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

User:Adraeus

I have copious evidence that this user has a long history of incivility. I held off on providing it because it doesn't relate to the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute, but Ambi seems to be suggesting that he is normally not an abusive user. That is not the case, and I will produce evidence to that effect unless I am requested not to by the arbitration commitee. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute/Evidence#Abusive_comments.2Fbehaviour_by_User:Adraeus_unrelated_to_the_Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute. There is more, but that should probably be enough. I also added a couple more entries directly pertaining to the lincoln/darwin dispute. Adraeus is a long term problem user, and there should be no misunderstanding on that. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 15:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Just to note that the same trivia is currently on the Abraham Lincoln page. Fortunately the edit war hasn't spread to that page, but it would be worth considering in relation to any proposed decisions. -- Solipsist 20:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See the proposed revert injunction. --mav 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Grunt's talk page

This comment and the related discussion was moved from my talk page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:40, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)'

re:Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision
I'm not sure if non-arbitrators can suggest alternatives, and if they can, how to go about it (put something on the discussion page?). Instead, I will give my suggestion to you on your talk page, and you can do with it what you want. As for User:Vfp15, I will admit that he certainly has been a pain on the Charles Darwin page, and following his edit history shows that he has occasionally been quite opinionated elsewhere (evidence I deliberately decided not to add to my comments), but it has always been on very narrow issues, and he has been a good contributor to the Charles Darwin article and elsewhere when not focused on those narrow issues. I would suggest a short ban on any editing of the Charles Darwin article, related articles, and their talk pages (2 weeks-1 month), but after the short editing ban, absolutely no adding of the birthday trivia into the Charles Darwin article, nor adding it into the Abraham Lincoln article, nor adding any other birthday or "coincidence" trivia anywhere else in the Wikipedia ever. Then for a coda to the decision, mention that since the arbitration committee has already examined his behavior in voluminous detail, that if he is ever brought before the arbitration committee again, they probably will not be so lenient the second time around (and so maybe he should learn to walk away after he has argued his points when his opinions are not matched by general consensus).

[A few quibbles on wording: Instead of "Vfp15's working against consensus", I would suggest "Vfp15 deliberately ignored consensus". Also: it is "editing", not "editting", and under 1.2, it says "Antifinnugor" instead of Vfp15.]

As for User:Adraeus, his behavior is all tied up in the ongoing feud between him and User:Sam Spade, so the arbitrators really should tackle the problem of the two of them as a single issue, rather than have Adraeus single out in isolation for his behavior related to the Charles Darwin article and talk page discussions. gK ¿? 10:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) [1]

I strongly disagree w the above, and request (assuming you have not) that you review [2] and the evidence it links to. Thank you, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

gK, the talk page that Sam mentioned (Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision) is a good place to bring up such proposals.

Sam, this case is not the place to bring up an unrelated dispute (it was initiated to look into those users involved in the dispute and investigate their behaviour relating to the revert warring in the context of this one article). If you are having civility issues with Adraeus, feel free to initiate a separate attempt at dispute resolution. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I was worried about that. Do you think I ought to remove the evidence not directly relating to the Charles_Darwin-Lincoln dispute? I apologize for any presumptuousness. Thank you, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

gK - You can propose items and I at least encourage that type of thing. This talk page is the right place to do that for non-ArbCom members. Any ArbCom member can then consider your idea and post it. Your idea is very thoughtful and I will consider it. However, right now I'm learning toward a stay proposal that would allow Vfp15 to appeal to the ArbCom 6 weeks after serving under any ban we impose. The terms of the stay proposal would allow Vfp15 to edit Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln under the terms you mentioned (no trivia, esp. the birth date item). The term for this would be the same as the about-to-pass ban on editing these articles - one year. --mav 21:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's only my job.

I'm really annoyed. The ArbCom shouldn't thank me anything: I only did my job and I don't deserve a congratulation from you. Anyway, as I'm being congratulated (for nothing), I only can say: "thanks!" --Neigel von Teighen 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I like the idea of the Arbiters oficially thanking AMA advocates. Its exactly the sort of affirmation our organization needs. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another topic for our next AMA Meeting, isn't it? --Neigel von Teighen 22:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The intent (certainly from me in proposing this) is to give that affirmation. Especially in light of the misunderstanding of the role that's been clear from the evidence presented. The thanks is genuine (or rather will be if it passes) but I don't think it will be a regular part of our rulings :) -- sannse (talk) 21:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's an honour to me, whether it passes or not. --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

banned from editing Charles Darwin, related articles or their talk pages

Given the nature of this case, it would be nice to have it stated clearly whether Abraham Lincoln is a "related article". --Michael Snow 23:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that any decision made on enforcement must be clear and strict, and would argue for the banning enforcement to explicitly state Abraham Lincoln, not just Charles Darwin. Any loopholes would inevitably be abused, leading to another arbitration case. Nasrallah 02:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re:Thanks to User:Imaglang

I think that the Wikipedia desperately needs effective advocates for users involved in the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. I really hate to be so harsh in my judgment, but in this case, unfortunately, Neigel von Teighen has generally been ineffective as an advocate, and in some instances may have exasperated matters.

It is my opinion, from looking at his User contributions and his subsequent actions, he did not have enough experience with the Wikipedia and especially with the the various levels of dispute resolution, nor does it look like he took the effort to educate himself further or to ask for some significant assistance from more experienced advocates or other Wikipedia users. He was also not very effective as an advocate, either within the Wikipedia dispute arena, or within the Charles Darwin Talk pages. The biggest problem that I saw, however, is that there is absolutely no evidence that Neigel ever tried to act as a counselor to his client (see Advocates as counselors).

Would the outcome of this RfAr have been any different if there had been a more effective advocate for Vincent? I have to admit that given the obstinacy of Neigel's client, that the outcome, no matter who was involved, may have been the same. Still, with a more effective advocate (and especially a more effective counselor), there were many chances during the month's time between when Neigel first became involved and this RfAr was started where things could have gone differently. Perhaps Vincent wouldn't be facing such stringent sanctions if he had been given better guidance.

For some examples:

• Neigel started working as Vincent's advocate around the same time as Vincent initiated his RfC (see 20 Dec 2004 and User:Vfp15 vs Many on Charles Darwin dispute), and he does make one comment of the RfC page. If Neigel had been more experienced as an advocate, he would have told Vincent that an RfC against an unnamed "many" would very likely be ignored, and that he should either withdraw the RfC or amend it to cover the behavior of specific individuals involved in the dispute. A good advocate would have also noted that at that time even a properly done RfM was premature since User:Fastfission's RfC was only initiated on 17 Dec.
• Instead, a couple of weeks later Vincent jumps to an RfAr (although he does name a few specific individuals in the RfAr). As to be expected, since Vincent hadn't followed proper procedures, the RfAr was promptly rejected (submitted on 8 Jan, rejected on 9 Jan). Neigel should have warned Vincent that the RfAr would likely go nowhere, and in the very remote chance that it did get accepted, there was already enough evidence at that time of his intransigence in editing the Charles Darwin article that the spotlight might be turned around and focused on Vincent's behavior.
• As an advocate on the Charles Darwin Talk pages:
  • One of Neigel's first actions was to vote against any inclusion of the trivia (see 21 Dec [3]) and then to quickly withdraw that vote after he became Vincent's advocate (see 22 Dec [4]). That made him look either wishy-washy, or that he was an advocate who would follow his client, right-or-wrong. That did not leave a very good first impression. (He even added himself to the pro-trivia camp very late in the game (see 24 Jan [5]).)
  • His meager attempts at trying to call for some civility in the revert war basically fell on deaf ears when he did nothing to help change the actions of his client that were the cause of the incivility. (For example, talking Vincent into doing just one revert a day "as a show of good faith" might have helped calm the atmosphere of the debate.)
  • On 20 Jan, after the issue had already been exhaustively debated, and after his client had already made it very clear that he was going to ignore the opinions of the other editors, Neigel proposes a three-on-three debate. Is there any surprise that his debate proposal was ignored?
• This current RfAr was initiated not by Vincent, but by Neigel (see [6]). Neigel should have realized that there was an extremely high likelihood that the focus of the RfAr could be turned around to focus on the behavior of his client, with a strong possibility that the Arbitration Committee could rule for sanctions against his client. Because of that, Neigel should have been doing everything that he could to keep the issue away from the Arbitration Committee.
  • As Vincent's advocate in this RfAr (see Evidence) I do not think that Neigel has done a good job helping to explain Vincent's position or actions, nor has he done anything to counter the evidence or comments by the other Wikipedia Users. He didn't even do a good job in presenting the evidence of the taunting and abuse of both him and Vincent by User:Adraeus. Instead, it was User:Sam Spade who collated that evidence.

I am not asking the arbitrators to change their vote for this particular thanks. In fact, Neigel probably does deserve some thanks just for trying to help such a difficult client. Instead, I hope that the Arbitration Committee be cautious when issuing any thank yous. (Perhaps there should also be some discussions, either formal or informal, between the arbitrators and advocates on how to make the advocates more effective.)

One extra (minor) point: If someone is to be an advocate, they should have an email address enabled for their User account. There are something that should not be discussed in such a public place as on a User's Talk page. gK ¿? 11:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If its in any way important, I was also acting as vincents advocate, albeit unofficially, and with only a modest amount of involvement until this arbitration. See [7] and [8]. As far as your points about advocates generally, how about you join us, and help us set up a better framework? The AMA is currently in a state of flux and could go either way. Persons like yourself w ideas should be involved. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GK, I'd like to say you I appreciate very much your constructive critiques to me. I'll put my best effort in being a better advocate. About me as counselor, I use e-mail to contact Vincent, then, there's no 'evidence' in Wikipedia, but only the results of it, which will be judged by anyone who sees the dispute and this page. Obviously, I accept any critique if it includes reasons and it's constructive; that's common sense.

Also, I'd like to see you to join the AMA, as Sam did. We need people like you, specially in this transition process we're living where proposals are urgently needed. Anyway, you can write some ideas in Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics), with or without joining the Association.

Finally, I'd like to explain something about the 'Debate proposal' and the RfAr I requested. The debate was a trial to cool down the discussion and to avoid the RfAr (which, by the way, Vincent agreed with), maybe a desperate trial. The Request for Arbitration was to make that unofficial request by Vincent (see here) official. I'm convinced that, if the non-trivia party had done an official request, the result would have been worser for Vincent. It was, maybe also another desperate action, a need for us to took the initiative before the adversaries (not enemies, of course).

I don't want to defend myself, only clarify some points. Anyway, I'll improve my advocacy skills with any constructive critique. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 21:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Join the AMA and get more involved with petty bickering, POV warriors, general kookery, obsessive Wikipedia inmates, and the like? NO THANKS! I have much better things to do with my free time. I've already looked long and hard at the Wikipedia and decided that from the outside, it is an interesting experiment, but from the inside, it is an ad hoc mess filled with way too many problems that have no easy fixes. Once I've finished with this Charles Darwin dispute, I plan to go back and finish the work I started on the one article that I am most proud of, which I then want to nominate for Featured Article status, and then "gK" will leave the building, permanently (although there may also be one more critique that I am thinking of posting as well).

I will probably come back, eventually, but editing under another user name. I will only be editing the small number of articles that really interest me, and I will completely ignore everything else. I am also thinking very hard about turning my roughly three month experience of editing on the Wikipedia into an indepth discussion/critique of the Wikipedia for publication because I've seen too many articles where someone does a quick look at the Wikipedia and then does a narrowly-focused critique that looks like they one of the participants in a reenactment of the Buddhist parable about the Blind Men and the Elephant. gK ¿? 07:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the arbitrators

Although it took way too long to get to this point, it looks like all of you have taken your task here very seriously, and you have quickly reached consensus. For wading through the heavy volume of evidence from a very large number of involved parties, I want to extend a hearty thank you. Although if you had asked me at various times during this dispute, I would have recommended other choices (including, perhaps, a permanent WikiVacation for Vincent), I think that you have probably made the best possible decision here regarding Vincent's behavior (although I stand by my earlier recommendation on Adreaus). I think that it is fair (whatever that means), that is proportionate to the disruption that Vincent caused and comparable to the penalties meted out for for similar offenses, and that it will hopefully act as a deterrent to Vincent and others and helps prevents, or at least limit, similar content disputes in the future. The only question that I have is that although I do not think that Vincent will do anything, I can well imagine that someone else, if given similar penalties, might decide (rightly or wrongly) that it is so onerous and unfair that they would act out and try to take revenge on individuals involved in the dispute or on the Wikipedia itself by using sockpuppets and anonymous edits, or other disruptive methods. You have, however, done a good job of detailing the decision making process, so a reasonable individual should have nothing to complain about. gK ¿? 07:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)