Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute

T'aint no coinkydink, niggah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.207.16 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first involvement in an arbitration, so I'm not entirely sure where to put this comment.

With regards to me being included in this arbitration and as apart of the revert war. My only revert regarding the disputed Darwin & Lincoln birthday was a "protest" against Adraeus for making a non-fully descriptive editting summary. See my edit here [1] where I make it explicitly clear of why I reverted (and compare Adraeus' edit with what the summary was). Deleting the disputed text is not a "spacing change". I would have done the revert regardless of "which side" made the summary error.

But I don't believe my action is under the microscope here. If to the contrary, please enlighten me. Cburnett 03:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By default you are included as a user opposed to the inclusion of the previously described data due to a vote you cast to not include the fact at all. Your action you described is not reason for your inclusion as an advocate for said trivia as you acted in good faith to clarify my deficient edit summary. [2]

26. Coincidental trivia of two unrelated people of their births on different continents. This revert war makes me laugh because of how stupid it is. Cburnett 01:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus 05:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And, originally, I was not in the opposition list, but you have since moved my name. Like I said, if my actions are under the microscope the please say so. It's fairly clear that this is regarding Vincent's conduct, not the content. Cburnett 06:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vincent's conduct should be examined, but the personal attacks by Adraeus and Mrfixter also deserve a look. Rhobite 06:44, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

moved from the main page

Are you opposed to inclusion of the described factoid in the Charles Darwin article? Have you reverted edits that were opposed to consensus? If you answered yes to either question, you should provide your support. By default you were included in the list of parties opposed to inclusion of the said factoid, which is reasonable considering you did participate in opposing inclusion. Adraeus 04:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have not given my opinion (if any) on the inclusion of the trivia in the article, nor do I see the need to do so now. My reason for reverting was that it was that the edit was in my view against consensus. Even if my opinion was that it shouldn't included, that does not automatically mean I appreciate being dragged into this RfAr without being asked. --fvw * 05:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Note that I was not the user who originally included you. If you wish to remove yourself, do it. Adraeus 06:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments from WMC

(William M. Connolley 09:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I'm involved in this somewhat peripherally: I've reverted Vp's addition of the factoid about 4 times. I think the evidence in this case is hardly needed as all sides agree on what is going on: most people (who have expressed an opinion...) don't want the fact in there; a few do (see vote). There doesn't appear to be any good way of solving this, past one of the sides giving up (doesn't look likely) or some imposed decision (which I suspect all sides would rather welcome; I would). There is a need to resolve trivial-yet-endless disputes of this nature and at the moment wiki doesn't have one, or this wouldn't have got so far. Coin-tossing (or die-rolling to relfect the vote) would do if there is nothing else.

Comments from Dunc

I did at one point block Vp15 for violating 3RR, but this was taken off after he contacted his mediator. Dunc|☺ 11:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correction: I was unblocked by McGiverMagic who is not my mediator. MGM remained neutral throughout the debate, and you'll notice that he was first to freeze the page, with the factoid off. Vincent 23:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nasrallah comments

I would like to ask the ArbCom to try and expedite this case as quickly as possible, since it is clear that Charles Darwin will remain protected until this case is resolved. Maybe some temporary injunctions? I am not up to speed with Arbitration rules... --Nasrallah 20:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:LAME

I only saw this WP:RFAr because I was browsing WP:LAME and I thought this was patently ridiculous. I call for decisive action on the part of ArbCom. --JuntungWu 09:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunate

I find the lack of consideration of User:Vfp15's newness to the project, and the problems regarding our methods of determining article content unfortunate. I also find the lack of a personal attacks parole for User:Adraeus particularly troubling, and am curious as to the reasoning behind such a lack of attentiveness to User:Adraeus's more lengthy stay within our community, and the antagonistic and escalating effects he has had throughout his history in discussions of otherwise mundane matters. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since Vincent started editing as Vfp15 on the Wikipedia a little over a year ago, I think that it is hard to call Vincent "new", although with only 1117 edits during that time (and around 1/4 of those edits devoted to the Charles Darwin/Abraham Lincoln dispute), you could still call him inexperienced and even maybe a little naïve (in contrast, I did over 2,000 edits in three months). On the other hand, by your own admission, you did act as an "unofficial" adviser/advocate for Vincent, and the evidence shows that you have some familiarity with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process—information that you should have shared with Vincent about what the outcome might be if his actions were reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. But even though he had one official and one unofficial advocate, since it was Vincent who was the one who initiated the RfM and the first RfAr, he is the one who was responsible for reading about the rules and procedures for both Requests, and he also should have spent some time investigating some of the past cases—both the evidence presented and decisions made—so that he would have a better understanding of the possibilities and consequences of RfM's and RfAr's. The way things are currently organized (mostly for the benefit and convenience of the Mediators and Arbitrators), it is not easy to slog through past cases, but it can be done. That is exactly what I did when I was thinking about going through the RfM/RfAr steps against Vincent just before 14 January.

As the Arbitration Committee ruling clearly shows, their decisions were based not on the trivia that Vincent was adding to the Charles Darwin article, but only on his behaviour. But I do agree that there are problems with the concept of consensus and NPOV in editing the Wikipedia. For intractable disputes where neither side is willing to compromise, or where one side is unwilling to acknowledge consensus, there is a strong incentive to take things to the point where RfC's, RfM's, and RfAr's are required. I've also seen behaviour on the Wikipedia that looks very much like one or more editors are trying to get the opposing side to give up instead going through the dispute resolution process. And I've also seen cases where it appears that one editor is trying to provoke another editor so that they will have a case to take through the dispute process. gK ¿? 09:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hpw dp ypu play this game, what are the rules? It looks like fun :-)

This whole debacle is an embarrasment to everything Wikipedia stands for.

This is a joke- literally, I linked here from comedic wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica! In fact, I feel embarrassed just to put my name into this bureaucratic clusterfuck. Srsly, people, let's just leave the fucking factoid be, and stop having such emotional problems. Wikipedia's content is 30% bureaucracy- as in, only 70% of WP is in the articles, etc. namespace. Jesus, I'm just adding to the problem! Awesimo 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]