Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Suggestion to close this case quickly

1) As per his statement after this case was opened ([1]), Darwinek has admitted he made a mistake in blocking Mt7, and has given assurances he will not repeat this mistake in the future. Under these circumstances, the case can be considered resolved and should be closed quickly without the need for further sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This makes sense, as both parties have reconciled with each other. There isn't a whole lot left to arbitrate. PTO 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The case shows that Darwinek not only abused the admin powers but trashed his opponents with extreme accusations. He has done so in the past as well and, for whatever reasons, he often left uncivil talk page entries in languages other than English, despite being repeatedly asked to refrain from using non-English in English language project, especially for commenting incivilly on other users. His apology does not address the issues of incivility and gives no promises that it would stop. --Irpen 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper_blocking_by_Darwinek, a report of Darwinek improperly blocking Gene Nygaard with whom he was involved in a dispute, and his closing comment 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. Thatcher131 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As I wrote earlier, this have not even gone through proper DR steps (RfC was begun simoultanesly with this ArbCom, and no mediation was tried, neither).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He got into trouble over bad blocks in February, he was taken to the woodshed on AN/I, and apologized and said he wouldn't do it again. He's already on his second chance. Thatcher131 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although the case is somewhat different: previous blocks were of evidently constructive contributors, this is not very clearly the case this time. That said, he who cries wolf...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this case should be scrutinized fully, as contributor misconducts are rather systematical then accidental. M.K. 11:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the case I too do not understand why RfArb was started simultaneously with an RfC. But since Darwinek already admitted his fault and promised to avoid it in the future, I support FutPerf's suggestion to speedy close the case. --Lysy^talk 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Paul August ☎ 04:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support completly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Wikipedia:Courtesy is a redirect to WP:CIVIL and perhaps it shouldn't be. It's possible to display all the outward signs of civility while remaining deeply discourteous. Cold civility is a familiar idiom, yet real courtesy has an undertone of warmth. Courtesy is the recognition that - all other factors aside - people are human beings whose feelings count for something. Civility can be the topic of policies and arbitration findings, but courtesy is more elusive and we can only hope to summon it or inspire it. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

3) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but I don't like the wording. PTO 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it slightly. PTO 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy 2

4) Making comments about other users in a language other than English, while not explicitly prohibited by en-wiki policies, is usually inconsiderate. Making disparaging comments about other users in a foreign language, especially in a language unfamiliar to those users, is discourteous and unbecoming.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Please reword, if necessary. The last sentence is a common sense rule that applies both to RL and to any form of communication. --Irpen 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded slightly. Thatcher131 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using a language of a user when addressing this user in his userspace is perfectly acceptable and can be even considered a courtesy. --Lysy^talk 13:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if this is used to bash other users. In such case, the fact this is done in the language the user can't understand and respond makes badmouthing even more discourteous. --Irpen 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Darwinek's administrative actions

1) Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has displayed a pattern of poor judgement in performing administrative actions, including blocking users (Ross.Hedvicek, Gene Nygaard, Mt7) with whom he was engaged in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Paul August ☎ 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Also improper move protections. Thatcher131 05:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (blocking). Thatcher131, can you elaborate on the moves?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link above goes to my section on the evidence page. Thatcher131 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse maybe not one improper page protection should be noted. M.K. 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Darwinek

2) Darwinek has engaged in egregious personal attacks ([2]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While accusation of vandalism and stalking is certainly uncivil, it is hardly 'egregious'. That said I would certainly support demand for Darwinek to apologize for it (unless he already did or his opponent has been found to be indeed a 'stalker' and a 'vandal' by DR consensus).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, based on the remedy proposal below, I think it is the reference to "Lebensborn" that the proposer found particularly unacceptable in this diff. (Just a clarification, not commenting on the merits.) Newyorkbrad 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have noticed it below - to much of my amazement, as I considered that part completly unoffensive (per my reasoning below). Let's see what others think...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of Godwin's Law it isn't particularly bad. It's an egregious use of metaphor, not an egregious personal attack. Durova^Charge! 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking other editors in foreign language

3) Darwinek repeatedly made highly disrespectful comments directed at other editors in languages other than English. Oct 15-16, 2006, Dec 1-2, 2006, Mar 19, 2006

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. He has been asked to stop it and in response he just continued to make such comments in Polish and Czech. --Irpen 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of such behaviour that shows a clear pattern? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added diffs above. --Irpen 04:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This is the English Wikipedia; if you want to attack a user, do it in the language that the rest of the wiki speaks. However, diff 1 doesn't work right, and diff 2 is in English. PTO 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just scroll down to the non-English entries further down the page if these diffs do not link to the proper section in your browser. --Irpen 04:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand diff 3 but Darwinek replied in the language that the thread was started in. In diff 1 Darwinek explains that the term you consider offensive is not offensive in the Zaolzie Polish dialect spoken in his area (and I have no reason to believe otherwise); to my knowledge he has not used it after you told him you find it offensive (please show diffs to the contrary). Is this all?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted above the dates of the diffs in question to make it easier to understand what we are talking about and marked the selected threads in your archive whose transation would help elucidate the matter. --Irpen 06:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "highly disrespectful" in the diffs above. It's been already discussed months ago. As for using non-English language, the above comments (with the exception of this one [3]) belong to userpaces of particular users to whom they were directed and neither of them objected being addressed in his language. Personally I would prefer using English, but I believe this is not a requirement for the userspace. I've been addressed a number of times in my userspace in Polish myself and do not find this offensive. --Lysy^talk 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the diffs above, the user comments in the conversation with his wikifriend on another user saying that it would be useful if their common opponent would emigrate (from Russia) to the West for the civilizational purposes. He does so in a language that the said opponent would presumably not understand, to make sure he will get away with such offensive talk. In a second entry, the user says that the progress in Polish article may be achieved only if certain (Russian) users leave Wikipedia. This comment is made also in Polish. In the third remark (also in Polish), the user claims that those Russians would attack any sort of Polish article about Poland even if that being about Polish kitchen (extreme ABF). He was being asked after one of such comments to use English and he posts another entry in Polish just below that request, thus simply ignoring it. --Irpen 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see that user:Piotrus and Darwinek translated their controversial conversation in English here too. It would benefit and to ArbCom members as well I think. M.K. 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. Endorse M.K. 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Darwinek desysopped

1) For inappropriate use of administrative abilities, Darwinek is desysopped. He may reapply at any time via WP:RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Paul August ☎ 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blocking of three dispute opponents is certainly an unhealthy pattern. I'd like to note that all of those three incidents accured in the space of past three months; Darwinek has been an admin for 2+ years. It seems his judgement has slipped recently, and he has became to 'trigger happy'. Still, given his past contributions, I'd suggest placing him on 'block parole' instead of desysoping: i.e. if he apologized and promises to cool down, he should be given a chance. If during the following year he blocks one more user in a way that community finds disruptive, he should be desysoped (I am thinking of an equivalent to civility parole). Also, I still question the reason for this ArbCom as proper DR procedures were not followed (no mediation, RfC started simoultanesly with RfArb) - thus the user has had little chance to be warned that his actions are so severly viewed by the community.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been warned twice on previous AN/I threads by multiple admins, (1) (2) resulting in an apology and a promise not to block editors when he is in a dispute, all before the Mt7 block. Thatcher131 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek is a very good editor, I say: desysopping for one week. --Mt7 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support and I think this should be the main remedy. The goal of the remedies is to address the past problems and prevent the recurrence of the future ones at the same time minimizing the colatoral damage. Darwinek's history of many useful edits shows that banning him would make the project loose his content contribution. We should avoid this if possible. At the same time, the obviously tainted admin is a burden on the reputation of the entire admin squad, which is far from being impeccable even before Darwinek's behavior has been exposed by this set of controversies. Repeated history of ill-conceived blocks would be a reason enough as the egregiousity of each single unfair block is largely underestimated to this day (eg. see Worldtraveller arbcom.} Also, to make sure the editor gets the message that spreading the horrific offenses may have consequences, de-adminning also sends a strong enough message without any block, especially if combined with a civility parole. --Irpen 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be rather abrupt to desyop Darwinek since there hasn't been an appropriate time in which for the current Rfc to run it's course. He has admitted to mistakes and has pledged to not make them again. He has done this in the past, but again, that was on noticeboards. I would have preferred that this had not gone to arbcom unless the Rfc was seen to be of no value. It was only open for a short time before this case was filed here...hardly enough time for him to cool down and read the opinions of other editors via Rfc.--MONGO 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen an RfC that has been "of value"? Besides, you seem to be forgetting how hurtful the bad blocks are. Each bad block is a very serious matter for the involved editor. And here we have a clear pattern of those. --Irpen 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Rfc's that were helpful, and had enough time been allowed for the thing to run it's course, and for Darwinek to be able to reassess his decisions, none of this would be necessary. At least in the case of Mt7, he seems to have forgiven Darwinek. I don't condone the mistakes Darwinek has made, mind you.--MONGO 06:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed suggestion is adequate, as contributor in question used systematically administrator tools to block contributors, who there were involved in dispute with him. He also used admin tools to protected "proper" version of article [4] in which he was involved personally during article name dispute, etc. M.K. 12:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The desirability and adequacy of the remedy may be questioned only by those who previously indulged in unblocking User:Molobo and User:Halibutt. I'm shocked that Piotrus is unable to understand that Darwinek's behaviour is not acceptable for an administrator and that his friend's antics effectively disqualify him from further public service in the project. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If every admin was desysoped for a bad block, we would not have many left around. I also believe that the RFC has already solved the issue satisfactory, and there is no need to conduct the RfArb simultaneously to the RFC. --Lysy^talk 13:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every bad block is a very serious matter yes. But a pattern of bad blocks is certainly worthy of desysopping. As for RfC being resultive, well it did extract yet another promise not to do it. Such promises were given after past bad blocks and broken by the next block. There is no reason to believe this user can control his urge to use whatever it takes to "win" when he looses his temper. --Irpen 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough to look at Darwinek's contribs to see he uses admins tools responsibly every day, reverting vandalism, deleting pages, and such. To take away tool he used uncontroversualy for over 600 days because he used it controversialy 3 times, is rather an overkill.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural and wordsmithing matter, it seems a bit odd to say "he may reapply at any time" if the decision is also made to ban him. (Clerical comment, no comment on the merits.) Newyorkbrad 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's a big difference between being mistaken about the merits of a block and actively using sysop tools to gain an upper hand at an edit dispute. On the other hand, genuine misuse of administrator privileges is one type of situation where RFC has a reasonably good track record of success. I'd back this proposal if this behavior pattern had continued even once after a full RFC, but Darwinek hasn't gotten that second chance. I'm not convinced by referrals to admin boards because a lot of things get said there in the heat of the moment. The exceptionally strong overall contribution history also weighs here: this is a prolific administrator, not someone who got the tools six weeks ago on a borderline RFA. For these reasons I'm unwilling to stand behind immediate desysopping. It would be more appropriate to implement one or more scaled remedies that would lead to desysopping if problems continue. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that users who did not have an experience of being abusively blocked do not always appreciate how hurtful and humiliating even a single bad block is for an affected editor. I suggest reading through an Worldtraveller/InShanee ArbCom case to see how an editor was so hurt that felt like pressing the issue for weeks. Some get over it faster, true enough, but there is nothing that creates a greater collateral damage than a bad block. Here we have a pattern of such blocks. An action is needed. I am not comfortable, with the block button left with the user in question. --Irpen 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be the main remedy in my opinion. Administrators should not use their tools as a way to silence people they're in content dispute with... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I appreciate your comments, but Darwinek did use move protection to gain an upper hand in an edit dispute, and I can't see his block of Mt7 as anything other, given that Mt7 was in an edit dispute with Darwinek at one article and was then blocked for 3RR on a second article where he hadn't actually violated 3RR. Second, Darwinek was already on his second chance, having apologized for blocking Gene Nygaard and promising to get uninvolved help the next time. Third, I think the real underlying problem here is that Darwinek can't tell the difference between vandalism and an edit dispute with respect to certain topics. As long as he sees certain types of edits as vandalism, he will never think that blocking for them is wrong. Thatcher131 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't vindicate Darwinek's missteps at all. The bottom line to my analysis is that administrators usually get a chance to reform when they make this sort of misstep. This arbitration case opened before Darwinek got that opportunity, which makes it reasonable to fashion remedies in a manner that accounts for this circumstance. It's perfectly feasible to put Darwinek on a short leash and hope he'll get the message (which, based on his venerable contribution history, he probably will) rather than summarily dumping one of the project's most diligent volunteers in a somewhat out-of-process hearing. It's the overall good of project that drives my thinking. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is a difference between a good-faith block placed in an honest error and an abusive block. The former is not an instance of admin abuse, just a judgment error. The latter is. An occasional mistake should be forgiven, which cannot be said about a clear abuse. Secondly, Darwinek has already been given an "opportunity to reform". His past blocks were discussed at ANI and judged unacceptable. The pattern of abusive blocking still continued. Further, what exactly is "out of process" here? There cannot be anything more "according to the process" than the matter getting a due hearing of ArbCom. If someone thinks that the ArbCom is premature, well, this is a judgment call whether the offense is severe enough and whether there is evidence that everything else has already failed or unlikely to succeed. Personally, I have yet to see a single RfC that brought about a reform of an abusive user. Usually, RfC is merely a time wasting exercise used solely to vent others' frustration or to guarantee that when the next step is taken (ArbCom), the case is accepted. In this case, however, the community already tried to address the problematic behavior several times at ANI and the user failed to get a message. --Irpen 20:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's response contains very little that I have not already addressed. I'll clarify those parts of my analysis in bullet form:

• Yes, there is a difference between honest errors and exploitation of sysop tools in the application of blocks. That was the first point I stated in my opinion. Irpen and I agree about this.
• Clear abuse of this type usually does get a second chance, in my opinion, via RFC. That process was not given the opportunity to succeed before this case opened.
• Discussion at ANI does not constitute a second chance, at least not in the sense that should matter at an arbitration proceeding: ANI is not part of DR and some ANI threads heat up inappropriately. When that happens it can be very hard for a conscientious sysop to distinguish between angry hyperbole and thoughtful criticism. Interthreading, ambiguous responses, and uncritical repetition of counterfactual assertions can make even the most dispassionate reader scratch his or her head in confusion.
• Standard procedure is to go to ArbCom after other dispute resolution options have been tried and have failed. This request was opened concurrently with the sole other DR method attempted, which had not been given an opportunity to succeed.
• Assertions that RFC would have failed are hypothetical speculations. As I have stated before, admin conduct RFCs that receive support from established editors and sysops are a type of RFC that has a reasonably successful track record.

Therefore I conclude that immediate desysopping would be premature. A scaled response is more appropriate. Durova^Charge! 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I guess Darwinek did not understand that he can be right in a content dispute but still be wrong as an admin if he apply the administrative powers to his opponent. He dismissed the criticism on the AN boards as intrigues or stupidity of his enemies. Lets see if this arbcom gives a message he understands. Thus, lets try the administrative parole (as proposed below) first and see if it works. If not I gues such a great content creator as Darwinek can find a lot of work here even without the admin bit Alex Bakharev 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing new developments surrounding this user [5] behavior did not gone better, as noted neutral admin such involvement in the newest incident is unacceptable, especially then ArbCom and RfC is open. At least newest 3RR violation did not resulted yet another manipulation of admin tools on his opponent, yet. And I am very concern by statment below made by Darwinek - as suggested that one of the misbehavior reason is alcohol. Does anybody evaluated what danger posses additional tools in drunken admin hands? And this is very serious problem for wikipedia integrity. M.K. 10:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of alleged past misuse of admin tools and statements of contrition, a user who would get into an edit war and violate 3RR while in the midst of an arbitration case about the same thing lacks the temperament to be an admin. Seriously, what would happen to an editor who violated 3RR during his own RFA? Thatcher131 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. Sadly, I'll have to change my opinion to endorse. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Durova. Edit warring while this is underway (or anytime for that matter) is not good. Especially since it is with the same editor he was doing so immediately prior to this case being brought forth.--MONGO 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the 3RR thing isn't good, especially when admins are supposed to to adhere to higher standards, but this wasn't a case of abuse of administrative privilages which is the major concern in this request, I'm still sticking to my guns with Darwinek receiving a strong caution for sysop privilages and also a caution for other conduct Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing a 3RR is not a sysop abuse: Darwinek did not use his admin powers in this issue and should not be penalized for a 3RR abuse by questioning his fitness as an admin. Instead, I'd fully support a normal 24h block for both parties concerned (note they actually both broke 4RR on two articles, sigh). The fact that there is an ArbCom going should not influence enforcement of 3RR or any other policy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your interpretation and you're correct in the particulars. But what about the cost in credibility? One of the foremost things I recommend to any editor in arbitration is to walk the straight and narrow path. I'm not going to pay for that advice by handing problem editors another excuse to accuse the community of giving sysops special treatment. The tools are a special obligation, not a special privilege. Unless I'm very mistaken, Darwinek knew some of us were on the fence about this particular remedy and that we were hoping his recent missteps were out of character in comparison with his long and honorable history. He'll still be free to request readminship. This tips the balance for me. I respect if it doesn't for you - this is where I stand. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, admins are not supposed to break the rules, whether you like it or not. They're supposed to set an example, not get into wikilawyering to justify PAs and inacceptable behaviour like you're doing now. Especially with an ArbCom going on. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus's activity here has been entirely appropriate: he has an opinion and has offered articulate reasons in its support. Please refactor, Grafkim. The workshop page of an arbitration case is a place where it's especially important that Wikipedians be free to express legitimate viewpoints without encountering such chilling replies - the subtext of that comment looks like be quiet or you're next. Durova^Charge! 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Defending someone is sure entirely appropriate, but this is just too much. I mean come on: someone who knows that there's an Arbcom on your head and who yet violates one of the most basic rules, namely 3RR. If an admin is unable to restrain himself from doing such basic mistakes, then he's not fit to be an admin. Yes he's a good editor, no doubt about that, but that does not require a sysop bit.

As for be quiet or you're next, this is a plain and simple invention. This case is not about Piotrus (he's a commentator just as I am), so we're not discussing his behaviour. The thing is - it's just too much. If you listen to him, Darwinek is an angel above all reproach, no less. Now that reminds me the same ArbCom case, curiously... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..."an angel above all reproach"? Huh? Where did I say anything like this? Would I support sternly warning and blocking for 24h of such an angel? I am sorry, Grafikm, but I don't think you and I are on the same conversation. For the record, I will repeat: if admin privileges were abused, admin priviliges may be affected by solution. If other policies were violated, penalties appopriate to those violations should be applied. Mixing penalties for different violations is confusing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That admin privilleges were abused is beyond doubt. Moreover, the user promised to not repeat the abuses only to break on that promise repeatedly. This remedy is addressing this specific issue. Grossly discortious behavior and liberally aired horrendous accusation are addressed in other remedies which hopefully won't be found worthy of a ban. --Irpen 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's try to discuss the case not each other. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye aye sir. Well the point here is clear: an admin who has an ArbCom case on him and who knows that a desysopping is a possible proposed enforcement (proposed by an arbitrator, no less) should behave accordingly. Even if 3RR does not involve the sysop bit, admins are supposed to set the example. And engaging in a silly edit war is not exactly that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek banned

2) Darwinek is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Harsh, perhaps, but the Lebensborn comment was far beyond the limits of acceptable behavior. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh. Paul August ☎ 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wow. I found the remark but I guess I didn't appreciate the significance. Thatcher131 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely harsh penalty. Surely a desyopping is enough of a penalty.--MONGO 08:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much too harsh. Yes, I can now see Darwinek has a pattern of losing his temper every once in a while and making rather outrageous remarks (long while ago he was blocked by Jimbo himself, apparently for this [6]), but I don't see this as something that overshadows his potential for useful contributions to such a degree that we'd have to throw him out. Civility parole is fine though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a kick in the crotch like getting desysopped would make him wise up... and if not, bannage is always an option later. Milto LOL pia 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is too harsh. Darwinek makes content contributions and if he wants to continue to write articles, there is no need to obstruct him from doing so. Civility parole would take care of future horrific outbursts and, besides, much more filthy mouthed users are around with nothing being done about that. Deadminning for abuse of rights plus civility parole should be enough. --Irpen 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it would be way too much. Lebensborn by itself is not offensive; Darwinek is not using it to accuse his opponent of Nazi-sympathies or racism, but as a metaphore to excessive purity policy (no diactrics). Personally I'd avoid such metaphors (it is not very clear and can be misnterpretted just as this example shown), but I'd hardly call it offensive, and certainly wouldn't dream of desysoping somebody for using it in the discussion!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he intended it as a metaphor or not, the accusation is a repugnant one, and has no place among fellow Wikipedians. (Darwinek seems to have a habit of using such "metaphors", in any case.) Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this harsh remedy would lead in its consequence to lose a longstanding and valuable contributor I would like to suggest that forgiveness of errors and maybe a civility parole would be much more to the good of the project. VirtualDelight 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebensborn is very harsh insult, but it is not the only of this type. Quick scrolling through contributions and evidence, several more came to light as learn Czech motherfucker; stupid ignorantM.K. 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lebensborn is very harsh insult" ? How ? Come on. --Lysy^talk 13:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's a legitimate problem this remedy is far too harsh. It's like treating an ingrown toenail by amputating the foot. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is way to much Alex Bakharev 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek placed on civility parole

3) Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Alternative to the above. Kirill Lokshin 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems appropriate since there is a history of attacks. --Irpen 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem appropriate only if it can be demonstrated he has a habit of making personal attacks, the current one example is not enough to saddle him with that. Also, I still question the reason for this ArbCom as proper DR procedures were not followed (no mediation, RfC started simoultanesly with RfArb).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always or So what? Learn how to edit, how to spell and how to become a better user and please do not propose such bulshit? Note that he was warned in the two prior AN/I threads about making uncivil comments. Thatcher131 18:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, after spending 30 minutes reading the above, I must sign here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the best solution and the fairest one for all concerned. K. Lásztocska 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate measure...but 5 blocks should be changed to three. His comments have been incivil at times, and in a few cases, inexcusable, but we also have to give him some credit for the other work he has done elsewhere.--MONGO 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your suggestion; making the threshhold for a long ban 3 blocks instead of 5 makes the remedy harsher, but you seem to be arguing for lenience. Thatcher131 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's point may be that civility parole, as an alternative for the arbitrators to consider in lieu of a ban, might be a better choice if were perceived as having more teeth to it, and/or he is expressing confidence that the parole won't be violated. Newyorkbrad 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally in favor of some leniency but see no point in having 5 blocks before a one year block takes effect. I figure 3 is enough since he has already been cautioned, may end up desysopped and has admitted his mistakes.--MONGO 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Ghirla. Incivility should not be accepted but since Darwinek promised to improve, I believe there is no reason for beating about the bush any more --Lysy^talk 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made such promises before and nothing changed. --Irpen 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The 5 block scale is probably sufficient. I come under fire sometimes for my stand on civility, but I think sysops have an obligation to set the standard for conduct. It doesn't help our credibility to perpetrate rudeness or countenance it among fellow sysops. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support it is enough for the incivility found Alex Bakharev 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek banned (2)

4) Darwinek is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twenty days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Not as harsh as the one year ban, but still harsh enough to be a sufficient kick in the pants. PTO 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20 days ban for a disputed incivility comment. One one level, I'd actually support such long term bans for incivility - I have advocated for long time that violations of WP:CIV should be blockable - but blocking active and respected admin like Darwinek, when many obvious trolls and vandals go on and pollute this project with little fear for being blocked for WP:CIV violations, would be a joke.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single comment but a repeated pattern and not just incivil, but worse. Repeated invoking the Nazi talk is worse than uttering f-words once in a while. But since the goal of this remedy seems to be to make sure the user gets a message, this is not a necessary measure if combined with deadminning (see above.) Deadminning is a message strong enough. --Irpen 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any banning is too harsh.--MONGO 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any banning or desysoping is way out of the proportion. If this is applied here, the same should be done in the case of other users violating WP:CIV. --Lysy^talk 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banning, yes, but not desysoping. Darwinek demonstrates a pattern of abusive using of the admin's buttons. --Irpen 20:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uneasy about this. It seems to go against the principle that blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Civility parole is enough for all his civility violations. Dawinek is a very good content creator, no need to limit him Alex Bakharev 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek strongly cautioned and placed on administrative parole

5) Darwinek is strongly cautioned for abuse of administrator privilages and placed on administrative parole for 1 year, any further abuse will result in him being desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - The Rfc was filed on the same day as this arbitration case and this seams an appropriate action, without condoning what Darwinek did, other forms of dispute resolution may have been best first. This allows Darwinek to remain sysopped, but with any further abuse, the possibility of being desysopped Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a more logical proposal than a ban, and considering Darwinek's responce it is something he would agree to. And yes, as many users pointed out, why was this ArbCom accepted without the usual steps of DR (no mediation, RfC on the same day as RfArb...)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sensible. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I now endorse desysopping, this would be the best alternative. Durova^Charge! 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reworded so it reads administrative parole rather than personal attack parole, personal attack parole can come under another remedy Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a semantic point, "severely cautioned" is an awkward phrasing. If this is used, I suggest "strongly cautioned" instead. Newyorkbrad 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Newyorkbrad, I've adjusted it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can give him one last chance Alex Bakharev 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek cautioned regarding personal attacks in languages other than English

6) Darwinek is cautioned regarding the use of languages other than English. Rude remarks in other languages create an atmosphere of distrust that compounds the usual problems associated with incivility and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Perhaps reword somewhat but I think the message is needed since the user just ignored polite requests to stop this practice. --Irpen 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any repeated foreign language insults by Darwinek. This said I would welcome a policy on using foreign languages on English wikipedia. --Lysy^talk 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added section header (please reword if desired); no comment on the merits. Newyorkbrad 11:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall to have been called "chandelier" in Polish or something along these lines by Darwinek more than once. It is not pleasant to regularly find your name mentioned in foreign-language texts posted on talk pages of English wikipedia, with no way to learn what is being said about you. The editor should be cautioned. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "chandelier" is definitely not an insult in Polish. I thought this has been already explained. --Lysy^talk 13:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, calling a human being "a chandelier", especially if this rhymes with that person's name is not an insult but a complement. --Irpen 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a silly nickname, nothing offensive in it. --Lysy^talk 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are being serious, Lysy. --Irpen 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded per Irpen's suggestion. I hope the new version is an improvement. Durova^Charge! 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek is not the worst violator, but the reminder is useful Alex Bakharev 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinek admonished

7) For using his administrative privileges in disputes he was involved in and making personal attacks, Darwinek is admonished to avoid such behavior in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a happy medium. PTO 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would support this, it goes with my proposal of receiving a severe caution. Desyssoping in this case seams excessive based on threads on WP:AN/I. This takes into account his other excellent admin work spreading over nearly 2 years Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks appropriate and compatible with other proposals. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough IMHO. There's enough stuff in the file to scale up the response. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this remedy anymore in light of recent events, but the idea is still out there. PTO 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not enough for systematical abuses. M.K. 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Darwinek

Hello. Don't know where to place my response, so I will write it here. Feel free to move it to other place.

a.) Personal attacks. To be honest, I am a hot blooded person, and not only on the internet, however this is not an excuse for my quite latest and generally all personal attacks to other users. I also confess, I made some personal attacks drunk but this is not an excuse, too. It was my sin to be so harsh and uncivil to other users. Yeah.

b.) Inproper blocks. Hot blood, same case. I know I abused my admin rights for doing that, and as I said before, I will seek to solve such controversial and complicated issues with other users and admins.

c.) Inproper protections. Only three if I can remember but still clear abuse of admin rights. Also caused by hot blood during a heated era of my problems with Gene Nygaard. I will seek to solve such controversial and complicated issues with other admins.

d.) My court defense. Generally speaking if you look closely I am here from 2004, admin since 2005 and above mentioned problems from the late 2006. It is clear that my problems in real life combined with my hot blood influenced my Wikipedia behaviour as an admin. Did I used personal attacks? Yes. Did I have been uncivil? Yes. Did I made inproper blocks and protections? Yes. Did I do that because I might have tought I am bulletproof? Maybe. Am I thus a bad admin? No, not saint but also not bad. If you look closely at my edits and actions during the era of my adminship, you will see chronologically an increase of admin jobs (blocking, protecting, deleting etc.), 99% of which are good. If you look at my edit count, you will see more than 40,000 edits, most of them constructive, not, you know, some talk page orgies etc. I am not only a valuable editor but also a valuable admin and can be such in future.

e.) Proposed remedy. I propose to keep me admin status, as desysopping would maybe do a justice but in the end wouldn't help the community. I propose other neutral and good users (not users involved in conflicts with me) to watch me constantly and watch my actions. If I will again abuse my admin tools, I should be desysopped. If I would again be uncivil, I should be blocked. Therefore I take the oath I will NOT again abuse my admin tools and will tame myself to not make a personal attacks and be uncivil. Did I made similar promises some time ago? Yes. But just now I see how deep my actions have consequences and it is saddening me. Now, standing in front of the High Honourable body of Wikipedia I see in retrospective how was my otherwise good adminship tainted by my latest (several weeks, months) behaviour. I only hope to be a better admin in the future. It is my only chance I have left now. This whole redemption is my own fight with myself and I will win that fight! If not, I should be punished properly in the future but now I plea for a real second chance to change. Thank you.

This whole text above was written in a quite late hour, so please take my apologies for any wrong English language issues. - Darwinek 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Darwinek, personally I don't have a problem with you. In fact, I think your work is excellent on the whole. My position on censoring people on Wikipedia has been made clear numerous times. I'm against it. Period! My unsolicited advice to you however, is don't drink and drive, and don't drink and edit (I made some personal attacks drunk). Been there, done that. Don't do it! Best. Dr. Dan 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]