Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties

• User:Vfp15
• User:Imaglang, advocate for Vfp15

• User:Noisy
• User:Aaarrrggh
• User:Adraeus

• Mediators:User:MacGyverMagic and User:Llywrch

Statement of complaint

An edit war is raging on Charles Darwin over a trivial fact, viz. that CD and AL were both born on February 12, 1809. I believe that the fact should remain (I am not the original poster) but a group of people believe otherwise, for what I think are POV reasons.

Two sufficient and objective reasons justify that the fact be included somewhere in the article. It is factual and it passes the Google test. A third reason is that there are similar examples in other Wikipedia articles. There are other reasons, which I omit for the sake of brevity.

After over a month of edits, mediation has failed.

Evidence

Please see /Evidence.

What I'm asking for

1. A clear message from the arbitration that inserting the fact does not go against good Wikipedia practice. I am not asking to actively endorse inclusion, simply to state that there's nothing wrong with having it in.

2. User:Noisy and User:Aaarrrggh should be formally asked by the arbitration committee to leave the fact in.

3. User:Adraeus should apologize to me personally. I understand that in the heat of an argument tempers flare (mine did too) so I don't ask for apologies for what was said on the Talk page. However I do request an apology for insult in another article.

4. (Complaint against User:Fredrik amicably resolved and removed.)Vincent 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concluding thought

Yes it is a silly argument, but what is not silly is the bad faith directed against me, and the POV of the majority. I have not been a saint and my temper has flared too. However, I believe I have been more sinned against that sinning. I have been open to compromise but I have been showered with insults. I have been the victim of admin abuse (an admin who has left the debate blocked me, the mediator unblocked me).

I have been accused of vandalism but I have in fact always kept to the three revert rule. I have voluntarily refrained from editing for a week in order to let tempers cool. I would like the committee to know that I will respect their decision, should they find against me. There will be no need to block me or my IP address.

Vincent 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)