Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 12 August 2008

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by clarifying to those who have made them, why they are neither necessary nor helpful, and organize for them to be withdrawn.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 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 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

These users' activity is a bit concerning, but I'm sure the Arbs will take that in to account--Cailil 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For your scrutiny, here're the reports of your 3RR violations: , .

"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 17:44, 10 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 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): , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ... 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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) and Slrubenstein (whom I contacted for review of my ANI post) 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 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[REDACTED] since January 2008. This is quite a red flag--Cailil 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 (). 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 Misplaced Pages 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" (). Tim has a strong interest in interfaith dialog. I don't think that Misplaced Pages is a place for such things. Note this diff, for example: where Tim explains that his priority is that Christians understand what Jews mean. This may be of value in the world in general, but Misplaced Pages 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 (), Tim's response was this: .

Despite this bitterness, he actually invited me to help out on pages he was editing (), 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 Misplaced Pages and get them to come here to join him in the character assassination (, ). 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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: ), 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--Cailil 17:09, 11 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

On July 7, 2008, I requested that the Mediation Cabal consider the article on Shituf (), 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 WP:OR original research and WP:SYNTH 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:

(): 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 Misplaced Pages.

And then accuses me of POV.

I have a POV, just like everyone. But I respect the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 () 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 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 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)