Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence

Alastair's position

I am presenting evidence because I perceive the comments and actions of various users to be personal attacks (in the Wiki sense), so often repeated they are misleading other editors and impairing my freedom to contribute and assist friends. My request is simple, could the Committee please uphold the WP:No personal attacks policy, by clarifying to those who have made them, why they are neither necessary nor helpful, and organize for them to be withdrawn.

I am providing detailed evidence in the case of User:Ilkali, because that is where personal attacks regarding me started. I am also providing evidence regarding User:L'Aquatique, because I invited her to the page to mediate, but she has stayed involved in order to confront my editing.

I am providing only a little evidence regarding User:Lisa since, in my opinion, she responded well quickly, after her removal of stable text was opposed. I haven't changed the opinion I shared with her some time ago, that I personally support her passion to defend what she believes in. Unfortunately she has, however, also believed what she has been told regarding me and repeated this (hearsay). I'm not aware of her having any particular personal disagreement with me, other than the one that she settled by a clever, creative edit. I think she has been inappropriate in interacting with Tim, but that's only my opinion and only my business as a friend of Tim.

Finally, I actually think Abtract tried to help at first, he certainly attempted some constructive edits. In a way he was ignored by both Ilkali and myself. He also ended up backing Ilkali with edits justified only by ad hominem and two against one.

The only other significantly involved party I think I should mention is Rushyo. I was impressed by his firm but fair approach to mediating. He was the only user, other than me, to actually express some reservations regarding Ilkali. That showed impartiality and courage from Rushyo at the time. He politely questioned and criticised me also. It was only when my request to have the mediation return to the topic I'd set for it was refused that I considered it necessary to ask Rushyo to "show cause" for continuing the process. I understand him being upset and feeling this personally (I'm used to feeling criticised). I don't hold his comments aftwards against him, and I admire him for the ironic gesture of giving me a "Barnstar of diligence".

In conclusion, I'm happy with the text of the article atm, others have recently added quality content, and my additions have also been stable. The issue imo is only that the process has involved personal attacks against me, that have not been proven, or alternatively removed, struck-out or otherwise withdrawn. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

statements as evidence

Buster7 (talk · contribs) and Miguel.mateo (talk · contribs) have presented 'statements' here as evidence. Both are relatively new users, and definitely new to rfar, so it is quite probably with a bit of assistance they can adapt what they have written to be suitable evidence. For example, Miguel.mateo could revise his section to be something along the lines of "Alastair has been a teacher", with diffs to back it up. I'll point them to the discussion here, but if the statements arnt adapted, a clerk should move them to the rfar talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These users, along with John254 (talk · contribs) haven't been involved in the slightest in the proceedings... They are using past experiences with Alastair and ignoring the current evidence, not to mention derailing the whole thing to focus on punishing Ilkali. I hate to say this, but could we be looking at socks or meatpuppets here? L'Aquatique[talk] 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

@L'Aquatique...I am NOT a troll, a sock-puppet, a meat-puppet or a cartoon character. What may be interesting to the casual observer is that this false accusation of trollness, etc. is one of the charges you make against Mr Haines. I'm reminded of an adage regarding "a pot calling the kettle black"--Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

These users' activity is a bit concerning, but I'm sure the Arbs will take that in to account--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All involved editors are under investigation, per ArbCom acceptance comments. Since the issue is general edit behaviour, per even claims against me, evidence from uninvolved parties regarding edit behaviour in other contexts addresses the subject of the investigation, and actually provides independent confirmation of other evidence.

"Derailing" is a subjective assessment. From my critic's POV the topic is me. From my supporter's POV not addressing the context of my words and actions is "derailing" attention from the edit behaviour of Ilkali and others that prompted my good faith attempts to protect the article, my own name and that of Wiki processes.

In this context, assuming bad faith is fine, so please feel free to speculate freely about sock puppets and anything else and seek evidence.

Attempts to discredit good faith witnesses testifying contrary to L'Aquatique's own opinion, however, don't feel like due process to me.

Like Cailil, though, I trust the Arbs to note this. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will stress again that I do not think anyone believes you never show good behaviour. Evidence of such behaviour is of limited value in assessing the claim that you sometimes show atrocious behaviour. Ilkali (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, in my observation Alastair is the best example of the four of us of a consistently good editor. You and I have been in spats. Lisaliel and I get into an edit war on just about every page we interact in. I've seen you and her game the system with either the launching or the wholehearted approval of distracting actions that take away from the subject being discussed. You with your approval and pushing of an RfC on Alastair, Lisaliel with her multiple AfDs on a page she was editing with the purpose of destroying, her Mediation Cabal escalation on the Shituf page, and her attempting to slam Alastair because of an edit war she and I had with each other on the Gender of God page. That's gaming the system and distracting. Have friends spoken up? Sure. But they are individuals who can look at the evidence and offer their perspectives. Some have been involved with either Alastair or myself, but all offer a perspective. Further, the examples you have given amount to Alastair politely asking people to back off and focus on the subject of the page rather than trying to distract the issue to himself. Unfortunately L'Aquatique came in after things had focused on attacks on Alastair and he asked her to also back off and focus on the issues. Alastair's crime here is in trusting the normal editing process and to expect administrators to research the history before hopping in. And that was a mistake, because neither L'Aquatique nor any other admin has the time to do so. They just can't. Wikipedia is too big. So L'Aquatique sees a barage of claims against someone who is beginning to sound testy with repeated reminders to focus on the subject of editing a page rather than himself. L'Aquatique fell for the bait. I would have also. Any admin would have. I just hope the arbitration committee has time to research this, but I doubt it. I've been involved in this for the better part of a year and I don't have time to play my own part.Tim (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will provide the evidence later today, have at least a couple of good samples in no later than a month. Please feel free to check for puppetry, but let's do that on all accounts involved here (I am sure that we all, and I mean all "the good and the bad guys" are clear). It is really difficult for me to believe that people cannot accept two different groups with two different set of opinions.

User:L'Aquatique and User:Cailil, just because you "think that Alistair is evil" does that mean that he is not entitled to received any good comments? If this is an arbitration against an individual, is the individual's right to receive supportive comments (sort of defense) as well, regardless if we were involved or not in the edit war you are mentioning. If the arbitration were just to focus on the edit war that occurred and how to fix the article, I wouldn't put my noise on the case; but no, the arbitration is against an individual that I do have a very good opinion, so it is my right "to defend him" and his right to receive supportive comments as well ... this is just my point of view. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, not one person ever said they think Alastair is evil, so don't put words in other people's mouths. In fact, people, including myself have said things like "he is a nice guy," "smart," etc. None of that precludes the fact that some his behavior has been bad- and this really is documented fact, not my personal point of view. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a documented opinion. L'Aquatique personally has deemed it as bad as it gets at Wiki, to take it to the highest authority. In fact, L'Aquatique only masks the forcefulness of her action by sweet sounding phrases that she intends in no way to mitigate her other claims. But I will trust others to note and point out these things in further detail. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't think your actions have been "as bad as it gets"- if I did don't you think I would have just blocked you for persistent disruption, edit warring, etc? I believe the things that are most damaging to the Wikipedia are people who make death threats, ethnic and racial slurs, etc, not you, you're not that special, sorry. I brought it here precisely because I don't think it's as bad as it gets: I think it's a multifaceted case with tons of variables that can't be handled by administrative action, or at least with be better handled by a group of people wiser and more experienced than me. And once again, I'll say that your behavior being poor is a fact, not an opinion. It is not okay to call other people trolls, it's not okay to edit war, it's not okay to make personal attacks, all of which we have documented evidence of you doing. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, could you, uh, take a look at the edit war in question? It was between Lisaliel and myself, not Alastair. He disengaged as soon as he realized an edit war was starting. And can you please at least grant that if Lisaliel and I had not done an edit war none of us would be here right now? You were there. We need some balance here. The wrong person is getting hammered.Tim (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to check for meatpuppetry. Perhaps it'd be useful just to ask: Alastair and John254, how are you connected? Ilkali (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

More opinion, and more belittling from you L'Aquatique. I have never edit warred, or made personal attacks. I call a troll a troll on days when hell is not cold, just like you. As for why you didn't impose admin action, you reasons don't add up. More experienced admins were aware of things and weren't taking action, and any action you took could be reverted by other admins. You need a forum to make your case. Anyway, once again I adopt "do not feed"-mode with you and my silence implies dissent. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence that you have edit warred, and two block entries to back it up. Rather than assert here on the talk page that you have never edit warred, it would be more appropriate for you to either 1) submit an evidence section that explains those two situations and any others, in your own words and with diffs, to suggest why you didnt think you were edit warring, or 2) accept that you have edit warred. Edit warring a few times isnt a big problem; I'd not be surprised if someone found evidence that I had edit warred at times. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I know there is evidence that I've been blocked under the 3RR rule; but I choose option 1). Blocking does not prove edit warring, it does not even prove a violation of 3RR. I'm not being cute. I welcome the question.

I would very much like to see the diffs of the 19 June case, because this involved reverting Ilkali and Abtract. I remember deliberately exceeding the 3RR limit because I wanted admin involvement. I was hoping for exactly what Cailil did for Lisa, prompting this ArbCom itself. Two editors opposing one, is there collusion? Report to ANI. Just as the Lisa case worked out OK, so things may have worked out OK had I been given the support then that Lisa has received recently. Might Lisa be appropriately defending Judaism, even though opposed by two editors? Might Alastair have been appropriately defending theology, even though opposed by two editors? I was thrilled by Cailil's intervention in the current case, 'cause it proved exactly what I thought about the 19 June incident—3RR triggers admin involvement that can defuse issues before they get worse. Unfortunately, it was not Cailil, or someone like him who administered the 3RR alert.

I don't know how it's possible, but there's no edit history for 19 June 2008 at Gender of God, when I know I did exceed 3RR. I argue it is one of few occasions I've applied WP:IAR.

The second incident was on 27 June. I can't see how I would have violated 3RR that time, and thought it was wrong at the time. In fact, Ilkali did violate 3RR in my opinion on that day, technically only No vio by 28 minutes.

• 07:54, 27 June 2008
• 01:15, 27 June 2008
• 00:10, 27 June 2008
• 07:26, 26 June 2008

I think the record of the block should be checked. I recently had a 3RR block on JCDenton turned down because one edit did include some extra tags, and the reviewing admin counted that as a new edit so No vio. My edits on that day included several new edits, so if I was guilty, JCDenton was guilty, or probably, more to the point, there's discretion in such things. So if JCDenton was not guilty, I was not guilty.

In any case, blocks, vios, multiple reversions, edit warring and guilt are all slightly different things. Yes I've been blocked, once I deliberately violated 3RR because I perceived collusion, and other methods were failing; but edit warring and guilt are, in my understanding, serious. Edits have a purpose and an effect and a context, those are part of assessing whether they are constructive or communicative or not. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I made two sets of two completely different reverts. [1] [2] [3] [4] JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For your scrutiny, here're the reports of your 3RR violations: [5], [6].

"In fact, Ilkali did violate 3RR in my opinion on that day, technically No vio by 28 minutes". Firstly, the fourth revert was entirely different. It wasn't over the essays (although they were included in it), but rather over your reverting the article to a much, much earlier state. Secondly, the fact that I didn't revert more than three times in one day isn't just a 'technicality', it's a clear and objective proof that I didn't break the rule. Whether I broke the spirit of the rule is up for debate, but I think the context demonstrates that I did not. Ilkali (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ilkali, much appreciated. Yes, I stand by my actions on 19 June. I was insisting on closing an RfC on a talk page regarding a personal dispute between editors. It was allowing personal attacks to be made the subject of a talk page. What I did was certainly no less valid than what you and Abtract were doing. Not only that, it worked in part. Abtract showed good faith in archiving the messy page and hence closing the RfC. It was you, not he, who insisted on carrying forward to the new talk page your ad hominem attempts to discredit my posts by gratuitously refering to the block. Your ploy probably worked too, it probably was read, and has succeeded in misleading others, building up to this very point today. Precisely the mess and waste of people's time I was trying to avert.

As for 26/27 June, context and history shows editors other than me that you did the important thing, disrupted constructive editing, which is what 3RR is there to protect. On the other hand, I was introducing genuine new text, copy edits and so on, as well as restoring sourced text, with no consensus against it, since obviously I, at least, supported it. So I neither violated technically nor even disrupted, yet was blocked anyway. A perfect example of how effective the technique of discrediting other editors can actually be at Wiki—a constructive editor blocked while creatively bypassing the edit war he was facing. His name had been sufficiently blackened that he was assumed guilty if charged, and people wonder that I started to use the term slander. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, I stand by my actions on 19 June. I was insisting on closing an RfC on a talk page regarding a personal dispute between editors. It was allowing personal attacks to be made the subject of a talk page". You weren't merely "insisting" on anything, you were deleting relevant discussion and inserting your own derogatory commentary into it. As far as I can see, the edits in question had nothing to do with the RfC.

"As for 26/27 June, context and history shows editors other than me that you did the important thing, disrupted constructive editing". Because there was disagreement over whether certain changes should be made, you were trying to have the article temporarily locked in an early state. This is a drastic measure in any situation, and certainly should not be forced on an article by one editor when three others favor the current version and oppose the measure. You describe it as a means of "creatively bypassing the edit war". There would be no edit war if you simply stopped reverting. Did that option cross your mind?

Over the last few months, a number of uninvolved editors have been introduced to the case through formal measures (rather than through association with an involved party). I count at least six who've expressed an opinion on whether you've done anything wrong: Rushyo, L'Aquatique, Wizardman, EdJohnston, William M. Connolley, Ncmvocalist. Every single one agrees that you have. Are they all so incompetent that they would assume you're guilty just because I (or Abtract) say that you are? Ilkali (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh...* I'm going to stop posting on this thread because frankly, I'm feeling like a broken record and Alastair clearly isn't getting it. Let my and other's evidence speak for itself. L'Aquatique[talk] 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the difference between us L'Aquatique. I've felt the same but have not had the freedom of stating it, or sighing and walking away. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am neither a sockpuppet nor a meat-whatever. The name calling tactic will not work. L'Aquatique should use her new administrative capacity to check-out good faith editors and their history of contributions before she accusses them of being someone elses creation. This is Joe MyCartheism at it's best.--Buster7 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alastair engages in edit wars"

LisaLiel has asserted that Alastair engages in edit wars, which is plural and suggests an ongoing problem. One one edit war is shown, with four reverts in a 24 hour period. If there are more edit wars, lets see them, otherwise it should be "Alastair engaged in a single edit war", and we should be worried about who is picking up stones. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

John, that edit war is a smokescreen. It wasn't between Lisa and Alastair; it was between Lisa and myself. Alastair showed the responsibility of disengaging as soon as he realized someone wanted to start a war. Even Slrubenstein told Calil that Lisa starts edit wars, as Jerry showed (although Slrubenstein apparently thinks that's okay because he said he thinks Lisa's POV is right). So can we please at least discount that edit war from Alastair? That was Lisa -- and me. It was not Alastair. This disaster has gone on long, long, long enough. It's not fair to be blaming Alastair for someone else's edit war.Tim (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. Alastair started that war by reverting my changes as though he owned the article. The changes I made were to bad faith edits Alastair had made earlier, dismissing reliable sources as "opinion pieces". Alastair would not tolerate my removing his weasel remarks on those sources or my moving the only reliable sources (at that time) to the top of the section, so he simply reverted my edits. I reverted his revert. He reverted my edits again, and I reverted his revert. At this point, Tim decided to join in the fun, and he began reverting my edits. All the while pretending on the talk page that he was merely trying to catch up with what was going on (as though that justifies his warring.

Bottom line: yes, I edit warred. I shouldn't have. I should have found another way to deal with Alastair and Tim colluding to revert all my edits. But Tim is misrepresenting the facts if he claims that Alastair did not edit war. Even if he did not, at first, violate 3RR, what he did was still edit warring. Stop trying to excuse what Alastair did simply because you were on his side. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah but he is much more subtle than that ... what we have here is an intelligent, well-educated, knowledgable 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): [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] ... this is so boring I am going to stop now but just note that last one ... what a pompous diatribe, if only he would use his skills in a positive and cooperative way he would be a good editor but I am quite convinced he will never change his spots ... he is (deleted), get rid of him. Abtract (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bully? How about RfCs, AfDs, Mediation Cabals, Arbcoms, distractions by attaching the editor to get rid of sourced information -- to my knowledge there are only two bullies here, and it isn't Alastair or me. Look in a mirror.Tim (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please present your evidence on the evidence page. So far, your evidence only duplicates what LisaLiel has asserted, with less diffs and a terrible commentary to go with it. (the evidence page isnt where recommendations should go) My comment about the assertion provided by LisaLiel remains: it isnt accompanied by appropriate evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, terrible it is indeed ... I will accept the first four (of five) meanings. Abtract (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can provide ample evidence for this if LisaLiel does not. There have been several instances, two of which led to blockings per 3RR. Ilkali (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added another one to my evidence section. Note please that I'm limiting myself to cases that involved me. And that while the second example I've given (first, chronologically) doesn't include violations of 3RR, it does demonstrate Alastair's methodology of trying to delegitimize anything he disagrees with. Note in particular the way he accused me of removing reliable sources when (a) the source in case didn't even mention the subject and (b) I had not removed it. This is part and parcel of Alastair's heavy-handed bullying.

Is anyone here familiar with the old television show "Leave it to Beaver"? There was a character named Eddie Haskell. Let me quote from the Wikipedia article:

Typically, Eddie would greet his friends' parents with overdone, good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver." However, when no parents were around, Eddie was always up to no good—either conniving with his friends, or picking on Wally's younger brother Beaver.

This is what Alastair reminds me of. He combines bullying with impeccable politeness. I have a feeling that even if this RfA takes action against him, it won't change his way of doing things, but I know for sure that if it doesn't, he'll take it as a complete vindication. You have only to see how he reacted after the RfC on him ended. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerryofaiken's evidence

Jerryofaiken I'm going to ask you to withdraw your accusation of bias regarding my actions as currently presented in your evidence[25]. You have stated that I have somehow been biased towards LisaLiel (whom I blocked and sought community approval for placing under a 1RR and civility parole at gender of god[26]) and Slrubenstein (whom I contacted for review of my ANI post[27]) in promoting something at Gender of God (an article I have never edited). This diff shows no "bias" on my behalf or on SLR's. I am asking you no to clarify, substantiate or withdraw that remark--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Jerry shows his true colors when he uses such offensive terms as "holocaust" to describe actions he disagrees with. I'd like to request that he be required to remove that terminology, just as he would be if he called me a kike, or other pejorative term.

And for the record, the precious content that Jerry is so incensed that I removed has been removed by yet another editor, because it violated WP:OR. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so that everyone is aware August 8th 2008 is Jerryofaiken's first day back at wikipedia since January 2008[28]. This is quite a red flag--Cailil ^talk 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim's vendetta against me

It's very frustrating to lose an argument. I have, prior to the mess on Gender of God had two run-ins with Tim. Once on the late and unlamented Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms‎, and once on Shituf. In fact, these two run-ins were related, since the Shituf article was actually created during the glossary mess.

I'm an ecletic editor. I have yet to create a brand-new article, and in my time on Wikipedia, I've mostly tweaked. I had only a few pages on my watchlist initially. Things like Jewish messianism, for example, and Jewish eschatology, where I'd found lists of Christian-based "requirements for the Messiah" and removed them in favor of the Jewish versions.

One of the articles that wound up on my watchlist because of this was Judaism and Christianity. On the Talk page of that article, Tim decided to make a concerted attempt to analyze the different use of terms between Judaism and Christianity (and so-called Messianic Judaism) by means of a table of comparisons ([29]). This table was clearly original research and synthesis on Tim's part, but it was on a Talk page. We're allowed to synthesize and give POV opinions on Talk pages. It was when Tim turned the table into a Wikipedia article that I had a problem.

I believed then, and believe now, that an article of that type gave undue weight to a fringe movement. Tim, on the other hand, felt that such an article was a remedy for the MJ tactic of "term switching" ([30]). Tim has a strong interest in interfaith dialog. I don't think that Wikipedia is a place for such things. Note this diff, for example: [31] where Tim explains that his priority is that Christians understand what Jews mean. This may be of value in the world in general, but Wikipedia isn't a forum for such things.

At first I tried to at least see to it that the content in the page was correct and verifiable. When I saw that this was not going to fix the underlying problem, I opened an AfD on the page. Since I didn't know whether the AfD was going to succeed, I continued to try and mitigate the problems with the page. Eventually, an admin named Jossi ended the debate by removing the Messianic column and moving the page to Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms. Here is Tim's reaction to what Jossi did: [32]. He was extremely bitter, though he's probably forgotten that I wasn't the one who did it (I wanted to, though). Note that much of his bitterness comes from the failure of what he saw as a grand interfaith enterprise:

Think about this: we had Christians, Muslims, and Jews all cooperating peacefully. We even had some Messianic sympathizers. And one by one a single individual has knocked them all out.

Then the Shituf article became the battleground. Tim has a background as a Christian pastor. I don't think it's unfair for me to state this, since Tim has mentioned it himself on Wikipedia, and I think it informs a lot of his actions here. Judaism has a concept called shituf, which is kind of an "idolatry lite". It's a form of non-monotheistic worship that some rabbinic views hold as being permissible for non-Jews, though it's still considered idolatrous for Jews. Christian worship is one thing that has been ruled as being shituf, because worshipping a trinity is not viewed as monotheistic in the Jewish sense.

Tim, with his background in Christian theology, decided that the Jewish view of Christian worship is mistaken. That what Judaism was labeling as shituf in the case of Christianity was not Christianity at all, but rather a Christian heresy called Arianism. And for some reason, perhaps his interest in interfaith activities, it was extremely important to Tim that the article reflect this. But there's not a single rabbinic source anywhere, ever, that even refers to Arianism. It was Tim's own conclusion that what the rabbis saw in Christianity was Arianism. Again, it was OR and SYNTH on Tim's part. And again, I wasn't the only person who disagreed with him, but I was the most tenacious. As such, Tim blames me for the fact that the article doesn't reflect his views.

Tim maintained a bitterness against me due to these two editing conflicts. When someone new came into the Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms talk page and asked why MJ was being given a subsection in the article header ([33]), Tim's response was this: [34].

Despite this bitterness, he actually invited me to help out on pages he was editing ([35]), which you probably wouldn't guess based on his claims that I'm "Wikistalking" him.

Finally, we come to Gender of God. My initial interaction on this page had nothing at all to do with Tim. I objected to the fact that the article stated that God is seen as male in Judaism, since I happen to know that isn't the case. So I went and got references that demonstrate the actual position, and inserted them. This caused a tiff with Alastair, who for some reason didn't like for Judaism to be portrayed as anything but sexist in the extreme. Go figure. You can read the history of what I think happened at Gender of God here. I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's "my fault". That's on this very page.

Now Tim is going around trying to find everyone I've ever had a disagreement with on Wikipedia and get them to come here to join him in the character assassination ([36], [37]). Note that he continues to refer to my editing as "hijacking". He seems utterly unable to imagine that someone can disagree with him honestly.

I don't know what to do about it. I'd like to just ignore it. But unfortunately, on Wikipedia, silence is often seen as assent, and I'd at least like it on the record that Tim's persecution complex and obsession about me is based purely on the fact that he didn't get his way and blames me for it. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, yes I've asked some other editors who know about this to comment. I've even asked them to state here if they think I'm wrong. And since you're admitting here that you're following my comments, at least be fair about them. And will you please stop psycholanalyzing me? It's not a persecution complex to see that you have a mediation cabal still open trying to bar me from editing in Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles. Every admin here already knows it.Tim (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not true. And I don't see how I can assume good faith on your part when you continue to spread this lie. I have asked that you and Carlaude be prevented from basically vandalizing articles on Jewish concepts by imposing a Christian understanding of such concepts into the articles. You did this with Shituf when you insisted that Judaism does not have the right to determine for itself what it thinks of Christian worship, and instead, had to be judged by what Christians think of Christian worship. That sort of cultural imperialism is nasty, and it's not the first time you've tried to do it. I asked that you be prevented from doing it any more.

Frankly, I don't care what articles you edit. It isn't which articles, it's what you do there. And I stand behind my request, because you still don't seem to get it. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, the only one practicing imperialism here is yourself. The fact is that I DO have an agenda, and it is clearly stated on my user page. Put succintly, it is this: treat every term as if it is double bracketed. That's not imperialism. That's just English. If you have the use of a term that is being applied to a certain religion, at least double check to see if the terms and definitions between articles are being used consistently. If they are not, you should either recheck your own wording or recheck the referenced articles. This is not a Jewish encyclopedia. This is a general use encyclopedia. Heck, I don't even ask that you be consistent, but that you at least make a note for the dear reader if you are not. Again, that's not imperialism. It's just sound editing. You may be very happy with the use of a term, and in fact you could be absolutely right, and you could STILL be writing in such a way that only Jewish readers can make sense of what you are saying.

As for imperialism, how about multiple AfDs on a page you are editing, trying to get your own edits approved for deletion! How about a mediation cabal trying to ban me from practing consistency between articles, terms, and definitions? How about your attack on Alastair here for an edit war you had with myself? That's imperialism.Tim (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lisa and Tim, this conversation is going nowhere. I'm strongly advising both of you to stop having it, disengage and let evidence speak for itself. Everyone will be able to see if the diffs support the arguments or not--Cailil ^talk 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I should make one public statement regarding the attacks against me (as was suggested to me by Coren: [38]), but I'll stop now. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure of Contacts

As Lisa has already noted, I've contacted a number of people who have been involved in these disputes. Carlaude is the other party in the Mediation Cabal. JerryofAiken, Bikinibomb, and Egfrank are all editors who became inactive after some of the run-ins I've detailed here. KimBrunning attempted some informal mediation, without success. L'Aquatique was a witness to the second series of issues with the Shituf page. The inactive members are the most telling, if they will come back. One has already and obviously has strong feelings.

And as I've mentioned as well, other than my activity here, I'm becoming inactive and may stay inactive. There is way too much non-editing energy going on here, and AfDs, Mediation Cabals, RfCs, threats on my talk page to have me banned, and this ArbCom are just too much.Tim (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that I have made User:Yamara (who is mentioned in my evidence) aware of this case[39]--Cailil ^talk 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted no one, although I know many who would support me in this case. There are three reasons for that: 1. I don't want to distract people from constructive editing or real life; 2. I don't want nice people dragged into conversation including some ugly language; and 3. I am very confident of my ground.

On the other hand, I strenuously encourage my critics to continue doing what they have always done anyway, and seek as much support as possible. I have 12,000 edits in the mainspace alone, and the only evidence so far depends heavily on interpretations of a handfull of these, mainly hypothesizing bad faith and ignoring context. If ArbCom are to be asked to seriously consider the claims of some kind of pattern of behaviour, my critics need to address 12,000 edits and 2,500 talk posts more comprehensively. You have limited time and need all the help you can get. In this forum I welcome every speculation. From my perspective this is a "speak now or forever hold your peace" opportunity for my critics. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you in any way connected to John254? Ilkali (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't know who he is. I do, however, have lots of friends at Wiki and in real life.

But I'm not vain enough to think it's about me. My guess is it's about you. There's eyes everywhere at Wiki, Ilkali. There's a "silent majority" of gnomes and fairies et al. Much of the time I'm one of them—copy editing at astronomy or military history articles while I'm reading them. Sometimes I check talk pages and chip in if I think it'd be useful for someone some time.

From what I could see when you first arrived at Wiki, you were pretty bold on several pages. The advice I was given about how to handle you was, "give him a month and he'll burn himself out." My adviser had seen several new users burn their way to a quick banning.

I guess I drew the short straw. It was going to happen somewhere eventually. You removed talk page posts at GoG, that had to be dealt with, and everything else followed.

If your approach to editing blew up somewhere else, it's just possible I'd have watched the case and given corroborating evidence at an ArbCom page as an independent witness. There's a chance you'd not have remembered me in that scenario.

If I were you, I'd check your entire contrib history, check the talk pages and edit histories of articles where you've been bold. You may well find John254.

I also recommend you stop trying to silence criticism against yourself by assuming bad motives in the critics. That is precisely what this whole situation is about. Some smart people wouldn't bother giving you words to play with, just confront you with the evidence. Stupid me has been trying to talk you out of what you've been doing.

On a lighter note Ilkali, I can, however, admit to being connected with John 3:16. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple 'no' would have sufficed. Ilkali (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For you, perhaps, but you are not the only one here. And by all means ignore my friendly advice. That is your priveledge, I'm well aware you didn't ask for it. You never have. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you there Ilkali?

I've probably been somewhat slack in looking at the statements made against me so far. I'm actually focussed on other things than this ArbCom atm, and the process gives us plenty of time. Anyway, I had the pleasure of reading Ilkali's evidence recently. It was a pleasure because he admitted some incivility, especially in his early interactions. Now, that goes a long way with me. Can I clarify please? Are you meaning this in regard to interaction with me, or on other pages? If it relates to interaction with me, is it alright for me to take it as a qualified and limited apology, but in no way undermining your perceptions of improper behaviour on my part? The reason I ask is because I want to accept that apology, it opens the door for us to reflect on whether I over-reacted to my perceptions of your comments. My personality prefers to defend myself rather than accuse others, and I'd actually like to move there, and others want that too. I've had no quarrell with you for some time Ilkali, but I'd be even happier if we'd settled that the early stages had involved issues you've acknowledged to some extent and we could forget them and move on. This isn't a bid to stop you raising your issues regarding later times, I want you to feel free to hit me with your best shot. I just want to clarify that as regards the beginning, what you've said is plenty enough to remove any quarell in me towards you regarding that. What do you say? Alastair Haines (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've said the same thing. See this comment made in the RfC. I'm going to renege slightly on what I said there, though, in that I am going to withhold any apologies until I'm satisfied that you recognise that you are also at fault. Otherwise I think I'd just be encouraging the mindset that you can do nothing wrong. I'm not asking for an apology from you because I don't care if I receive one. I'm asking for you to agree that both of us are guilty of significant breaches of etiquette, including making personal attacks and assuming bad faith, and that these breaches inspired further breaches in the other person. Ilkali (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, but political, which is an option you have the right to take.

Ilkali's diff says the following.

01:31, 10 July 2008 "I'm not. And I'm happy to apologise when I think I have erred. I apologised when I mistakenly removed the gender section from the article, and I'm willing to apologise for a few of the harsher things I said to Alastair. But I won't apologise for criticising his attitude to editing, and he won't be satisfied until I do."

A lot of people's time has been taken away from editing because of the length of time taken for you to say that you are willing to apologise to me, although you didn't actually do it. Why didn't you post to my talk page the apology you say you were willing to make? Alastair Haines (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, you seem to have an obsession with apologies. I'll wager I could find at least ten instances of you talking about people apologising to you, and it makes me think that you place more significance on them than the apologising party intends. Specifically, I suspect you take apologies as admissions of defeat and inferiority - that they place the apologiser below you in some imaginary social hierarchy. When I told Teclontz that I was willing to apologise for some things, my meaning was just that I recognised they warranted an apology. I had never intended to deliver an apology until conditions similar to those I describe above had been met.

"A lot of people's time has been taken away from editing because of the length of time taken for you to say that you are willing to apologise to me". What does this mean? How exactly would things have been different if I'd apologised to you immediately? Ilkali (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, anyone who's been married, dated, or had kids, knows that an apology simply means that you have good will. You don't need to be convinced you did wrong or even intended wrong. All you need is for someone to make you aware that they've taken offense. That's all. People who mean harm and have bad will refuse to apologize. People who mean help and have good will are quick to apologize. It's healthy.

And thanks for the reminder, because I've spoken rather forcefully here -- Ilkali, I've spoken unkindly about your syntax and spelling. I know we are all honestly trying to write well here, and we are all working hard at it. It was unkind of me. I should have simply corrected you without making any further comments here. It was uncivil of me, and I apologize.

I think that if we were to ask L'Aquatique -- had everyone kissed and made up a long time ago, we wouldn't have been here now.

Can we all apologize to each other now and call it a day? I think that's called... civility.Tim (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"an apology simply means that [...]". What an apology normally means is of limited relevance here. What matters is what an apology would mean to Alastair. Can you please be quiet so I can speak to him one-to-one?

"I know you've honestly tried to write well here, and you've worked hard at it. It was unkind of me. I should have simply corrected it without making any comments". I find it ridiculous that you're making veiled insults in this of all places. Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me try this again -- Ilkali, I apologize if my previous apology has offended you. I didn't mean to, and I can see how you could easily have taken that. In fact, reading it again it makes perfect sense. Would you mind if I tried again? Obviously we all have strong feelings here. Obviously you've seen yourself correcting my syntax and I've seen myself correcting yours. That's the nature of disagreement, and the nature of communal editing. In any case, I've not been offended by your attempts to correct me, but I apologize if my attempts to correct you have offended you, and I apologize if my apology has offended you. I'm not trying to be jizzy. I'm really trying hard here. Can we start mending fences here? I'm really trying to hold out my hand, and if I've offended you again, I will apologize again. But we need to start somewhere. Someone has to.Tim (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Teclontz, my impression is that you are jumping into every discussion and making as much noise as possible to distract away from what is actually being discussed. On that ground, yes, I mind if you try again. I'd rather simply not talk to you. Ilkali (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, thanks for wanting to talk one to one. That's appreciated on my part. Here's a small confusion I have. I'm not being cute.

Ilkali: "When I told Teclontz that I was willing to apologise for some things, my meaning was just that I recognised they warranted an apology."

That sounds like the only condition for an apology, according to you, is that it is warranted. Great! I agree.

Ilkali: "I suspect you take apologies as admissions of defeat and inferiority."

Again, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But this is a new definition of apology. It has an additional condition, something along the lines of "unless it is going to be taken the wrong way."

Personally, I don't care how people take my apologies, if I owe 'em I give 'em. But if I'm the receiver, I care that they are sincere. I value apologies highly, not to "count scalps", but to write off the past and get on with the future. If I can do things to help someone apologise sincerely, I will go out of my way to help. Many people find sincere apologies the "hardest word to say". Many people find apologies hard to accept too.

Read my first post in this thread again. I guessed you might want to guard an apology a little or a lot. You've been very helpful to explain that my guess was correct and why.

Now, I don't think I can prove to you that I'm not the "scalp counting" type. I don't know what your experiences with people are, perhaps you have good evidence from personal experience that sort of thing is pretty common. I know exactly what you mean, I've met people like that too. Come to think of it, despite being the apologising type myself (my friends tell me to stop saying "sorry"), there are people I'd not apologise to, because I don't think they'd treat it with the respect it deserves. Apologies are kind of a request something like, "OK I see I made things difficult for you, I'll be more careful in future, can we drop it now?" If I figure if someone won't drop it, what's the point in asking them to? Don't give 'em more food to vent even worse at me.

Nope, I'm not a grudge, quite the opposite. Try me! And burn the heck out of me if I don't live up to my word.

Do me one last favour though, if you buy into this, try really hard to think good faith things about me and be specific about a couple of things you're apologising for. The bigger and more generous you are in this, the more you will impress and help me, and a lot of other people at this page.

In fact, I will defend you against all comers, if anyone dares to hassle you ever, on account of an issue between you and me only, that YOU (not me) settled by an apology. It's our business, not anyone else's. Does that make sense?

I'll say one more thing to try to help. You might be surprised, but I actually like you. I'm as frustrated as all heck about a mess I think you have a big part in. But I distinguish between the mistakes and the good faith behind those mistakes. I have to oppose the mistakes, but an apology helps separate the person from the mistake. While a person backs the mistake, the two get opposed together. The point here is I admire and want to reinforce your courage. I just can't endorse that when it's directed against my character, or that of any future Wikipedians you may encounter. Attack the ball as hard as you can in your impressive Ilkali way, just work hard to make sure the man and the ball are a good distance apart. Sorry if I sound like your dad.

Think about it. Give me (and all of us) as much as you can, YOU are in the driving seat. The more you trust me and everyone to make this all turn out nice, the more likely YOU will lead us to the first ever ArbCom that solves its own problems before ArbCom even get to it. That would be an impressive start to Wiki for Ilkali. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I will never render an apology, even one that I think is warranted, if I think that doing so will make things worse. That's the case here.

"I distinguish between the mistakes and the good faith behind those mistakes". Alastair, you have called me a troll, accused me of disruptive editing, described me as a "trouble maker", etc, etc. It's only after this ArbCom case has been raised that you've started acting nicely toward me, so I hope you'll understand if I'm not convinced.

If you don't mind, I'd like a response to this part of my previous comment:

"A lot of people's time has been taken away from editing because of the length of time taken for you to say that you are willing to apologise to me". What does this mean? How exactly would things have been different if I'd apologised to you immediately?

Ilkali (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, it was a lot to hope for. But I'm more confused than ever. Is it three times you've said you're willing to apologise, but now you're saying you're not?

I'm not being nice to you even now Ilkali. Or, I've been nice all along. It depends how one looks at it.

I'm not the only one who thinks you've been disruptive. The evidence is obvious. There's not a single source on the topic of the article in your talk page comments. Not even a source on any topic. Just 25 edits in the mainspace, mainly reversions of text, forcing people to engage with tangents and personal issues raised by you when Alastair or Tim tried to add sourced text or restore stable text. If that's not trolling, disruptive editing and trouble making, what is? L'Aquatique is quite right, in a sense, honesty requires no apology (unless you have people skills).

Ilkali, you have demonstrated precisely what "ownership" of an article means. Unless people were in line with your view, had your approval or you didn't care, things could not progress. It doesn't matter what names we give to what you were doing. Wiki policies all focus on one purpose, building articles. Anyone can edit, not everyone builds. Did you build the article? Have you been building, or getting in the way of the builders?

By all means keep insisting your contribution was saving the article from Alastair's "ownership", you've done nothing wrong and don't owe Alastair an apology. Make it "him or me". Let's see what people think. I want to spare you (and all of us) that. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious, Alastair. Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Eagle-eyed and interesting observation Lisa. I guess it's because I view things from the third person. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Is it three times you've said you're willing to apologise, but now you're saying you're not?" I think by now I've made my position extremely clear.

Regarding your various accusations, I suggest you make your case on the evidence page. My point is merely that you cannot call someone a troll while simultaneously saying their contributions are in good faith.

"By all means keep insisting your contribution was saving the article from Alastair's "ownership", you've done nothing wrong and don't owe Alastair an apology". Not only am I not "insisting" any of those things, I haven't ever claimed them. I've even, in this very thread acknowledged that I haven't "done nothing wrong". This kind of misrepresentation is why there is an "Alastair is dishonest" section in my evidence.

Lastly, and for the third time: "A lot of people's time has been taken away from editing because of the length of time taken for you to say that you are willing to apologise to me". What does this mean? How exactly would things have been different if I'd apologised to you immediately? Ilkali (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Try it -- my guess is he'll be more accepting than you were just now.Tim (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ilkali, you have made your position clear. You want to appear to others as though you're open to admitting fault. But you don't actually specify which faults, when or that you can see the consequences of your actions and words.

Where I speculate good faith is that I genuinely believe you can't see the consequences of your actions. Even now as we talk on an ArbCom page, you can't see that people's time is being consumed by this process. If you can't see this now, how could you possibly have foreseen it when you were saying and doing the things I've noted in evidence?

Where I also defend you is that others have given you confidence all along the way that there's no serious concern with your style. We all tend to be right in our own eyes, but this is reinforced when others affirm us. I am more concerned about those who have affirmed you than with you yourself. They have not done you a kindness. It seems easy at the time, the bite comes later. I, on the other hand, put myself at risk to warn you, and spare lots of people and lots of time. I was an idiot. Why do good that no one will understand and only turn against you? Well, it's a bad habit of mine. I live in the silly delusion that such things make a difference.

I presumed to do you the favour of alerting you with gradually increasing warnings that you were crossing "no go" lines. You chose to ignore my warnings. Normal people have limited time and patience, it's not a matter of bias or personal hatred, it's a matter of simple practicality. You kept showing evidence of being oblivious of this. Someone needed to warn you before there was a nasty accident. But whoever did warn you ran the risk of being bitten for trying. It was when I stopped interacting with you and let you have your way that I abandoned you to negative consequences. I delayed that as long as I could. I admit I lost patience when you accused me of bad faith, I told you that, and I pulled out, letting you have your way.

I'm not actually saying anything new here. I'm actually just carrying through to the end, precisely the principles I was applying in our very first interactions. I was even telling you what these principles are at various stages. I have been through interactions like this hundreds of times in my life. They all have different outcomes, depending on the person involved.

Lets drop the abstractions like apologies, and get to the specifics those abstractions refer to. Can you quote words you've said to me or about me that you now think are wrong or inappropriate? Can you provide a diff of an edit that, on reflection, you think did not show appropriate respect for the situation? You're smart, you've had time to think, you've had me, Tim and others point you to many of these. Can you provide evidence that you've used your brain, and the time and the advice of others to clearly specify where something you said or did had unwarrented negative consequences for me. A tiny example will do. I want you to strengthen your position, not weaken it. And I'm not even asking for an apology. Can you do this?

I'm seriously trying to help here. Not only will I not take advantage, I will "forget" each thing you self-correct, not only that I will defend you passionately on each of these points. They are business between you and me. No one else has the right to hassle you in regard to something you've put right between us. Once said, it's over and done.

Give it go Ilkali! People will crucify me if I break my word anyway. ;)

Alastair Haines (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"You want to appear to others as though you're open to admitting fault. But you don't actually specify which faults". I don't have anything to prove to you, Alastair. I'm happy to be judged by the arbitration committee. Ilkali (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Ilkali. You have just proved something to me anyway. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim's POV causing problem in Jewish articles

Tim has raised the issue of the MedCab case I requested for the Shituf article. So I'd like to address that issue here, since I think it illustrates the core of the conflict between me and Tim. It's my hope that Tim will be instructed by admins and sysops together that his methodology is not appropriate to Wikipedia.

On July 7, 2008, I requested that the Mediation Cabal consider the article on Shituf ([40]), with the following goal:

To prevent the distortion of an article on a Jewish concept and to prevent editors from using non-Jewish (Christian) definitions of terms within the article. And to prevent editors from introducing a "Christian views" section into an article which is not about Christianity.

Those of you who have read Tim's non-stop attacks on me in this RfA may have seen Tim claim that I requested that Tim be prevented from editing articles on Jewish content. If anyone hasn't seen that, please let me know, and I'll find diffs, but there'll 5-10 of them, at least.

Since Tim and Carlaude are the other involved parties (aside from me), it's clear that I was aiming this case directly at the two of them, although I intentionally didn't mention them in the request details, because I'd like this to be a rule across the board.

My issue is not with a non-Jew editing an article on a Jewish concept. My issue is the intrusion of a Christian POV into such articles. For example, if I were to go into the article on Christianity and add a paragraph stating that the Hebrew Bible denies the idea that the Messiah could be a deity, with a footnote to a reliable Jewish source on the matter, it would be highly inappropriate. Because while that may be true (and is) from a Jewish viewpoint, inserting it into that article would be both picking a fight and denying Christians the right to define their own concept here. There's an article called Christianity and Judaism, where such differences of opinion can be given voice, and that's fine.

Which brings us to the article on the Jewish concept of Shituf. Traditional Judaism views Christian worship of a trinity to be non-monotheistic. Yes, there are modern views in liberal movements and views among those dedicated to interfaith dialog which try and get around this basic fact, but it's the verifiable and sourced view of all Jewish sources addressing the question until the beginnings of liberal Jewish movements about two hundred years ago.

Tim feels that the Jewish understanding of the Christian trinity is erronious. That what Judaism views as non-monotheistic, Christians view as non-monotheistic as well. That Judaism looks at Trinitarianism and incorrectly sees Arianism.

Without going any further, this itself is original research and synthesis on Tim's part. Because there's no rabbinic source that even addresses concepts such as Trinitarianism or Arianism. It's Tim's personal conclusion that the concept Judaism rejects is Arianism. And he has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to see to it that the article on Shituf carry this caveat. At one point, he had a "Christian views" section in the article, which is like a "Jewish views" section in Trinitarianism.

I've explained to Tim that Judaism doesn't care about such concepts. That the law in Judaism is that intent (three aspects as opposed to three powers, for example) does not mitigate worship that Judaism views as non-monotheistic. I've pointed him to the Heresy of Peor article which includes the basic Jewish source on that. And while I've mentioned this to him probably a dozen times, he has refused to so much as address it. He won't agree and he won't disagree; he simply acts as though I'd said nothing.

Today, Tim has said the following:

([41]): If they object to the worship of the trinity, then they should ADDRESS that worship instead of Arianism. Novak did so. Lisa, the base facts are that a criticism of a belief should be directed to the actual belief. People criticize Jews for needing human blood on passover. But is that a statement about Judaism itself, or about the accusing party? Clearly we need to either cite references in which terms and definitions are consistent, or recognize the inconsistency -- anything less violates NPOV.

Here Tim is saying that if Judaism (i.e. the rabbis) object to worship of the trinity, they should address that. Which they do. But what he means, is that they need to address it in terms that he is willing to accept as reflecting what he understands to be the underlying philosophy of Trinitarianism. And he adds "instead of Arianism". Which, for the umpteenth time, is never mentioned by the rabbis. Tim looks at what the rabbis say and concludes that it matches the Christian heresy of Arianism. And then insists that his conclusion be treated as fact on Wikipedia.

And then accuses me of POV.

I have a POV, just like everyone. But I respect the Wikipedia policy of articles being NPOV. Tim wants to inject a Christian POV into an article that is about a Jewish concept and require the Jewish concept, in a manner of speaking, to bow to the Christian concepts. I've tried to understand why he's doing this. My attempts to understand it have crossed a line into attributing motives to Tim which may or may not be his real motives. But after I've tried for months and months to get Tim to understand that what he is doing is unfair, biased, contrary to Wikipedia policy and results in intellectual dishonesty (whether he is intellectually honest or not), I thought that trying to understand why he insists on doing this might help. It hasn't.

Is it a bit more understandable now why I opened that MedCab case? Why I asked:

To prevent the distortion of an article on a Jewish concept and to prevent editors from using non-Jewish (Christian) definitions of terms within the article. And to prevent editors from introducing a "Christian views" section into an article which is not about Christianity.

Since Tim has opened the door to this subject by bringing his accusations against me into this arbitration case, I'd like to move my request from the MedCab case over here and ask that what I requested there be granted here.

I would also like a ruling that I did not ask that Tim (or any editor) be barred from editing articles on Jewish concepts. This is a clear misrepresentation of what I did (and do) ask, and I don't believe that Tim will stop spreading the falsehood unless the admin and sysop folks tell him flat out that he's mistaken. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, didn't you and Tim just promise to stop using this page as a battleground? L'Aquatique[talk] 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not fair, L'Aquatique. Tim has posted this enormous attack on me, and it isn't even on the Talk page but on the main evidence page. No one told him, "Hey, that's nasty. Don't do that". He has continued (even today) to accuse me of everything but the kitchen sink.

I have an ongoing problem with Tim, and by hell, I'm entitled to ask for help with it here. And I'm tired of you accusing me of just "squabbling" every time I raise a very real issue. Am I allowed to ask for third party help with what's going on with Tim or not? If not, why not?

Tim posted this ([42]) today. You didn't say one word criticizing him for "using this page as a battleground". I'm not sure what you expect. That I should just ignore his incessant attacks and lies against me, and not respond? This is an open case, and I've been made a target. I would ask you to please stop trying to prevent me from defending myself and from obtaining help with a serious problem. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have a source that uses NPOV terminology, but Lisa reverted my use of his terminology and the cited reference, because the author was a Conservative Jewish Rabbi and not an Orthodox one.Tim (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not helping, Tim... L'Aquatique[talk] 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And he's not being honest with you anyway. I took out his terminology because it's 100% unsupported by any authoritative Jewish sources. I have his book on order from the library so that I can look at it, but I suspect that it's Novak's personal synthesis, and not anything supported by Jewish sources. As such, it's notable as one opinion of one Conservative rabbi, but hardly a reliable source for the concept itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa -- it's notable and verifiable. But most important: its in English! I don't care what smicha a historian has, as long as he's both accurate and intelligible. It isn't just Orthodox Jews who read this encyclopedia. I'll shut up now (sorry L'Aquatique).Tim (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, that's enough from both of you.

Tim, please examine your contributions to the workshop and consider making them less point-y. (for example, I'd like to see this rephrased: "the accusation of an edit war on a single party is illogical and betrays a (not so well) hidden agenda"... I hope I don't have to remind you that there really is no cabal, hidden agenda, etc).

Lisa, for the love of G-d... Can you please, instead of posting incessantly complaining about Tim to anyone who will listen, spend your time digging up some some good diffs, add them to evidence, and let arbcom sort this out? Your actions are not helping your case in the slightest. Same goes to you, Tim. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were doing live action simulations for you guys. Who needs diffs when we can repeat the behaviour at will? ;-)Tim (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We get the gist, and I enjoy the jest, but it is best not to jizzy on the jury. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive of Alastair's evidence regarding Ilkali

Below is an archive of Alastair's first presentation of sample evidence against Ilkali. Alastair, having now researched Ilkali more closely, realises he was wrong. He assumed too much good faith in Ilkali. The presentation seems helpful in demonstrating how Alastair tries to assume good faith, and because it analyses in detail some of the techniques Ilkali uses, which confuse those he interacts with. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Ilkali is taking time to understand the processes

• Ilkali first arrived at the page and modified the lead:

from "Many religions believe in a God or gods. These religions have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons."

to "The entity God is a component of many religions, which have a range of views regarding its gender."

• The text Ilkali replaced had been provided by me more than a year earlier.
• Before Ilkali's arrival, the page used to get more than 1,250 hits per month (it has doubled since). The stable text had survived about 15,000 hits and several hundred edits.
• I count 25 edits by Ilkali at the article. Nearly all are reverts or contain removal of text, specifically text originated by me, irrespective of them being stable, sourced or endorsed by others, such as Tim.
• I think the only edits of Ilkali's currently standing in the text are this and this.
• The reverts and removals have only been made against my edits and Tim's, specifically Tim's that endorsed mine.
• For long periods, every edit I made was reverted by Ilkali.
• Ilkali has nearly always considered his edit summary sufficient discussion. He has never once sought my opinion on an edit, or opened discussion with me before reverting me.
• He does, however, respond to everything I post in talk, though this often does not constitute seriously engaging with the issue. For example quoting me, but providing "So what?" as his argument to three of my points.
• I not particularly concerned with which policies Ilkali may be breaking here, but the reality has been I've been a "marked man", unable to edit without Ilkali's approval, and he's never once accepted any argument or modified form of text I've provided. Or, for that matter, any text of his own, sourced or otherwise—just immovably blocked my edits, almost always sourced and always verifiable.
• It "feels" to me like he plays to a crowd, offering arguments sufficient to persuade others that he should be supported in opposing my editing. Often presumed or actual support is offered as sufficient grounds to render my content arguments and sources irrelevant. See more under ad hominem below.

Ilkali removed a talk page post of Alastair's 3 times in 24 hours

• 01:13, 27 May 2008
• 01:08, 27 May 2008
• 17:34, 26 May 2008

• In two years at Wiki I've never needed to 3RR or WQA anyone (but see Lisa below). I've always backed out and found ways around the issues. Ilkali was immovable, but it was only when he removed a post I'd written in reply to a long standing discussion with User:Andowney I got upset. Andrew and I had been amicably disagreeing for more than a year, and Andrew had just come up with a really quality source against my view of scholastic consensus in Daniel B. Wallace, but also provided an excellent one against his own in Liturgicam Authenticam.
• It was at this point I seriously revisited the dispute resolution process. Actually I went to the ArbCom page first, but saw the sense in informal processes like WQA. I warned Ilkali, and with the 4th revision started the WQA process. The first poster agreed with Ilkali, which surprised me, I anticipated that things were not going to be easy, unwatched the page and hoped for the best. I got a couple of weeks of peace to get on with serious work on other articles and projects. Please note here, that despite a long period of frustration with Ilkali, and providing warnings regarding edit warring, I did not want to place him at risk of blocking, I wanted him to listen to other views before editing, nothing more.
• As soon as the WQA finished in his favour he removed my post to Andrew again. Since no one had bothered to discuss the result with me before making it, I restored the post. When User:Abtract who was Ilkali's "consensus" at the time moved everything to an archive, Ilkali finally stopped deleting the post.

Ilkali has a habit of arguing ad hominem

• Ilkali actually defined his own view of ad hominem at 11:07, 6 May 2008 in Talk:Gender of God/Archive 1#Problems with the intro.

'"X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he's fat" is an ad hominem.

"X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he doesn't know anything about grammar" is not.'

• I think this partly explains the whole problem we face at the moment. It all stems from Ilkali believing it is appropriate to argue ad hominem in cases like he describes, hence circumventing WP:No personal attacks. It might sound odd to suggest I think Ilkali makes personal attacks in good faith, but that's precisely what I believe. Of course, ultimately personal attacks are personal attacks and have defamatory consequences when unfounded. But from Ilkali's POV, the person being attacked is not a valid source of evidence regarding whether something is a personal attack or not. What disappoints me is not so much Ilkali's personal attacks, at least I can believe he doesn't realise what he's doing. What disappoints me is other editors and processes not setting him straight on the matter. Had they done so, we wouldn't be here today.
• In case the mistake in Ilkali's understanding is not clear. Let me explain how I can see it arising. A student frequently reads books where academics say: "X fails to appreciate the argument", "Y overstates the evidence", "Z is an expert on Indo-European languages, but not Semitic ones". These appear to be relevant to the case at hand, addressing relevant aspects of the scholars being criticised. However, what Ilkali seems to have overlooked is that these are the conclusions of arguments, not their premises. They are summary statements of the arguments to follow. Ilkali, however, wants to start from "X knows no grammar" to argue that "X is wrong about this point of grammar". Of course this is invalid. The Infinite monkey theorem points out that even a lucky set of guesses might produce a valid argument. A scholar's well known incompetance or bias might be good grounds to anticipate an entertainingly poor argument, but it is not proof. In fact, the scholar's argument, if poor, can be disproved without even needing to resort to ad hominem language. Precisely, I thought, the point of WP:No personal attacks.
• Why I believe Ilkali does this in good faith is because he did it to Tim too in Talk:Gender of God#New Intro. In my reading (and Tim's) as Ilkali finds another editor disagreeing with his arguments, when further counter arguments run out, he attributes to the other editor either motives that stop him listening or an inability to understand Ilkali's arguments. When you're absolutely sure you're right, and pursuaded by your own arguments, what else can you do? Well, some of us might feel we could be overlooking something and actually be wrong ourselves. Perhaps Ilkali does this sometimes, but in the many examples of him being presented with sources and arguments by Alastair and Tim, he has ended up resorting to ad hominem, at which point he always wins, because then his opponent has no valid come-back. Especially if the crowd endorse his ad hominem, which has happened frequently.
• Unless this rather simple matter is addressed, Alastair and Tim won't be the only ones who end up having to tolerate, give in or seek community support in conflicts with Ilkali. But there's another point, in my particular case, the ad hominem's extended to my edit style, rather ironically suggesting I'm stubborn (which I do sometimes choose to be), but expressing this as characteristic (which he can't know) and as completely oblivious to the opinions of others (which can clearly be demonstrated to be false even in Ilkali's own case).
• The fact that the personal attacks have de-famed me is proven by this very ArbCom case. L'Aquatique has given credence to views that ultimately arise in the light of interpretation of my actions first provided by Ilkali, then repeated by others. They are not the only interpretation, nor are they a likely interpretation if two years of editing, or real life aquaintance are investigated. They are serious (in a Wiki context) allegations, based on hearsay interpretation in a specific context, where that context alone has not been adequately explored.
• Please note here that I'm not looking for vengance, I'm just wanting the air cleared by adequate examination. I personally propose no sanctions on anyone, and will defend Ilkali, L'Aquatique and others were the committee to propose such measures on them. What has happened seems to me to reflect limited time available to volunteers, my own unwillingness to get messed up with WQA, my own choice to meet Ilkali's (imo) stubbornness with modified counter-stubbornness, and the consequence is me appealing to the most generous volunteers of all to clear my name and that of those who administer processes at Wiki.

Archive of Alastair's replies to critics regarding language

Some replies to critics

Language

• As a general rule I simply ignore what I consider to be bad language and focus on concrete issues. But since my critics have raised the point, I'll address it. Politeness is an addiction for me. However, my critics have demonstrated they have no such hang-ups. Normally I would let it pass, I don't apply my standards to others. But it's just crazy to let the evidence on this page inaccurately represent the language that has been used elsewhere.
• The main aim of much of the criticism of me below is to establish evidence that I have indicated that I perceive error in their actions or words, in language they claim is offensive. I could have responded to this as L'Aquatique did above, but I am more restrained, in this case at least, than any of my critics, as words on this page alone demonstrate.
• A lengthy exercise would be to show diffs of earlier comments by each critic where they had already used stronger language to indicate their perception of error in my actions or words. But often the immediate context of the diffs offered against me are enough to establish this. Several of my critics have even noted my distinctive politeness in other places on these pages.
• Instead, what I will show is the earliest and strongest language used by each critic.
• Although one would normally assume that if someone uses a certain level of language against you, they signal that such language would be acceptable in return, I have not accepted such an invitation. I do not believe two wrongs make a right. It doesn't matter who started something, we don't have to join in.
• My blanket claim is that in all cases my language never passes a strict threshold (for example, I never swear), it is restrained and is, moreover, accurate. In many cases it is also moderated by being expressed as an opinion, a courtesy I don't recall being shown to me by my critics.
• Finally, an attempt is made to shame me for protestations of innocence. This is outrageous! Rather than intensifying counter accusations, it has long been my habit in real life and Wiki to instead respond by self defense. What do we come to if we do not allow people to assert their innocence and offer grounds for it? If there is any shame in such a situation, where does it lie? It is precisely the consistent attempts of the critics to discredit and silence testimony counter to their own that gives me an ugly feeling about the whole situation.

• Ilkali

18:30, 6 May Edit summary (for reversion to his own edit away from stable text): "This is" ... "this is not"—general assertive rather than collaborative tone.

08:55, 6 May Ilkali's first talk page post: "clumsy", "guff" and general tone—this is the way it is, these are the alternatives.

Follow up comments from Ilkali 20 minutes later. "Do you seriously not recognise the distinction between adherents of a religion and the religion itself?" "Most Jews and Christians don't know what a proper noun is. I suspect you don't either."

Did I bite back. No. I politely addressed what I think most would consider rudeness. Ilkali's response was to become firmer, not softer. If it was offensive of me to gently post a comment regarding appropriate language, how much more is it inappropriate for Ilkali to have posted here his views on mine?

• L'Aquatique

"borderline uncivil", "passive aggressive", "stubborn as an ox", "unwilling to accept the decisions of consensus", "hurl accusations" 03:44, L'Aquatique 7 July 2008

The above said when there was no consensus, just a mediation I had called, inviting several people I knew disagreed with me already. My very measured response is here.

"It will be a cold day in hell before I apologize for being honest." L'Aquatique, 19:35, 6 July 2008

An option she clearly wasn't willing to consider was available to me. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding Alastair's replies, critics and language

Shouldn't this be in the evidence section? We only get a certain amount of space to state our cases, Alastair, posting on the talk page as a work-around probably won't gain you any favors with the clerks and arbiters. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Coren recommended this option to me. I'm not particularly fussed where evidence is gathered, obviously there is more evidence bearing on the case than can be included on the evidence page. Fair consideration of all issues will need to gather some things somewhere. I'm just doing as requested.

I can easily interpret your words as motivated by attempts to limit what I may want to say to help processes. I don't think that looks good for you L'Aquatique. Even if it's just wiki-lawyering it doesn't look good either.

Apologies for reflecting your pattern of providing unsolicited advice. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For other users, the recommendation in question is here. I'm not sure I interpret it the same way you do, but that call isn't really mine to make. Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record: evidence "spilling over", as it were, to the talk page is perfectly acceptable (and a good way to avoid running afoul of the statement limit on the project page). Note, however, that the Arbitrators are unlikely to give more than a passing glance to evidence presented here unless a compelling argument is made for it, and it is still best to make your (terse) case on the project page proper. — Coren ^(talk), for the arbitration Committee, 19:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Collusion?

This ArbCom was raised by L'Aquatique on the grounds of a question, no more, of collusion between Tim and I in regard to Lisa (which we both deny).

It is only fair to note that L'Aquatique is also suspect of collusion, specifically in regard to Lisa. A relationship not explicitly disclosed by her in the current process. To me, L'Aquatique's action looks opportunistic, to silence a party that might give evidence against her in future settings. It's a nasty, bad-faith interpretation, I only offer it because we're clearing things up in this process. I'd love to know that I'm wrong about this. Though I can't see how innocence can be proven.

Regarding Tim and I, each of us had clear independent motive for reverting Lisa, and both of us sought to interact with her on talk prior to reverting. Tim was restoring his sourced text, I was restoring stable, verifiable text. Lisa's boldness just happened to involve removing text important to more than one editor, and choosing to do so many times, drawing many reverts. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"L'Aquatique is also suspect of collusion, specifically in regard to Lisa. A relationship not explicitly disclosed by her in the current process". They're guilty of collusion because they've previously posted to one another's talk pages? And if not disclosing relationships is an issue, aren't you guilty as well? Did you explicitly disclose your relationship with Buster7 or Miguel.mateo?

"I'd love to know that I'm wrong about this. Though I can't see how innocence can be proven". I'd be more concerned about whether guilt can be proven. At the moment all I see is wild speculation. Ilkali (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ilkali, there's nothing wild about it. It is far more plausible than almost anything said about me, particularly by you. Leave it for ArbCom, Ilkali, I'm sure they'll show fair dealing in this, they've got as long as they need to gather all the evidence and testimony they need to make a fair ruling. I'm just making sure I get everything on the table before the discussions officially start. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"there's nothing wild about it. It is far more plausible than almost anything said about me, particularly by you". My evidence against you is detailed and discussed elsewhere. Your opinion of it is of little relevance here. Anyway, my point is just that the entirety of the evidence you have presented for collusion is that the two have communicated via talk pages. Half the reason for my commenting was just to check that you hadn't accidentally pasted the wrong link. Is this really the evidence you wanted to submit? Ilkali (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this part was funny. I mean, L'Aquatique has basically tried to shut me down every time I've disputed any of Tim's attacks. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Alastair's idea of "stable, sourced text" is at the root of the problem here. I changed ([43]) an edit that Alastair had made no more than a couple of weeks earlier (July 28: [44],[45]). I also removed the original research that led the section, and noted in the edit notes "Removed OR, removed weasel words, and moved classical Jewish view to the top". Alastair reverted it ([46]) with a note that said "restore description of primary source to top, and opinion pieces to following sections". This was at 13:30 on August 3. Contrary to Alastair's claims that he discussed this on the talk page, he only posted to the talk page 11 minutes later ([47]), after I'd restored my edit ([48]).

Another 11 minutes later, Alastair posted a warning to me on the talk page ([49]). I'd like to quote from that:

Lisa, stop edit warring. Edit notes are not discussion. Silence implies consent. You are altering text that has stood for more than a year without discussing it, when you know other editors are present and do not support your change. If you have a good case for your edit, make it here and we'll support you.

Alastair seems to be under the misapprehension that text gains some sort of immunity from editing after it's been there for a certain amount of time. Or that such text requires clearance from him before being changed. It's not true, and it reflects Alastair's basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, as well as his sense of ownership of articles.

Alastair's arbitrary rule that "silence implies consent" (a Talmudic maxim that Alastair used out of context, and found himself in the embarrassing position of having to reverse it in his own comments later on) has no basis. It's just his own personal assertion, used to legitimize his refusal to allow anyone to edit his article without his permission.

Furthermore, if his objection was purely to my removal of the WP:OR, he should have restored that part of the text alone. Instead, he reverted the entire edit. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia. You never revert an entire edit in order to restore part of it. By way of comparison, note this. After reverting my edit ([50]), Tim (SkyWriter) then added a source to the section ([51]). Because it was a legitimate source, I could no longer simply revert, but had to manually make the changes I want, so that Tim's source would not be thrown out along the way ([52]). This didn't make much of an impression on Tim, of course, because he immediately reverted my edit ([53]), without any discussion.

Alastair's claims are verifiably false. And what's more, what he claims about me is actually true about him, and to a greater extent, Tim. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lisa, leaving the details aside, here's some responses.

1. I am actually happy to take your word that there was no collusion between you and L'Aquatique. Consider that matter settled. It is settled because you've never lied in our interactions, you tell everyone exactly what you think, very clearly, all the time, often backed by sources, sometimes at length. I do have some issues with you, you can be honest but mistaken, but we can talk about that another time.

Excellent, thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Could you please talk with L'Aquatique to check if it's appropriate to her mind, and add the Talmud references somewhere at WP:SILENCE if you and she concur. Obviously the policy is not the same as the Talmud ref, and the Talmud ref isn't a reliable source for the policy in a Wikipedia context; however, it occurs to me that many Wikipedians would enjoy knowing of that connection. It would be educational and encyclopedic, imo, to add this information.

I'm not sure it's appropriate. I mean, it's not a fact article, so the similarity is simply an interesting bit of trivia. But I will quote something that's mentioned on that page: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." In other words, the moment I made my edit on August 3, there was no longer a consensus on the text of that article. This being the case, your claim that you were simply restoring consensus text failed. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Finally, Lisa, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence is what I'm talking about. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." And "editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references."

Correct. That means that there was a burden of proof that I had to satisfy, and a burden of proof that you had to satisfy. It seems evident that you consider my burden to be the main thing, and that you, since you were merely "restoring" text, had no burden of proof to satisfy.

I made two sets of changes that morning. One was the moving of the reliable sources (the only ones in the article that specifically addressed the question of how Judaism views God's gender, as opposed to sources that spoke only about how Jews talk about God's gender -- two very differentt hings) back to the top of the section, and removing the rather silly intros you'd added in order to try and turn them into personal opinions, as opposed to well sourced statements. We'd argued about this previously, and you made the change that I was fixing while I wasn't paying attention to the article (because of the fight you were having with Ilkali). I'd claim that I did satisfy the burden of proof at that time. At any rate, I certainly didn't just change the article in that way without saying anything. I just didn't bother to reiterate my arguments that morning.

The other change I made was the removal of the original research which used grammatical analysis of verses in the Torah to "prove" that Judaism viewed God as male. This has been an ongoing issue between us, and I do think it reflects an area where you could stand to learn something.

Judaism (up until about 2 centuries ago there was only Judaism, but Orthodox Judaism of today shares a continuity of thought about this) holds that the written Torah (the Pentateuch) is one small (vitally important, but relatively small) part of the Torah that God gave us at Sinai. The rabbis instituted an annual fast day that was observed until the destruction of the Second Temple in order to mourn the first translation of the Tanakh into Greek. The reason for this fast was that any book, separated from Authorial intent, can be (and in the case of the Bible certainly would be, and certainly has been) misinterpreted by readers over the centuries.

It is never reasonable to make your own analysis of the Bible and say, "This is the position of Judaism" based on that analysis. You can say, "I conclude from this that the Israelites during biblical times held these views", and we can argue about that, but until someone comes along with a time machine, it's pretty much going to be a stalemate. But you can't say, "This is the position of Judaism". For that, you need to go to the rabbis. Or to external sources that rely on the rabbis. Because they were the teachers of Israel. What they said Judaism was, is what Judaism was, because they were the authorities.

Today, you can look at the Bible and see "an eye for an eye" and conclude that Judaism holds by lex talionis. And you can go to Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Renewal sources and find every single one of them pointing out that we never practiced lex talionis, and that the surface reading of the text of the Bible is misleading. At that point, you could say that "Lex talionis is mentioned in the Bible", if you like, and rely on some extra-Judaism views that Jewish sources have read a later abridgement of the law back into the past, but you could not say, "Judaism holds by lex talionis".

To attempt to figure out or substantiate Jewish views from the biblical text isn't something that can't be done, but it is the very definition of OR. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be really nice, Lisa, is if you'd do me a crazy favour, read the WP:V article and see if you could explain how I have misread it. I don't mean tell me how it backs your view, I mean explain which words there led me to have the wrong understanding that you think I have. I'm sure you get the point. I must have misinterpreted it. Can you explain how a reasonable person would have mistakenly got from what it says to what I say. That way you'd be showing me, kindly, how to improve, not giving up hope on me and trying to hope I go away. Do you see what I mean? I'm sure you do. Please help! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, all of this is fairly unrelated to Alastair's accusation of collusion. I think it might be better to keep it for your evidence page. Ilkali (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, this is nuts. I have no outside relationships mentioned with any of the editors here, no collusion, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm buddies with Tim (skywriter) on-wiki, and I think Lisa sees this as me being biased toward him, but I'm not. I feel I've supported her a good deal, and in cases wherein I've "shut her down", I was actually shutting down Tim as well if you look at my actual responses. In addition, I think Alastair misunderstands my reason for opening the case. I opened it because I believed that his poor behavior and personal attacks were driving away editors and putting a bad face to the encyclopedia. I had no intention to make this about Tim, to make it about Lisa, or even to make it about Ilkali, because in my opinion none of them are involved in the real issue here: Alastair makes personal attacks. If he edit wars, fine, whatever, that's an administrative thing. My problem with this is he calls people with differing opinions trolls! I have not seen this from any of the other parties.

All of this reeks of ad hominem logic. L'Aquatique[talk] 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes L'Aquatique, ad hominem is the issue in this case, it is personal attack, it is defamatory and representatives of Wikipedia should close it down, not spread it. Above I demonstrate how such accusations should be made, and Ilkali demonstrates how ridiculous they are. It has not stopped him from making them himself; and you, and others, copying him. You can see ad hominem when it applies to you, but not when you apply it to others. Hence, apologies are owed. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I didn't copy anybody. I alone can be blamed for my actions here, although no blame is owed because I didn't make personal attacks.

Here's the problem, Alastair- Ilkali made borderline comments, and instead of handling it with due process, instead of going to an administrator for help, you took the law into your own hands, wiki-stalked him, and labelled him a troll. Were his comments inappropriate? From what I see, yes. But that doesn't excuse your own actions.

It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior... as it is to attack any other user.

That's straight from our no personal attacks policy. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So the question is, who's judgement is correct? Yours or mine? That's what this has been about for some time--your personal involvement, inappropriate language and escalation to mask your poor judgement and hasty decisions some time ago. You are far more culpable than Ilkali, and showing just as little reasonable attempt at defusing things.

Your accusation above that I stalked Ilkali is plainly inflamatory and not only slander, it is malicious slander. Withdraw it, or prove it! Directly! Admin please intervene. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume no one is watching this page, just leaving a date stamp, L'Aquatique's accusation that I have wiki-stalked Ilkali has not been proved or removed. Is there any rational reason it may even be speculated? There are "tools" to prove or disprove this sort of thing, does no one have the power to take responsibility in this matter? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another time stamp. I note that L'Aquatique has been active and not retracted her malicious slander, nor has anyone else made any attempt to do so. Cite evidence for this, please, or withdraw it, there is no privelege for what is not reasonable criticism, instead it is wilful. I also remind her that It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior... as it is to attack any other user. A fact that will be duly noted in evidence against her. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my "late" response... I'd say this is pretty good evidence of wikistalking: "Ilkali is a user who is still demonstrating misuse of BRD and other Wikipedia policies and is being watched and warned by me" -Alastair Haines. Sorry, Alastair, but I don't think you entirely get the concept of what slander, defamation, and personal attacks are. Holding you accountable for your actions is a good thing, I doubt another admin would intervene over this. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, L'Aquatique, appreciated. Clearly you have not proved the fact, but since you have found a possible bad-faith interpretation of my words, by all means let the accusation stand. It is your reputation that is more at stake, for both such an extraordinary, bad-faith interpretation, and what it suggests about you as judge of evidence, people and methods of escalation. But I will come to those in time. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

With his recent evidence edits, Alastair raised issues that took place almost a year ago, back when I genuinely was a new editor and long before I was involved in any disagreement with Alastair. Is this admissible evidence? I absolutely agree that I made mistakes then, but presenting it as evidence seems to presuppose that I haven't learned anything from them. If I'm as much of a problem now as Alastair claims then there should be plenty of evidence from the months that I've been dealing with him. Ilkali (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even this request is an example of your wikilawyering Ilkali. What others have reported is mild in comparison to what you have done to people involved in this case. You are worse, not better, and you have refused to apologise in our discussion above.

Invoke statute of limitations and I might as well revoke my permission for privelege to discuss outlandish allegations against my character.

I note here explicitly that I will not seek legal action to find the registration of your IP address for real world defamation. I stand by my loyalty to Wikipedia and upholding its reputation. Wikipedia volunteers don't have the time to protect themselves from people like you. Slander from anonymity is particularly cowardly and vile. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think wikilawyering means what you think it does. As far as I know, there is no rule or policy forbidding ancient events being presented as evidence. I certainly haven't cited one. I'm appealing to sense, not laws.

"What others have reported is mild in comparison to what you have done to people involved in this case. You are worse, not better, and [...]". Alastair, do you really have to reduce every discussion into a mudslinging match? I'm well aware of what you think of me, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this section.

And to make this absolutely clear, if it wasn't already: I'm not using the term 'statute of limitations' in a literal real-world legal sense. I'm suggesting that something similar be put into play here. Ilkali (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You dare to continue to accuse me of things that have never been true in our own interactions, let alone in any others in my hard work and constructive editing at Wikipedia. Shame on you. You have exploited my kindness and caused great trouble and heartache to many. I am glad that judgement in regard to you is in other hands than mine. I still expect no more than retraction and apology, and still seek no sanctions, but you no longer have my sympathy. I hope you have proposed sanctions on me, though, because others will certainly see that at least those sanctions are ones you yourself think appropriate for your behaviour. If I were you Ilkali, I'd change my ISP and start afresh. Or perhaps you've already done that before! Alastair Haines (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For clarification's sake, Alastair, do you have any objections to having any of your posts at Wikipedia examined, regardless of when you posted them? -Yamara ✉ 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a delight Yamara. Not at all. Get stuck into me with both boots if you wish. I'm happy to answer for my part in our exchange. Though you'll need to answer for yours of course. And if ever I say anything you think is unkind, please tell me. Criticise me as much as you like, for our incident and any others you may find. With hindsight I may even change my mind on somethings, probably not, but it has happened. Anyway, be my guest. I enjoyed your robust challenges, and was disappointed your friend asked you to stop discussing on the internet. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's fair all around. BTW, I don't know where in this maze this quote belongs, but R.C. Sproul (good Calvinist) once said, "I don't think I'm always right, but I always think I'm right." I hope we're all open to changing our minds about ourselves. And it's late for you, Alastair -- get some sleep!Tim (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I have been watching events here with a mixture of horror and amusement ... with not a little boredom thrown in. What is going on? Is Haines entirely sane? Is he gaming the system? Or, my worst nightmare, is he actually both sane and serious? I don't know what the answer is but someone put him out of his misery please. Abtract (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, are there any conditions associated with your release from the indefinate block? Disruption and personal attacks are OK? Alastair Haines (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, see WP:DNFTT. At first I thought Abstract was a supporter of yours trying to make criticism of you look bad by association, but as far as I can tell, he's for real. If you're willing to take my word for it, no one here is paying the least bit of attention to him except to disassociate themselves from his frothing. Use your time to discuss the real criticisms rather than wasting it on this. Just a suggestion. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks, Lisa, I'll take your word any day, you're very honest. And thanks too for the kind advice about tr-ll feeding (am I allowed to use that word or not <joke>). One of the things I hate about this thing is the way it's messed with your mind. What other people have said and done makes it hard for you to start with good faith understanding of anything associated with me. I think they have hurt you, not just me. That's the wicked thing about bearing false witness against one's neighbour. Not only do you potentially hurt him, you damage people who trust what you say. I'm glad you love your Torah, so do I. But yes, I've said all I need to say about Abtract, except one thing, but that'll come later if needed. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say... frothing was an outstanding choice of word. Well done.Tim (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the three of us just agreed on an edit together. (And I won't mention the Trinity.) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You REALLY need to get some sleep, Alastair...Tim (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Too right! I've had a few things on my mind recently, I'll tell you about them some day. ;) <decides not to quote Shakespeare and goes to bed> Alastair Haines (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Night John-boy!Tim (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

I may have found a partial way forward.

I have been compiling a summary of interaction between Ryusho and myself, and in the process making sure that I had not misread any of the posts in the mediation I attempted with regard to Ilkali's obstructive behaviour.

At the time of the discussions, it was my perception that L'Aquatique had been briefed by person or persons unknown to "handicap" me, in order that others may be heard.

I never said anything at the time because I hoped things would resolve themselves anyway, I haven't said things since because there have been other priorities. However, I now think I can prove that a reasonable reading of exchanges at the mediation case show the mediators deliberately bypassing me to hear opinions of others, and to settle matters contrary to my suggestions.

Either they were briefed, or agreed in private, or accepted Ilkali's early, obstructive attempt to discredit me in following discussion. In any case, as I've said, they can be demonstrated to have not taken my points reasonably into account, typically dismissing them as "academic". Readers of the whole text will see how patiently I accepted this, yet naturally tried to work around it.

The point is, did the mediators show partiality in accepting input, and the answer can be proven to be "yes". Now, rather than add even more fuel to the fire, and taking even more time from everyone. I suggest person or persons unknown step forward and "take the heat" off L'Aquatique and Ryusho, who did exactly what they were told to do.

I have also just found evidence that may support my reconstruction of the "hidden agenda". L'Aquatique actually gives it as an explanation for her actions. It passed me by at the time, because I usually keep conspiracy theories on hold and simply deal directly with people. But just because I don't play politics doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it, nor of how this can be done in good faith. In real life I've done it plenty of times myself. However, I am always willing to have the "buck stop with me", if I bungle things.

L'Aquatique's late arrival at the mediation suggests Ryusho was not party to these matters. As I've said, I admire him, I actually believe he is as much a victim in this as Tim, Lisa and myself. L'Aquatique's late arrival also leads me to question whether she "took the law into her own hands", or more likely, was sent by someone with an interest in silencing Alastair.

It has been my suspicion, for some time, that User:Ncmvocalist may be the "hidden hand" behind this case. This speculation is prompted by his appearance, out of the blue, to criticise me regarding the mediation case. I have also wondered if things at the FAC for anekantavada might have been influenced mildly by some hidden hand. The evidence is very subtle, but I speculate a connection.

Since Cailil has set us a good example of getting suspicion of undeclared involvement and relationships out in the open, I recommend certain hidden hands step forward and get L'Aquatique and Ryusho off the hook for the evidence I'm collecting against them. The fact is, yes, they were biased against me before the mediation began, yes, this is because a decision in private had already been made against me, Wiki processes were already in motion to minimize the damage I might cause to users.

The result has been very unfortunate for Alastair and shielded a true culprit.

Should someone come forward, I think that would resolve many issues quickly. I approve of the subtle method this person attempted. I forgive the consequences to me. Due process has been breached, but in a clearly good-faith way, no doubt backed by several people, who both underestimated me, and overestimated Ilkali.

How much more detective work do I need to do before senior parties take my now serious allegations into their own hands to investigate. Will the guilty party or parties please step forward, so we can settle this face-to-face?

If this does not happen, I will be building the strongest case possible that L'Aquatique biased mediation against me on her own authority. A very serious charge I neither want to make, nor go to the time of proving, though I suspect this won't be hard to detect if I investigate her interventions in article talk pages. She is a confident young woman, who is capable of leading people through their differences, how will her management of other situations compare with the GoG mediation case.

Again, I ask that a hero step forward, and spare me the repugnant task of investigating a young lady with a lot to offer, including formidable people skills. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, stop this. I had had never heard of you before I agreed to take the mediation. I am not biased against you, no one sent me in to fight you, all of that is absolutely ridiculous, and completely untrue. Whether you choose to believe me or not now, doesn't matter because that is what your "research" is going to tell you, if you are willing to accept it.

I have so many better things to do than argue semantics with you, Alastair. It's no fun, it's stressful, and it's not fair to me. I'm a volunteer, and I sure as hell didn't volunteer for this. I'm not going anywhere, but I will not be actively participating in this case- I don't really see any need for me to say more- you continue to prove my point with every post you make.

I may have made mistakes here- everyone has- and I am not afraid to admit it. But you will not be able to find evidence of a conspiracy against you... because there was none. Just a lot of people acting juvenile.

If anyone else needs me, you can contact me on my talk page. I'll be interested in learning how this turns out. L'Aquatique[talk] 06:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do no further research. I cannot hurt people to establish my own defence. Please, wiser, impartial heads help us, and the Wikipedia that normally brings knowledge and friendship. I choose silence and passive defense as much as I can from here. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth do you go from "My job as a mediator is to represent the interests of all parties, and prevent one side from getting run over by others" to "I have been briefed by a shadowy figure"? Ilkali (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Others will explain it to you Ilkali. Slowly. So slowly, I am now going to enjoy getting back to normal life. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're insulting my intelligence within a minute of posting a section on why personal attacks are bad? Ilkali (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[54] The secret to persuading people, Ilkali, is faithfulness, not technique. Seek faithfulness, not pursuasion, and you will pursuade. In the long run, people are reasonable. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we're sharing tips: Believe it or not, there are times when a direct, relevant response is more helpful than a lecture. Ilkali (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your lecture with a friendly tip. Honi soit qui mal y pense, au revoir. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That's so utterly ridiculous that I almost laughed after reading that. The only time it'll appear like my hand is 'hidden' is when I'm slapping you with a gigantic trout. Rather than sprout such patently bogus nonsense, what you need to do is listen and reflect, because you're not helping yourself at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LoL, I appreciate the picture. I think I share your sense of humour. You're as "hidden" as I am "passive". ;) Both are ridiculous. But are either of us aggressive? ... Now would be a good time to ajourn to watch a good comedy ... or would tastes prevent consensus forming. I won't push sensitive points further, cause humour doesn't work for everyone. But thanks Ncmv, even though I took L'Aquatique at her word anyway. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of a mob mentality. There are a bunch of people attacking Alastair simply because they can. Instead of strength, this is weakness -- hiding behind anonymity so that we can attack someone exposed by his real name... someone, I will add, who defended in Newsweek the entire forum you use to attack him with... someone who is part of the branch you are sitting on. And so you cut, and cut, because the branch speaks in civil terms. And you cut, and cut, and the branch only creaks in slight protest. And you cut and cut... and wonder why the branch gives way. The truth is that Alastair is what is good about Wikipedia. He believes in it. And a judgment against him is only a judgment against yourself, because to me, to the world, in public, and in private (and even in private emails), Alastair not only defends the platform you use to attack him with, but he also defends many individuals -- Lisa, even Ilkali. Yes, even Ilkali. And when I read these attacks I wonder if Alastair is right. A vindication of him, ultimately, is not a vindication of him at all -- but instead a vindication of the Arbcom, of Wikipedia, and yes -- even of the freedom and forum you have right now. In the highest irony, a vindication of him is vindication of your entire ability to attack him. And as much as I fear for Alastair (as I fear for Wikipedia), the pity I feel is for those who attack him.

Even L'Aquatique did not do this. If you want an example of integrity, take Alastair. But if you won't take Alastair, then take L'Aquatique... who only wanted a verbal reminder, and not even a sanction. These two people: L'Aquatique, and Alastair, are what is good about Wikipedia. Both of them have faith.

And the rest of us, who are we? Those who attack Alastair. Those who attack and bully everyone. Those who argue just to argue. Or those like me preparing to hide.

No, we are not the victors. We are the sad ones. And Alastair and L'Aquatique -- the two ultimate victims here -- are the two best people here.Tim (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Drama, I don't mind. But the melodrama is getting out of hand. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why No personal attacks and Freedom of speech are friends

• Freedom of speech is important to safeguard a community, especially when representatives of a community, or the majority are in serious error. The current case is an example of Alastair politely insisting (in a patient and restrained way) on volunteering to take responsibility to criticise various errors in certain administrators and a small group that sometimes looked like a majority, but was so only due to time constraints.

• No personal attacks is important because personal attacks have either a "chilling effect" silencing the free speech of those attacked, or they force the one attacked to defend his reputation tooth and nail to the death. Indeed, if personal attacks were allowed, we must not only allow people freedom of speech in self defence, we have a duty of care to support it.

• But the two ideas are not in conflict. Personal attacks are always irrelevant. Ideas must be separated from those who hold them. Wiki's own neutrality is based on precisely the same point. If editors are competant to understand NPOV, they are competant to understand No personal attacks, and address issues, not other editors, even in the case of interpersonal behaviour management.

• The English language easily permits us to speak in appropriate ways, as nearly all mature adults understand. The etiquette of refraining from addressing persons, but rather addressing issues instead, is easily learned and smooths the way for differening perspectives and critical comments to be offered without being clouded by unnecessary, inflamatory and escalating personal distress. Ad hominem is always irrelevant to the logic of free expression of criticism. Rather than being lazy and saying, President Jane Doe deserves to be impeached, demonstrably true as it may be, it is always possible to say, for example, "The failing economic climate is due to Presidental veto of suitable remedial policies. Remove the President remove the problem."

• Wikipedia can adopt an authoritative behaviour management system, where a hierarchy determines truth and insists that "rank" or majority establish a matter finally. Or it can administrate the team-work of gathering all relevant points of view and the process of exchanging critical analysis of those points of view. Ideally, all come to a common mind, called consensus. Persuasion is key to forming consensus. Persuasion ought to be on the basis of evidence and reason, not on political power. In the case of behaviour management, the perspective of the person under scrutiny is always admissible as one of the points of view.

If I may dare to suggest it, I think Ilkali deserves and Wikipedia's reputation demands that he have the opportunity to answer in a private, low-threat environment to the interpretation of evidence that I take responsibility for having put forward.

I will be busy for a little while in real life, but feel more at peace, at last, about what has been months of painful conflict for me. If I am seen to be neglecting these pages, please feel free to request my attendance via my user talk.

alastair Alastair Haines (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory document found

• User:Rushyo/Regarding Alastair Haines
• 06:43, 7 July 2008

This document, created at Wikipedia some weeks ago contradicts itself at many places. It has several other serious flaws that a reasonable person, showing reasonable care for the reputation of the community member and living person named, could be expected to ask to have more closely investigated.

• Ryusho considers a mediator's role does involve correcting personal comments: "These opinions were cited as part of my role as mediator because I felt Alastair's personal comments towards the other parties were bringing the process into disrepute and preventing any form of consensus being met."
• Yet Ryusho does not consider a mediator's role involves correcting personal comments, a point he makes clear in his response to Alastair's appeal. Ryusho quotes Alastair, "I do hold you responsible for both failing to correct an editor whose incivility was demonstrated in the very request for mediation". Ryusho responds in this document, "I did not feel this was my role or my responsibility."
• In other words Ryusho saw his role as correcting Alastair if Ryusho saw personal comments, but not correcting Ilkali if he saw personal comments. Or to spell it out more clearly, Ryusho's role was to allow Ilkali to make personal comments against Alastair, and to construe Alastair's valid criticisms as personal comments in some way that Ryusho doesn't quote or explain but merely asserts.
• Alastair is both accused of "preventing any form of consensus being met", yet some form of consensus must have been formed, because it is alleged that Alastair "failed to meet consensus".

One has to ask whether Ryusho saw consensus formed or not. If the first charge against Alastair is dropped or modified and Alastair did "allow" consensus to be formed, then how did he not meet it? Alternatively, one needs to ask precisely what consensus Ryusho saw formed, on what issue, by whom and when. And in what sense did Alastair "fail to meet" it. Just what factual, rather than "expert opinion", material might lie in Ryusho's words here is not plain. All that is plain to a reasonable person is that statements potentially injurious to Alastair's reputation are being made.

• "I'm pretty sure volunteering to help should not accrue me any more investigation than any other of my peers. Like him."

Ryusho claims only to be a peer, and absolved from either the resposibility of due diligence in investigation, or from being subject to it. His text is ambiguous on this point, however, since both responsibilities exist in the nature of the role of negotiator, irrespective of financial reward, they cannot be waived.

• Ryusho asserts Alastair was "pushing a POV throughout all of it", but he doesn't state what that POV was. And in fact, he will never be able to, because none will be able to be found.
• Ryusho presumably scoffs at Alastair's claim to be an "impeccable editor", but has only his own opinion and hearsay to base that on. In any case, he does not seriously consider the weight of incident free editing over two years, he merely begs the question in favour of his own opinion. This is not unnatural given Alastair had just effectively sacked Ryusho as mediator.

Most importantly, the document was written with the expressed intent of alerting others to the perceived bad character of Alastair as an editor. It was never offered to Alastair to exercise free speech in criticism or in self defence. As such, it is in no way a reliable source of information. It was not "peer reviewed" in Ryusho's own definition of peer.

That this was drafted, and potentially circulated, cannot be held against the author of the document, who is a volunteer, working in only a small, though essential, part of the CR processes, and not thereby competant to establish the truth of what he asserts. However, should any responsible parties have accepted the testimony of this document without appropriate scrutiny, and should they have passed it, or its views to others as more than anything but a matter worth talking to Alastair about or investigating further, then those parties have failed in their duty of care.

In mitigation of any who may have mistaken Ryusho's word for diligent examination and placed their trust in that, Ryusho claims he

• "Spent a whole week reading evidence purely to assist his [Alastair's] case."

Different cautions apply to criticisms of character discussed in different forums. Although a public hearing like the current one places parties involved at a special risk, it also provides that critics are accountable for their own criticism in a public way. Nonetheless, private circulation of criticism, necessary as it also is, does not absolve parties involved from exercising responsible judgement in how they conduct their criticism and share information.

I will take this opportunity to repeat that my aim in these proceedings is not to seek the embarassment or distress of any party involved, although most will easily believe I have been more distressed than most, and with better reason. My purpose is only to assist in securing what I believe to be the inevitable outcome regarding myself, that this whole incident shows an extraordinarily patient willingness on my part to accomodate to all parties, including the whole community as respresented by my thoughtful and considered choice to work strictly within policy and guidelines. Any other outcome will be seen to be not only contrary to facts and to reasonable belief, but also to justice.

Again I thank those who are taking time to reverse the very unfortunate momentum of misinformation. But who could I trust more than people who love encyclopedic work. Best regards to all, most of all to Ryusho, who was only doing his best at a time of real life stress. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ryusho also notes in this document that I was "extremely passive aggressive". That would be scandalous, if it wasn't ridiculous. What would be more ridiculous would be people believing such nonsense. However what would be unconscionable would be passing on such potentially damaging hearsay from a non-expert witness. Passive aggressive indeed! I am neither passive, nor aggressive. But reading that atrocious misreading of my patience certainly reminded me of what "restrained anger" feels like. Yet, again, all I ask is retraction and apology, so I can get back to my friends, mediate, copy-edit, compile bibliographies and write up neutral descriptions of reliable sources ... in peace! Alastair Haines (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cailil

Cailil has done hard work to examine the pattern of edits at Gender of God, particularly prior to mediation, and to provide a neutral assessment. I would encourage him to look at the nature of the edits more closely, and at the talk page comments at the dates.

In fact, Alastair was not edit warring, he was attempting to provide a neutral starting point for discussion. In other words, he reverted to the point prior to Ilkali's first appearance at the page. My first attempt was to go back to a point prior to some recent changes, but I conceeded to complaints that this intermediate version my "bias" me in some way. In both cases, I was attempting to return the article to a point that reverted substantial additions of my own, and restored considerable quantities of text I was unsatisfied with.

If my talk page comments are linked with my edits, it will be seen how reasonable was my suggestion. If my reasons for doing this are read on the talk page and taken at face value, the common sense of what I was proposing will be clear—let's go back to the beginning and talk through each step.

I'm sad to say, that Ilkali and Abtract, who have never shown any real interest in article content, appear simply to have been playing games with me. There was no way on Earth they were going to talk things through with me. Silly me kept on seeking creative solutions to progress things, all the while being obstructed by more direct methods like reversion and crying "wolf", as though I was doing something wrong. The only thing I did that was wrong was not report their atrocious conduct immediately.

It did force me to move from a WQA to a Mediation Cabal request, the next informal level of escalation. But the reality is, the article only improved when Tim arrived, who is actually interested in the subject of the article, and knew me well enough to realise I'm a considerate and sensible person. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"There was no way on Earth they were going to talk things through with me". A quick glance at the mediation cabal talk page shows that I was more than willing to talk things through. I just didn't agree with you. Ilkali (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Ilkali. A very interesting selective location for you to point to. It is the only time you seriously engaged regarding content. And you didn't once accept a point that I'd made, nor provide meaningful critical interaction. Although you behaved a little better at mediation than usual, you were still obstructive and inappropriate there as well.

You have had no serious interest in the article except pedantry and making trouble for me. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, I'll have to agree with Alastair here. What pulled my attention to the article was both the subject (Gender of God) and the integrity of one of the editors (Alastair). But I was immediately puzzled about an unnecessary argument over whether comparative religion or the definition of gender had anything to do with an article comparing religions and their gender attributes to deity. If you'll recall, Alastair ended up sitting back while I tried to sort it out with some kind of compromise -- putting the comparative religion section on the talk page so you could address the content and the appropriate place to put it (which you didn't do). Instead, you tried to get into an argument with me about the syntax of the header that I rewrote, and I had no intention of being your next victim after seeing what you had done to Alastair. So, I reverted my own edit to your awkward context. To put things into perspective, Lisa untangled the syntax. For all of our differences, she and I are both writers. We argue a lot -- too much -- but there's normally substance to it. We have real differences. Unreconcilable ones, but real ones. You, on the other hand, wanted to pick an argument for the sake of arguing. First the syntax, then whether or not the word "god" should be used in the gender of god article. My only other interaction with you was when you undid a spelling correction someone else did in another article, and I reverted your revert to restore the correct spelling. I don't know your motives. Maybe you're trying to do something positive, but I don't see it. In contrast to you, Lisa DOES have something positive to offer. She can flat write, and she can research well. I think she's too controlling, but she does indeed have much to offer. I think that if I move to different subjects and different names then I can let Lisa own a few articles in peace. And you know what? Although I'll disagree with her on some NPOV approaches, her articles will be extremely well written and researched. Some Christians may end up scratching their heads on some ideas, but they'll just shrug their shoulders and go to a different article. But you... you are not Lisa. If Lisa and I went in different directions Wikipedia would have two good editors instead of a constant squabble. If you and Alastair went in different directions you'd have nothing to do -- not from what I've seen. Wikipedia would have a crippled editor of incredible quality, Alastair; and it would have other editors cleaning up your syntax and spelling, and arguments over anything but content. Okay, I've been honest here. You can improve if you focus on content and substance and allow other editors to help you with basic writing skills. But that's your call. In my opinion, of the four of us,

• Alastair is the best Wikipedia editor (both in skills and time).
• Lisa is the second best (again in skills and time).
• I'm the last (I have skills but not enough time).

I left you out. You CAN be a good editor. But you need to research, stick to substance, and practice writing.

BTW -- to everyone else, the reason I'm offering to hide in different subjects (and names) is because I DO think Lisa is a good editor. She and I DO have the same POV, and I greatly value the substance, skills, and research she is able to bring. My only fault with her is that she won't allow me to point out that POVs other than the one she and I share may have trouble with some of the wording. She is an outstanding editor for an all Jewish audience. I suppose I'll have to leave it at that for now.Tim (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"My only other interaction with you was when you undid a spelling correction someone else did in another article, and I reverted your revert to restore the correct spelling". No, a user changed one regional variant to another. Like you, I thought the foreign variant was incorrect rather than just a regional form, and reverted it. Unlike you, I checked sources before reverting a reversion.

Tim, there are two potentially constructive things you can do here. The first is to present evidence supporting all of the things you've said. The second is to discuss ways forward that don't begin with the assumption that I'm an illiterate, belligerent moron. The approach you're taking at the moment, which seems essentially to be to incessantly assert your own correctness while flinging insults at me, isn't going to help anything other than your ego. Ilkali (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- actually, I need to get RID of diffs in my evidence section. I have too many, and I need to prune them and add a few more. The rest is pretty apparent on the Gender of God talk page, though. Most of the arbcom admins have already read the page, I'm sure. The diffs are a simple formality to assert the obvious. You're pure overhead and need a mentor in a bad way. Alastair has been an excellent mentor to me and to other fortunate editors. You've been the most fortunate of us all, with Alastair showing extreme patience in taking you on when others were just leaving you to flounder about. I'm sorry if that was insuling to you, but the truth is that we all needed mentors when we started. Most of us were very grateful when it happened. So, you and I had the same mentor. I was grateful and you weren't. And, ironically, I'm the one going into hiding and you aren't. But sometimes the only way ahead it to back out when we've wandered into a dead end.Tim (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If your behaviour is the result of Alastair's mentoring, you're not making a strong case for his competence in that role. Ilkali (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny... I was just thinking something similar... however, I think you'll like my proposals on the work page. With L'Aquatique your friendly mentor, Alastair is forced off of your back. :-) Tim (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim needs to cool off

On the Evidence page, Tim has gone a little berserk. Not even including this talk page and the Workshop page Tim has posted to the Evidence page 42 times. Seventeen (17) of them today. So far. Before noon.

I may be a bit longwinded, but at least I'm not bombing these pages with hundreds of edits. Nor am I trying to turn this arbitration into a witchhunt.

Evidence sections are supposed to be limited to 100 diffs and 1000 words. When Tim shot way past that in his passionate need to turn this into an attack on me, he was asked to trim it down. Not only did he not trim it down, but he added a 1000 word/100 diff section to the already immense and hysterical list of accusations against me, and left the original rant in, labeling it "EVERYTHING BELOW IS ARCHIVAL ONLY". Apparently, he was so attached to the work he did gathering diffs on almost everything I've edited since I started on Wikipedia, that he was unable to show the simple courtesy of removing them.

And this is really Tim's thing, you know. This was the reason Tim gave for the tantrum he threw when his inappropriate POV/OR/SYNTH glossary failed to survive. When an admin (not me, and not at my request) came in and dismantled Tim's table, he wrote this ([55]):

How nice. Walk in, vandalize a page that's taken months of collaboration. When an editor reverts the vandalism you pull an AfD much to the delight of a solitary fifth column that's been waiting for months to destroy the work.

And you want a second chance -- with what? The page is destroyed. The goodwill is destroyed -- all because you used your admin privileges. Did you do so on a content dispute? No, you did it on an asassination.

Worse, the content you now how is a complete violation of the no blending rule. You've created a page meshing Jewish and Christian terms as if they are the same thing. Judaism is NOT Christianity.

And you have the temerity to threaten someone who's upset about it?

How about one day someone comes in and strong arms several months of YOUR effort into oblivion. Think about this: we had Christians, Muslims, and Jews all cooperating peacefully. We even had some Messianic sympathizers. And one by one a single individual has knocked them all out. No one can stomach her any more. And I doubt several of us can stomach Wikipedia any more.

You had NPOV by the cooperation of multiple groups that do not normally cooperate that way. You listened to one destructive POV.

The only way to start over is to ban the offender, not the offended.

But I doubt that would even do it. If Wikipedia really does have people like you for admins -- God help it.

I have a minyan to catch.

Good day.Tim (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk about feelings of ownership. "How about one day someone comes in and strong arms several months of YOUR effort into oblivion." Never mind that there was a huge dispute over what Tim was trying to do. And note that even then, Tim was trying to have me banned. Unlike his false accusation that I'm trying to have him barred from editing certain articles (a demonstrably false accusation), Tim did try and have me banned for arguing with him in this diff.

This whole thing is pathetic, and I'm losing what respect I've had for Wikipedia's admins. I've been accused here of perpetrating a holocaust, of gaming Wikipedia, of bad faith everything, and one obsessed editor with a grudge wants to blame me for everything bad in the world. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa: "melodrama". Lisa: "Ownership". Is this true? The pronoun you is also plural in English. Tim: "we had Christians, Muslims, and Jews all cooperating peacefully. We even had some Messianic sympathizers." [Emphasis added.] That was true, I was there, it was beautiful, that's why we were there, that's why Wiki can be so beautiful. It is possible to share here. Talkspace is is even more educational than mainspace.

Aiyee! Alas!

I wonder if a few more sleeps will help. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking radio silence

I'm just posting an update for all parties kind enough to be taking an interest in my appeal to ArbCom to deal with unfounded personal attacks on my character as an editor, and the potential of damage to my real life reputation.

I have been taking a break, but have just started work completing evidence regarding Ilkali. I now have something like a dozen independent editors complaining that Ilkali removes talk page posts, does not engage meaningfully in discussion, is pedantic about capitals and, according to an atheist editor, appears to edit to make "pointless slap[s]" at Christians.

I don't think I have time to look at all the cases in detail, there are just too many of them. Ilkali's talk page history has been a continuous list of complaints about his rudeness and unreasonableness, over the course of about 18 months. These diffs will soon be added to my evidence section. Some choice quotes and notes will be collected at this page for the convenience of all interested in establishing the facts of the current case.

Alastair didn't need to research Ilkali's background, because he saw this behaviour in his own interactions with Ilkali. But since several people have expressed opinions that it is Alastair not Ilkali who has been unreasonable. It seems helpful to show that these people are actually in a minority, if the history of both editors is examined.

However, it is worth remembering that Ilkali's interactions with Alastair alone are sufficient to show uncivil and obstructive behaviour. These too will be outlined at this page in time. Thanks for everyone's patience. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair -- just to let you and everyone else know, I've been researching Ilkali's past interactions as well. I felt that it was unlikely in the extreme that you and I would have been the only two people having trouble with him, and I've found that his history of interactions has been -- to put it mildly -- simply to disrupt. There are some people who are here to edit, even at others' expense. There are other people, however, who are only here to disrupt articles and to mess with other editors. I'm truly puzzled that these have been going on for as long as they have. There has to be something insufficient in Wikipedia policies to protect against this kind of thing. And the fact that this arbcom has your name on it is very telling. Not against you, but against the processes. Just a little disclosure -- professionally I'm a Quality Engineer. I'm big on process. And in my experience processes can always be improved. I think that one result of this arbcom should be to find a way to improve the processes so that this does not occur again. In any case, I'll add some diffs in a day or two to what I've uncovered, and I encourage all here to take a look. It's very eye opening.Tim (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. In defence of processes and those who administer them (Wiki and other), even the best processes have to deal with people, and we're a slippery lot (people I mean). I'm hoping the way I present the evidence regarding how Ilkali baffled the system at GoG might show an important factor often overlooked because it is currently hard to follow in default screen displays. Best to all. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"since several people have expressed opinions that it is Alastair not Ilkali who has been unreasonable [...]". The two are entirely separate. You can't establish your own innocence by establishing my guilt.

That, and I reiterate my point about the validity of ancient evidence. Ilkali (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only history I recall w/ Ilkari was, for a newbie like myself, quite unpleasant and off-putting. I came upon the article Unencyclopedia doing a random article edit session. I added what I thought was a quality sentence to the Lead,(as requested),but got into an edit war which included conversation. After awhile I requested an arbitrator and Ilkili showed up and was immediately rude and pretentious...I logically assummed he was some kind of big-wig that I had awoken from a nap. I explained myself and my understanding of the process. At the time I had no idea I had committed a grevious offense. He did not at all reply to my information. I will admit that other editors were also much too aggressive for what was a rather homogenous sentence and an adolescent editor. But, Ilkili seemed intent on whipping me into shape. I still have the bruises from that encounter. Luckily other editors appeared (Enric Naval, Mr. Haines, Miguel Mateo)and provided the guidance I required.--Buster7 (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"After awhile I requested an arbitrator and Ilkili showed up". You actually made an RfC, which just invites uninvolved editors to comment. Arbitration is another system entirely.

"and was immediately rude and pretentious". I was terse and direct.

"He did not at all reply to my information". There was nothing more to discuss. Your reply indicated that you were unsure of how RfCs work, but I knew you'd probably have a lot more experience with Wikipedia before you needed to file another one. Ilkali (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An old quote from Jimbo..."For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection. A mood of kindness and love. A mood of helpfulness and productivity. Neutrality and _getting it right_ in the company of others who are doing the same, this is what I'm here for"......not to be terse and direct.--Buster7 (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's what's being lost here.Tim (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's nothing rude about not lacing my speech with niceties and compliments. Coming into this environment with the attitude that a person is being rude to you if he doesn't pander scrupulously to your sensitivities is a bad idea, and will only cause friction. You are being used. Ilkali (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, please stop fighting just to fight. Buster quoted Jimbo, I approved of Jimbo. So? What's there to fight about? And why fight with Jimbo? He didn't do anything to you. And I just looked at the diff. Again, so? The fact is that you do argue with a number of people, and anyone with an interest in digging can find they aren't the only one. Heck -- even Jimbo isn't safe!Tim (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A person is accusing me of being rude. I am addressing that accusation. You are the only person "fighting", in that you are replying to virtually every comment made here with some substanceless attack on me. I think by now everyone must be tired of hearing the same opinions and invectives rehashed and repackaged. Ilkali (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything I say attacks you? May I ask how you came to that perception?Tim (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Systematic presentation of evidence

Since the personal attacks on me have been made by several editors over some period of time, it is taking time to present this in a way that makes it easy for it to be assessed and remedied comprehensively. I imagine it may take longer to present than it took to occur, but we need to start some time, if ArbCom are to be able to fulfil their responsibility to protect this contributor.

Since it started with Ilkali, that is the place to begin. To assist with objectivity, I have collected feedback from his talk page, and will later compile evidence from his contributions. I am already aware that at many pages Ilkali has contributed lower case g where previously God had been spelled with a capital. It would appear this is the source of all that has subsequently followed, since at Gender of God, it is actually important for the article, to both be inclusive of polytheistic gods and monotheistic Gods. The last being a sentence I am sure Ilkali would not be happy with, despite its clarity.

A range of various editor's complaints about Ilkali

• "When someone has done nothing wrong [...]" - When someone enters a discussion over whether they've done something wrong with the assumption that they haven't, the other person might as well be talking to a wall. Ilkali (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) to User:KellyAna

When Ilkali thinks he's right, he's allowed to assert it. When others do, they are walls.

• Stop reverting my edits that I make to Template:God. It's not pointless and the first was reverted without further detail.--Angel David (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali reverts without explanation.

• I reverted the first for reasons I thought obvious: the image presented a view of God that is not universally held. Justify your edits on the talk page before making them. Ilkali (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet Ilkali knows editing without explanation is wrong.

For Ilkali, an edit is justified when he thinks it is.

Ilkali is allowed to "be bold", others are not.

• Could you stop erasing every edit I make. I don't care how porly written or useless they are just leave them be. Please, stop erasing them.--Angel David (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• "I don't care how porly written or useless they are just leave them be". You don't really get Wikipedia, do you? I think the only edit you've made recently that I've reverted is the one about Greek mythology in Devil, and I stand by that. The fact that Cronus rebelled against Zeus isn't sufficient to call him a Devil character, nor is Ares' penchant for war. Hades comes closer, but, as you yourself wrote, he's not evil. If you want to put that section back, be prepared to source it. Ilkali (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali knows sources are the ultimate court of appeal.

Yet despite endless challenges to provide sources for his own edits at GoG, Ilkali has never once provided a source there.

• Grow up. Stop getting hysterical at every perceived slight, and stop intentionally misrepresenting what I've said. I didn't "call [KellyAna] ignorant", I said she was ignorant of a particular piece of information, where said ignorance is pertinent to the conversation.

And yes, I know you're incensed at my telling you to grow up. I don't care. I'm not interested. If you're not willing to talk to me like a sane, rational adult, I'm not going to spend any more time on you. Ilkali (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali doesn't "care" about the feelings of other users. If Ilkali thinks they are wrong, they should accept it, get over it and "grow up".

• Ilkali, please take another look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Your accusation that I have not been reading the discussion or attempting to genuinely participate in it is not only incorrect, but inflammatory. Direct your comments toward the arguments made, not the editors who make them. Nick Graves (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Many independent editors find Ilkali making unfounded attacks on their character as editors and generally "inflammatory".

• First you say they don't capitlize and now you say they do?--Angel David Commune with HeavenMy Angelic gifts 01:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali pesters people with talk about common and proper nouns, yet is inconsistant even within dialogue about them.

• hey i really fail to see the difference between

Um... The Jewish and Muslim God are the same God as the Christian God, (not to mention the only God) so your argument is faulty. Bad argument. Here's a few arguments for the existence of God.

  * Anything exists
  * The universe had a beginning
  * Humans have a sense of morality
  * The universe is too fine tuned for it to be all coincidence.[1]

Argue against all that. MalwareSmarts (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

this post which is still on there and mine, which just acts as a counter argument. not only that my argument does serve a purpose other than general discussion this is a page about the existence of god all arguments for and against should be included in the talk page therefore i undid your edit please argue your point on my talk page before deleting my edits.

• your right i am arguing about the existence of god, where we differ in opinion it that you don't consider that necessary to the discussion for the article. my argument is that it clearly is necessary because i'm providing a counter argument, to other peoples arguments. the operative word here is ""counter"" if you don't think my counter should be on the talk page then you should remove the original argument as well. get my reasoning

secondly debates about the existence of god are important to the main article because they act as a starting point for inclusion into the article. All debates are important for this reason. anyone reading mine or someone else's argument could decide that it is worthy of a section of it's own. now i'm not advocating original research. thats why i haven't put them in the actual article but these kinds of debates are important for the evolution of the article (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

More talk page editing by Ilkali.

• You've reverted twice at ‎Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). This is a pretty clear WP:NPOV issue to me; I'm not a religious person myself, but I regard the "mythical Gabriel" an unnecessary and pointless slap at some Christians, Jews and Muslims, since the second dictionary definition is "fictitious". Using Gabriel as an example isn't necessary in a paragraph that discusses fairies and Tolkien's fictional characters; they are sufficient. We could talk about this at either WP:Third opinion or WP:POVN if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Independent atheist editor detects Ilkali is using MoS and capital letters to "slap" Christians.

The conclusion for this section is straight forward. As we turn to the first exchange between Ilkali and Alastair. Ilkali demonstrates precisely the behaviours noted by other editors and Alastair slowly picks up what Ilkali is like and starts telling Ilkali all the same things he has been told before by others. The lucky difference for Ilkali is that Alastair is on his own, and doesn't know what everyone else has said, nor of course do people invited to comment later. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Half of this is over content (which is out of the scope of this case) and half is you presenting quotes outside of any context and applying the worst possible spin to them. I don't think it's persuasive evidence so I'm not going to spend time on a point-by-point analysis, but I'll delve into it if an arbitrator or uninvolved party requests it. Ilkali (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The consistency of treatment of g and G should not encourage distinction of the those who are considered polytheistic gods - since a god of Semitic religions were also part of the pantheon. It is about being plural or any other forms. I do think that there should be neutral approach to this without a need of separating Christian etc religions in a separate category as far as G/g is concerned. That will comply with WP policies. One has to be objective and there is nothing wrong in working in framework of the polices as they are not meant to promote one religion if favor of another by capitalization. There is a measure of objectivity that is built in Ilkalis edits. However he should apply this objectivity equally and not selectively. Wikidās ॐ 10:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 'Semitic' vs 'Abrahamic' issue? I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I think you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm biased about it. You seem overly concerned with what is at the top of the list, initially moving Hinduism (which is your own religion, I think?) to the top, then relenting and accepting an alphabetic order only to rename the Abrahamic religions so they're no longer first. I don't care about what appears where. I'm not biased toward any religion because I'm not religious. It's simply Wikipedia's custom to, wherever possible, use widely-used, familiar terms like 'Abrahamic religion' rather than those like 'Semitic religion'. Ilkali (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about G/g issue and how it should be neutral and universal be it monotheism, monism or atheism. I was not talking about it. But since you brought it up.. about the above, I appreciate that you do no care, as it means we can agree on one consistent system that does not favor one over the other. Wikidās ॐ 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In my personal observation, Ilkali does seem to care here. Perhaps he doesn't, but he strikes me as one who does. We have an atheist going into Christian and Jewish articles and changing big G "God" to little g "god." He also gets into arguments about the use of deity vs. god. On the surface, that's okay. But he's doing it over the usage of people who actually have a deity. Can't we allow editors of a certain POV to express their terms authentically within that POV, as long as they are intelligible? "God" is intelligible. Leave it. I can speak of my "son" -- but I address him as "Son." I can speak of my "deity" but the creator of all gets some respect. Atheists have no need to disrespect a deity who doesn't exist, but please allow Wikipedia editors to observe a certain decorum in the face of the Supreme. If you want to speak of your spouse in disrespectful terms, fine. But if you speak of my spouse, be respectful. The same goes for any family member -- or any God we hold. This is just decency, and Ilkali's mission to demote God is not... civil.Tim (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"We have an atheist going into Christian and Jewish articles and changing big G "God" to little g "god."". My own religious views are irrelevant here. All I am doing is correcting stylistic errors, per the MoS. I also change from typographic to logical quoting, replace nonstandard characters with their standard equivalents and convert ad hoc quoting into templated versions. The only reason I get into more arguments over the capitalisation is that people tend not to understand why their version is wrong and feel obligated to flout the convention.

"also gets into arguments about the use of deity vs. god". Have I? I'm not sure that's true.

"Can't we allow editors of a certain POV to express their terms authentically within that POV". If you want a change in the MoS, go start an appeal. Otherwise, don't blame a good faith editor for editing in accordance with it. Ilkali (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"I was talking about G/g issue and how it should be neutral and universal". Then I'm not sure what you mean by selective objectivity. Ilkali (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean that you are fair in treating all gods as God when they are addressed as such or as gods when not. But you may not apply same degree of being fair to the article in question. I have no problem with an atheists and I would say you are civil, but pushy. Wikidās ॐ 17:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, I'm not sure your application of the style guide is correct. Granted, we all have our little beefs here. Lisa wants to be accurate (admirable), I want to be intelligible (admirable), and you want to apply the style guide (admirable). But sometimes you can't BE all three at the same time. As Lisa corrrectly points out, accuracy trumps the other two. As I (i think correctly) point out, intelligibility trumps style. And as you and I both (correctly) point out, intelligibility and/or style should be a goal. Now for God. It's not accurate to speak of the Western God as a deity. He's The Subject to half the planet, and not an object. The style guide does not (in my view) require the indiscriminate objectification of God. It is not accurate to say Jews worship a god. No, they don't. Jews worship God. That doesn't mean that "God" exists in objective reality -- but the objective reality is that God is THE God to Jews. Same holds for Christians and Muslims. Second -- it isn't intelligible to go around putting little g gods in articles. People will be glancing through and wondering what mythological system is being referenced -- instead of a major religion. The style guide allows for the capitalization of God in most (if not all) of the places you are demoting Him.Tim (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not sure your application of the style guide is correct". There's not much ambiguity in "Common nouns should not be capitalized". If you want to argue about whether any particular noun is common then I'll indulge you, but this isn't the place for it. Ilkali (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Ilkali, in an effort to end an example-filled conversation he cannot help but have, would like to remove evidence from these preceedings. The banter that takes place with uninvolved editors should go far to illuminate who is who and what is what, and , how ALL editors involved handle contentious situations. The administrators are charged with examining the evidence...the verbal interplay that took place between a group of editors and then judging that evidence. But, their search is not limited to the articles and talk pages of incidents that happened prior to the beginning of these proceedings. And their search should certainly include dialogue that occurs during these proceedings. Prior to the above exchange , I had no knowledge of Ilkali's appalling act of desecration..( that may be a bit harsh, agreed). His assertion that some arbitrary Manual of Style is more important than the core beliefs of thousands of editors (and many millions of readers) is beyond the pale. I would challenge someone to offer a Wikipedia act that is more uncivil...more contentious...and more POV. As a Bahai, our core belief is in the oneness of God. I hope Ilkali finds some understanding in the oneness of humanity in their search for their GOD.--Buster7 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- God is not a common noun. God is never absent to a monotheist. To you "God" is a common noun, but not to most editors here, nor to most readers. You don't need to demote a deity you don't believe in. "God" substitutes for the divine Name. Monotheists can't really notch it down. I'd suggest the usage in the Revised Standard Version for instance. "Lord" is capitalized for address and lowercase as a common noun. God is not, unless specifically speaking of pagan deities.Tim (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you don't understand the syntactic issues involved, but I'm not going to bloat this conversation by explaining them here. Take it to my talk page if you want to discuss it. Ilkali (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- this belittling statement of yours is precisely why I could not take it to your talk page. I wanted to give a live example, for all to see, of a person attempting to reason with you while you belittle them. Alastair had to go through this for months with you, and I have to admit, he was STILL more patient with you than I was toward the end at Gender of God. I had no illusions of actually accomplishing a compromise on "God". But I needed people to see what happens when someone at least tries.Tim (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate my above comment: There is nothing offensive about suggesting that a layman is ignorant of specialist knowledge. Ilkali (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, disagreement is not always ignorance. The assumption of ignorance is like the assumption of bad faith -- it destroys any potential for collaboration. We have to work together, not in spite of each other.Tim (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- what I need you to understand is that a person can understand the syntactic issues you raise, and have other syntactic issues besides. There are different levels to this. The denotation of "connotation” is “denotation.” The connotation of “connotation” is “connotation.” What you are trying to accomplish meets one syntactic issue but not another. Please understand that a person can understand and still disagree. I respect the fact that you disagree. Do the same for me.Tim (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't say you don't understand just because you disagree. Ilkali (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, you're being dismissive and insulting, and I'd appreciate it if you slowed down long enough to recognize that other people may have a point. I'm not concerned about any personal slight here. My concern is that your assumption of my lack of understanding is keeping you from getting my point. You, me, Alastair, all of us need to see what's right in what the other person is saying instead of assuming that they are ill informed. In the end, the one the most convinced he is right is the one who is almost certainly wrong -- and the reason is OUR context: that of collaborative editing. You are incorrectly applying the MoS, and you are doing it aggressively over "God" vs. "god." If you like the MoS so much, pick a less controversial topic to apply throughout Wikipedia. You could pick virtually any aspect of the MoS and pursue it 24 hours a day and never finish. Why "God"? Why THIS particular axe to grind? What did He ever do to you? And how could He have offended you? He doesn't even exist, right? Stop being so annoyed with someone who doesn't exist. Pick on someone or something that does.Tim (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali, you're being dismissive and insulting". Is it insulting to say that you don't understand quantum mechanics or multivariate calculus? If you started speaking authoritatively and incorrectly on those topics, you'd be treated in the same way. There's no reason for linguistics to be any different.

"Why "God"? Why THIS particular axe to grind?". I've already said that inappropriate capitalisation is just one of various stylistic errors that I fix. Suggesting that my adherence to this particular stylistic convention is a result of anger toward a god I don't believe in is offensive and incivil. Ilkali (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Once again, Ilkali, in an effort to end an example-filled conversation he cannot help but have, would like to remove evidence from these preceedings". This is getting tiresome, Buster. ArbCom isn't the place to debate grammar or indenting conventions. That's not just my opinion, that's fact. ArbCom do not rule on content. Hashing out those issues here just gives the arbitrators more they have to sift through.

"Prior to the above exchange , I had no knowledge of Ilkali's appalling act of desecration.. [...] His assertion that some arbitrary Manual of Style is more important than the core beliefs of thousands of [...]". So you think we should ignore the "arbitrary" MoS. I don't think that view will gain much sympathy. Ilkali (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Ilkali..Your repeated de-capitalization of the word "God" in every place you have found it across WikiWorld are acts of pure vandalism. You are a vandal, sir, I do not respond to vandals.--Buster7 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alastair: If you're this fellow's mentor, can you explain to him why observing the MoS is not vandalism? Ilkali (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as another Alastair mentee -- I'll explain. Articles must be accurate to their native context. The native context of Judaism counts eras in B.C.E and C.E. The native context of Christianity counts eras in B.C. and A.D. Both are accurate and intelligible -- but only one is NATIVELY accurate. To go around changing one to the other is rude and inaccurate (and vandalism). "God" is NATIVELY accurate to Monotheism. "A god" is NATIVELY accurate to an atheism. A monotheist shouldn't go around promoting "gods" in atheist articles and an atheist shouldn't go around demoting "God" in monotheist articles. It's rude and it's wrong -- and it's a wrong application to the MoS, promoting it over other precedents (such as accuracy). God is not merely a common noun to monotheists. Live with it (i.e. live with other editors).Tim (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Articles must be accurate to their native context". If you want a particular topic area to have special treatment, petition for it. Until then, the MoS clearly and unambiguously disagrees with you. Ilkali (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Ilkali, it does not disagree with me. You are applying it incorrectly to the context.Tim (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- this might help (and if not, I'll drop it): in the manual of style on proper nouns and common nouns it says "Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the common noun god denotes all deities, while the proper noun God references the monotheistic God specifically." Well, that's the context I've tried to convey. "God" is a proper noun and "god" is a common noun -- as fits the context. "God is a god" is henotheistic (a supreme or single patron among others of a class), while "God is the only God" is monotheistic. Mono isn't "one"; it is "only." Hen is "one" of a class.Tim (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue syntax, take it to my talk page. Ilkali (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikidas has said a very important thing here. Before throwing terms like incivility or edit warrior about (or even trolling), "pushiness" is the basic point. This avoids the whole "label behaviour by policy" cycle we've been in for months. Underlying the whole series of episodes leading to this ArbCom is a string of editors failing to satisfy Ilkali regarding the reason why certain typographical conventions are actually helpful, and a little graciousness in editing is more likely to see bilateral accomodations.

In fact, the whole point of WP:V#Burden of evidence placing the burden on those who make changes, is to discourage pushiness. When confronted for his pushiness, Ilkali's tendency is to accuse others of "ownership" or stopping progress. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia is actually a lot more conservative in its methodology than people (like Ilkali) suppose. Yes, unsourced silliness can be removed at any time, but contributions need to pass peer review, and keep on passing it.

The way to successfully contribute at Wikipedia is to provide edits that immediately commend themselves to all reasonable parties, because they simply reflect a "flat" statement of what sources say. Since there's plenty of space at Wiki, there's really never any need to oppose or remove sourced text, it's just a matter of categorising it.

I want to say a surprising thing here. I am deadly serious that sanctions should not be imposed on Ilkali. Sanctions do not resolve the underlying issue. Why sanction him if he's willing to change anyway. But why should he change if we don't explain to him clearly what the issue is.

Resolving conflict starts with understanding the issues, and addressing them directly. I think Wikidas has gone right to the heart of the difficulty people have found with Ilkali. If Ilkali can see the point, and he's plenty smart enough to do that, and sees the sense of it, then he'd "own" the idea too. Of course he'd co-operate, willingly, not under duress of sanction.

Besides, it's impossible to punish Ilkali when several official parties have actually encouraged him to do it at GoG, either tacitly or explicitly. Or at least some sanctions also need to be imposed on those officials who did not set Ilkali straight. Or better still, let the officals go free, and Ilkali as well. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"When confronted for his pushiness, Ilkali's tendency is to accuse others of "ownership"". You're the only person I've ever accused of ownership, and I'm not the only one to do so. You would understand this dispute a lot better if you didn't start from the assumption that you are "impeccable".

"[...] is a string of editors failing to satisfy Ilkali regarding the reason why certain typographical conventions are actually helpful". As I've already said above, it's not for me to decide and it's not for you to decide. The MoS is defined collaboratively. The difference is this: You think we should ignore it when we want to, I think we shouldn't. Ilkali (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether you accuse people of "not getting Wiki", "ignorance", "immaturity", "ownership" or whatever, Ilkali, a range of people have noted that when your edits are rejected, you end up offering speculations regarding motives (addressing other editors) rather than demonstrating examples from reliable sources (addressing the text). In the GoG case you even went so far as to ignore reliable sources offered against your edit, and to call for others to endorse your speculations regarding another editor's motives. Thus began a snowball of unverified calumny, that looks like it will take months to reverse.

To suggest that I have ever thought I've owned any article at Wikipedia has never been demonstrated. It is an unfounded personal attack. It requires apology and withdrawl.

What people can observe is that I have made a lot of sourced contributions at many articles at Wiki, and that I am willing to offer opinions on changes at those articles. That's not ownership, that's participation. In fact, it is "flawless editing".

On the other hand, you show so much commitment to your own "copy edits" that you are willing to accuse people of bad faith if they do not accept them. And, in fact, this is a form of bad faith editing.

It is obvious to more than a dozen people who have been involved in discussion with you about your editing that this is what you do. You only get away with it because third parties (and sometimes correspondants themselves) find it hard to know what you are saying and so give you the benefit of the doubt.

My concern in this ArbCom is not so much your pattern of editing, but the inappropiate actions of parties that should have taken responsibility to correct it; and certainly should not have endorsed that part of your editing that involves personal attacks on motives, specifically those against me.

If your unhelpful way of thinking is not addressed, sanctions only delay an inevitable return of confusing and divisive edits, or encourage adoption of a new screen name. Since apparantly anyone is allowed to present themselves as a psychologist, let me have my turn. I think Ilkali calls for Cognitive behavioral therapy, in practice all this means is official spokespeople for Wiki explaining to Ilkali what Wikidas, Nick Graves, T. E. Clontz and Alastair Haines have pointed out, and talking through alternative strategies with Ilkali. A mentor would be a friendly option, and could be discontinued when Ilkali's contributions show a style Ilkali is comfortable with, but do not put individuals who disagree with him at risk. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"It is obvious to more than a dozen people who have been involved in discussion with you about your editing that this is what you do". You didn't even quote more than a dozen people, Alastair, let alone get actual, explicit estimations of my character from them. You are making this up. Additionally, how many people now have said that your editing of GoG alone has been less than "flawless"? Have we hit ten yet? If not, we're not far from it. Do appeals to numbers only work for you?

"In the GoG case you even went so far as to ignore reliable sources offered against your edit". You never cited anything remotely relevant, and you never could have. The kinds of issues we discussed ("The scope of the article should be X", "Y is too general for this article", "Z contravenes the MoS") aren't resolved by reference to external sources.

"To suggest that I have ever thought I've owned any article at Wikipedia has never been demonstrated. It is an unfounded personal attack. It requires apology and withdrawl". You are demonstrating one of many traits that makes you difficult to work with. You are allowed to make any criticisms you like, but any slightly negative comment on you is a taken as a "personal attack".

You have again rehashed all the same criticisms and given no supporting evidence. You need more than statements of opinion, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting times

From my talk page today:

And I guess that wasn't uncivil? I really do wish you would "document the history of your rude and malicious disruption at Gender of God". You believe you are cleverer than most (possibly true) and that that gives you the right to dictate the content of articles you have adopted. In the end this god complex will be your undoing. You are a very sad person Haines and the sooner you are gone from here the better for Wikipedia and its editors. Abtract (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Being accused of having a "god complex" by Abtract, like being accused of being "passive aggressive" by Ryusho and L'Aquatique are personal attacks. ArbCom have not yet proposed sanctions on Abtract, Ryusho and L'Aquatique, and I do look forward to seeing what they propose. I shudder to think what it might be, when sanctions have been suggested even on an editor like myself who has done nothing but alert people to genuine errors they have made.

It would appear that adminstrators and processes at Wikipedia are willing to encourage personal attacks, and punish even the victims, rather than seek resolution via apologies that acknowledge error and commit to not repeating it.

Is this whole thing about people thinking I think I am clever than most and am entitled to special priveleges. If so, where have I claimed such a thing? The only people I see claiming special priveleges are administrators, who apparently feel they are above any accountability for their decisions. I'm sorry, but I don't recall seeing the policy that explained this system of social superiority.

This case may be dragging out for some time after all. As Abtract himself notes, I haven't even started addressing evidence with regard to him. Give me time, I'm not any God, and I have a life beyond Wiki. It's only a matter of a few more months, unless someone is willing to help.

Abtract is indeed helpful to this case, it helps ArbCom see precisely what people are attempting to use them to achieve. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting times take 2

From Haines talk page today:

Section header: Masculinity

Apologies Haines, I seem to have stumbled across another topic area that you own. Abtract (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Section header: Show preview:

Just a helpful hint ... if you use the "show preview" tab at the bottom of an edit before pressing "save page", it avoids swamping the edit history with 20 or more edits in a short time as you have done on masculinity. Abtract (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:Abtract, in reply to both uncivil comments above, consider yourself warned for attempting to provoke ongoing disharmony. :Ironically, had you actually used the edit history, you would see that you inadvertantly made two edits that I had previously made, but had agreed for others to change. :So, in fact, I thank you for making two edits that we both agree are genuine improvements. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

::Apologies if you found my comments "uncivil" - I would appreciate knowing what was uncivil about them so that I can avoid doing it again? I never "inadvertantly" make edits (quite a difficult thing to do I would have thought), I edit to improve the article regardless of whether it is an edit of which you approve or not, so there is no irony in it. Abtract (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh! Nothing new, just your usual slanderous and demonstrably false suggestions like that I think I "own" articles. Some time in the next month I'll also document the history of your malicious and rude disruption at Gender of God. Showing up at Masculine and Feminine is also blatant stalking and provocation. Additionally, I would suggest there's a plausible case that you were attempting to influence things with ArbCom, which shows contempt in trying to deceive them even further. :::Your credibility is no higher than the tone of your language at the ArbCom evidence page, as noted by two independent editors. You've also drawn Cailil into two errors, the misjugement of failing to see and address your rudeness, and then an unretracted demonstrably false personal attack on me. That's a lot of incivility, in fact, it's probably just plain trolling, exploiting the nature of the medium and processes to cause harm. :::And to think I tried to give you a break and attribute some good faith to you. Silly me, eh? :::Don't try to give the impression you're willing to apologize, I've spelled out clearly more than once where apologies are owing. The evidence page at ArbCom alone requires plenty. Address that first, then we can talk. Otherwise, conversation is over. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::::And I guess that wasn't uncivil? I really do wish you would "document the history of your rude and malicious disruption at Gender of God". You believe you are cleverer than most (possibly true) and that that gives you the right to dictate the content of articles you have adopted. In the end this god complex will be your undoing. You are a very sad person Haines and the sooner you are gone from here the better for Wikipedia and its editors. Abtract (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Being accused of having a "god complex" by Abtract, like being accused of being "passive aggressive" by Ryusho and L'Aquatique are personal attacks. ArbCom have not yet proposed sanctions on Abtract, Ryusho and L'Aquatique, and I do look forward to seeing what they propose. I shudder to think what it might be, when sanctions have been suggested even on an editor like myself who has done nothing but alert people to genuine errors they have made.

It would appear that adminstrators and processes at Wikipedia are willing to encourage personal attacks, and punish even the victims, rather than seek resolution via apologies that acknowledge error and commit to not repeating it.

Is this whole thing about people thinking I think I am clever than most and am entitled to special priveleges. If so, where have I claimed such a thing? The only people I see claiming special priveleges are administrators, who apparently feel they are above any accountability for their decisions. I'm sorry, but I don't recall seeing the policy that explained this system of social superiority.

This case may be dragging out for some time after all. As Abtract himself notes, I haven't even started addressing evidence with regard to him. Give me time, I'm not any God, and I have a life beyond Wiki. It's only a matter of a few more months, unless someone is willing to help.

Abtract is indeed helpful to this case, it helps ArbCom see precisely what people are attempting to use them to achieve. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the remarks that led up to the one Haines quoted (bolded so that his habitual out of context quoting can be seen for what it is). No more needs to be said. Abtract (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agendas

I think it would be helpful to point out some problems with collaborative editing, and a possible solution. I'll preface this with the irony that Alastair has the solution.

In my encounters with Lisa, she has consistently pushed for accuracy.

In Lisa's encounters with me, I have consistently pushed for intelligibility.

In my encounters with Ilkali, we have fought over spelling and syntax.

In everyone's encounters with Alastair, he has fought for process.

Oh, I'll throw in Slrubenstein too -- he pushes for notability and verifiability.

My point here is that everyone is right in what they are attempting to do. The problem is that we have been pushing our right ideals to such ideological extremes that we are not allowing the other people to enhance our own purposes. Its like the old political adage that my enemy is my best friend. Can you imagine an America in which either Republicans or Democrats took permanent control of all three branches of government?

Everyone has been wrong because we haven't been allowing everyone else to be right -- well, almost everyone has been wrong. The irony here is that Alastair is the one who's been right. We have to use a process. Sourced information shouldn't just be eliminated, but it certainly can be clarified or moved to a more appropriate spot. When Ilkali or Lisa removed sourced text, Alastair restored it with an invitation for discussion. After all -- it was sourced. It should be somewhere. It's real information. If it's in the wrong place, fine. If it needs to be clarified, fine. But we shouldn't go around eliminating real information or we'll be warring at the expense of building.

But what is the process?

1. Well, as Slrubenstein says, it should be notable and verifiable, and NPOV. That's the first step.
2. As Lisa says, it should be accurate to its native context. You don't reduce relativity to Newtonian physics just because Newtonian physics is easier to write. That ain't accurate. But it must FIRST be notable, verifiable, and NPOV.
3. As I say, if you have two accurate ways of expressing it, and one is clearer to all audiences than another, then at least include the clear one. But it must FIRST be notable, verifiable, NPOV, and accurate.
4. As Ilkali says, it should fit stylistic conventions. But it must FIRST be notable, verifiable, NPOV, accurate, and intelligible.
5. As Alastair says, we should at least talk about it before eliminating something that is notable and verifiable (i.e. sourced).

Normally, Alastair invites discussion and then encourages the original writer as they take over the section and rewrite it -- without wiping out the information that they had originally removed.

I think that we do indeed lack in process and collaborative spirit here. And pressing arbcom to make a pronouncement from on high (this is RIGHT) isn't going to solve anything, because ALL of these are right PIECES of the process. But they are not the whole pie -- and in treating them as such we have been wrong.

Accuracy trumps intelligibility; but intelligible accuracy trumps unintelligible accuracy. Intelligibility trumps stylistic convention; but intelligible stylistic convention trumps unconventional intelligibility -- unless there is a point of accuracy or decorum involved (such as God).

Our problem is in not wanting to work together -- as Alastair encourages -- and so everyone gets mad at Alastair. Because he's wrong? No, but because he's wanting to balance everyone's right agendas with everyone else's right agendas. We aren't mad at Alastair. We're mad at collaborative editing.

And a judgment against Alastair is just as counter productive as a pronouncement such as thou shalt be accurate or thou shalt follow the Manual of Style.

This is collaboration. There are competing goods here. We're only wrong when we deny what is right in others.

Oh, and if you disagree with me. Don't get mad at me. Get mad at Alastair. He's the one I learned collaborative editing from.Tim (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are describing a fiction. I can find almost no similarity between the world you present and the reality I've been living in. Ilkali (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali -- you and I are arguing spelling and syntax even here. Weren't you with yourself when you made the comments above?Tim (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to argue syntax. I'm telling you to take it to my talk page rather than cluttering this discussion. Ilkali (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS discussion is about collaborative editing, which requires seeing what is right in the other editors more than what is wrong. We all have our little pet peeves, and we all need the balance of the other editors with their pet peeves. By respecting theirs, we mitigate the overemphasis of our own. Here's my point, and it's pretty simple: you can hammer something that's right so far that it becomes wrong. That's true in politics, collaborative editing, and life. Syntax was only a single example, and you made my point on this very page. I note the sarcasim in the emphasis of "trying" -- as in "you're trying to argue syntax" (but not succeeding). Your problem here is that you are making "God" a common noun in a context in which there are no other gods to share the title. The title cannot be common in a context in which no others have, will, or even can exist. Further, you are making what has become a name into a common noun. It doesn't work in a monotheistic context (which holds for half the planet). "MONO" eliminates the possibility for "common"; there is no one else to share it "in common." "Common" requires some sharing. There's no other god to share the title with. To give another example, in Judaism one could use "messiah" as a common noun, because there are many who have been annointed. 2500 years ago, if you asked directions to see the messiah, people who ask, "which messiah do you want to see?" In Christianity, however, "Christ" is a proper noun. It even substitutes for the name. You can't say "Christ is a christ" in a Christian context, because any OTHER "christs" would by definition be "false." So, "Christ is a christ" is like saying "the true Christ is a false christ" and that's self-contradictory. But, as I said, in a Jewish context "the Messiah is a messiah" is a true statement. He is the supreme among others who have been anointed. And, in a MONO (i.e. unique with none in common) theistic context, God cannot be "a god" because there is and can only be One. Any others are fake. "God is a god" is henotheistic, not monotheistic.

Okay, I'm done now. I don't ask you to agree. How can you? But I'd appreciate it if you could see the point as something other than static. It isn't nonsense. There are consistent contextual syntactic considerations that prohibit the commonality of a noun in reference to ONE who has no others in common.Tim (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I used the word "trying" is that I am refusing to discuss this here. If you want to argue syntax, take it to my talk page. Ilkali (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the communication has served its purpose here, as a demonstration of how collaboration is offered and refused. The "issue" (of god vs God) isn't the issue. Collaboration is the issue. My point is that there are multiple goods that should be complimentary instead of in competition. This mini-argument was a perfect example of something tiny taken to a titanic extreme, with no collaborative spirit, and in fact with belittling ("you wouldn't understand the syntactical issues involved") thrown in instead of genuine rapproachment. The solution is self-evident from the example: we all need a change in attitude. Humility is in order, for all of us.Tim (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)