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

message: 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.  13:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  15:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Adraeus]]

message: 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)
replies: text: See the proposed revert injunction. --mav 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Abraham Lincoln]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually I like the idea of the Arbiters oficially thanking AMA advocates. Its exactly the sort of affirmation our organization needs.  22:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Another topic for our next AMA Meeting, isn't it? --Neigel von Teighen 22:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's an honour to me, whether it passes or not. --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's only my job. 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed remedies 

message: 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)
thread_title: To the arbitrators