User talk:Buster7/Archives/2010/May

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

• User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
• Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
• To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for Alastair Haines

You said:

Editors who are NOT in conflict with User:Alastair Haines and support his immediate return are strongly urged to make constant references to him on-wiki following his departure and throughout his banishment.

What does that mean? I think he got a raw deal and would be happy to help get him back, but how will making references to him, and where do those references take place, help him out? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. And even if we did think of something helpful, we need to only act on his behalf according to his wishes -- because even the best intentions could backfire. He's been tied up lately with real world stuff, so let's wait to see what he has to say offline before antagonizing folks online. Regardless, let's let everyone cool down first. The last thing we want to do is to turn a year into an eternity.EGMichaels (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

EGM. You play your cards, I'll play mine. I see no harm that can come to Alastair by fellow editors making references to him (in whatever manner they see fit) to prevent the entire matter from being "swept under the rug". How can Alastair be held accountable for my actions (or yours) in his support. It's like a Remember the Alamo type thing. I don't think he will mind. And if he does he will let me know.

Bill. I just thought it was a strange comment by the arbcom to warn those that had conflict with Mr. Haines to not make reference to him. Since I have never had conflict with Alastair their edict was not directed at me. But, it struck me that the opposite was possible for his supporters. A simple idea. You edited articles with him. You got a sense of who he is. His thoughts and ideas and sharings are in many archives for many articles. Information-gathering happens in many forms. Anyway....A year is a very long time. Let's see what happens.--Buster7 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Buster -- I'm just suggesting you check with Alastair first, that's all. The injuction of those in edit conflict with him not mentioning his name is a sound one, since uncivil comments directed at him was the foundation of all of this. Instead of those other editors getting corrected, he was whacked on the first arbcom because they didn't like the word he used to describe the uncivil behavior -- even though that word does indeed have policies in place which would apply.

If we make mention of Alastair, though, there are several potential problems:

1. If we mention him, it is fair for his detracters to respond, since our support of him is equivalent to criticism of them. They would, could, and should defend themselves. Remember that it was an unfair advantage of anoynymous screen names using Alastair Haines REAL name in a [blank] way that created this whole mess. We shouldn't attempt an unfair advantage because it's unwinnable. He has a known name and they do not. Even if we win -- they are anonymous -- so who cares?
2. The Arbitration Committee is made up of real people. They have their beliefs and emotions, and continuously pressing the issue will antagonize them. Two of them hinted very strongly about banning me. I'm not sure that getting more people banned would make them feel better about Alastair. Ultimately he'll have to get their clearance to come back. Opposing them will simply make them dig their heels in worse.
3. There is an administrator involved, and the edit war is being pressed while Alastair is gone. This man took a year and a half to bring everything together, and he was very effective. I'd suggest steering very clear of him. He'll have an unlimited amount of time to construct a charge against you and will make sure that you have no appropriate time to respond.
4. Alastair is a real person who is affected by what we do. Just make sure you don't do something that will affect him without his at least passive support.EGMichaels (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just something to keep in mind: Users have been banned from advocating for other users in the past (see here). Now, please don't take this as a threat, it's just something that's important to think about when you decide how to go about this. And mind you, I get the impression the users who were restricted in that case were fairly extreme in their advocacy. As long as you don't go overboard, as they say, you'll probably be fine. I mean, I sometimes bring up AC decisions I didn't agree with, too. (I've no opinion on Alastair's banning, since I'm unfamiliar with the case.) I'm really not trying to discourage you from bringing up this issue, just thought it was only fair for you to know some precedents here. Do what you think is right. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I have no intention of confronting anyone involved in the case--neither editor to editor nor in some subversive manner. And that is not what I am suggesting. Who is John Galt? is an example of what I see possible. A meme that slowly spreads across WikiWorld. An underlying conversation, here and there, a friendly mention in passing, about a wonderful editor that once passed thru here on his way to somewhere else.--Buster7 (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said, you do what you think's right. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Something innocuous enough could be putting wwAs (what would Alastair say) on our signature lines ;-).EGMichaels (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That type of thing. A great idea! wwAs--Buster7 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool -- why don't we make a little tribute page with nothing but nice things we learned from Alastair -- and NO MENTION of the arbcom or his detractors. Just nice things about Wikipedia editing we learned from him. We could make the wwAs wikilink to the list of nice things, and that should be enough.EGMichaels (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Buster7/wwAs. Construction Zone---Please wear a hard hat. wwAs--Buster7 (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice page Buster7.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks for getting this started!EGMichaels (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)