Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Proposals

No vandalism
"Vandalism" - unauthorised defacement of Wikipedia pages - is forbidden. Persistent vandals may be temporarilly blocked from editing. Highly persistent vandals have been formally banned, and their editing priviledges on Wikipedia revoked.
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:32, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nohat 18:33, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 02:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

No personal attacks
In extreme cases, users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Specific types of slur covered by this include but are not limited to the following: Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. See No personal attacks
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nohat 18:34, 2004 May 2 (UTC) Strenuously support
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:
 * the Epopt 02:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- I will not actively oppose this principle here, but I cannot support it.

Avoid unnecessary offence
Existing Wikipedia policies, such as profanity, usernames, civility, Wikiquette, etc, as well as "no personal attacks" above, suggest a general guideline of avoiding unnecessary offence. Gratuitous offence that does not aid in creating an encyclopedia is inappropriate on Wikipedia.
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:24, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nohat 18:34, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (but Wikipedians should obviously discuss this if they think it's a bad guideline)
 * the Epopt 02:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- unlike above, I cannot disagree with the mild suggestion that unnecessary offence should be avoided
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Neutral point of view
neutral point of view is a key policy on Wikipedia. NPOV continues to apply to points of view that individual Wikipedians consider to be hatred. NPOV continues to apply to points of view that individual Wikipedians consider to be Truth.

Due to the difficulties in performing content arbitration (when arbitrators may not be experts in the relevant subject areas), and due to the lower community support for the arbitration committee making decisions on content issues, the arbitration committee intends to refrain from ruling as to whether anyone in this case has violated the NPOV policy.
 * Support:
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (but Wikipedians should obviously discuss this if they, for example, want to exclude extreme views from normal NPOV treatment)
 * the Epopt 02:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:18, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Extreme views
Holding an extreme view is not, in and of itself, a violation of current Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia contributors come from a wide range of cultures and backgrounds, and this is welcome. Thus, contributors should not be blocked or attacked for their beliefs - the normal policies apply. Also, Wikipedia contributors will not be banned by this committee for their beliefs, unless Wikipedia policy in this regard changes.


 * Support:
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (but Wikipedians should obviously discuss this if they, for example, want to exclude Nazis from editing)
 * the Epopt 02:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC) no one should ever be excluded from editing solely because of his beliefs -- "And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing." --John Milton, Aeropagitica
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (Obviously)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:19, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Vandalism
Paul Vogel has engaged in a few instances of vandalism. Examples include:
 * Early May 2004: random irrelevant cross-posting of Image:Respiration_thumb.gif
 * 30 Apr 2004: Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel - removal of almost all content, replaced with a statement by Vogel
 * 28 Apr 2004: Jew - replacing with a single sentence
 * 27 Apr 2004: Jew, Judaism - insertion of JewWatch external link with deliberately misleading link text - "sneaky vandalism"
 * 13 Feb 2004: White supremacy - adding "WARNING: MOST OF THIS ARTICLE IS JUST MARXIST-PC POV PROPAGANDA!" to top of article
 * 17 Feb 2004: Holocaust denial - adding "This article is strictly Jewish and Kosher POV lying and hypocritical WWII propaganda" (etc) to top of article
 * 10 Feb 2004: user:Mirv - blanked

Related inappropriate edits by Paul Vogel include:
 * 14 Apr 2004: Judaism - text plagiarised from Amazon, in violation of copyright policy.

The arbitration committee notes that many accusations of "vandalism" levelled against Paul Vogel would more accurately be described as "NPOV violations".
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:34, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nohat 18:35, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Personal attacks
Paul Vogel has engaged in a number of personal attacks in violation of the widely accepted no personal attacks policy.

Some of these insults can be found in the following edits to the Wikipedia:


 * ("You are such an narrow-minded bigot..."; "A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow- mindedness!"; "You know, when you are being a "lying hypocrite""; "will it take another Holocaust, before you finally learn the lesson?")
 * ("More like scores of edits and all by the same lying and hypocritical and pov and psychological projectionist "ilk" as "Mirv", ad nauseum")
 * ("a cabal of censorous pov bigots"; "a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites")
 * ("it is pure "lying hypocrisy", and only on your own part.")
 * ("This is not something that I would really expect either you or your pov ilk to ever actually understand. Therefore, we do not appreciate lying hypocrites")
 * ("there is a cabal of "lying hypocrites" within Wikipedia that will not listen to reason nor act in "good faith", and will do and say "anything", including "bald-faced" lies, in their slanderous campaign to have me banned and censored..."; "a "cabal" of Wikipedia pov bigots"; "I would vote to have you and your own cabal and own ilk banned and blocked for your typical pov "double-standards" and for your pov "lying hypocrisy"."; "ONE BIASED POV, of ONE ILK of lying hypocrites and censorous and slanderous pov bigots and dogmatists"; and others)
 * ("However, I am quite sure that your ilk will still delete it and then will still only keep the exact same kind of critical slanderous and pov linked nonsence about cosmotheism, like the hypocritical liars and bigots and psychological projectionist that they usually always are.")

Others can be found in the following mailing list posts:


 * ("you and YOUR ILK of LYING HYPOCRITES and CENSOROUS BIGOTS")
 * ("Many of this "ilk" are "Jews", but, the "behavior" of "lying hypocrisy", of "slander", of "personal insults" and of "double-standards" and of bigoted pov "censorship" are the actual "defining characteristics" of this "mob" or "ilk" or "group" that is attempting to falsely block, ban, and censor me.")
 * ("a cabal or "ilk" of pov censorious bigots, liars, slanderers, and hypocrites")
 * ("That as opposed to the deliberate DOUBLE-STANDARDS that are being enforced here by an "ilk" of lying and hypocritical and slanderous and censorious pov bigots!")

These links give a sample, not the entirity, of Vogel's insults.

The arbitration committee notes a handful of personal attacks made against Paul Vogel. Examples: "The man is definitely a few beers short of a 6 pack" - user:Naturyl;  "Nazi scumbag" - user:172. However, the committee was unable to uncover any evidence (and none was provided) supporting the accusations of slander or repeated attacks alleged by Paul. Note that mere criticism of another user is not considered an attack, if it is done appropriately.


 * Support:
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 05:44, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:
 * the Epopt 03:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- I agree that Vogel has engaged in personal attacks

Circumventing bans or blocks
Paul Vogel attempted to circumvent a number of blocks placed on him by admins. In a post Fri Apr 23 18:48:11 UTC 2004 to the wikien mailing list, he states: "I DID circumvent any bans based upon any such false pov allegations and upon any such biased treatment and harrassment".

In judging this, we must answer the question, were the blocks supported by Wikipedia's blocking policy? This depends on the reasons given:
 * Quickpoll ban - clearly supported at that time - Vogel appears to have complied with this
 * Vandalism - clearly supported by current policy, but accounts for only a small minority of blocks
 * Excessive reverts - clearly not supported by current policy. In a brief poll off wikipedia talk:revert, a large minority of respondents opposed sysops individually applying temp-bans where a user has reverted an article six or more times, and the proposal was superseded by the quickpolls mechanism, which garnered a significantly higher level of support.
 * Trolling - Unknown. Refer to outcome of JRR Trollkien case.
 * Personal attacks - probably not supported by current policy. No discussion on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks or wikipedia talk:blocking policy on allowing sysops to make individual decisions on the subject.
 * POV edits - clearly not supported by current policy.

Thus, Vogel does not appear to have circumvented any legitimately applied blocks (from evidence given). A number of sysops have used their blocking powers in ways not strictly supported by current policy.


 * Support:
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Fred Bauder 12:27, May 5, 2004 (UTC) The sheer number of attempts to block this user establishes the blocks as legitimate as they constitute established Wikipedia practice.
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC) Agree with Fred---quickpolls should've been used instead.
 * This probably isn't the appropriate place to put this but the problem with using Quickpolls was that Vogel was not actually a registered user. When I tried to start a Quickpoll the response on two occasions by a number of people was that a Quickpoll isn't necessary to deal with an anon. user. Perhaps this need to be clarified ie is a persistent anon user who refuses to register still an anon user?AndyL 07:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Other:
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (among other things (and there are quite a few other things), I don't understand the apparent inconsistency between "Vandalism - clearly supported by current policy, but accounts for only a small minority of blocks" and "Vogel does not appear to have circumvented any legitimately applied blocks" (emphasis mine). However, this is too small an issue for me to want to spend too much time on it, so I'm abstaining)

Vogel's counter-accusations
Besides Vogel's accusations of insults (which are discussed above), the committee has investigated other allegations made by Vogel, and rules as follows:


 * "Cabal", "mob", "ilk", "campaign" - there are no current Wikipedia policies against cabals, mobs, ilks, or campaigns, so this issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the committee.
 * "censorious" - Wikipedia is not a forum for unrestricted free speech. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it."
 * "pov" - The arbitration committee declines to investigate allegations that either Vogel, or his critics, have violated the NPOV policy, for the reasons given above.
 * "bigots", "hypocrites" - the moral qualities of Wikipedia contributors are beyond the jurisdiction of the committee.
 * Excessive reverts - Paul Vogel has reverted more frequently and more often than any of his critics have individually reverted.


 * Support:
 * Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 12:28, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Proposed relief
Paul Vogel's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are revoked for a period of one year.
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:13, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC) I would support a permanent ban.
 * Martin 00:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC) (I support any time period between one month and one year).
 * Nohat 18:45, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I oppose permanent bans; if Vogel returns, unchanged, in a year, we'll ban him again
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (As usual, I would not support a permanent ban in this case either)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC) I don't see prospects of him becoming a legitimate contributor in the near future. I would suggest if he feels he can do so he contact Jimbo Wales privately in a more calm manner than he has thus far, and then perhaps Jimbo may unban him or ask us to reconsider the matter.
 * Oppose:
 * Other:

Wikipedia contributors are encouraged to edit Wikipedia's talk pages to deal with personal attacks, excessive repetition, misleading indentation or signatures, unnecessarily offensive comments, etc, contributed by Paul Vogel. They should delete them, edit them, quarantine them on an appropriate user talk: page, or otherwise deal with them as they judge appropriate.


 * Support:
 * Martin 01:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nohat 18:45, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 03:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC) this principle should be applied to all personal attacks, excessive repetition, misleading indentation or signatures, unnecessarily offensive comments, etc, at all times
 * James F. (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Camembert 11:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delirium 23:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC) At the very least misleading indentation or signatures should always be cleaned up, both here and in other cases, so discussion can actually take place.
 * Oppose:
 * Other: