User talk:Alastair Haines/Archive *

Parental Guidance Required

This archive includes all manner of unfortunate interaction easily misunderstood without sufficient context. It is archived here because I have nothing to hide, including this history of a "Chinese whisper" tsunami of almost wasted time. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been blocked indefinitely for repeated use of real or implied legal threats, by reference to Wikipedia:No legal threats. This talk page has been protected due to past issues of possible baiting of this user.

Any issues with comments considered defamatory or in other ways problematic, and identifying this user by name, should be notified to the OTRS team at info-en-q@wikimedia.org -- Guy (Help!) 16:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, come back to Wiki, Guy. Don't let the b**** (read drama) get you down. I don't. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

I'm going to unblock you, as suggested by others, on an assumption of good faith. I would have preferred to have waited until some pending issues were resolved, but reality imposes a number of delays on the necessary discussion that I have to agree have grown beyond reasonably fair delay.

This unblock is not unconditional, however. The first, and most important, of those conditions is that you are to shy away from anything that could be vaguely be seen as so much as legal hints. Avoid legal terms like "defamation" and "libel". Do not demand things "or else" or place deadlines. Don't test the limits. If you have a genuine worry, email arbcom or myself directly. Don't raise a fuss on-wiki.

Secondly, I'm going to strongly suggest you stay entirely away from biblical topics for the time being. There are strong suggestions of a financial conflict of interest between you, your publisher, its primary author, and a book written (and sold) on the topic— and until that has been clarified, anything that looks even just a little bit like edit warring or deviation from neutrality is going to be scrutinized.

Lastly, and that is simply advice: please seriously consider renaming your account to something that is not related to your real-life identity. The nature of Wikipedia editing guarantees that you will be put to task if you make edits that other editors feel are improper; if you feel that associating your real-life identity with those comments is detrimental then the proper response is to make sure it isn't, not to bluster, threaten and demand when that happens. To date, almost all your troubles have been directly related to the fact that your real name is also your account name.

On the related matter of the arbitration case pages, the matter is still under discussion within ArbCom, but we are receptive to the idea of blanking them as a courtesy to you— but please keep discussion of this to email.

— Coren ^(talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for an impressively honest yet conciliatory post, Coren.

It demonstrates to me a little of the principled reasoning, civilly expressed, that you offer to the project in your current role.

On reflection, I'm sure you'll not find it hard to imagine that much as I'd be thrilled were my voluntary contributions to Wiki to have positive financial implications for me, theology is not a lucrative field and theopedia would be the logical target market for me to "advertise" my services were remuneration an issue.

I completely agree that we have unresolved differences of opinion that it is a little frustrating not to conclude, but appreciate that you recognise that time pressures are forcing us into two-way compromises.

I think my problems are more mundane than you suggest—obstructive users using personal attacks without being corrected by overworked administrators—but agree that there are still many available strategies to "work around" the issues.

I want to conclude on as strong a note of courtesy as you yourself concluded. You offer your own email inbox in your post above. I expect, on occasion I may use it, specifically because of the integrity of the way you express yourself above.

Alastair Haines (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am quite certain you understand that appearance of conflict of interest is just as bad as conflict of interest because it undermines the perception of neutrality to the same degree. You've been using, with some regularity, a source published by someone with whom you have a financial relationship. I very much agree with you that it doesn't look very likely that you would stand to gain a fortune from such endeavors— but it is nonetheless poor form to do so because of the lack of visible independence. — Coren ^(talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be poor form had I actually ever done it, but I haven't; and I'm rather curious to know how anyone has come to such a conclusion.

As I'm sure you agree, how things may appear to one person are normally settled by looking at facts, and by presuming good faith until there is objective evidence to place bad faith (or bad form) beyond the doubts of reasonable people.

Where suspicion becomes reasonable, rather than being a mere prejudice, and where doubt in good faith ceases to become reasonable but is merely favouritisim or stubbornness, I'm sure you'd agree vary from situation to situation.

I encourage you (although it is a waste of time) to seek any evidence of conflict of interest in my work at Wiki. Suspicion is a great motivator for thorough investigation; but suspicion is not an argument for its supposition, whoever the suspicious one may be, or however many people may express a like suspicion. We believe E=mc^2 for reasons more solid than that Einstein suspected it to be so; and for reasons more solid than that a consensus now believes it to be so. Rational consensus is created by facts, not by weight of public opinion.

I doubt we disagree at the theoretical level. From what I've seen, Coren is an asset to Wiki because of his principled self-discipline of being suspicious, but doing the hard work of gathering evidence to confirm his suspicions. Investigate me by all means, because investigation will only put me beyond suspicion. The project faces real threats, though, so if there's any help I can offer to move you on from your suspicions, just ask, because I want to speed you on your way protecting us from dangers you are more insightful to imagine and more diligent to uncover than most people I have met here.

I'm a bit of a personal fan of the Coren Counter intelligence unit. Hurry up with your security clearance of me, because ultimately I think you might just want to recruit my assistance. ;) We are on the same side. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled by what Coren has written. Plenty of academic contributors to wikipedia quote material from works published by the same publishing house that publishes their own work; they sometimes may receive payment for sales of their work from that publisher. There is no conflict of interest here and this is certainly no reason to ask Alastair to stay away from the area of his expertise. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is what academia is anyway. Peer reviews are done by, well, peers. These folks know and respect each other. They try to poke holes in something in order to make it more useful to human knowledge as a whole. But they do that for each other, and then go out to lunch together. They work together. They support each other. They review each other's work. They build on each other's work. They use the same publishers. If an academic were to (gasp) wander onto Wikipedia, he'd use his own expertise as well as sources that he knows and trusts, sometimes from people he knows and trusts, sometimes even from colleagues. I think the presence of other editors here can compensate for any perceived problem from an actual academic participating. I'd like to think that an actual academic like Alastair is a benefit to the project, rather than a detriment. The problem has been that one or two people have felt threatened by that somehow, and started to rail abusively against Alastair, trying to undermine his integrity or reputation, instead of his sources or his ideas. I hate to say this, but Coren's suggestion is more of the same thing -- and I know Coren's better than that. Granted, "Alastair may give us an appearance of bias" is a lot less crude than "Alastair is a bully." But they are both challenges to the man's integrity instead of his sourced information. And preventing a person from adding sourced information to the project is no less harmful than deleting sourced information once it's in place. Some editors have talked loudly. Coren has a big stick. And while we all should be concerned with bias and guard against it in ourselves and in others -- that's the work of genuine give and take between editors who look at those sources and their applicability in each context. Alastair, in my experience, uses a LOT of sources. One would only hope that these would be sources he is familiar with. We expect no less from academics. And we should welcome them when they add to the integrity of our project, without attacking their own integrity in return. Coren, Alastair, everyone -- can we just get back to work without trying to hamper each other? Aren't there real subjects here to work on, instead of the subject of "Alastair"?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The most severe block wasn't for COI, it was for making legal threats, and that's non-negotiable. You make a legal threat, and you're blocked, period, no matter your so-called level of expertise on anything. You withdraw the legal threat, you may be unblocked. As happened here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a completely different subject from the discussion at hand: Coren's warning Alastair not to edit articles on any subjects he has an expertise in. We are beyond the NLT and now discussing whether a person has to be completely ignorant of a subject before he's allowed to edit. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim please reread Coren's post. Coren suggets(and I paraphrase) that A.H should stay away from Biblical topics for the time being while this COI issue is being discussed. It's quite a normal suggestion in such circumstances and I'm sure it will be cleared up by those involved (hint hint) quickly--Cailil ^talk 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll admit that Coren was so adamant that he even made ME look into Alastair's history! As long as you're looking into it, I'm content.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Which is why I worded this as a suggestion (albeit an explicitly strong one). There are a number of reasons why this particular scenario diverges from the typically academic setting of sharing an independent publisher, but because the nature of the information involves private information about three editors I cannot discuss it on-wiki without their consent. Alastair, if you want to get further details, please communicate with me or ArbCom by email. — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule against an expert doing editing. But he's subject to the same restrictions as any other editor - reliable, independent sources; and such stuff as that. No original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Coren for pointing people to what you said. I go by what people say, not what other people think they say.

Coren was perfectly clear that it was a suggestion. Advice is advice, it can be wrong as well as right. I don't think anyone here is the type to suffer hurt feelings if advice is not adopted. Taking wrong advice multiplies error, ignoring good advice is very common and slows things down, but it is life, because it is better to be slow in taking good advice than to rush into what is ill advised.

Coren's suggestion was pretty vague where it needed to be vague, but suggested enough specifics to make it clear. Some of the vagueness was courtesy, some of it lack of evidence, some of it just a matter of keeping things short for easy reading. All told, I think it was rather nicely put.

I think it goes without saying that Coren was not suggesting I never edit where I have expertise on the grounds that I'd always be vulnerable to claims of COI.

I like to think Coren was simply giving me a tip-off that certain things are being discussed and there might be ways I could assist those discussions to conclude faster and more amicably. To be honest, I think there is a bit of a "veiled threat" in his words too, but they don't apply to me, so I actually want to repeat them. Wiki is not about giving editors a chance to freely promote their own agendas, and if this is identified, it will be opposed.

I could not agree more. Indeed there are a couple of pages where I have been opposing precisely such behaviour, and naturally, along with the others who have seen this, I will continue to do so.

So far, no one has ever been able to show that I've ever breached NLT, that I've ever been uncivil, that I've ever edit warred, and they will not be able to show that I've acted in a way that shows a COI.

That's a verifiable fact, but it's not yet consensus on all points. Facts establish consensus, not vice versa, but it costs time. I'm not going to poke those issues more than restating them here and leaving the rest to email in the short term, and whatever form of other documentation may be deemed appropriate after that.

I'm tremendously busy in real life. My contribution history shows I tend to work for 8 week bursts with three month gaps. I'm not sure how much editing I'm actually going to be doing for a couple of months atm.

Also, although I'll continue working under my real name at articles I've already worked on, and with friends I already have here (my speech patterns are unmistakable a name change would achieve nothing in those areas), I will be opening a new anonymous account. I have nothing to hide, and I trust Wiki processes to (eventually) fairly handle any CR processes. The only reasons I'll add an anon account are: it will take pressure off CR processes in handling any issues that may arise, it is in line with the fact that no editor or administrator has any authority by virtue of who they are or what they have done, and because I value MathSci as a person so highly I wish to show respect by taking that editor's advice (albeit with a slight tweak). It is also part of a personal desire to make life as easy as possible for arbitrators, whose work and personal character I value extremely highly, despite whatever disagreements we may have had and may continue to have.

On that note I'll conclude. Coren is a particularly hard working arbitrator and example to all of us. His recommendation that I email him has now been repeated and I'll co-operate ASAP, within 24 hours.

Thanks to each of the contributors in the thread above. Cailil's brief comment is absolutely spot on. Both the cheer-squad (represented by Tim) and the witch-hunters (represented by Mr Bugs) reflect important PsOV, but I'd ask the former to trust me and the latter to trust Coren and Co. Personally, I believe trust is an awkwardly indispensible part of relationships, however good we may make our accountability structures. But then again, I would think that, in my world we call it faith, at Wiki we call it good faith.

With the permission of interested parties, I desire to close this thread, and entrust myself to Coren and ArbCom by email. Seconder? Ayes? Nays? Alastair Haines (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweak away. My worry is that you might have missed some ozzie wiki-drinks. Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Had dinner with User:WikiWookie and Felicia, but we drank nothing but water! :( I was deprived of the excellent company of the noble User:Privatemusings, who I consider to be my personal Wiki-muse. Thanks for the tweak permission. The life-span of this thread is indeed looking short. Peace out. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to trust you, Alastair. And I think the new account is a good move. I'm trying to figure a new name myself -- and an entirely different corner of Wikipedia to turn to. This has been way too much politics for my stomach. We'll have to share some beer in real life one day, perhaps with Privatemusings. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's always good to announce planned sockpuppetry in advance. :) One corrective note: I am not exactly a witch hunter. I am a witch who hunts. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is trying to overcome an admin action or pretending to be multiple people at once (i.e. in the same subject-matter). Retiring a non-banned account and going to different subjects in a new name is actually suggested by Wikipedia guidelines as a fresh start when politics muddles the editing process. And having a separate sign on for different subjects is okay as long as it IS announced and some admins know your other screen name. I've done that myself in the past, and several admins know the other screen name. Hope that helps.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know all that. Apparently you missed the smiley. :) :) :) :) :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Baseball Bugs is being rather friendly, and making supernatural threats at the same time. Having total faith in the Supernatural Power that protects me, I feel no need to propose a WP:No supernatural threats policy. Though were Baseball Bugs inclined to indulge the lark, perhaps we could together take spells at drafting such. I could try taking my foot out of my mouth and place it in the mouth of my sock instead, perhaps. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My mother was a witch too, so that makes me a son of a... well, you get the idea. 0:) To show you the extent of my magical powers, I've been a Chicago Cubs fan all my life, and you know how well they've done over the years. Maybe using PBR as my witch's brew is not quite the thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! I'm speechless. You have got magic! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)