User:Rushyo/Regarding Alastair Haines
Since Alastair Haines has stated a firm intent to place me under ArbCom investigation I'm developing this document.
Per WP:User Page, specifically "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.", I would ask that one not vandalise or blank this page. Please use the talk page if you have comments.
Simple Overview
[edit]As a volunteer for the Mediation Cabal I offered to mediate on a dispute between Alastair, Ilkali and Alynna Kasmira regarding the article Gender of God. L'Aqùatique joined me as a mediator in this discussion. The case page is here and the discussion here. During this process a dispute arose between myself and Alastair and I resigned as a mediator to avoid conflict.
Point by point assessment of Alastair's concerns
[edit]- Failure to address what he believes to be the Cabal case's 'mandate' to take action on a comment made by Ilkali.
- My response to this was outlined in the case. I feel he misunderstood my mandate (a term I'm loathed to use, since I see this as an informal process) as a mediator. As a mediator I felt it was my role to achieve consensus on the content dispute, not to punish other users for their actions as Alastair stated my role was.
- I quoted the texts: 'facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts.' and 'Mediation seeks an amicable resolution to a content dispute' which were the closest things I could find to mission statement for the Cabal.
- When myself and L'Aquatique stated this we were met with a highly aggressive response stating what our role was and how it was reprehensible we failed to meet his expections.
- "I also ask the mediator to withdraw his own unsubstantiated opinions"
- 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. The opinions in question were stated in good faith as reasonable criticisms designed to help move the process along.
- "You have expressed an opinion on my talk page, without argument, and added a threat."
- The 'threat' in question was a standarised level 3 warning about POV content on the Gender of God article. It was made with respect to dozens of minor reversions since I initially took on the case and was made after my 'resignation'.
- I stated as part of the warning: "Extremely WP:tendentious editing. Some reverts have been starkly contrary to consensus. You have already been reported twice under 3RR, completely annihilated any chance of reaching consensus and I cannot assume good faith anymore. You have repeatedly made borderline WP:personal attacks as well."
- Personally I feel this was an extremely moderate warning given his behaviour towards others. I provided 3 diffs, that could have been construed as personal attacks, as evidence of the final claim. Had I not been an involved party at this point I would have certainly felt justified in using stronger warnings.
- "[...] I do hold you responsible for both failing to correct an editor whose incivility was demonstrated in the very request for mediation..."
- See above. I did not feel this was my role or my responsibility.
- "...and for slandering an impeccable editor who was asking for help."
- An 'impeccable' editor would not receive any 'slander' because they would have never done anything to incur it. The idea that placing a warning to inform someone of their actions on someone's user talk page it litigious is, in my opinion, laughable. Everyone who has stated they a negative view of some of Alastair's action has been accused of slander.
- "For anyone observing this interaction, please note Rushyo made personal comments while answering my request for mediation, he responded soon after with further accusations and a threat."
- Personal comments should read 'mild criticisms', further accusations should read 'justifications for those mild criticisms' and threat ought to read 'reasonable warnings about behaviour made after my resignation'.
- "It appears to me, at this stage, that appeals to alleged majorities determine text on a page, and appeals to other levels of process lead to unilateral action by "responsible" parties without examination of evidence, delay or accountability for their actions."
- Not even worth meeting. Spent a whole week reading evidence purely to assist his case and as for accountability... I'm pretty sure volunteering to help should not accrue me any more investigation than any other of my peers. Like him.
Independent points
[edit]- Alastair has failed to meet consensus on multiple issues yet continues to make a huge quantity of controversial edits to Gender of God.
- Alastair has been blocked for breaching the three revert rule on Gender of God, after being reported twice by separate parties, before he even requested mediation.
- During the mediation discussion he was extremely passive aggressive towards all four other involved parties.
- Since I resigned, he has also proceeded to attack the other mediator involved in almost entirely the same way he attacked me.
- Alastair has demanded apologies from every single party, including the administrator who blocked him, for their actions.
- Of that administrator he has stated "I expect an apology in due course. However, since I have limited time pursuing this will have to wait".
- At least half a dozen parties are currently engaged in 'debates' with Alastair because he has a contrary opinion on every single edit that occurs to Gender of God. No party has instinctually sided with him on any of these arguments.
- Fundamentally I entered this case with no bias. I don't really have much opinion on the topic (although I gave it where relevant and helpful to building consensus) and I repeatedly stayed my tongue as a mediator to avoid seeming like I was not neutral. On the other hand, Alastair has been pushing a POV throughout all of it.
- He has never once, with regards to this particular issue, stated he has been wrong or could be wrong with regards to anything. He has described his behaviour as 'impeccable'. For this reason, I have found it incredibly difficult to assume good faith as this cannot, in my opinion, occur without deliberate intent.