Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by mt7

I did have a problem with article about Priskin. Question was - is he Hungarian in Slovakia. Probable yes, but very difficult to give extact information actual and appropriate source. Then I did fundamental researches.

Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. --Jimbo [2]

I did know, I make a wrong decesion to give some soccerplayers and others this classification. I reverted articles, where mostly I did such edits. I think it is plaintive, that an admin didn't know and adapt fundamental wikipedia principles, he did a lot of personal attacks and it is first case to do such experimence and I work in sk-,hu- ,de-wiki too. --Mt7 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

darwinek personal attack are not acception, but system

see [3], it is very sad to have such admins. --Mt7 07:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Thatcher131

Darwinek blocked Mt7 while in a content dispute

The evidence for this is pretty much laid out on the main page and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2.

Darwinek inappropriately blocked Ross.Hedvicek

Darwinek was in a dispute with Ross.Hedvicek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Špaček:

  • Darwinek opens with a personal attack against Ross (Article created long time ago by his friend and in the Czech Rep. notorious poisoner Ross Hedvicek.)
  • The AfD continues with mutual personal attacks (Darwinek against Ross.Hedvicek: [4], [5], Hedvicek against others: [6]).

Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) placed a personal attack warning template on User talk:Ross.Hedvicek. Ross and Darwinek edit warred over the insertion of the template [7] until Darwinek blocked Ross [8] for violating 3RR on his own talk page (Darwinek did not provide a detailed rationale for the block [9], but Ross's contribs for the time period show no other candidates for a 3RR violation.)

Darwinek has made personal attacks

  • Mr. Hedvicek is a well-known internet spammer, vandal wannabe and Czech far-right exile
  • you are very likely schizofreniac
  • I see you are a typical slovak racist, who do not like Hungarians, and if one Hungarian is famous, than you say, he is Slovak. LOL. How pitty. It is enough to see his foto, look at his name and you know it in a moment. (in Czech, translation by Mt7, a party, should be verified by an uninvolved Czech speaker)
    • NB: Darwinek has confirmed this translation below. -Ral315
  • I am not apologizing to vandals and xenophobes
  • I don't like you! You are enemy of our great leader Jerry Paroubek and thus you are enemy of our bright future!
  • Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always
  • [10] OK Nick. I don't know how far you know this user but in a few words I can say that, he dreams about Wikipedia pure as a Lebensborn, Wikipedia without diacritics and "strange foreign characters"
  • So what? Learn how to edit, how to spell and how to become a better user and please do not propose such bulshit

Darwinek improperly blocked Gene Nygaard

Now, Gene is no prince to be sure, however see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper_blocking_by_Darwinek. After discussion, Darwinek finally replied Hello. I just lost my mind, that's right. I won't make the same mistakes I used to make...Next time I will ask somebody not involved to review the situation and consider blocks

Darwinek improperly applied protection while in a dispute

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive202#Continued_abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_Darwinek.

While in a dispute with Gene Nygaard involving the correct spelling of names that use diacritical marks, Darwinek first moved the article to his preferred spelling and then move-protected it.

Three examples:

Darwinek's log: 

16:02, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) protected Damir Matovinović (move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop])
16:01, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Damir Matovinovic to Damir Matovinović over redirect (Croatian name) (revert)
15:58, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) protected Antonio Márquez Ramírez (move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop])
15:58, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Antonio Marquez Ramirez to Antonio Márquez Ramírez over redirect (Spanish name) (revert)
15:57, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) protected Zoran Petrović (move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop])
15:57, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović over redirect (Serbian name) (revert)
15:54, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) protected Gilberto Aristízabal (move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop])
15:54, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Gilberto Aristizabal to Gilberto Aristízabal over redirect (correct name) (revert)
12:29, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Andre Daina to André Daina (correct name) (revert)
12:27, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović (Serbian name) (revert)
12:15, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Vojtech Christov to Vojtěch Christov (Czech name) (revert)
12:13, 17 February 2007 Darwinek (Talk | contribs | block) moved Vacláv Krondl to Václav Krondl (correct Czech name) (revert)

Darwinek's nationalism and his views on vandalism

Darwinek seems to be a Czech nationalist with very strong opinions on ethnicity and other issues relating to the Czech Republic and its antecedants and former constituents. This is, of course, not a problem in the general course of life and many editors are passionate about some topic. However, Darwinek's passion clouds his judgement as an admin. He views edits that go against his view as vandalism; this was the reason for the improper blocks of Gene, Ross and Mt7, and also the reason for his improper protection of articles that he moved to the "correct" spelling.

  • Someone who changes the nationality of a Slovak footballer is the same as calling a black person racist names. [11] [12]
  • Regarding Gene Nygaard's changing of name spellings to remove diacritical marks, This is NOT a content dispute, this is vandalism by his person, vandalism aimed to whitewash all diacritics.
  • Regarding Mt7's changing of professional Czechoslovak footballer of Hungarian nationality to professional Slovak footballer Reverting vandalism is not a content dispute. In further discussion, But after recent dirty war on HU Wiki he started whitewashing articles about Hungarians from Slovakia on EN Wiki...Bashing Hungarians is a strong element in Slovak society, now transformed also to Wiki. Also, This is completely other case. You don't understand it because you don't live in Central Europe.
  • Regarding Ross.Hedvicke, an editor with 500 edits who has been registered for more than one year with no prior blocks, As for the block of Rostislav Hedvíček: Personal attacks? Yes, I cited various comments on him from CS Wiki and they could be insulting. But he is a pure vandal with no positive contribution to Wikipedia and I see NO problem with insulting vandals.
  • On nominating an article for AfD, Article created long time ago by his friend and in the Czech Rep. notorious poisoner Ross Hedvicek.

These comments are reasonable if you accept that "vandalism" is defined ideologically and that Darwinek's ideology is the correct yardstick. I don't intend to criticize or judge Darwinek's personal views. However, they do not seem compatible with the excercise of admin privileges, at least on articles related to his ideological and nationalistic passions.

Darwinek previously acknowledged improper blocking and promised not to do it again

This is basically a repeat of a section above but I wanted it to stand out.

  • At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper_blocking_by_Darwinek, Gene Nygaard complains about improper blocking.
  • Lots of discussion, including that Gene's moves were disruptive.
  • Several admins tell Darwinek that no matter who was right or wrong, he should not have blocked Gene after being in a dispute with him.
  • Darwinek apologizes and promises not to do it again. Hello. I just lost my mind, that's right. I won't make the same mistakes I used to make...Next time I will ask somebody not involved to review the situation and consider blocks

Evidence presented by PullToOpen

Darwinek uses/used his admin rollback in inappropriate situations

Darwinek has used his admin rollback to remove edits that are not vandalism, something doesn't do anything but escalate conflicts. For example, Darwinek didn't want to listen to a user talk about a conflict he had with him (Outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek), so he reverted it twice [13] [14], and told the user to "fuck off" the third time he reverted [15]. In another incident, an IP tried to initiate a discussion about an allegedly POV edit by him that was removed from the article Barbara Boxer. Darwinek reverted it twice [16] [17]. The IP proceeded to move to Darwinek's talk page, where a different user joined the IP in the defense. Darwinek eventually restored the note in question and responded to it. [18]

In addition to this, Darwinek used the admin rollback in the most recent dispute that is covered very well by Thatcher's statement on the parent arbitration page, but I will post it here for the sake of completeness.

  1. RV 1, admin rollback
  2. RV 2, edit summary ".cite sources"
  3. RV 3, edit summary ".reverted Hungarophobia"
  4. RV 4, admin rollback and 3RR violation

The user who(m?) Darwinek reverted went to the talk page and provided three sources, to which Darwinek replied with a personal attack covered above (See point 3 in #Darwinek has made personal attacks). In light of the three sources, the reverted user tried to re-introduce the information that Darwinek reverted. However, the response by Darwinek was more edit-warring.

  1. RV 1, admin rollback
  2. RV 2, edit summary ".reference"
  3. RV 3, admin rollback

To quote Help:Reverting:

Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

PTO 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Darwinek

Responding to personal attacks:

  • I see you are a typical slovak racist, who do not like Hungarians, and if one Hungarian is famous, than you say, he is Slovak. LOL. How pitty. It is enough to see his foto, look at his name and you know it in a moment. (in Czech, translation by Mt7, a party, should be verified by an uninvolved Czech speaker)
    • The translation is correct. - Darwinek 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like you! You are enemy of our great leader Jerry Paroubek and thus you are enemy of our bright future!
    • This was a Monthy Python-like irony. Everyone in the Czech Republic get that, including Rostislav Hedvíček. - Darwinek 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19] OK Nick. I don't know how far you know this user but in a few words I can say that, he dreams about Wikipedia pure as a Lebensborn, Wikipedia without diacritics and "strange foreign characters"
    • This is a metaphor and the last sentence is a citation of Gene's own words. - Darwinek 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of above mentioned personal attacks were my faults. Sometimes caused by my hot blood, sometimes by the alcohol. I will try to respond to the whole case in /Workshop subsection. - Darwinek 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: As indicated, Darwinek has presented a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop#General discussion. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence&oldid=431100132"