Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2

Darwinek's response re:Mt7

 * What else to say? If whitewashing the ethincity of many people is a "content dispute", then calling African Americans "niggers", "porch monkeys" etc. (kind of vandalism I frequently revert) is a content dispute, too. :( 

Are you saying that changing the description of a footballer from "professional Hungarian footballer from Slovakia" to "professional slovak footballer" is the equivalent of calling a black person a "porch monkey?" Thatcher131 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. As as I said before, you don't live in Central Europe and you will never understand that. - Darwinek 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one live quite close enough to Central Europe, I believe, and I've certainly had enough experience with national and ethnic minority issues between Wikipedia editors with diverging nationalist viewpoints, to understand this issue. And I still say that I find this attitude in an administrator quite inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek's response re: Ross.Hedvicek

 * But he is a pure vandal with no positive contribution to Wikipedia and I see NO problem with insulting vandals. They insult our community with their behaviour. Block was caused by his persistent removal of official Wikipedia warning from his talk page.


 * 1) Do you really believe that Ross, who has been an editor for more than a year and has 500 edits, is a vandal?
 * 2) Will you clarify that you believe it is OK to insult vanillas?
 * 3) Are you aware that removing warnings from one's own user page is not considered vandalism? (see below)
 * Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
 * On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive138
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive139
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive143

Thatcher131 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not okay to insult vandals, WP:NPA makes that clear when it says "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."


 * I think that is very clear on the subject. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

--Darwinek 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, you don't know him. He is a cause celebre in the Czech Rep.. I think someone sentenced in absentia by his own democratic country could be also refered to as vandal.
 * 2) Some of them surely yes. When I am blocking IPs for vandalism like (niggers, bitches, gays, you suck etc.), I often add to the explanation something similar which should make them think about themselves, e.g. "You suck." But I see the definition of vandal is getting more and more blurred. Surely, insulting normal users is a crime.
 * 3) I wasn't aware of that before, really. All the time I am here people are saying to me it is forbidden. I was also bashed by removing ordinary messages from my talk page.


 * No, some government cannot declare someone a vandal on Wikipedia by sentencing someone in absentia. Insulting any vandal, no matter how bad they are, is a violation of NPA. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ross Hedvicek could get very impulsive but he made quite a few good edits on English WP. I personally had no problems with him as I do not care that much. I'd say that "live and let live" would avoid the conflict here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus view
I don't know if I can endorse Piotrus' view since I signed as a certifying editor, but I would like to say that I agree with nearly everything he says. Mt7 is not a great editor (in fact, I blocked him myself); Darwinek should ask for assistance, and if he apologized and promised to be more careful that would have been enough. However, looking at his response on the main page and here it seems like he has decided he did nothing wrong. I don't see that letting this run is likely to change his mind, which is why I posted the case at RFAR. Assuming Mt7's translation of Darwinek's Czech-language comment is accurate, Darwinek called him a "Slovak racist" and then said he could tell that Gogh was Hungarian by looking at him, all without a hint of irony or self-awareness. That's not good in an admin who also edit wars and issues blocks in nationalistic and ethnic disputes where he is passionately on one side of the issue. In other words, because of Darwinek's nationalistic and ethnic passions (see his comment about "porch monkeys" above), he should not take any admin actions on such articles. Yet, he refuses to see this as a problem. Do you really think he will change his mind if this runs longer? Thatcher131 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no point in letting it run as it seams ArbCom have accepted it - what ever they say we must agree on so this Rfc is pointless now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)