Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop

Proposals by User:Abtract

The section headings in this need to be fixed up, replacing "Template" with something else. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on Abtract's talk page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

too much talk?

One of our notoriously complex cases reached 75Kb of Evidence talk in 12 days; you guys have done it in less than 4 days. The Workshop talk of that case reached 78Kb after almost 3 months; can we expect the same within one month?

To me, it looks like the parties are niggling at each others soft spots here on the talk pages, and also submitting evidence on the Evidence talk page. Is this part of the problem or part of the solution? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the problem (actually, it's just a continuation of the problem). I'll do my part in stopping. So 1/4th of it should go down.Tim (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the text on the page is not evenly distributed between editors:

Alastair: 24.9
LisaLiel: 20.1
Teclontz: 9.11
Ilkali: 8.97
L'Aquatique: 4.6

Ilkali (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult a case is is generally measured in Workshop KB rather than Evidenc KB, I've noticed. 87KB really isn't all that much (though it is quite a bit in a short time) Wizardman 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's probably time for everyone to move on.Tim (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long do we have to get our workshopping done, Wizardman? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separating distinct issues

It seems there are two completely separate matters being addressed on the evidence pages. The first is the concern expressed by numerous editors over Alastair Haines' conduct, which was the grounds for establishing this case in the first place, and the second is a dispute specifically between LisaLiel and Teclontz/Skywriter that has been brought up somewhere along the way. To be honest, it feels like this second dispute is piggy-backing on the Alastair Haines case. Is there some way we can separate them? Ilkali (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We took the case to look at all editors. The principles for both situations are most likely going to be the same. If there are user conduct issues that are interfering with writing the encyclopedia then we need to address them. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the legitimacy of the LisaLiel/Skywriter issue or the need to address it. I just think it's untidy and potentially confusing to have two essentially unrelated cases being discussed on the same pages. If it's not a problem for the arbitrators, though, then it's not a problem for me. Ilkali (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All doors and windows need to be opened and to stay open. Even closet doors. There may be a gorilla hiding, somewhere...--Buster7 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a relevant response to anything I've said. Ilkali (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilkali... Considering that my response was to FloNights statement, it is interesting that you feel it was directed at you. However, in my opinion, it is also a relevant response to everything you've said. Your constant attemts to rewrite history and your editorship need to "see the light day". What that light will reveal will go far to improve Wikipedia.

Also, I am not Mr Haines lapdog (as you hint somewhere in recent days)...and, please, don't bother to correct me...I know you didn't specifically call me a "lapdog"...but,it was your implication. I just give it a visual aide.--Buster7 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, using the form of address "Mr Haines" might indicate, to some readers, that the cap does indeed fit. Abtract (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Considering that my response was to FloNights statement, it is interesting that you feel it was directed at you". It's not all that interesting, since you indented it as though it were a reply to me. If you wanted to reply to FloNight, you should have used an indentation equal to that of her comment plus one.

"Your constant attemts to rewrite history [...]". You have no idea of the history. You weren't involved and haven't bothered to research. You are just here to say nice things about someone you like and bad things about people he doesn't like. Ilkali (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing disharmony

Please be aware that ongoing disharmony between the named parties and other editors will be factor in my decision when I vote for sanctions. Sanctions are not punitive, the intent is to stop ongoing problems. If I see ongoing problems then I'm much more likely to vote for sanctions. Collaborative editing is not possible when pages are dominated by disruptive users. I will vote for sanctions that remove editors who are interfering with collaborative editing. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Florence, I'll include Abtract's recent provocative behaviour along with his other disruption at Gender of God. I'll report his uncivil personal attacks at my talk page as well. It is important to me that those who have been attacking me cease, and I am depending on ArbCom to assist in that, in whatever way you think best.

If you can actually find any real evidence of something that actually looks like inappropriate words or actions from me, I'd be happy to engage with that. In the meantime, I'll keep on with documenting the endless personal attacks I'm asking for your help in bringing to an end. Cailil is the latest addition to the list. Though this is not too surprising given actions prior to this ArbCom anyway, as I hope people have already realised. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]