Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by User:Curps

[edit]

My complaint is that User:Vfp15 is conducting a pointless and sterile edit war at Charles Darwin.

He is also claiming in bad faith that voting on the content dispute that started this edit war can never be legitimate, even though he has thorough familiarity with the voting processes of Wikipedia, has called votes himself when it suited him to do so, and has invoked consensus resulting from a vote as a mandate to make an earlier edit in Charles Darwin.

Three months earlier

[edit]

Three months earlier, another editing dispute at Charles Darwin had been settled by means of a vote which User:Vfp15 himself called and tallied. This is germane, because it speaks to his willingness to call votes and accept their results as reflecting consensus (at least, in cases where the result is in his favor).

  • 00:43, 14 Sep 2004 [2]
  • 00:05, 16 Sep 2004 [4]
    • User:Vfp15 removes the infobox from Charles Darwin, citing consensus: Following 5 to 3 result after two full days, removing infobox
  • 00:18, 16 Sep 2004 [5]
    • User:Netoholic protests that the vote was not properly conducted, since two of the votes were added by User:Vfp15 himself, and the real result should have been tallied 4-3 in favor of keeping the infobox.

A brief mini–edit war at Charles Darwin ensues:

(cur) (last) 03:19, 16 Sep 2004 80.46.155.183 (fix spelling again)
(cur) (last) 03:16, 16 Sep 2004 Vfp15 (RV Netoholic. Note that I sign my edits.)
(cur) (last) 03:10, 16 Sep 2004 Netoholic m ((mostly) reverting sock puppet/IP vandal)
(cur) (last) 03:02, 16 Sep 2004 80.46.155.183
(cur) (last) 02:56, 16 Sep 2004 Netoholic (restore box, which has been present for many weeks.)
(cur) (last) 02:41, 16 Sep 2004 Vfp15 (rv Infobox see Talk)
(cur) (last) 00:30, 16 Sep 2004 198.70.247.138 (→Before Darwin)
(cur) (last) 00:20, 16 Sep 2004 Netoholic (vote is 3 to 4 in favor of the box.)
(cur) (last) 00:08, 16 Sep 2004 Vfp15 (Following 5 to 3 result, removing infobox)
(cur) (last) 00:05, 16 Sep 2004 Vfp15 (Following 5 to 3 result after two full days, removing infobox)

Both User:Vfp15 and User:Netoholic remove and revert the infobox three times.

Netoholic's three reverts are used up first because in the middle of this, (80.46.155.183 | talk | contributions) had also removed the infobox with one of his edits. It appears that User:Netoholic calls User:80.46.155.183 a possible sock puppet (03:10), but User:Vfp15 rejects this (03:16).

RIPE WHOIS reports that the block 80.40.0.0 – 80.47.255.255 belongs to Tiscali UK Limited in Great Britain; User:Vfp15's user page mentions that he is resident in Japan.

The infobox stays removed.

A few days later

[edit]

Again, this is germane because it shows User:Vfp15 calling a vote. This not only shows that he has a thorough understanding of the various voting processes in Wikipedia, but also that he understands that votes can be called not merely on presentational issues (whether to present information in the form of an infobox or inline in the article text) but also on deletion issues — and not just on deletion of individual "factoids" from within an article, but of entire articles.

List of edits by User:Vfp15 that added the birthdate coincidence to Charles Darwin

[edit]
  • 22:26, 3 Dec 2004 [7]
    • User:PxT edits Charles Darwin, removing the information that Abraham Lincoln shares the same birthdate as Charles Darwin. This information had been in the article for some time.

The next day User:Vfp15 reverts this removal. After others re-remove it, he does it again… and again. He eventually does so 55 times:


  • 07:55, 4 Dec 2004 [8] reinserted AL. It's interesting, factual, and often mentioned (e.g. by Stephen Jay Gould in an essay)
  • 05:43, 5 Dec 2004 [9] Sorry guys and with great regret I conclude you are wrong and reinsert said very interesting information... A thousand apologies
  • 23:58, 5 Dec 2004 [10]
  • 08:23, 8 Dec 2004 [11]
  • 04:09, 9 Dec 2004 [12]
  • 12:05, 9 Dec 2004 [13] — added as (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions)¹
  • 05:24, 10 Dec 2004 [14] — removed as (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions)¹, probably in response to [15]
  • 01:34, 11 Dec 2004 [16]
  • 04:29, 12 Dec 2004 [17]
  • 00:11, 13 Dec 2004 [18]
  • 00:19, 15 Dec 2004 [19]
  • 10:30, 15 Dec 2004 [20]
  • 23:13, 15 Dec 2004 [21]
  • 01:47, 17 Dec 2004 [22] Not obsessed. Insistant. However you seem obsessed with removing this very interesting coincidence of "just history". Please stop deleteting it, it's quite annoying.
  • 10:56, 17 Dec 2004 [23]
  • 11:12, 17 Dec 2004 [24]
  • 23:58, 19 Dec 2004 [25]
  • 00:14, 21 Dec 2004 [26] reinserting unsatisfactory compromise (though I prefer "Early life")
  • 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 [27] 1) Compromise 2) Waiting for mediation... A vote isn't acceptable.
  • 00:34, 22 Dec 2004 [28]
  • 11:11, 22 Dec 2004 [29]
  • 06:14, 23 Dec 2004 [30] Must admit I find it strange that the b'day bit is blasphemy but the Darwin awards are OK :)
  • 01:07, 24 Dec 2004 [31] Puh-leaze. If I were trying to "sneak" it in, I'd use a three month old sock puppet from a different access point! Vincent (sorry for not logging in...) — as (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions)¹
  • 07:20, 24 Dec 2004 [32]
  • 10:30, 24 Dec 2004 [33] <sigh> Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!! — as (218.176.34.86 | talk | contributions)²
  • 07:39, 25 Dec 2004 [34]
  • 03:07, 26 Dec 2004 [35]
  • 23:48, 28 Dec 2004 [36]
  • 08:52, 29 Dec 2004 [37]
  • 23:42, 29 Dec 2004 [38]
  • 00:03, 30 Dec 2004 [39]
  • 02:36, 8 Jan 2005 [40] Reinserting after a one week truce.
  • 03:40, 9 Jan 2005 [41]
  • 05:50, 9 Jan 2005 [42]
  • 02:48, 10 Jan 2005 [43]
  • 04:02, 10 Jan 2005 [44]
  • 04:56, 11 Jan 2005 [45]
  • 07:12, 11 Jan 2005 [46]
  • 03:16, 12 Jan 2005 [47]
  • 23:58, 12 Jan 2005 [48]
  • 07:31, 13 Jan 2005 [49]
  • 04:49, 14 Jan 2005 [50]
  • 10:27, 14 Jan 2005 [51]
  • 06:01, 15 Jan 2005 [52]
  • 07:02, 15 Jan 2005 [53] — as (218.176.34.86 | talk | contributions)²
  • 05:33, 16 Jan 2005 [54]
  • 07:43, 17 Jan 2005 [55]
  • 07:48, 17 Jan 2005 [56]
  • 07:31, 18 Jan 2005 [57]
  • 01:17, 19 Jan 2005 [58]
  • 03:55, 19 Jan 2005 [59] I think it would be proper to refrain from ordering others about. The talk page explains my position, and the three revert rule entitles me as well as limits me to three reverts a day.
  • 08:19, 19 Jan 2005 [60]
  • 00:31, 20 Jan 2005 [61]
  • 08:03, 21 Jan 2005 [62]
  • 09:38, 21 Jan 2005 [63]
  • 03:25, 22 Jan 2005 [64]


¹ For evidence that (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions) was User:Vfp15, note three talk page edits added by this IP. The first is simply circumstantial; the second was signed Vfp15; the third was signed with anon IP and then edited by Vfp15 to be signed by him instead:

RIPE WHOIS reports that the block 80.250.128.0 – 80.250.129.255 belongs to DePfa Systems GmbH in Germany.


² For evidence that (218.176.34.86 | talk | contributions) was User:Vfp15, see "10:34, 24 Dec 2004", "20:32, 24 Dec 2004", and "08:09, 25 Dec 2004" entries below.

Note in particular there is only a 4 minute difference between the "Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!!" edit above at 10:30 and the 10:34 block by User:Duncharris below; User:Vfp15 acknowledged and complained that it was himself who was blocked at 10:34.

APNIC WHOIS reports that the block 218.176.0.0 – 218.183.255.255 belongs to Softbank BB Corp in Japan.

Other events

[edit]
  • 12:36, 17 Dec 2004 [69]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin: Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day. If you think it's such a small thing, then why don't you take a deep breath and give up? (he removed the latter sentence one minute later: [70])
  • 12:49, 17 Dec 2004 [71]
    • User talk:Aaarrrggh: 16 times in a week is less than three times a day, so I am following the 3-revert rule.
  • 17:07, 17 Dec 2004 [72]
  • 04:14, 19 Dec 2004 [73] [74][75]
    • User:Vfp15 edits the wording of the request for comments to make it more neutral. He thereby seemingly implicitly accepts the idea of gathering opinions to determine consensus on whether or not to include the birthdate coincidence. The final wording is entirely written from scratch by him: There is an ongoing dispute between one user and a group of users about the inclusion of a ten word sentence about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin sharing a birthday. What would the best resolution of this dispute be?
  • 00:52, 21 Dec 2004 [76] [77]
  • 09:32, 21 Dec 2004 [78] [79]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin: Sorry, but at this point, there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet. I have asked for mediation and will wait for the results of that.
  • 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 [80]
    • User talk:Jerzy: I think the old expression "a tyranny of the majority" applies here. For that reason and because of the abuse I have been subjected to, I am boycotting the vote and waiting instead (failing a compromise) for the results of mediation.
  • 11:53, 22 Dec 2004 [81]
  • 18:36, 22 Dec 2004 [82]
  • 10:34, 24 Dec 2004 block log
  • 20:32, 24 Dec 2004 block log
  • 08:09, 25 Dec 2004 [83] [84]
  • 07:53, 25 Dec 2004 [85]
    • User talk:Imaglang: I'm boycotting the vote 1) beause it was proposed too late in the process, simply as a way to quiet me, and 2) because POV by a majority is still POV.
  • 04:28, 30 Dec 2004 [86]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln: Votes are fine to decide issues of style (e.g. the infobox dispute last September) but they do not apply when deciding factual assertions, and here the minority (i.e. Sam Spade, Brutannica, JackOfOZ, Willmcw, , at0, chocolateboy, and me) is right and the majority is wrong. I am willing to settle for a consensus on how the fact is presented, but not on if it is included.
  • 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 [87]
  • 03:18, 10 Jan 2005 [90]
  • 04:19, 10 Jan 2005 [91]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln: Since the arbitration committee rejected hearing the case, the dispute was not settled. I will therefore continue reinserting the fact in the Trivia section, following the three revert rule, until an acceptable compromise is reached.
  • 04:03, 19 Jan 2005 [92]
    • User talk:Mrfixter: I am not disprupting Wikipedia, I am participating. I would agree that you could demand I stop if I violated the 3RR, but I keep to three reverts within 24-hour periods.
  • 02:25, 20 Jan 2005 block log
  • 02:50, 20 Jan 2005 block log (redundant)
  • 08:09, 21 Jan 2005 [93]
  • 09:37, 21 Jan 2005 [94]
  • 10:57, 21 Jan 2005 [95]
  • 03:23, 22 Jan 2005 [96]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln: Mrfixter wrote Vincent, are you aware that there is a 5:1 opposition to your inclusion of a birthday conincidence? Do you care?. Yes, I am aware and I stated very clearly that I did find voting inappropriate.
  • 08:02, 22 Jan 2005 [97]
  • 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 [98]
    • Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln: Blocking is fine, but when the page is unblocked, I will continue with 3rr, and will do so until an acceptable compromise is reached, or until arbitration results in a decision.

Conclusion

[edit]

This arbitration is not about a content dispute. The issue is User:Vfp15's conduct: he is conducting a pointless and sterile edit war.

He is also showing bad faith by "boycotting" (his words) a vote for which he himself wrote the entire final wording (There is an ongoing dispute between one user and a group of users about the inclusion of a ten word sentence about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin sharing a birthday. What would the best resolution of this dispute be?), although three months earlier he himself had called for a vote to determine consensus on a different editing dispute at Charles Darwin and had used that vote as a mandate to push through removal of a longstanding element of the article. He also showed bad faith by later trying to claim that voting can only decide how to present a fact and not whether or not to include it, because first of all his own neutral and open-ended wording quoted above contained no such limitation, and secondly he is entirely aware that there is no such limitation on voting in Wikipedia policy, as shown by his own call for Vfd for the Engrish article.

The birthdate coincidence has been added a couple of times by User:Vfp15 to the Abraham Lincoln article as well [99] [100], and currently remains there. [101] However, that article has been going through its own small edit war over Lincoln's sexuality, and perhaps one of the sides in this edit war has commendably refrained from exporting it there — there would be no point in doing so while this remains unresolved, and the resulting mess would simply parallel what has happened here at Charles Darwin.

For what it's worth, I personally did not participate at all in this edit war, but did vote in the RfC against the inclusion of the birthdate coincidence.

I would simply ask that User:Vfp15 be enjoined not to conduct any similar pointless and sterile edit wars in the future, either at Charles Darwin or Abraham Lincoln or at any other page. I would ask that arbitration should formally state in some way that the three revert rule is not to be construed as creating any sort of entitlement, and in particular that reverting "three times [a] day 'til me dyin' day" is not acceptable. And I would urge him not to apply a double standard to voting when the consensus happens to be against him.

-- Curps 17:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Solipsist

[edit]

For the RfAr, the main issue here is User:Vfp15/Vincent's insistence on reverting the article to add the birthday trivia over a period of about 2 months, as listed by User:Curps above.

The good thing is that the various parties have been discussing the issue at Talk:Charles_Darwin/Lincoln/LincolnArchive01 and Talk:Charles_Darwin/Lincoln - possibly too much. An RfC was effective in drawing people to the discussion and produced a strong consensus against inclusion. Unfortunately this has largely been ignored and Vincent has continued to revert the article against a wide range of editors who keep removing the factoid. A whole range of arguments have been presented by both sides, but no resolution looks imminent.

To some extent this seems to have degenerated into a personal campaign against deletionism (of individual facts rather than articles). This can be seen in some of the statements listed above, but also in Vincent's original RfC comments;

  • 04:14, 19 Dec 2004 [103]
    • Vincent adds a defence to the RfC page saying
    • A group of wikipedians have gone on a crusade to delete the mention that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln shared a birthday ...
    • Please support me in keeping wiki articles free from self-appointed owners.
    • But retracts it one minute later and replaces the RfC with an improved more neutral version shortly after [104].
Thanks, I have added this to my section. -- Curps 00:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Sam Spade

[edit]

Quotes by User:Adraeus

[edit]
  • 09:19, 7 Jan 2005 [105]
    • "just another Sam Spade cronie"
  • 01:44, 25 Jan 2005 [106]
    • "you're openly admitting you're Vfp15's sockpuppet?"
  • 01:14, 22 Jan 2005 [107]
    • "I think Vincent should be strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel"
  • 00:45, 21 Jan 2005 [108]
    • "No debate is required. A few vandals here and there whose spraypaint is consistently washed away"
  • 07:50, 12 Jan 2005 [109]
    • "Sam Spade's detriment to Wikipedia as such is readily apparent"
  • 07:24, 11 Jan 2005 [110]
    • "I, like many others, will continue to revert your reinsertions, which amount to childish vandalism"
  • 11:37, 31 Dec 2004[111]
    • "How exactly is Sam Spade, a rabid anti-atheist theistic fundamentalist, going to benefit the Charles Darwin article?"
  • 15:11, 20 Dec 2004[112]
    • "That article was protected so many times due to Sam Spade and his cronies' pedantic, ignorant and arrogant POV pushing"

Edit Summaries by User:Adraeus

[edit]
  • 09:37, 11 Jan 2005 [113]
    • Edit Summary "rv. childish repeat vandalism"
  • 07:19, 11 Jan 2005 [114]
    • Edit Summary "rv. childish repeat vandalism"

Abusive comments/behaviour by User:Adraeus unrelated to the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute

[edit]
  • 00:54, 28 Dec 2004[115]
    • "list of atheists is not only incomplete and POV but also rubbish and irrelevant."
  • 02:06, 28 Dec 2004[116]
    • Disrupting wikipedia, assumably to prove a point?
  • 11:23, 27 Dec 2004[117]
    • Here he apparently explains the above edit and its motivations, as well as makes a rude comment to a user.
  • 16:27, 24 Dec 2004[118]
    • "one of the many simple-minded ad hominem attacks you've launched at me"
  • 11:49, 22 Dec 2004[119]
    • "Say whatever you want. I don't care"
  • 01:12, 22 Dec 2004[120]
    • Long litany of abuse/character defamation against myself, interspersed w quotes
  • 10:35, 21 Dec 2004[121]
    • "The anon apparently can't read"
  • 16:25, 19 Dec 2004[122]
    • "If you were not so biased, you would understand..."
  • 04:23, 19 Dec 2004[123]
    • "I'm not amazed by your lack of comprehension since you consistently distort the truth, re-interpret things in a way which you think benefits your agenda, and proceed to introduce what is "sneaky vandalism" into the article. Read what I wrote again and perhaps my words will penetrate your thick head"
  • 03:05, 19 Dec 2004[124]
    • "...and so his ego rears its ugly head"
  • 01:57, 19 Dec 2004[125]
    • "What is your malfunction?"
  • 14:08, 18 Dec 2004[126]
    • Many rude statements, and a rude section header. Statements include "If you still don't get it, either you're ignorantly arrogant or you're mentally incapable of comprehension. Get my point yet?"
  • 16:30, 16 Dec 2004[127]
    • "I urge you to actually learn" ... "I'm obliged to point you to a good resource regarding logical fallacies, which seem to be plentiful in your feeble arguments"
  • 16:13, 16 Dec 2004[128]
    • "fallacious, ambiguous and obviously unresearched"
  • 15:02, 14 Dec 2004[129]
    • "you tried to lie again"
  • 14:30, 14 Dec 2004[130]
    • "the well-known POV Warrior Sam Spade strikes again"
  • 13:04, 14 Dec 2004[131]
    • "mass pov-influenced reversion of corrections by the troll, BM"
  • 22:14, 10 Dec 2004[132]
    • "You're merely ignoring everything we've posted over the past few months. Troll."
  • 16:12, 10 Dec 2004[133]
    • Extended rant, largely on the subject of myself
  • 15:29, 10 Dec 2004[134]
    • Similar to above, rant regarding myself
  • 02:33, 9 Dec 2004[135]
    • Very good example of how Adraeus interacts w others. Please read the comment just preceding his, its very insightful.
  • 01:47, 9 Dec 2004[136]
    • More attacks on myself
  • 15:47, 8 Dec 2004[137]
    • Yet more, including "Apparently, POV Warriors and Trolls don't like being pointed out and admonished"
  • 15:05, 8 Dec 2004[138]
    • Vandalizing my user page, suspiciously close after this anon edit vandalizing my user page
  • 06:25, 8 Dec 2004[139]
    • "you (and others like T2X) are apparently ignorant of the obvious issues that prohibit this article's development: 1) this article will remain protected until the POV Warriors (Sam Spade & Co.) are bridled and leashed"
  • 02:59, 8 Dec 2004[140]
    • "If BM chooses to ignore the information contained within our archives, should his opinion be considered?"
  • 17:27, 3 Dec 2004[141]
    • unpleasantries
  • 05:22, 18 Nov 2004[142]
    • "If the rational, intelligent or sane were given more value in resolutions, perhaps mediators and arbitrators would be worth having. As of now, thanks to an incredibly flawed NPOV policy which supports POV Warriors, neither committees are worth a grain of salt."

My Summary

[edit]

I feel that the evidence against User:Adraeus is strong, and suggests he provokes other users, and exaggerates minor debates into emotional edit wars. I feel that the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute is but one case of this. I feel that his interaction with the wikipedia has been overwhelmingly negative in its net impact. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Imaglang

[edit]

First, I'd like to say I'm User:Vfp15's advocate. The evidence here shows personal attacks to Vincent and, incredibily, to myself, where I never (see my contributions) edited the article Charles Darwin nor violated the 3RR. I only defended Vincent in the talk page of the article. Anyway, I'm not soughting that this arbitration solves in favour of me because of some seldom attacks to me. That would be absurd by myself.

Second, the discussion had very civil disputants as User:GK or User:Fastfission, against the trivia, and many others that, using this discussion, began a great and unacceptable personal attack against Vincent.

Evidence on Talk:Charles Darwin and Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln

[edit]
  • 23:14, 21 Jan 2005 [146] User:Adraeus calls Vincent a troll to be 'strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel (me)'.

Evidence on Charles Darwin article's history

[edit]
  • 17:37, 18 Jul 2004 [148] Original post by User:Brutannica. Then, Vincent's not who created the factoid.
  • 03:47, 6 Dec 2004 [150] User:GK's creation of the 'Trivia' section. Vincent didn't create it
  • 19:57, 29 Dec 2004 [153] User:Fredrik's edit summary saying 'I want a piece of the fun too' after reverting.
  • 21:01, 29 Dec 2004 [154] Again, User:Fredrik says in the edit summary that reverting is fun.

Evidence presented by User:Fredrik

[edit]

Though this is not of central importance to the dispute, I would like to briefly address User:Imaglang's mention of two of my reverts. I actually think content disputes are utterly depressing; my edit summaries were intended to be sarcastic. Since the message did not come across as intended, I do regret using those summaries, and have already apologized to Vincent [155] (9 Jan 2005).

Evidence presented by Noisy | Talk

[edit]

*Sigh*. I think User:PaulHammond made the best point by citing Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point [156] which – while not policy – has been endorsed by the ArbCom. This is what I wish Vincent would respect.

Vincent keeps calling for consensus. Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible on a yes/no issue. I have called [157] for Neigel to state his reasons for wanting to include the trivia and pointed out that even though the calendar date of their births may be the same, due to time differences it may be that they weren't even born in the same 24 hour period. I'd hoped that this may lead to a more rational consideration of the issue.

I regret the instances [158] when I have used the word "pointless" in edit summaries, as it appears inflamatory, but I fear that is the best description for Vincent's actions.

I endorse the summary by Curps. There was an additional page protection by User:MacGyverMagic at one point, as well. Noisy | Talk 20:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) Thanks, I've added this. -- Curps 22:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Psychonaut

[edit]

I endorse the evidence made by previous editors, and wish to add the following:

  • 07:04–10:00, 6 Jan 2005 [159]
    • This is Vincent's summary of the events up to that point. He admits that the edits concern a mere "triviality" and does not dispute that the information is irrelevant to the article.
  • 16:16, 20 Jan 2005 [160]
    • Vincent writes, regarding a vote on the inclusion of the trivia, "I do not recognize that vote. Voting is OK on a matter of style (e.g. British vs. American spelling, Infobox vs. No infobox) but not OK on factual matters." Even assuming that his position on the role of voting were acceptable, Vincent seems to be deliberately ignoring what has been repeatedly explained to him by several Wikipedians: the inclusion of this trivia is indeed a matter of style. Nobody disputes the factual accuracy of the birthday coincidence. The problem is that it is of little relevance to the article and therefore its inclusion disrupts the natural flow of ideas. There are countless other details and coincidences about Darwin's life which are historically verifiable, but most of them are simply not important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. The fact that Darwin and Lincoln share a birthday belongs in an essay on the similarity between the two men's lives and views, not in an introductory text on Darwin alone.
  • 04:19, 10 Jan 2005 [161]
  • 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 [162]
    • In the above two exchanges, Vincent writes, "I will therefore continue reinserting the fact in the Trivia section, following the three revert rule, until an acceptable compromise is reached," and "I will continue with 3rr, and will do so until an acceptable compromise is reached..." However, since this is a binary issue (either the irrelevant fact is in or it is out), he is demanding the impossible. There exists no midway point for the parties involved to "compromise" to. In my assessment, Vincent is well aware of this fact, so his continuing to coyly claim that there must exist some mutually acceptable solution is simply being done for the purpose of causing a disruption.

—Psychonaut 21:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Vfp15

[edit]

26 January

[edit]

First I agree with the raw evidence presented by just about everyone, but I do not necessarily agree with the accompanying comments.

I also acknowledge I used inflammatory language, and I apologize for this. I would point out that I did so to a lesser extent than others, and that I stopped such language some time between Christmas and New Year's, at which point I refrained from editing for a cooling off period. That proved of little help.

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment on 47
A) I said: I think it would be proper to refrain from ordering others about...
This was in answer to Mrfixter's "order" [163]: Stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a point...


B) ...and the three revert rule entitles me as well as limits me to three reverts a day.
This was to make the distinction that I am participating rather than disrupting.
Wikipedia entitles everyone, including me, to edit freely. With this basic right, there are constraints added to keep some sort of order. The constraint imposed by the 3RR is to limit reverts to three within 24 hours. This implies an entitlement to reversion then limited to three.
As cited above bu Curps, I inadvertently broke this once. I initially complained, then realized my mistake, then accepted the block. Note that Duncharris once blocked me citing vandalism. MagGyverMagic unblocked me.
  • Comment on 53 where I said "Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day."
This was in answer to Aaarrrggh's statement [164] "Please finally give up and respect the consensus here. I will personally remove it every single time I see it creaping up."
I said a triviality, not a mere triviality, and of course by definition, trivia is trivial is a triviality. Note that I do not say it is anything more than trivia, but as trivia it is interesting. I won't expand futher on a point of content.
  • Comments on IP logins.
I did do a few edits without logging in. On one occasion I simply forgot while on other occasions I may have had trouble logging in. This is liable to happen when I'm logging on from a public access PC. On no occasion however did I try to pass myself off as someone else. Vincent 08:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First, I don't recall anyone linking to that page. (I could be wrong, it's easy to miss the odd point in a 17,000 word debate.)
Second, from my perspective, it is the opposition that is disrupting Wikipedia by reverting my reinsertions.
Third, there are many Wikipedia policies that apply. There are Witiquette, Google test, 3RR, and so on. These policies can be inconsistent. What is one then to do but choose?
Lastly I can't resist pointing out that (and I apologize in advance for this) Abraham Lincoln is quoted on that particular page. I hope everyone will see the humour and irony in that particular coincidence... Vincent 09:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

27 Jan

[edit]

3RR

[edit]

From Wikipedia:Three revert rule "after making a reversion, do not do so again more than two times within 24 hours of the initial one."

For the record, a typical day for me was to do one or two edits in the morning, and then one or two edits in the afternoon or evening, being careful not to do more than three. Towards the end I was being closely monitored (there's no other way to put it) by the opposition. I was blocked at the first opportunity, when I had made a fourth edit about 23 hours after the first one. When I realized I had actually made a fourth revert a little less than 24 hours after the first one I became more careful, since the opposition clearly was going to use a technicality against me. Vincent 04:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compromise and binary issues

[edit]

The issue is not a binary yes/no, in/out issue. Compromise would be possible if the opposition really negotiated in good faith.

The factoid was initially inserted early into the body text, which gave it some prominence. A proposed compromise by GK was to insert it in a dedicated trivia section. But, as Imaglang pointed out, Mgekelly added a bit of nonsense to the article itself to make a point.

I might add that this violated the guideline Noisy would want me to follow (Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). However, that article clearly sums up the guideline this way: "Don't argue for things you don't actually want done". In my case, I actually do want the factoid in, so my behaviour is participatory, not disruptive.

Many articles have trivia sections, and these can be quite useful as a compromise. The opposition however cries out that trivia is not encyclopedic. While it is true that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" it is also true that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, Wikipedia has no size limits, can include links, can be more timely, etc. It also means that the style and length of writing appropriate for paper is not necessarily appropriate here." (From Wikipedia:Policies & guidelines and What Wikipedia is not.) Vincent 04:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Closing

[edit]

I will stand by the evidence and statements I made above, as well as those given by Imaglang (Neigel) and Sam Spade. I'd like to state that I will abide by the committee's decision without a need to block or ban me, or to place an edit block on the Charles Darwin article. Thank you for your attention. Vincent 04:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Post script: comments to later evidence

[edit]

GK wrote "This revert war could probably have died then (8 weeks ago) if Vincent had accepted that compromise".

For the record I did accept his proposed compromise until it was ruined by MgeKelly. Notice that I don't have any edits on the Charles Darwin article until two days after GK's edit. Now, I have already admitted to GK one or two weeks ago, by email, that I should have simply deleted the Monty Burns bullet. In the same email, I apologized for not doing so. But the fact remains that I wasn't not the one to scuttle the compromise solution. Vincent 00:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Adraeus

[edit]

I endorse the evidence exhibit provided by Curps.

I wonder about the significance of the so-called "evidence" proposed out-of-context by Sam Spade...

21 December 2004

[edit]
  • 00:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • After considering that Vfp15's behavior was detrimental to the wiki process, on the 21st of December 2004 I politely inquired Vfp15 about his perception of the importance of the Darwin/Lincoln birthdate coincidence. I acted in good faith to find an amicable solution to the problem. Unfortunately, I realized that I was not dealing with a reasonable person... (1)
  • 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Seven minutes later he responded, "The summary on the talk page explains why (according to me) it should be left there (factual, a good time marker, good style, precedents abound, and 4000 google hits). Now, as to why I care, it's simple: Someone decided to take delete a true fact because of their POV that the mention ought to go, then others came in and virtually claimed ownership of the article. That's not wiki." I analyzed the data and found the actions of the user who initially removed the trivia appropriate. Vfp15, however, believes in a conspiracy of 37 editors against him. (2)
  • 00:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I attempted to reason with Vfp15. I argued that promotion of coincidence influences reader production of inferential conclusions, such as an assumption of predestiny or the interconnectivity of all things (called synchronicity). I suggested to Vfp15 that instead of including factually meaningless and irrelevant trivia he could write something factually meaningful and relevant. Demonstrably, he ignored my suggestion and made this issue a personal crusade against what he feels is a tyrannical majority of oppressive POV warriors. Like Vfp15, I think this problem can only be remedied by administrative action. (3)
Adraeus 07:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notes

[edit]
  • Earlier when the trivia section was first added, I was ready to accept that as a compromise; however, I edited the CD/AL trivia for grammar and style. This was quickly reverted by Vfp15. Apparently, the CD/AL must be included in the article in his way or the highway for us. This is when I became convinced that we—good faith editors—shouldn't settle for less in order to appease an abusive troll.
  • On occassion, Vfp15 told others to "give up" regarding deletion of the useless trivia. By itself, this suggests Vfp15 is impossible with which to work. As I discovered early in my Wikipedia membership, such stubbornness is not conducive to the cooperative spirit of wiki.
Adraeus 06:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Naughty Sam

[edit]

Evidence presented by gK

[edit]

I endorse the evidence presented by User:Curps, User:Solipsist, User:Noisy, and User:Psychonaut.

Although I have basically left the Wikipedia (see User:GK for my reasons), I have been added as a complainant, and I have been mentioned a couple of times in the evidence, so I guess that I need to put my two cents in here along with everyone else. For the record, my opinions have been already covered in the RFM (21 Dec 2004) that Vincent first brought, where I offered to stand in for the "Many" that Vincent referenced (see User:Vfp15 vs Many), and then the RFAr (8 Jan 2005) that was denied that Vincent brought against a very small number of the participants in the dispute of the Abraham Lincoln trivia (see [165]).

The trivia was first deleted from the "Early Life" section of the Charles Darwin article on 3 December 2004 by User:PxT, but later put back the same day by Vincent. It was then deleted three times over the next couple of days (including my only revert of the trivia), with it then being reinserted each time by Vincent. Although I did not think that the information belonged in the Charles Darwin article at all, Vincent seemed determined to keep reinserting the Abraham Lincoln trivia, so I tried to stop the incipient revert war by moving the information from the "Early Life" section to a new "Trivia" section on 5 December 2004 [166].

This revert war could probably have died then (8 weeks ago) if Vincent had accepted that compromise. If it looked like Vincent was going to show any interest in keeping the information in the Trivia section, I would have gone out of my way to try to make the solution work. Instead, Vincent regularly ended up putting the trivia back into the "Early Life" section up to at least 23 December 2004 [167]. Vincent told us "I conclude you are wrong" (edit summary 4 Dec 2004), then told us to "take a deep breath and give up" (Talk:Charles Darwin 17 Dec 2004 [168]), and finally " "Sorry, but at this point, there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet. I have asked for mediation and will wait for the results of that." 21 Dec 2004 [169]. (A mediation, by the way, that went nowhere—but then how do you mediate against an unnamed "many"? Still, I personally think that one of the mediators could and should have tried to do more than just the one-day page protection the Charles Darwin page was given, rather than lettings get to the point where his dispute is now listed as one of the Lamest edit wars ever.)


After everything that Vincent said, and only after he then continued adding the trivia near the beginning of the main Charles Darwin article (in the "Early Life" section), was when most of the rest of the Wikipedia editors became exasperated. Many of the editors said things (mostly in the edit summaries—the talk page discussions were less inflamed) that they probably now regret, but I can certainly understand their frustration. As much as Vincent is now talking about compromise, he showed no attempt at compromising during most of the first month of the revert war.

Although I have been described as one of the more civil individuals in this debate, I will now express my opinion in very plain English: Vincent has shown a very pig-headed obsession over an insignificant bit of trivia to the detriment of the Charles Darwin article and to the detriment of the workings of the Wikipedia.

While the rest of the editors were trying to make the Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (see my edit history here [170] for example), almost the entire time that Vincent has been on the Wikipedia over the last two months has been spent dealing with this one issue (see his edit history [171]). He has insisted on numerous occasions that he will continue to add the trivia into the Charles Darwin article pushing the limits of the 3 revert rule, despite a now 28-5 vote (84%) against including it, and he is "willing to fight to death" on the issue (22 Dec 2004) [172].

It is very clear from the history of the Charles Darwin page that this has been an extremely one-sided edit war, with 18 different people who have removed the trivia from the article, while the insertions of the trivia have been almost exclusively by Vincent. I think the question is very clear for the Arbitration Committee: Do you let Vincent continue to do his three reverts per day inserting the Abraham Lincoln trivia into the Charles Darwin article until the heat death of the universe? gK ¿? 15:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A response to Vincent's revisionist history of MgeKelly's original trivia edit (7 Dec 2004): Vincent's mention of that edit is a canard that does nothing to excuse his own behavior or edits. All MgeKelly did was add some Simpsons trivia to the Trivia section in the Charles Darwin article. That was not a real big surprise since there is already plenty of Simpsons trivia in various articles on the Wikipedia (see [173]). The fact that the Simpsons writers are quite literate and like to add in-jokes to the show, plus an active fan base for a show that is still in syndication, suggests that there will probably be more Simpsons trivia added to Wikipedia articles in the future.

After I created the "Trivia" section (6 Dec 2004), Vincent added a couple of comments on the Darwin Talk pages, but there is absolutely no indication that he had accepted the Trivia section "compromise" (see [174] 7 Dec 2004 and [175] 7 Dec 2004—in the second comment Vincent mocking says "I love edit wars" and refers to the information as a "factoid"). Later Vincent shows his obvious distaste for the "compromise" when he says "Trivia - reinserting unsatisfactory compromise (though I prefer "Early life")" (Charles Darwin edit history 21 Dec 2004).

Mgekelly did not make any changes to the location or wording of the Abraham Lincoln factoid, nor did he delete it from the Charles Darwin article on 7 Dec 2004. Still Vincent deleted the Simpsons trivia, and then moved the Abraham Lincoln trivia back to the "Early Life" section (see [176] 8 Dec 2004), which is where he continued to add the factoid for several more weeks (as late as at least 23 Dec). It is obvious that the person who "scupper[ed] the compromise solution" of having the Abraham Lincoln factoid into a Trivia section was Vincent—not MgeKelly or anyone else.

What is amazes me is when Vincent brings up Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, since he has been the one who has done most of the disruption of the Charles Darwin article. What his point is, however, I still haven't figured out. If it was truly about the deletion of facts, like he has said numerous times, then he also should, for example, be over at the Abraham Lincoln article fighting tooth-and-nail over the deletion of facts in that article (instead of just inserting the AL/CD factoid into that article as well). Perhaps the real point is that Vincent thinks that he can out-stubborn everyone else, which is the reason that he has, on several occasions, told others to "give up".

Vincent has mentioned that he has privately apologized to me (but only for not accepting the Dec 6th Trivia section). What he really need to do is issue a public apology to all the editors of the Charles Darwin article for his pointless and sterile edit war. gK ¿? 05:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AllyUnion

[edit]

21 Jan 2005

[edit]

22 Jan 2005

[edit]
  • 08:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I responded, after reviewing the page history, follow Administrative guidelines, protect the page, mark the page protected, list the page at Wikipedia:Protected pages. [178]

24 Jan 2005

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

For the record, my involvement of this matter was responding to a request listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. And giving Vincent a polite note regarding WP:3RR. Since my name is mentioned on the main page of this arbitration case, I would like to clarify for the ArbCom my exact involvement over this arbitration. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:FeloniousMonk

[edit]

Abusive comments/behavior by User:Sam_Spade unrelated to the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute

[edit]

Since User:Sam_Spade has decided to introduce evidence from outside the dispute at hand to demonstrate an alleged general unfitness of a particular editor, in the interest of fairness I must introduce this evidence that is relevant to Sam's own moral character. It demonstrates that his attempt to assume a high moral tone here is not without some irony and hypocrisy. Last November, after several weeks of literally no progress at Talk:Atheism caused by Sam Spade refusing to compromise, accept or abide by consensus, several editors, including myself felt compelled look into Sam's history in relation to our predicament to see if we were facing a POV crank, crackpot or troll. It took little effort to unveil that Sam (and previously as JackLynch) had a long history of obstructionism, excessive reverting, bigoted statements and promotion of his particular POV at Talk:Atheism. The discussion of Sam's history and apparent agenda was necessary, polite, and strictly limited to the facts discovered in the records of wikipedia: [179].

I received this email from Sam sent through the wikipedia "E-mail this user" email system that same day:


Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:36:29 GMT
To: "FeloniousMonk" <thurstonhowellsrevenge@XXX.com>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: "Sam Spade" <jacklynch@XXX.net>
Fuck you, you ignorant rat bastard


Related links:

  1. Sam deleting my response. [180].
  2. Justifying his email. [181]
  3. Admiting his actions were an intentional exploitation of a policy loophole intended to side-step the policy. [182]
  4. Refusal to apologize. [183]
  5. Sam demanding (and receiving) an apology from an admin for performing his job in good faith [184], then a few hours later refusing to apologize himself. [185]. I am still waiting for an apology.

In Summary

[edit]

The evidence against User:Sam_Spade presented above is irrefutable; User:Sam_Spade does not even deny that he sent this email, that he misused wikipedia systems to send it, or that in so doing he was cynically exploiting a policy loophole to violate the Wikipedia:Civility policy. The original email with full headers is available to anyone who'd like a copy of it. Sam Spade's email above stands as testament that Sam intentionally provokes other users and fails to respect other contributors. By abusing the wikipedia email system to send this Sam violated the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette policies. By his own admission, User:Sam_Spade intentionally exploited a policy loophole regarding email to side-step the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Wikiquette policies and deliver a blatant insult and personal attack without fear of punishment. User:Sam_Spade has an extensive history of POV obstructionism at Atheism and on other topics and provoking strife with oblique and overt insults on Talk pages and in edit summaries-- a review of his contributions over the last year will bear this out. I feel that the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute is another example of Sam not respecting other editors by goading and provoking them into negative responses. Many editors will attest that Sam Spade's interaction with other editors who hold views opposite his POV has been overwhelmingly negative over the last year.--FeloniousMonk 18:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit]

<day1> <month>

[edit]
  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>

[edit]
  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Evidence&oldid=431099126"