User talk:Alienus

I'm not doing this. I have no confidence whatsoever in Wikipedia's brand of justice and I know that the end result of arbitration will be my departure, so I'm just going to walk away right now. Wikipedia just isn't worth it. It's not fair enough to deserve my time and trouble. Please remove my account, I won't be back. You "win". Al 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Al. I've seen some positive indications, even if arbitration were to continue. Fred changed his vote, and Charles seems reasonable. A number of us have put time and effort into supporting you, in the hopes that you would be able to continue here. I'd like to see how things go. In addition, Sophia has indicated that she will leave as well if you were to go. I'd also like to see that your concerns aired. Regardless of the eventual outcome, that would be a positive thing in itself. ^^James^^ 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the end result of the arbitration will be your departure. On the contrary, it will give you a chance to become a better editor so that you and the community can be proud of. You are a very intelligent person, and could be an asset to this project if you could listen to what the community has to say about some of your behaviors. Trusting the "system" in this case may be a decision that you may not regret. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi and James are right. Please stay and participate. -Will Beback 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have disagreed on occasion, Al, but I for one don't want you to leave. You have a lot to contribute. Please do not leave. I don't believe that the arbcom is in any danger of banning you. All they may do is analyse your behaviour and give you their analysis. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've disagreed on practically every occasion, and I don't want you to leave either. Punishment isn't the spirit of Wikipedia. Understand why what you're doing is upsetting people and try to avoid doing it, and there's no reason for the AC to do anything major. Don't go. Learn and change. I did. (Lengthier comment sent by email.) Jakew 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al, I've been following (but not commenting on) this process. You're a valuable and helpful editor, and I'd hate to see you leave. Fireplace 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Go away.

I did not realize that the blanking of your talk page was intentional. I assumed that the bug with the Google toolbar and Firefox had hit, reasulting in content being removed. I apologize for reverting against your wishes, but I would reccomend that you at least archive your talk page for reference purposes.--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the Request for comment?

For Wikipedia to be successful, editors need to feel that they will be treated fairly.

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

In my opinion bypassing the Request for commnet phase of the dispute resolution process significantly undermines the perception that editors will be treated fairly. -- DanBlackham 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly right, and the question of why things are being done this way has been asked again and again. Of course Al feels like he's being mistreated! He is! No one has the decency to follow procedure, and no on has the decency to answer a simple question. And now that he has decided to leave, now all of those who were moments ago pushing for extreme and speedy punishment come here to ask him to stay? I don't believe this, it is ridiculous. roma rin [talk ] 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be misinformed. ArbCom cases are not about "punishment" (You may want to read WP:AP.) And if you follow the threads, no one was arguing for anything such as an "extreme and speedy punishment", but hoping that Alienus would receive good quality feedback from the community through the ArbComn, so that he may chose to change some of the behaviors observed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can say what you want, but I for one don't have much faith in this system anymore. Open your eyes. I read the posts, I saw what everyone said. Sorry, but this whole thing is just not cool. roma rin [talk ] 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's a funny thing - you can make it into things it wasn't just by acting like it already is. If you treat Wikipedia as a criminal justice system, then congratulations, you've just made Wikipedia into a criminal justice system for yourself - and a shitty one at that. "Open your eyes" isn't really the right metaphor when we're the ones creating reality. The direction the RfAr takes is entirely up to Alienus, until he abdicates that power. If you don't believe me, then like Yoda said, "that is why you fail." -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the RfAr page

In the view of many administrators and users, Alienus is an inveterate edit warrior who is prone to making personal attacks and gratuitously assuming bad faith towards anyone with whom he has a dispute. In the view of Alienus and some of his supporters (he has some), he is a fearless opponent of corrupt and lax administrators. If the former is true, a personal attack parole and revert parole might do the trick. If the latter is true (and the two claims may not be mutually exclusive) then there is a greater problem caused by corrupt (or incompetent) administrators.

Blocking does not seem to significantly improve the situation because of the acrimony that results between a growing snowball of involved administrators and editors.

Yea - Al has a real choice on how it goes. Sophia 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al has a huge amount of control over how it goes, if he chooses to use it. Any time he wants, he can turn this boat around, but he seems happier to complain about how others steer than to take the rudder himself. The most disempowering thing you can do to yourself is to decide that you're powerless. Nobody's powerless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation represents just one viewpoint, from someone who isn't even a member of the ArbCom. Further, a "personal attack parole" is harmless if one isn't making personal attacks, and a "revert parole" is harmless if one isn't reverting. If being banned is the outcome dreaded most, then what's the advantage of leaving? It has the same effect as being banned, only the circumstances are different. Lastly, I don't think that the people commenting here "were moments ago pushing for extreme and speedy punishment". Provocative language like that won't help resolve any disputes. -Will Beback 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes the only power you feel you have left is to no longer let others have power over you. His decision and mine. Sophia 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that feeling, and I refuse to blame Alienus if he goes with it, but that doesn't make it a true reflection of reality. Will Beback may not understand the psychological value of taking oneself out, over being taken out by others, but Sophia, you and Alienus don't understand the solution that remains in Alienus' reach, only unreachable because of his refusal to extend an arm. (There's a little bit of pride that might have to be swallowed as well, if I may mix a metaphor...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am disappointed. Something good could have come out of all this. If the arbcom ruling was too restrictive, I would have understood and supported Al's leaving. But this early departure means that all this fuss was a monumental waste of time. The legitimate issues Al had will not be aired, and the harassment he experienced will remain unchallenged. (Yes, I understand that many of you believe that *sighing* in an edit summary is a blockable offence. Don't bother arguing the point, as it's only my opinion.) ^^James^^ 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Al but for myself pride was never an issue. Please read the RfAr case - what length of arm is required to reach across that divide? I wouldn't want to edit Buffy articles for ever either and if he got 4 a day ban for "edit warrior" in a fair exchange what hope has he of living up to the exacting scrutiny he would fall under?

To James - no experience good or bad is ever a waste of time. Issues can only be aired if others will answer honest questions - something that has not happened at all over the last few days so at this moment in time it would be an even greater waste to continue. Sophia 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, Sophia. It's always going to be somewhat messy dealing with human beings, especially among young minds who are haphazardly learning to wield power. We are dealing only with words here, so our emotional reactions are entirely up to us. I did see some glimmers of hope, and I would have liked to see how it played out. But ultimately, it's not my call. I do understand how futile it must seem (believe me!), and I wish you and Al well.

Well, I guess it's back to my little corner of wikipedia! I dare not venture out again! Yikes! :) ^^James^^ 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I've read the RfAr case - you might note that I contributed there, and cited your own comments in a positive way. Anyway, your and Alienus' apparent inability or unwillingness to imagine any of the multitude of positive outcomes I could see for the RfAr isn't proof that they don't exist, only that pessimistic self-fulfilling prophecies... fulfull themselves. I gave Alienus a lot of very specific suggestions by email regarding how to respond to RfCs and the like, different approaches to editing that wouldn't involve compromising his work on controversial articles, et cetera, but he chose to ignore that advice and go away instead, proving once again that if you truly believe that you "can't" do something, then you're right. The easy arm to extend would look like a simple agreement that he has a behavior pattern that could be improved from his end. Did he ever give the community a chance to meet him halfway with a good-faith gesture like that? "Pride" is my guess why he was unwilling to do so. Since he's gone, we may never know if I'm right. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reality of the situation is that an important step in the dispute resolution process was bypassed. There was no request for comment for Alienus. In my opinion when there are credibly accusations of inappropriate behavior by administrators, the established procedures should be followed more closely to insure fairness, not short-circuited. -- DanBlackham 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]