to get his own way; he is a bully whose main objective is to see his version of the truth in print. He rarely engages in an obvious edit war, preferring to bide his time and simply go back a day or so later to the version he wants which he will call something like "the stable version" or the "neutral version". Some examples of his subtle edit warring are (watch for the pattern and note the arogant way he uses edit summaries to "warn" editors): ... Abtract (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, the links Abtract provides do not prove his point. They do show why he deserves the fair criticisms I offered to his forceful attempts to bypass discussion and consensus formation at Gender of God. Abtract's comments are evidence only of his own erroneous opinions and poor attitude.
In my opinion, they are unproven allegations, defamatory if not retracted. In ArbCom's opinion they were "evidence to impose restrictions on Alastair". What are they in your opinion dear reader? What would professionals in judging such things think? Most importantly, what the heck are they really? They look like a blatant personal attack to me, they are an assault on Wikipedia, showing contempt for its processes, but Wiki's highest court was then occupied by desysopping User:SlimVirgin, perhaps they had other things to worry about. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair -- perhaps it would be helpful at this point to use the word "uncivil" instead of "defamatory." Certainly these statements were not only uncivil -- but were made TO an administrative audience! The question then, is 1) are such statements civil, 2) would JHunter tolerate my saying these exact words about him (or any other administrator), and 3) what incivility actions were taken about it? If I get no answer I'm tempted to go to another forum, cut and paste one of these admins names into the quote and post it as if it were my statement -- and see how many nanoseconds it would take to get me indefinitely blocked. Any takers? If not -- then will SOMEONE follow Calil's lead and begin to respond to the root of this entire affair?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, lest I get blocked for "threatening" to be, er... CIVIL toward an administrator (civil like Abtract that is) -- the threat was a rhetorical flourish. However, if any of you were pausing over the block-Tim button... THINK about what you were considering and what that meant. Come on, folks -- meet people halfway here. Calil certainly is giving a good example. We all need to budge. Save face if you have to -- but not by smashing someone else's face in or gagging him with he complains about it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instant Resolution
On behalf of Wikipedia, I apologize for any insult I've given to Alastair or for not doing anything about it when he asked for help.
WHEW! Now I won't be sued because I've already "awarded" Alastair the damages he was threatening! Wow, that's a load off of my mind. That threat to officially ask me to verbally apologize was really scaring the bejeezers out of me...
A problem this systemic isn't a people problem, but a process problem. You can't fix it, either from the inside or the outside. I think the better part of wisdom would just be to recognize that Wikipedia cannot and will not enforce civility standards once they cross a certain threshold. The editors here are self policing, and a process problem looks too much like an accusation against the entire crowd... causing them (the admins) to congeal against you without the least concern of the validity of your complaint.
Again: this isn't a problem with the individual admins. It's just a problem with the limitations of the process. They can only deal with a certain degree of incivility. Once it crosses into outright slander they aren't able to deal with it. It's not a problem with them (nor even with Wikipedia). It's just a limitation for an international self-policing group of volunteers. They just aren't EQUIPPED for dealing with defamation.
Dear Tim, yes, I have no hard feelings towards anyone in particular. I simply disagree with a number of peoples' opinions, and, like you, I point to the points of process that have misled them. Unlike you, I am not an expert, so I remain confident that reasonable people can both work within existing processes to resolve most things, and form consensus to tweak others. From my perspective, this is all about my defence of Wiki, and my insistence that we use good policies and processes according to their explicit intention and spirit, like "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks" for example.
Repeating a false statement doesn't make it a true one. No matter how many times it's repeated. Alastair was not defamed. And it's ridiculous that this whole brouhaha is over Alastair's hypersensitivity. Though I'm sure you'll call that defamation as well... -LisaLiel (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redaction
I'd like to redact any statement I've made indicating a lack of concern for the real issues on Calil's part. I'm starting to get some answers and they sound well thought out and capable of handling all aspects of this. I'd also like to thank Calil for taking the time to give me those answers, and encourage other admins to follow Calil's example here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested
Have I got this right? If I believe Wikipedia is publishing defamatory material in respect of myself, you want me to take legal action rather than alert people to the risk I perceive certain remarks (by other people) to be creating? I just can't believe that's real Wiki policy, it's not in the links provided, it's just the opinions of some posters here: "Sue us, or keep your criticism to yourself. Do this or stay blocked. We can defame you all we want anyway, we live in America." There are a lot of comments on this page that reflect nothing but the uninformed opinions of various users. I remain blocked for an alleged legal threat, that could only be a threat if Wiki acknowledged they had defamed me anyway. But Wiki have not acknowledged this (yet), nor have I made any threat. So long as I remain blocked, all that is being said is "we insist on being above criticism, criticism works in one direction only here, give us a 'get out of gaol free card', or we'll be too scared to actually check if we've done something wrong." I simply don't have authority to issue get out of gaol free cards. I can't be asked for what I don't posess. I'm being blocked because I don't want to take Wiki to court, how bizarre. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're being blocked because you violated the rules. And Alastair, you were not defamed. You were criticized. You didn't like the criticism. But that doesn't make it defamation.
If you can't accept criticism without viewing it as defamation, your proper course of action is not to sue, and not to violate Wikipedia rules. It's to either (a) go somewhere where you won't have to listen to criticism, or (b) grow a somewhat thicker skin. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa, Tim and I are the only people in the whole process that have invited criticism. I have consistently invited people to prove me wrong. They have consistently failed to do so, and resorted to mere assertions of presumed personal authority or personal attacks instead. My invitation remains permanently open: "prove me wrong!" No one has (yet).
The Oxford Dictionary, speaking about the gender of God, taught me (and would teach others) simple, uncontroversial facts about the Gender of God, especially relevant to the English language (our Wiki). DM Buss' famous and popular research pin-points how evolution could explain a well-known sociolinguistic phenomenon related to virginity.
These sources are repeatedly removed by people without using the talk page or attempting consensus. But, contrary to the facts, false allegations are being endlessly repeated, and have formed the basis for wrongfully blocking me for my diligent maintenance of the encyclopedia. I am slow to getting around to restoring things (I admit that), and I don't do it alone, Tim and others support it, so I can't take credit as though the work is mine alone.
Lisa stop posting here. Don't interact with Alastair. Stop making personal attacks and start making constructive edits. This is your last and final warning. Alastair, you were blocked indefinitely for breaching WP:NLT. You were blocked before hand for being seen to edit-war in violation of the ArbCom ruling. The indef block will be lifted only when you stop using any and all legal rhetoric and make a clear statement saying you are not going to take legal action against any wikimedia editor or the Foundation itself - as stated at WP:ANI. If you want certain posts that concern you investigated, and possibly over-sighted, please make a detailed list of diffs (context should be provided in brief where necessary) and that will be looked into carefully. Please remember Abract was blocked for a month for his actions - you were blocked for a week - he is not getting away with anything. You need to understand also that you may not be correct. Also as I said to Tim earlier today we sysops can do very little for you - you've put us between a rock and a hard place. You want us to take a legal, or psuedo legal, action which is something only the foundation (WP:OFFICE) can do, and you have violated one of the few zero-tolerance rules of this site. If you want to talk about 'defamation' you can't do it within wikipedia talk/user-space. That can only be dealt with through the Office (see the articles linked to in WP:Libel). If you want to be unblocked and/or have other users' behaviour looked at please read my posts here, my comments to Tim, the ANI thread and some of the good advice above. Please consider what has been said, the present course of action is a dead-end--Caililtalk03:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, I appreciate your phrasing of "seen to edit-war"—very nicely done and thank you for that.
I'm not sure on what basis you can criticise Lisa though, given that she has said stronger things in front of ArbCom, without being corrected there.
Also, no big deal, but every normal person in the world is aware that they can make mistakes. I am no exception. On what grounds can you suggest you have any reason to think that I "need to understand ... that [I] may not be correct."
Although people (like Lisa above) keep suggesting I can't acknowledge error or hear criticism, there is more than abundant evidence to the contrary on Wiki pages. To prove someone can't acknowledge error, you first have to prove them wrong on various points and then prove that in all known cases of error a person has not acknowledged it. On the matters relevant to restrictions and blockings on my account, proof, in all but one or two cases (from memory) has been most noticeable by its absence.
I tire of hearing such nonsense repeated by people who drop by and presume their seconding of such language, prejudicial to my free contributing at Wiki, is some kind of constructive contribution to dialogue.
What I am more tired of, though, because most realise the criticism and error stuff is rhetoric with little substance, is the assumption that restrictions imposed on my account are in any way warranted. At first I resolved to simply let it lie, more trouble than it's worth to kick up any fuss about it. However, as others have noted here, those restrictions have now mislead quite a number of people in their interactions with me here.
I am profoundly uninterested in pursuing other users, like the various involved admins and so on. I have been explicit about that from the earliest stages (despite calumnies to the contrary that have also been circulated and believed).
What I want is the two ArbCom processes reviewed, without me having to be the one pointing out criticisms, but with room to ensure that any objection I might have is answered (not necessarily upheld). I don't know if such a process exists, I imagine one does, or that room exists for this sort of thing to happen. It is immaterial who initiates the process, all that matters for its lasting validity is that the interests of all parties affected are adequately represented. You're the expert on this, not me. But as I mentioned above, oversighting would be a decision that would have to recommended itself to people other than myself, concerned that processes be adequately documented, without undue attention being given to fruitless lines of enquiry.
So, I would be very grateful if further review of the two ArbCom discussions occurred, and I'm willing to ask for that in some formal way if necessary. I must be honest though. It's not the outcome that I need to be confident about (that's an awful thought), it's the integrity of the process that I'm concerned about. I am actually confident that the facts will speak for themselves and in my favour if they are scrutinised fairly; however, I am nervous about more opaque "internal investigations" returning the same verdicts as prior ones, asserting the system, and those administrating it, have worked flawlessly to fair conclusions, and providing no documentation of the details of arriving at that conclusion.
For example, the record of the mediation case is key evidence regarding a number of things. If that evidence is not explicitly addressed and quoted in deliberations, all relevant evidence will not have been considered and given due weight in arriving at a conclusion. Also, a few content issues are ultimately inescapably part of a valid proof. For example, an editor, presented with a reliable source that answers a question, can claim they can't see how the source answers the question. Sometimes this is fair, sometimes it is not. The question and the source must be examined, and the verdict returned could be: "source clear, continued objection unreasonable" or "objection upheld, source unclear" or, quite possibly, "jolly hard to say if not familiar with the issues, default to upholding the objection".
I think the only content dispute I recall ever having with you was in the "jolly hard to say" category, by the way. But the point here is simply that Buss and the OED are palpably not in the jolly hard to say category. I maintain they are in the "crystal clear, unless being deliberately obstructive category", and I am not alone as talk pages already document.
Enough regarding contours of requested review.
Regarding the legal thing, I know you can't admit it yourself, and may not believe it to be true, and I'd certainly prefer to be protecting Wiki's duty of care regarding some other editor, but allegations such as "smiting enemies", "passive aggressive", "bully" and such like are potentially tortuitous. Personally, I believe they must be allowed until they are settled one way or another, and this should be done with high priority, even if it cannot be done with speed. If upheld, such comments bear endorsement, without fear or favour, given that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they were found to be true; but if not upheld, they need to be quashed, with documentation noting want of sufficient evidence. It is also probably worth Wiki's quasi-legal system learning why hearsay is not admissible as evidence in the evolved court systems around the world. Wiki, imo rightly, allows hearsay in content discussions (it's an important part of writing articles that address readers' issues) though obviously it does not regard it as a reliable source. I suggest it is quite probably irresponsible (and potentially dangerous) to allow it in conflict resolution procedures, irrespective of whatever is the case in the "GoG debate".
I am glad that managing the Wiki processes is in hands other than my own. It's a headache, and my head doesn't want that ache. Some poor souls have to carry that ache for us, and I get the impression that I'm more understanding than most regarding the fact that they do. However, if the achers are struggling to get it all worked out as it applies to me personally, some responsibility remains mine. It's the same for anyone. Responsibility can be shared, it can rarely be escaped. The system has repeatedly refused to respond to criticisms I've raised, at what point do I accept what I'm being told, which is "we're not going to do anything for you", and pick up the pieces myself?
As I was instructed, when working for an organization that knew about these things, there was no legal force to waivers of liability, it was considered a breach of our duty of care to request such waivers, courts would not take them into account. Perhaps that's Australia, perhaps it was our industry, but the concept applies here. I can't resign a responsibility that others will hold me to anyway.
I have said all that I honestly and responsibly can, simply and clearly above. I am not suing Wiki. I am seeking internal review of processes that appear to me to have been incomplete. You are correct, there is an element of rhetoric in my legal language above. Congratulations on putting things so very nicely, once again. Thanks for pointing to the fact that processes have responded to criticism as far as Abtract goes, indeed I acknowledge that, and did so warmly at the time it was done. Finally, thanks for putting things regarding legal threats in the way that you have done. I will quote you, reply briefly and close.
Cailil
"If you want to talk about 'defamation' you can't do it within wikipedia talk/user-space. That can only be dealt with through the Office (see the articles linked to in WP:Libel)."
Yes, Cailil. Whether your interpretation of the policies is correct or not, I'll take your word for the accuracy of your concise application of them to me and the current situation. Yes, I am confident that it is a helpful and reasonable thing for me to avoid raising references to hypothetical legal solutions to Wiki issues in future. Yes, I hear what you are saying, Wiki has a perfectly good forum and procedure for dealing with real issues, should ever they arise. Yes, on this point I believe our agreement may go deeper than even what we exchange in words here. Yes, you are asking me only for what I can responsibly and honestly promise (and is actually less than my commitment to this project). Yes, you even upheld the integrity of Wiki by mentioning the Office (and that it is always open to everyone).
It feels good to be able to 'Yes' at last, thanks for the diligence and consideration that lie behind the words of your post. The only outstanding thing that I am asking is that if criticisms of me are to remain in publication, that these be backed by evidence that shows quotes, with context (just as you specifiy) and responsible interpretation, which have not (yet) been forthcoming. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Halfway
First, I think that Calil's statement to me that sysops aren't equipped to deal with what Alastair is asking sounds right on the mark. It definitely accords with my own view that Wikipedia is a group of volunteers that isn't equipped to deal with a problem once it crosses a legal boundary. And how can they?
Let's say someone with a user name defames someone else with a user name. 1) We don't know for sure who everyone is, even if they seem to be using the name of a person who really exists. 2) We aren't a court of law even if we could figure out who everyone is. 3) We are multinational. 4) Even most of the sysops are pseudonyms! In other words, we just aren't equipped for this sort of thing.
Now, here's where I think all of this broke down. Someone crossed the civility boundary toward Alastair. Come on folks -- work with me here and don't blip out on me... The civility boundary is somewhat individualistic, and Rdunn just gave a fine example of just how petty a civility request can be. Accusing someone who refuses to read of "apparently" not being able to read can certainly be seen as offensive if the person is thin skinned. REALLY thin skinned, but so be it. Rdunn just did us a favor of showing just how shallow perceived offense can be.
Certainly Abtract did far more than say that Alastair wasn't reading! If we set Rdunn's civility warning as a rational boundary (and I most certainly do -- we should respect someone no matter how thin skinned they may seem to us) -- if we set that as a boundary, then we can see that Abtract crossed that line.
If we can't see that, how about this: "Rdunn is a bore... a bully..." well, you get the picture. I do NOT believe Rdunn is a bore or a bully. But if I did, I shouldn't say such a thing.
So, Abtract crossed the civility line.
But it's a fuzzy line. I think Lisa may have even said something to that effect. Just how sensitive does a person need to be?
Well, here's where the law can teach us something. Someone once wrote that the difference between sexual harassment and flirting is how attractive you think the person is. Even co-workers in the modern age find a way to go out, fall in love, and get married. On the surface the actions may seem the same -- but it is the person those actions are directed to who determines whether a line has been crossed. If the action is desirable, it's flirtation. If it isn't, it's potentially harassment.
But only potentially. The REAL line occurs when it is stated: "I'd rather you not flirt with me; it makes me feel uncomfortable."
If the person apologizes and stops -- no harm and no foul.
If the person persists -- THEN harrassment has occurred.
Once upon a time Alastair asked for an apology. That certainly tells the potential offender (and all of us as well) where that line is. Rdunn has done the same with his recent civility warning. It is NOT up to us to approve or disapprove of that line. We can think it's reasonable or petty -- but our opinions do NOT matter in the least.
When Alastair didn't get an apology, he asked for it in a more fancy way -- which some people perceive to be arrogant or condescending. But asking something in a fancy way isn't quite the same as being crude to them. It may annoy you, but there's no real line to cross.
What then? Now I'm moving into conjecture (and no, I'm not spell checking any of this)... I think that the first admins trying to deal with Alastair tried to help, but got a bit exasperated because they were being asked for help to get someone to apologize (which they aren't equipped to do) and then they were asked to agree that it was defamatory (which they are PROHIBITED by Wikipedia rules to agree to -- or else they'd be guilty of the NLT themselves).
Some bright person by now may have noticed that I just condemned myself, and I may have -- but I've been trying for about a year to simply say that defamation MAY have occurred and that if we call it "incivility" we can deal with it on a Wiki level.
In any case, being unable to do either of the things that Alastair asked, they then did the only thing left for them to do: try to gag Alastair. But in order to do so, they had to demonize him themselves. A few actual bullies (who can't pass a wounded dog without kicking it too) came in to join the fray, and justification piled on justification to an obscene level.
But someone at the arbcom probably realized it was a pack of cards and just told everyone involved (including a bully who came in to play) to sit down, shut up, and play nice. EVERYONE was basically given a revert limitation, but ONLY the person who had been demonized and uncivilly insulted (not sure there's a civil way to do that anyway) was given a civility warning!
And what was Alastair's crime? His crimes were many. He took offense and gave a civility warning. Well, Rdunn just did as well. If you think it's hypersensitive or petty you are wrong even if you are right -- because the victim determines where the line is, not the bystanders. But Alastair was, er, polite (Lisa has pointed that out). What else? Well, he protested his innocence! Oh my! Will the evil never cease?
But his real crime was in annoying the admins by asking for them to help get someone to apologize for defamation. That's it. A simple apology.
But they can't get anyone to apologize (heck, Alastair can't even ask people to read without getting a civility warning -- how much less get them to apologize?). Also, the admins can't get someone to apologize for DEFAMATION without being in terror of crossing some NLT line themselves.
This will only break when the following things happen:
1) Everyone here becomes civil about civility policy and grant that the offended is the one who determines the line.
2) Everyone here grants that Abtract was being uncivil (because he persisted and escalated after Alastair told him he didn't like it).
3) Everyone here (Alastair included) grant that no one can MAKE anyone apologize here.
4) Everyone here (Alastair included) grant that admins can't function when the word "defamation" is used, and it's not fair to ask the admins to do it.
5) Everyone here (admins included) grant that you can't side step "defamation" by attacking the defamed!
6) Everyone here start talking TO each other rather than AT each other.
7) Everyone here grant the limitations of Wikipedia and shrug our shoulders at the imperfections here.
8) Everyone here grant that Wikipedia rules are not here to protect individual editors in any kind of just way, but are rather here to keep Wikipedia from being bogged down in foolishness like the present condition.
9) Anyone here who can't do any of this sit down, shut up, and get out of the way while normal people reach rapport.
Alastair, will you drop the defamation term and stick with the term "uncivil"? The admins don't have rules about defamation, but they do have civility rules.
Admins, will you begin to enforce civility rules?
On an aside, for those of you in terror of legalities -- I'm no expert, but I do know one thing: judges generally rule for or against an organization based on whether they followed their own rules. You DO have rules about civility. By attacking Alastair you refused to follow your own civility enforcement rules. If this had gone to court THAT would be what would make someone liable. Abtract doesn't represent Wikipedia. He's a nothing legally. But a hypothetical judge would rule this way: 1) Alastair complained to the admins about a civility problem, 2) Wikipedia has rules about that sort of thing, 3) the admins not only refused to follow those rules but attacked Alastair instead.
Gavel strike: "ruled! You are fined three verbal apologies and Lisa has to say three hail marys!"
Okay, away from conjecture: these are real people. Treat them as such. And Alastair... this is cyberspace. Treat it as such.
This is a civility problem; not a defamation problem. Why? Because we have rules about civility and can't deal with defamation. Take defamation off the table.
But this is a real problem, and not a gag the victim problem. Admins, an editor here DID complain about civility (you do have thesauruses and are literate or else you wouldn't be here). You not only failed to follow your own civility rules but you allowed civility to be breached even on the arbcom page and failed to rule against the person who did it to your face.
Calil has offered some solutions, but I think ultimately Calil is right -- we just aren't equipped for this. We can't compell an apology. We can only slap civility restrictions on the uncivil. I think the escalation processes should all be dropped, and the admins stop circling the wagons and realized that the "chill effect" they complain about is so strong that it even scared them away from enforcing their own civility rules.
Just a clarification Tim. The chill effect of legal rhetoric is very real and deeply problematic and I'm not excusing either. I want see this worked through and out of the 'cold war' that it has become. Second Lisa has been given two warnings recently for her personal attacks on Alastair. Abtract was blocked for harassment. The problem now is that there have been a lot of loose comments made - making generalizations and remarks about others - this is a bad idea. While I think it appropriate in certain circumstances to engage in a long comment I recommend to both Alastair and yourself to develop short and concise commenting techniques that avoid anything that might be interpreted as personal/personalized/targeted at another editor/loosely talking about wikipedians--Caililtalk14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Calil. I'm still catching up on this and didn't know that some action had been taken with folks besides Alastair. That being said, it may be Alastiar's turn to explain what else, if anything he'd like to see from Wikipedia folks according to Wikipedia rules and in Wikipedia terms. Legal things are beyond the pale of Wikipedia for several reasons, not the least of which the fact that they are beyond the SCOPE of Wikipedia. We can deal with incivility but not defamation. Also, legal action is always on the table even if it isn't stated (no one warned McDonalds about coffee being hot, did they?) -- so why bother to state it? It just chills everything and stops the very remedy you are saying that you want. Also... Alastair and I are both pretty wordy and need to be short. i know that sometimes I get so frustrated with a lack of words from one side and I supply too many on my own.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with your argument is that people have diffent moral standards so what may work for say Americans might not work for the British, or even on a very local level (eg they do things diferently in Portsmouth and Southhampton)...
if you look at it from the view that Wikipedia is a Dictatorship or Monarchy (Jimbo is the founder and therefore is Dictator or King (in a good way)) with a population of (potentially) billions, you should see that it will be eventually too much for it to cope with if this sorta thing keeps happening (ie. an editor making a legal threat and then chalenging the rules that forbid him to return). The only way they are going to be able to reoganise this wiki to make it work the way you want it to is to make it a true democracy (ie like in ancient Athens), but Wikipedia is a company and in the current economic climate therefore cannot perform a restucturing on this scale.
you need to realise that Alastair Haines willingly broke the rules laid down apon us by making a legal threat (for which we have proof). the rules stat that anyone who make a threat like that has to be blocked because if they resort to something like that then who knows what else they might try. THAT is what the admins have to do. If all of the admin did what they want then Wikipedia wouldnt exist. rdunnPLIB 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rdunn -- well, I'm trying to account for different standards. A person's own sensitivity is their own, you know? None of us should go about MEANING offense, and when given we should be quick to correct it or side step it. That's just common decency, and the complainer can really be the best guide for what they need. If their needs are too demanding, then sometimes it's best to avoid them altogether. I know that some people can become so offended that even a hello from a certain person becomes unwelcome. When that's the case, the person shouldn't even say hello -- and would be harrassing to do so. But at the same time, a casual hello without persistence isn't something for sysops to act against. It's all fuzzy, and a lot of it is individualistic. We're just a bunch of people after all -- with all the fuzziness that entails. I'm not sure we're really in disagreement here. It IS chilling, and we should stick with terms that aren't.
And here's, I think, where the rub lies: the give and take goes all around. Alastair was sensitive to terms like "bully" and "bore". Admins should (and maybe have) grant this. ADMINS are sensitive to terms like "defamation" and "legal." Alastiar should grant this. There are civility rules (that must be enforced). There are NLT rules (that must be enforced). If all the Admins here just assure Alastair that they will try to follow civility policy and Alastair assures them that he will try to follow NLT policy -- and if BOTH sides grant that the other side can determine the boundary of their own sensitivity -- then this can all end amicably for everyone all around. This isn't complicated. It's just emotionally difficult for human beings. But that's all we have to work with because that's what we are.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thats where the problem I find lies. the admins cannot spend all thier time on WP making sure that anyone who breaks the rules follows them in the future. AND by that argument you have inadvetantly voiced my point about all this which is: In the case of Alastair Haines your suggested process of herding/pointing editors towards the rules has already happened and then failed, hence all these words everone writing, trying to tell you this. rdunnPLIB 14:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Calil is right and I'm losing you somewhere. I'll tighten it up a bit: I'm saying that ALL Wikipedia rules apply to ALL editors and ALL Admins at ALL times -- and that one person breaking a rule is no excuse for the other person to break another. Exactly which rule do you want broken and who do you want to break it?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point im trying to make. Alistair has broken the rules repetedly and should NOT be allowed back. THAT is what has happened. If you dont think that is what has happened can you give me a very condenced viewpoint so I can then try to make up my mind. rdunnPLIB 15:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it there Rdunn. Alastair is not banned. Once the NLT issue is resolved he WILL be unblocked. He will ONLY stay blocked if the NLT issue is not resolved. Again he is not banned--Caililtalk18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rdunn -- the Arbcom broke the rules for slapping civility restrictions on Alastair and not Abtract (unless I'm remembering it incorrectly). Having authority also means having responsibility. This started with Alastair trying to get another editor to follow the rules. This escalated with an administrative decision slapping Alastair for being annoying (for trying to get someone to follow the rules). By your logic, all the Admins involved in the Arbcom should be banned for life! I therefore reject your logic on the grounds that Wikipedia is about amicability and that the rules SHOULD be followed by EVERYONE no matter who they are or what position they hold. This is silly. We're adults. Let's look at the rules, do a mea culpa all around, shake hands, and agree to follow the Wikipedia rules. And please don't say that the Arbcom is infallible and couldn't break the rules because they are the rules. On the contrary, they are human, good intending volunteers trying to do their best with a limited amount of time. Alastair certainly chilled them and they over-reacted (a little, not much, just a little). Everyone involved broke some rule or ignored another. It's time to just agree to follow the rules -- for EVERYONE to follow ALL the rules at ALL times. Again I ask -- just WHO do you want to break a rule and what rule do you want them to break? If the answer is no one and no rule, then we are in agreement.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Tim, your remembering it slightly incorrectly. Abtract was sanctioned as was Ilkali and Lisa (the latter two were the main instigators of the problem then) - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines#Remedies. Alastair's additional warning to AGF is related in the ArbCom's view to the evidence (relating to comments, reverts, edit summaries etc). The issue of incivility to Alastair was not raised then but could be done so now. So you are wrong Tim and I am asking you now to refactor the above - you can't criticize the RfAr for not doing something it wasn't initiated for. I am yet to see evidence of any misdeed by ArbCom or an involved admin but would welcome evidence in the form of diffs if you or anyone can provide them--Caililtalk18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for link. Here's what Alastair got that Lisa and Ilkali didn't get: "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." However, Abtract was also mentioned (and I missed that even a few minutes ago when I looked). In any case, Calil -- you're right. Thanks for correcting me on the Abtract problem. Under the circumstances the Arbcom did an excellent job. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Saying that X is in your opinion defamation (or not) is not forbidden under NLT at all. Saying that you will contact a lawyer to send a letter, that you will put things in professional hands, and so on (the examples can be read on this page and are grouped by Onorem here, are on the other hand clear examples of NLT violations, as is also the general conclusion in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef block of User:Alastair Haines. I have no opinion on what lead to these legal threats, but your presentation of what he did and so on is fundamentally flawed, and you seem to be the only one (apart from Alastair probably) that does not recognise his words as legal threaths, or does not recognise the difference between what he said he would do if needed, and the simple fact of discussing whether something is uncivil or goes beyond that. Fram (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fram -- I'm not arguing that the examples On gave weren't legal threats. I'm simply saying that they were legal threats to get a verbal apology, nullified by simply giving a verbal apology in advance. The only person who would be chilled by such a threat is someone who WANTS to offend someone with impunity. And the fact that no one joined in my simple nullification demonstrates that they WANT to offend Alastair and to keep on doing so. Well, that's just silly, because civility is a Wikirule just as much as NLT. Just as Alastair shouldn't threaten the uncivil, we shouldn't be uncivil in the face of a threat. The rules apply to Alastair AND to you, Fram. I'm simply urging EVERYONE to follow ALL the rules, INCLUDING the Admins. It's a little peculiar that you are disagreeing with that. I'm trying to help you get your job done, and would rather not have to fight you for the privilege of helping you solve this. Or do you not want it solved?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Tim NLT is THE civility rule and beyond it - that's why the penalty is immediate and indefinite. And no, as I explained to you Tim, we editors and sysops cannot apologize 'on behalf of wikipedia' first of all becuase we're the wrong people to ask as we do not represent the Foundation and so we cannot make such remarks. We cannot satisfy what Alastair asks for. Thus I have pointed out two options for him to follow. Now, I've asked you to be careful Tim. You are not following my advice. The best thing to do is to wait for Alastair to reply to comments--Caililtalk19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Alastair asked for Wikipedia itself to apologize -- only for certain individuals to do so. I'm still flummoxed by the stonewalling of some people. You know -- an apology is painless. And I'm not talking about some fake apology like "I'm sorry you feel that way." That's not an apology at all, but an accusation of a warped perception. A real apology and common decency would be, "You know, I can see how that could sound that way, and I apologize for saying that. I'll try to do better in the future." As you said, the next move isn't mine, but it isn't necessarily Alastair's either. The NEXT move is by whoever is the MOST RESPONSIBLE party here... and this person will reveal their identity by being the first to apologize for any offense they have personally given. For some reason I expected the admins to be the most responsible. They still have a chance while Alastair is napping across the globe.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello people,
Thanks everyone for caring to comment.
Tim, please do not allow your speech to be chilled, however nicely you are warned.
That you are the only person saying something is all the more reason to speak, and to take as long as you need to make your point. There is no limit on disk space. Personally, I thank you for taking the time to express things thoroughly, clearly and politely, which usually does take more words.
If others find reading or thinking through your points difficult or tiring, it is their choice whether they do so.
In threads above I've replied to direct comments by Hunter and Dunn.
Cailil, how do I issue a specific review of Hunter's block? I would like that initiated as soon as possible please.
In regard to all other blocks, save the current one and one other, I wish them also to be reviewed eventually.
I have already replied on the legal threats matter.
As it turns out, my asking for formal review of Hunter's (and other blocks) is helpful regarding the legal thing.
What I have said several times above already I'm happy to repeat. I am not taking legal action against the foundation. I am following internal procedures.
Yes, I acknowledge again, as I have above, that despite there being an element of rhetoric, I did indeed describe what my disposition was towards possible future circumstances. I didn't describe those circumstances precisely, but did claim that should such circumstances arise I'd resort to a legal solution to ongoing disagreement.
Above, I have also freely responded to requests and confirmed: firstly, that I don't know what the future will hold, or what I might be willing or able to do in regard to many things, including legal action; secondly, that I think it wise to avoid reference to legal review of Wiki in almost all circumstances at Wiki, including and maybe most especially in the case of conflict resolution procedures.
Although people may doubt it all they like, I have never stated an intention to bypass internal processes and procede directly court or anything like that. Nor have I ever threatened that if I get upset I'll run off and get the law involved.
No, actually I'm well aware that the Office exists. I haven't actually ever got to the point where I've felt they need to be contacted. I don't know whether I'm right or not, but my own opinion is that the Foundation can't be held responsible for what it doesn't know about. If I have been defamed, they can't do anything about it unless I raise that question with them. They might agree and intervene, they might disagree and uphold what others have said, it's their choice. And they would need time to work out what to do.
Now, I suspect I might be a little idealistic, BLP functions pretty tightly, the Foundation may be liable whether they are alerted by a LP about their biography or not. However, in my case, I'm not "outside the system" like in a BLP case. I'm a fellow participant in the project. I would consider it rude of me not to discuss matters with the Office prior to any hypothetical action we are talking about here.
What this comes down to is that the final port of call in the DR process is the foundation anyway. For all I know, the only way of reviewing an ArbCom is appealing to the Foundation anyway. But the reality is that DR procedures are only final if all parties come to agreement, appeals are refused, or they reach the highest court.
So, I repeat once more, I am not taking legal action, and what I might do in circumstances none of us can predict is actually irrelevant to settling the current issues. I can affirm that any hypothetical legal matter I may want to discuss with the Foundation would be done precisely as they ask, by discussing it with them rather than at talk pages.
Actually, I don't think the block can be maintained any longer without actually breaching the NLT policies. Maintaining the block forces us to keep on discussing things that the Foundation have said are not to be matters for talk page discussion. If they are frivolous stop them. If they are serious stop them and talk to us.
I really don't think I can actually say too much more without breaching the policy for real. I don't resent the block having been imposed, nor it being continued while we've discussed things to clarity. I do resent it making the allegation that I've threatened legal action.
My words clearly indicated that I expected internal actions to result from Hunter's block.
The moves forward here are initiating internal actions in regard to Hunter's action, other blocks, and the ArbCom.
I request that the current block be lifted, reapplied as the more vague (hence easier to prove) "blocked under NLT", and lifted. I don't expect apologies for being blocked under NLT in the current case, but I do expect them in regard to the previous one, but all things in their own time. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Tim, I don't expect apologies, no one ever has to apologise, and can't be made to do so. What I expect is for personal attacks and unproven allegations to be retracted or removed, Wiki commits itself to that. What I habitually do, however, is offer people an opportunity to end matters happily and instantly by apology (which obviously includes retraction). You are correct that I don't expect an apology from Wiki, that would be meaningless pomposity. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair can you clarify for me what you mean by review of JhunterJ's block? Do you mean a) whether he was right or not or b) getting it lifted? In either regard if you want to be unblocked use the template {{unblock|reason / explanation here}} to initiate the process--Caililtalk01:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a light note, being blocked is a perfect excuse for me dodge promises I've made here while I'm making good progress on real life work. I do want the block lifted, and as soon as possible, however, that's mainly for Wiki's sake, not mine.
Anyway, the answer to your question is (a).
Here are the verifiable facts.
I have not addressed Abtract in any forum since I was requested not required to do so.
No diff to the contrary has been provided. None will be, because it has not happened.
There are no restrictions in regard to me interacting with Abtract, even if I had done so.
No consequences can reasonably be imposed on me if I am not told of their existence.
As to whether the reliably sourced text I restored was disputed or not,
the discussion is here, which is probably the last time Abtract and I interacted.
I answered Abtract's objections in that section.
Am I supposed to cut and paste those answers whenever Abtract breaches his restrictions regarding me?
How am I to reply on the talk page if there is nothing to reply to?
If I am not to restore what Abtract removes when he breaches restrictions, why didn't someone else do this when they blocked him?
If others permit Abtract to delete my posts, block him, but then block me for restoring them, what they are doing is saying, "sure, Abtract, delete any reliably sourced material Alastair adds, you don't need to give an argument, just do it, we'll make sure it sticks, we don't care about reliably sourced material being removed, nor about Alastair's time spent sourcing and explaining text either, in fact, we'll even pretend all his "essays" on talk pages don't exist."
It is administrators who are blocking the Oxford Dictionary, DM Buss, John Money and a number of other standard references for topics where they have been provided, because they don't take the time to check what content is at stake.
Irrespective of the whole thing being poor treatment of a generous volunteer, it simply undermines reliability of the encyclopedia. People are placing politics above reliability, while not really getting the politics right anyway.
There is something wrong with administration when instead of helping readers have access to reliable sources, it is blocking them. How rich Wiki has become that we can now afford to let reliable sources become "collateral damage" as we jocky with one another in our internal processes.
Alastair, if you wish to be unblocked, could you please use the unblock template {{unblock|reason / explanation here}} as requested by Cailil? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though if you wade through things, you'll see I'd prefer things were done differently: reblock me with reason "blocked under NLT".
The reason is that people (including myself) often only read summaries without context and draw wrong conclusions.
Some post those conclusions and others believe without checking.
Alastair, why do you ask for a reblock with reason "Blocked under NLT" when you are blocked with the reason " (Making legal threats)" actually? What's the difference? Fram (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I accept Cailil's interpretation of NLT, including specifically that: 1. any direct reference or even allusion to legal processes at talk pages is, without quibbling, unnecessary and unhelpful; and 2. should a real and current legal issue arise, the specified manner of addressing it is the Foundation Office, which alone is equipped to deal with such issues, should ever they be real. I understand these points, agree with them, and will follow them scrupulously. I acknowledge that I have certainly alluded to legal processes, but cannot imagine any circumstances where I would ever do so again. I request that people not continue to attempt to discuss legal issues with me on talk pages, because I cannot reply to such questions. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Alastair still claims that "I do resent it making the allegation that I've threatened legal action." As long as he doesn't acknowledge that what he posted were legal threats, why should we consider unblocking. A statement that he will not make legal threats, while at the same time stating that the earlier things he wrote were not legal threats, means that no change in behaviour should be expected, and that there is no reason to unblock. As for the previous block, by JhunterJ, that is long expired, so no reason to do anything about that one anymore. Fram (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, Fram, and it's a good one. Thank you for reading my words and taking them seriously, that you disagree is no problem to me at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is, "Alastair has made legal threats. He denies this. If he promises to make no legal threats in future, but denies making them in the past, we can't accept it, because he defines this differently (and wrongly). He may use our words, but he means something different by them."
That's an excellent and astute observation, imo.
The way I've tried to resolve the problem is to focus on sharing agreed standards into the future—the NLT policy—with maximum application. By maximum application I mean that even avoiding allusion to legal processes on talk pages is "out of bounds". Again, in other words, I am committing myself to avoiding any reference at all, let alone ones that others may interpret as threats. Please note, NLT is the title of the policy, not the sum of the matters it deals with, it covers a good deal of territory (but even has room for expansion).
By all means decide to keep the block in place, simply because I deny that the hypotheticals I raised constitute a legal threat.
However, we don't really need to argue about that point, because I am indicating that I will not even allude to or discuss anything related to legal implications at Wiki. If I keep my promise, it rules out even what others may construe as a threat, whether or not there really is a threat.
Although I'd prefer you could see that my words, in context, are not a threat, I can see how you get there; indeed it was part of deliberate "rhetoric", as Cailil observed, designed to lead a reader in that general direction. In my opinion, in a way, it serves me right if it raised more immediate alarm than was helpful.
There is plenty that I am not saying here, because I am already applying what I committed to. Whatever I may or may not think or do regarding legal matters is simply not a matter for talk page discussion. For simplicity and ease, I will not be submitting Fram's decision and reasoning to block me to third party scrutiny. But it works both ways, others can't really raise it as evidence against me in future without putting me in the unfair position of not being able to defend myself without breaking NLT. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I am confounded by the constant harassment of Editor:Haines since, whatever his minor offense, represents only the tiniest part of any harm documented in Gender of God edit history. Or any other article. It is a well-known fact, even to the most casual observer, that Editor:Haines has the misfortune of acquiring a masked bandit, a scoundrel, that follows him around and waits to ambush the work he does. This poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible. Punishing the victim bothers me. I hope Editor:Haines avails himself of the opportunities put forth to resolve this current impasse. More is the likelihood that nothing will happen which will encourage abstract to embrace strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one and harm us all. All this legal harangue just muddies the all-ready agitated water.--Buster7 (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster, yes, I think we have the legal thingy out of the way now. A bit of good work by Cailil, a bit of compromise from me, tremendous support from you and lateral thinking from Tim. Also, yes, now things start in ernest with showing up the still unaddressed actions of various editors, mediators, administrators and so on. I believe chronological order will make it easier for the reviewers. There's a schedule to keep, but all's well that end's well. And it will end well. Lots and lots of good people in this project friend, the main problem is that there are only 24hrs per day. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General comment
Alastair, could you please post in chronological order? The current state of the page gives the impression that I oppose your unblock request because you don't acknowledge previous legal threats in it: however, I made my post thirteen minutes before your unblock request, when your position was still a lot less clear and my question much better founded. Next, you insert your reply to my comment between the comment and rdunn's reply to it, making it harder to read the discussion the way it progressed. All this makes it very hard for someone coming to your page to actually read the comments in the order they were made, and may give completely wrong impressions about question and asnwer, cause and affect relations. Fram (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, feel free to refactor things however you prefer.
It's all messy anyway.
You posted while I was replying to MathSci, who was calling things back to what Cailil had posted.
It sounds like you're happy enough with what I've posted, but I couldn't know that when I posted it.
So, again, by all means refactor.
(It may also prove prudent to sort Dunn out in private regarding temping the regs.
I, User:FisherQueen, would just like to clearly state that I have no intention of suing Wikimedia Foundation, either now or in the future. I recognize that the Foundation is not legally or morally responsible for the things that individual editors post on Wikipedia, and that it would be kind of foolish of me to try to hold them responsible for such things. Instead, if it ever happens that material about me gets posted that seems to me to be libelous, I'll work within Wikipedia's existing structures to have it removed, and that'll be the end of it. As for comments on talk pages that hurt my feelings, well, just today, a vandal threatened to rape, murder, and mutilate me. I didn't consider suing the Foundation; I just saw that she was blocked form further editing. After all, if I sued the Foundation for the contents of the encyclopedia, I'd just lose, anyway. What a waste of time and money that would be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FQ, I am simply not competent to make statements regarding what the Foundation is or is not responsible for. Neither you nor I are allowed to show contempt for court processes by declaring, in advance, what they might decide. Nowhere have I suggested my feelings are hurt. In fact, they are not. You describe a case involving personal attacks of a threatening nature, not false allegations. You also would want to rephrase things, so it does not appear you silenced criticism by unilateral action, "because you could". Perish the thought that we put words into other people's mouths here at Wiki, but what I'd imagine you wanted to say was, "the good processes and people who staff them here ensured that personal attacks against me were removed." Precisely what I asked for a long time ago, it's just that important people like you need to be served first, of course. I understand that, I really do. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example
I, User:Buster7, would like to clearly state that I have no intention of suing or pursuing any other legal action against the WikiMedia Foundation, either now or in the future. I recognize that the Foundation is neither legally nor morally responsible for the posting of individual Wikipedia editors or for the actions of administrators and/or clerks. Should it happen that material of a libelous or slanderous nature is posted, I pledge to work within The Foundation's existing structure to have it removed. --Buster7 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good Buster7. I like Durova's though[8]. Basically the point is this Alastair needs to withdraw any threat and conduct the investigation of the posts that concern him within WP:DR or through WP:OFFICE. As Durova puts it 'clear and direct prose is what's needed'. Or as I have said above short & concise statements/comments are always preferable to long prose. Have a think about what you want to do Alastair but bear in mind most people on site will (unfortunately) obey the law of WP:TLDR. So a 4 or 5 line comment being as explicit as you can be should resolve this--Caililtalk14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor:Durova's version;
"I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future."
How about: "I withdraw any and all statements that I have made of any legal or legal sounding nature. I am not pursuing anything legal, and have no plans or intention of doing so. I reaffirm my earlier statement that I will make no further statements of any legal kind, and request that I be allowed to keep that promise."SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Example
I, User:SkyWriter, would like to clearly state that Alastair has promised not to discuss ANY legal matters AT ALL. One can't threaten anything legally when he will not even breathe anything legally. To require further of Alastair would force him to break the promise he has already made. Let's move on, folks. Or do you WANT him to break his promise?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. He needs to post according to the previous examples, Tim. Screw his promise; he can get out of the trouble he's gotten himself into by committing right here and right now that he will never pursue legal action here. Period. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE can pursue legal action here. This isn't a court. It behaves just as irrationally as a court, but it isn't one. The policy is no legal threats. Alastair has acknowledged a problem with his previous verbage and promised no legal ANYTHING, threats, paragraphs, words, syllables -- jots or tittles. You are now demanding that he break that promise. If he does so -- how would you trust him? I think now the requirements are far beyond the scope of the policy, and that to require him to break his promise regarding legal expression would invalidate any promise you are currently demanding. You can't force someone to lie in order to trust them, can you?
I think before Alastair does such a thing, ALL of us, and I mean ALL must acknowledge formally on this page that we are asking him to break his promise not to discuss legal matters AT ALL. Go ahead, Lisa. Start off and clearly ask the man to break his word. At least be honest about asking someone to lie.
Further -- he's stated previously and repeatedly that he isn't pursuing anything legally and has no plans to do so -- and you didn't like that either. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight. I didn't see the bit where he said that he isn't going to take legal action now or in the future- I only saw the parts where he was obfuscating- but if he said that, then it's all good. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't. He obfuscated. He said that he can't foresee the future and can't be expected to make commitments about it. As far as I'm concerned (and clearly as far as the admins are concerned), that's keeping the threat open.
Tim, if Alastair made a promise which prevents him from doing what he has to in order to get his account unblocked, then it was a mistake on his part. And I don't think anyone here would hold it against him if he withdrew such an ill-considered promise. No one is asking him to lie; we're asking him to state clearly, cleanly, and on the record, that he has no intentions of taking legal action against anyone here, now or at any time in the future. Period. Why are you so emotional about protecting him from having to do so?
Here's the last thing Alastair had to say on the subject ([9]):
The way I've tried to resolve the problem is to focus on sharing agreed standards into the future—the NLT policy—with maximum application. By maximum application I mean that even avoiding allusion to legal processes on talk pages is "out of bounds". Again, in other words, I am committing myself to avoiding any reference at all, let alone ones that others may interpret as threats. Please note, NLT is the title of the policy, not the sum of the matters it deals with, it covers a good deal of territory (but even has room for expansion).
You should read the rest of it as well. Obfuscation is an understatement. I don't see why he can't just say what was said in the other examples and be done with it. If it's his "promise", I release him from it, and I imagine everyone else here would as well. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the rest of it. He's specifically stated that he is making no legal threat, and has no plans to take legal action, and, finally, that he will discuss no legal issues ever again on Wikipedia. To do what YOU are asking is to open himself up to limitless defamation like some kind of punching bag. NO ONE on the planet can promise to NEVER have a reason to sue anyone, because no one can promise what OTHER people will or will not do. The only reason anyone would have an issue with Alastair at this point is if they are actively planning to do something against him here -- which is absurd. Since no one is planning to do anything illegal to Alastair, they have no reason to be concerned. This isn't emotion on my part -- but fairness.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People, Cailil has indicated that policy requires us not to discuss legal issues we are not equipped to deal with.
We don't need to talk about this here. It's not our business and it is not helpful.
I am very loathe to say much more.
The Foundation can be verified to have no documents from agents, writing on my behalf, in its possession.
It is from that direction, not my direction, that any advice regarding legal issues would come, should any "threat" become real.
If the Foundation has received no "threat", there is no "threat".
Stretching well beyond what I am comfortable discussing, for the sake of assisting discussion...
Since internal processes are currently not exhausted, the Foundation and/or the law are, quite simply, not at present relevant. It cannot be denied that they exist, but they are not relevant, and "above our pay grade" to discuss.
Not NLT, nor registering at Wiki, nor edit boxes require waivers from any of us. The legal status of waivers is not straight forward. In some cases they carry no weight at all, in other cases they are assumed without an explicit statement.
I have not already taken, and am not presently inclined, to take the legal advice necessary to make a legally significant statement in regard to waiving any liability in regard to the Foundation.
NLT clearly lets us know that the Foundation considers itself alone to be competent regarding legalities like waiving liability (and it is correct), and requests such legalities be withheld from talk pages (which is part of getting such things right).
The good faith of requests above is evident. I sympathise. However, there is no mandate for such requests to be made.
Leave this to the Foundation as policy directs.
Attempts to obtain waivers by duress might just have legal significance in themselves.
In an ironic way -- to require any more from Alastair is to threaten him unless he makes a legal statement that is irrelevant at this point. He has agreed to not discuss legal matters AT ALL. Those not lifting the block are now in violation of making legal demands. Time to get back to normal Wikipedia process. The "behavior" you want stopped is stopped.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intermission
The paperless office
Next
A4, black and white
box tick box tick box
Next
first, last, dob
all OK
Next
hieroglyphics in arial 10 pt
ministry under neon
Time for tea
Hello Amy,
how are you?
Everything OK?
Oh really?
How about that?
Look! Here comes Bob.
LOL, I can do that for you.
No, don't need a sig,
you told me yourself.
See
you
again soon.
See
you.
AH 04.04.09
return to regular program
Sandstein explains, "you will need to unequivocally withdraw your previous legal threats in order to be unblocked."[10] I reply, please specify the substance of the threats you allege exist. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova's proposed statement comes to saying pretty much what I believe I've said already.
Durova's wording is, "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future."
I am happy to repeat myself in Durova's words, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't: (a) make people look silly for thinking there had been a threat; or (b) force me to assert that I made a threat when I intended none.
"I promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future" is fine, I've already said it.
I have also said that I am not presently intending any legal action. I understand that my words have been understood that way. Irrespective of those words and what they meant, the important thing is that I am not currently threatening any legal action.
Once this is settled, I'll be archiving this discussion. What will stand in the record are the clear statements: "I am not currently threatening any legal action; and in future I promise to make no onsite threat of legal action."
Alastair do you remember me User:Sanfy who sent you a message for copyediting for Goan Catholics. May the joy and peace of Christmas be with you, all through the year.. Wishing u n yr family season of blessing from heaven above. Merry Christmas Alastair Haines.SanfyTalk
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Alynna (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
