Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Epopt (talk | contribs) at 03:09, 5 May 2004 (the Epopt votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Evidence

Please enter evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidence

Request for arbitration

Paul Vogel is an anonymous user who has had temporary bans implemented him on several occasions for trolling, breaking the revert rule and making abusive comments. 24.45.99.191is his most common IP address but according to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel he also uses:

  • 24.45.99.191 (optonline.net — broadband provider)
  • 65.125.10.66 (tcius.com — marketing company)
  • 66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 105**, 106**, 123, 160** 205**) (algx.net NY dialups)
  • 216.99.245.* (139, 146**, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184, 188) (algx.net NY dialups)

(**) new

He has been especially prevalent (and abusive) on Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, Cosmotheism, White Separatism, Judaism, Genocide and associated talk pages.

I wish to request a permanent block against Vogel and his various IP addresses. AndyL 04:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. User has an unbroken five-month record of personal attacks, revert wars, vandalisms, and so forth. —No-One Jones 04:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another typical case of Psychological projection by Mirv, ad nauseum.-PV

And did I mention that he constantly tries to diagnose psychological problems based on what people write on Wikipedia? Not sure if that behavior is within the purview of the arbitrators, but. . . —No-One Jones 15:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC):-)

In your case, it is quite obvious and clear, as "lying hypocrisy" is a key indicator of psychological projection.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3 King James Version of the Bible

It is not "rocket science", Mirv.-PV


  • I believe Vogel is currently under a 24 hour ban. He has apparently circumvented this by posting under 216.99.245.146 He's been on Wikipedia for months but has refused to register, it would seem, so he can circumvent discipline more easily. AndyL 02:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Vogel was expressly banned by Hadal for 48 hours and has now returned (as 216.99.245.146) to continue to engage in an edit war.GrazingshipIV 02:19, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I personally don't see a reason to go through such contortions in order to deal with this user. He has made ad hominem attacks a central tactic in his "debates" with others and will see no compromise. The community has put up with him for months; much time and energy has been wasted in vain pursuit of accord with Vogel.
As I do not see quickpolls as an appropriate method of resolving what should be a simple matter of an IP blatantly violating policy, I also do not see arbitration as necessary in this case. It's another waste of time and energy which would be much better spent building Wikipedia or dealing with problem users who bother to log in (and, for that matter, have done more than disrupt). I have re-blocked Vogel's primary (static) IP for 96 hours, as I promised I would do if he tried to evade the original 48 hour block. If he attempts to evade this block as well, I will make the block indefinite. I'll do the same if he does not moderate himself in the future.
If others want to pledge themselves to what will surely be wasted effort, that's their choice. In the meantime, I'll do what I believe is best for the community. Wikipedia is not the Stormfront forums; Paul Vogel knows this as well as anyone else. -- Hadal 04:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments by outside users

Re: last comment from "More expressions of anti-Semitism"

  • " It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have falsely accused me..."
    • While I have no doubt that PV has engaged in personal attacks and anti-Semitic flaming, I fail to see how this specific comment [last comment in the section more anti-Semitic comments] is an expression of anti-Semitism. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see why personal attacks against individuals are not accepted but attacks against groups of people are open to discussion. I would like to see a permanent ban. Danny 00:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A one year ban seems too extreme in this situation. I suggest a revert limit of one, with the exception of undoing childish vandalism ("this site sucks," blanking, etc.). Edits that are manually done, but are effectively reversions, (like on Jew: Insertion of Jew Watch link by PV | RV by Nunh-huh | "Revert" by PV) and show no intention to calmly seek a consensus or at least a compromise, are considered "reverts" by this proposal. This would last for a period of time decided by the arbitrators. Violations would potentially result in blocks and an extension of the revert limit. Also PV should be not be allowed to add external links unless contributing to the text of the article and citing his sources. Guanaco 00:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Vogel has shown that he would not follow this, so a hardban is necessary and the only thing enforcable against someone who has openly stated that he will defy the arbitration committee's decrees. Guanaco 03:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Relief requested

Known participants have been given headers, others may join this matter by creating a header and requesting relief.

User:AndyL

Paul Vogel has had 24 or 48 hour bans imposed on him on several occasions yet has not improved his behaviour. He circumvented the most recent ban by Hadal (see above) causing his suspension to be extended to 96 hours. This shows his lack of respect for Wikipedia and for attempts to discipline him.

Despite being on wikipedia for several months he refuses to get a userid, despite several requests that he do so, making it more difficult to track his activity (and more difficult to impose discipline). See [1] also see his talk page in general User talk:24.45.99.191 for attempts by the community to deal with him patiently and his responses. See also User_talk:65.125.10.66

He has made the pages on which he has participated into hostile environments for those who disagree with his views, particlarly Jews, particularly on Talk:Holocaust where he has used blood curses against Jews as a whole.

"You are such an narrow-minded bigot that you do not see what the future holds for all Jews, everywhere, with your own selfish and biased bigotry and ignorant pov editing of the truth. A blood curse be upon all of your ilk that always censors the Truth for any such selfish and foolish and bigoted narrow-mindedness!"-PV" (emphasis mine: AndyL)

followed by

"Such "blood curses" always do come true, eventually, as did the one when the Jesus was murdered by the same ilk that chose pov and selfish bigotry over the Truth. I was only warning you that the "Jewish Holocaust" of 50-60 years ago would not be the last, if the real lessons to be learned from it, were not learned, and were not actually taken to heart. Obviously, the same ilk then, 50-60 years ago, even 2000 years ago, is the very same ilk, now. Time is running out. Kalki or Jesus will return, them being only the "symbolic representations" of the sword of TRUTH, which is ETERNAL. Good luck!"

The Vogel RFC page shows just how much animosity he has whipped up.

Paul is an open and unreconstructed anti-Semite (though he prefers the term "anti-Jewish") and tries to edit anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic) material into wikipedia such as adding a link to David Duke's material [2] on to the Judaism page and on 19th of April he reverted edits more that three times despite others efforts to stop him. See also [3] and [4]

The Holocaust page is protected due to his constant vandalism [5] again, on the 19 of April he reverted this page more than three times.

He has harassed individuals who complain about him by pasting entire pages of material on their talk page - Eloquence complains about that here I request a permanent ban on Vogal and his various ips since he has demonstrated no ability to correct or modify his behavior despite numerous requests and past disciplinary action. If anything he's gotten worse. If a lesser ban is imposed he should be required to obtain and use a userid so that he can be more easily monitored. He should be permanently banned (at least) from editing Judaism, Jews, anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Homophobic hate speech, pantheism, genocide, cosmotheism, white supremacy, white separatism (which has been moved to racial segregation), racism and related sites. More later if I have time. AndyL 04:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On April 27, Vogel logged on as 66.2.156.205 and vandalised the Jew and Judaism pages. See [6] and User talk:66.2.156.205 AndyL 02:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And today he' s not only vandalised *this* page but he's also been vandalising Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (!) AndyL 22:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Mirv

His behavior here is not new, and he has been banned from numerous other sites for very similar reasons. For the past five months he has kept up a constant flow of personal attacks and reversion wars, and he either fails to comprehend or refuses to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines, including the all-important NPOV policy. Nobody has been able to convince him to do otherwise, despite numerous efforts by any number of Wikipedians. Therefore I wish to see Vogel banned from editing Wikipedia until such time as he agrees to cease the aforementioned behavior. —No-One Jones 16:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:GrazingshipIV

I request that Paul Vogel be subject to a ban of 5 months. He seems to have a lot of passion about issues but does not have the social skills or temperament to express it constructively.

His views about ethnicity and race, particularly the way he expresses them, are offensive to the community. His continued rants about Jewish plots to undermine him are completely inappropriate and unfounded.The way these views are expressed is my concern, he is entitled to believe anything he wants but the seeming connotations of his statements seem to smack of hatred. Throwing such wild accusations at other wikipedians is detrimental to achieving any sort of resolution to a conflict.

His actions both on wikipedia and the mailing list clearly display a lack of self-control in my opinion. He continually calls any who oppose him "biggots" and part of a "cabal". I doubt he will improve but suggest that there is at least a possibility for growth in 5 months. The ban is in the interest of wikipedia most of all, but it also gives him time to grow up a bit and reflect before returning (should he chose too).

I honestly think this may be a mute point considering he will probably (as is his custom) circumvent any ban implemented, but considering his actions I think it is warranted.

For the record-I can only speak to his behavior on the page white seperatism, his request for comments page, and the mailing list. I do not know of the value of his other contributions positive or negative.

GrazingshipIV 02:31, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein

Paul Vogel has been adding an anti-Semitic link to the Judaism page. This is not a charge that I throw around lightly. I am not claiming that Vogel has called for the destruction of the Jewish people, but he has gone out of his way to offend Jews as a group. In my opinion this is not a free speech issue -- Vogel has a right to express his opinions, but Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a means by which such hateful views can be promoted.

I explained in detail on the talk page why I think this is inappropriate, and I deleted the link. Although some other users believe that such a link is acceptable as long as it is clearly identified, I think if Wikipedia is going to have any links to anti-Semitic material it should be on the anti-Semitism page. To put t on the Judaism page in no way serves the development of the article, and serves only to endorse anti-Semitism as a valid view of Jews and their culture.

I was content to argue this issue on the Talk page, and raised the issue of some sort of intervention as arbitration only after he responded to my points through more anti-Semitism.

Specifically, after I explained why I deleted the link, Vogel responded, "Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.-PV " -- a response that ignored my explanation for my deletion of the link entirely. Rather than engage in a discussion of what is appropriate for the article and why, his statement in effect explained his act as a form of revenge (he has since made it clear that he blames changes to the cosmotheism page on "Jews" -- a logic which is almost by definition anti-Semitic, as Jean-Paul Sartre explored in his book Anti-Semite and Jew.

I did not reply by accusing him of anti-Semitism. Instead I tried to be constructive. I replied, "I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page. Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here."

And then Vogel made clear the anti-Semitic logic by which problems on the cosmotheism page are really "Jewish" problems: "Aren't you? Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk" is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-"

Do I need to explain my outrage? Vogel doesn't identify the people working on the cosmotheism as wikipedians but as "Jews." He doesn't identify me as a wikipedian but solely as a "Jew." And because I am a Jew, he holds me responsible for what other "Jews" have done on another site.

This use of "Jew" as a slur; the identification of my "ilk" as hypocrites, reeks of anti-Semitism. If this itself does not merit banning, I certainly think some strong action should be taken.

I want to be clear that I believe even anti-Semites have a right to free speech. But I simply do not believe Wikipedia therefore has an obligation to allow anti-Semites to use Wikipedia to spread their views (my objection to the link) -- especially when they do so in a way that makes no contribution at all to writing an article, and when they treat contributors to article pages with contempt becuse they are Jewish.

I also want to be clear that I do not consider anti-Semitism to be an "extreme view" of the sort that Wikipedia must make room for. Extreme views, as I understand the idea, are views on specific events or phenomena that are controvercial. For example, some people believe that the Holocaust was a hoax, and that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attack. I firmly believe relevant articles must make room for such extreme views -- as long as they are presented in an NPOV way, contextualized, and presented as minority opinions. I do not believe anyone should ever be sanctioned for holding these views and others like them (to my knowledge, Vogel has not presented these views -- I am offering them as hypotheticals); my understanding of our NPOV policy is that such views must be represented. But anti-Semitism itself is not a "view" in the same way as these other views, as beliefs that must be represented in articles on the Holocaust or 9/11. Anti-Semitism is not a view, it is a form of hatred. Sure we must have an article on it -- but to consider it legitimate view that must be represented to guarantee NPOV is a mockery of the notion of NPOV.

I believe that Vogel should be banned permanently from Wikipedia. If he is not, I know there is little I can do -- I certainly will not quit the project. However, given his behavior and avowed views, I cannot see how he and I could ever work together. If he puts anti-Semitic material in any article on Jews or Judaism, I will delete it. I will do this even if it means I will have to revert more than three times in one day. I realize tht this on its face seems like a violation of our rules. I am not saying this in order to threaten the community -- I am only trying to be honest. If the Arbitration Committee feels that it is I who has acted inappropriately or have broken a rule on the Judaism page, or its talk page -- broken not the letter of any rule but the spirit -- let me know and discipline me as you feel necessary. But I cannot bear to see anti-Semetic materil on the Judaism page.

Paul Vogel

  • I agree to being his advocate, in this circumstance and others, until I such time as I might find cause to recuse myself. Sam Spade 22:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


The above statements by Sl are distressing to me. I can see numerous mistakes Paul has made, and I expect that he will be receiving a sanction from the committee, lets just get that out of the way. I am here to plead for lenience, and to minimize injustice. Hard banning Paul, particularly for being anti-Jewish or racist would be unjust. He has not made any overtly racist comments that I am aware of, and quite unlike Sl, I expect people of a variety of offensive types (paraphiliacs, communists, Muslim extremists, atheists etc...) to be allowed here. I don’t see a need to single out particular types of conventionally unpopular people, unless we are going to create an official wiki-POV. He has made quality contributions to the wikipedia, he has been willing to compromise, and his behaviour has improved over time, until just recently. The evidence against him is simple, and his only defense is the reason why he is here. A strict obedience of policy would have him banned/reverted early and often, as a contentious anon. But Paul is more than a vandal. He is Paul Vogel. He is a person with knowledge on a subject. The subject of white separatism might be unpleasant to you (much as finger fucking and atheism and heteronormativity are offensive to me) but that subject needs to be available to our fearless readers. They need to be able to learn about the distinction between separatism and supremacism, and just what exactly these fellows are thinking, and what it is about Jews they don’t like. You want him removed from the Judaism page, even from the anti-Semitism page, the chosen race page where I sent him. I speak to you from my heart: He is not going to love Jews so long as they exclude him, and he is not going to learn anything good about them when his only sources are jewwatch and stormfront. His presence on these pages serves to educate him, if nothing else. Paul is a person, and he has things to say. He is careful, if you have not noticed, not to use slurs or be otherwise overly offensive. The wording of his blood curse so as only to apply to hypocrites and liars and such, his affinity for Carl Sagan, Christ, Palestinians and other Semites shows me that he is not an irredeemable bigot, but rather is an individual who has found a broad label (“ilk”) for those he views as his opposition, rather than a racial or political one as some do (heteronormative, communist, fascist, racist, factual relativist/postmodernist are a few other such labels). Sam Spade 20:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Evidence for the Defense of Paul Vogel by Sam Spade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade/Clients#Paul_Vogel

I propose he be required to form an account if he is to stay, and that said account be throttled, for number of edits or reverts, or both, until such time as his case is re-evaluated (for good or ill). Sam Spade 20:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, please explain what throttling an account means? Thanks. AndyL 04:38, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It means that within a given period of time, there would be a set limit on the number of edits or reverts that he could perform. Andrewlevine 05:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My own response and defense to the above "allegations"

of "false witnessing" and to the deliberately false and "slanderous" personal insults of same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paul_Vogel&oldid=3363951

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Again, since Fred Bauder can't be "fair" nor "unbiased" nor "neutral" in this case against Paul Vogel, he should only properly "recuse" himself of this case.-PV

Texture

(Attention: As the author of the following statements I do not wish to have my text parsed. Please add any responses after it is complete. This can be determined by where my signature is provided at the end. I do not feel my meaning can be properly conveyed if fragmented. I will restore my text to its original form if altered. Feel free to quote me in any response.)

I have encountered Paul Vogel a number of times in the last few months. Putting aside instances where I only observed an altercation and did not become involved my experiences have been discouraging. My first encounters were on articles that I had not contributed but noticed a large amount of agressive activity by an anon user. Looking at these I found that the single anon user was trying to push racist POV into articles where little or no support. This is my own opinion and the opinions of those discussion the issue before I was involved. I assisted in reverting these unwanted changes supported by the overwhelming discussion on the talk pages against them. Some, including myself, tried to create compromises that included both points of view. The majority reluctantly accepted compromises but none (that I observed) were acceptable to Mr. Vogel and the edit and revert wars were continued on any compromise.

I tried to discuss the issues and reasons to Mr. Vogel and in the course of discussions I was grouped with some vague collection of users that wanted to specifically silence, aggravate, or oppose him as a person. I do believe that there are users who would oppose Mr. Vogel in anything he does in Wikipedia but I am not one of them. Mr. Vogel railed against the oppression of his views and sought to prove that those rules are only applied to oppose his opinions and not to other articles. He decided that if Cosmotheism must have critical opinions linked in the article then Judaism should as well. He added links to Judaism in a new "criticism" section. I made one modification to his original links to keep them from being analysis in themselves (and as short as those descriptions in Cosmotheism. [7] These were immediately removed. [8] I restored both these links that were added by Mr. Vogel [9] and started a topic in the talk page [10] asking what about the links or the criticisms section was wrong for this page.

Mr. Vogel restored his original links and text which referred to Judaism's "typical lying hypocrisy and psychological projection". [11] Understandably, this was removed and replaced with one opinion of Jewwatch as anti-jewish. [12] To help satisfy both parties I attempted a compromise description (encouraged that the description was only modified and not removed outright by Mkmcconn). [13] I thought the compromise would be acceptable since it did not attack either side's opinion just gave it factually. One user removed the jewwatch web site as neo-nazi and not an analytical criticism (which I later came to agree with) and another user trying to compromise with Mr. Vogel helpfully added another critical link against Judaism titled "Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism". ALL of these compromises were unacceptable to Mr. Vogel and his original links and text were fully restored. [14] And jewwatch restored again in its original text. [15] I again tried to keep the link but reduce the text to a flat tone. Good news was that one of the links Mr. Vogel wanted added was being kept each time and the additional book reference as well. The community was trying to compromise with Mr. Vogel by retaining two entries (one of them his) in the new criticism section. [16] To Mr. Vogel's credit he made this attempt to change his own text to something more acceptable [17] and I fixed his formatting but kept his link. [18] After this there was no attempt at compromise by Mr. Vogel but much was compromised by the community.

Wikilinks were added [19] (that were mostly kept by the compromising community) but then a torrent of anti-jewish commentary was added that was clearly not appropriate for a links section of any kind. [20] Mr. Vogel made several attempts to get anti-jewish links with non-link commentary added to the criticism links section with such authors as David Duke and some commentary that went for paragraphs and talked about Jewish supremacy. [21] [22] [23] [24] [[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Most users left the critical analysis links (including those about moral and ethical problems in Judaism by infidels.org) as part of the article. Mr. Vogel made the addition of the infidels.org link and the Jewish ethnocentrism and Anti-Semitism links that remain in the article today. The community compromised and accepted these links in bending to Mr. Vogel to be as fair as possible.

Attempts to communicate with Mr. Vogel and stop the links viewed as racist or neo-nazi were not successful and temporary blocks were needed to stop the constant effort to include them. I attempted to discuss with Mr. Vogel about limiting the descriptions to factual terms and not include inflamatory links. [32] I attempted to negotiate terms with the community so that Mr. Vogels links could remain as criticism. [33] [34] [35] [36] After in-depth discussion on the topic only one of the original links was dropped, the jewwatch site. It was explained why this was not a criticism but rather an attack on anything jewish. [37] [38] [39] For my efforts to get as much as possible of Mr. Vogel's views into the Judaism article I was met with derision on the Judaism talk: [40]

On the Talk:Cosmotheism my efforts were utterly dismissed. It is hard to find correct links to show the discussion since Mr. Vogel would cut large sections of discussion and attribute them all to me even though other signatures were included in what he claimed what all by me and attacking him. I made one effort to correct his misattribution: [41] It might have explained why he continued to attack me even as I tried to support including some (if not all) of his links in criticism of Judaism. [42] This is what I thought [43] but not apparantly what he meant since he then claimed that I banned him and was of the lying hypocrits ilk that opposed him. [44] [45] After my astonishment at this attack from someone I was trying to help wore off I wrote, then deleted an angry reply. Instead I wrote this: [46] and [47]. The response was this: [48] and other cut-and-paste that mixed up others comments mixed in badly with a statement by me that did not say the same thing. He was at this point posting the same large sections that combined others comments with mine into one paragraph both in Judaism and Cosmotheism simultaneously without any change between them. I tried to answer and at the same time inidicate that this discussion should not be cross-posted to both talk pages. [49]

Mr. Vogel often will past huge segments of other articles into a talk page. [50] along with his additional text. I can only call these rants. I wanted to make it clear to Mr. Vogel that I am not "out to get him" and that I don't have to agree with him 100% to avoid being labelled hypocritical ilk that ban and censor him. [51] Someone suggested mediation but Mr. Vogel considered the "cabal" incapable of mediation. I gave my view of how he can compromise and contribute to Wikipedia: [52] but this was ripped apart along with the idea of mediation (reply to me below mediation discussion): [53]

In my opinion, Mr. Vogel is not currently willing to work with others in a cooperative effort. I agree with those above that he is causing much more disruption than contribution to Wikipedia. I think he needs extended time away both to make it clear that his actions are unacceptable and to let him reflect on how to work with the community instead of flatly against it. I agree with the suggestion above to give Mr. Vogel up to 5 months ban from editing in Wikipedia and hope that he can return as a contributor who works with others.

I apologize for the length but this is the best way I could present the information. I left out earlier efforts to compromise with Mr. Vogel that also failed. I can include these if necessary.

This completes my statement. - Tεxτurε 23:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Additional (May 4): Be aware that Paul is making changes in emphasis and text that sometimes alters the meaning of the original arbitrators comments. These changes were to sections outside of the area for Paul's comments and part of the arbitration discussion and voting areas. (Below changes to his own section in this link) - I have reverted these changes - Tεxτurε 18:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • And a tiny one that was overlooked at [54]
  • This one was reverted a while ago but worth mentioning since he is continuing to alter arbitrator's text (changes the recommended suspension from one year to one week): [55]

Sam Spade

I have reviewed the above statement by Texture, followed by the mailing list, and I feel a need to recuse myself from this case. I won't remove what I said in defense of paul above, nor offer a new proposal, but I will say that I no longer feel comfortable standing behind what I said, and reserve comment regarding his arbitration until it is resolved, for the benefit of my client. Sam Spade 05:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner

Seeing as Vogel no longer has an advocate, I am willing to offer to advocate his case to the best of my ability, should he so desire.

===Thanks for the "offer", but, really "no thanks", Snowspinner.===PV

BTW: I am neither any "anti-Semite" nor am I "anti-Jewish". However, I am anti-Lying Hypocrisy and anti-POV CENSORSHIP. I am for Personal Integrity, FREEDOM of SPEECH and for the NPOV. When all is said and done, I AM being CENSORED for my own "religion" of Cosmotheism and for my "political beliefs". Others here are falsely claiming that my "personal attacks" are the actual reasons for my being blocked, banned, or censored. This is just a "double-standard", as this "rule" of "No Personal Attacks" is only being applied against me, and NOT to those that have been falsely slandering me and my political beliefs and religion. If such pov "false allegations" are the actual basis and are the so-called "false reasoning" for my banning and censorship it will become clear to any "objective" and "fair-minded" and "unbiased" users, that my own charges of an "ilk" of censorious and "lying hypocrites" being in bigoted control of this entire Wikipedia Project will have been validated and proven correct.

Best regards,

-Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Well then, I'll retract the statements I have made in your defense. Snowspinner 20:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


To this end, some notes on the existant charges.

Given Vogel's perspective on race issues, I have difficulty concieving of how he might be expected to behave otherwise. Put another way, he does not believe that any of the issues he has been involved in editing on are matters of opinion. His claim is that his edits are, in fact, NPOV - they are simple statements of fact.

Of course, there are dozens of things that can be fought out over. And in most cases, the compromise is to have the article mention all views. But that's only really possible in theory. For instance, the article on the bumblebee does not mention the possibility that bumblebees are in fact an alien race bent on destroying the Earth.

In other words, the NPOV policy does not really mandate that we reflect all views. More reasonably, it mandates that we reflect all sane views. One might say that what sanity means is that we reflect all views that people actually hold, but we don't do that either. Earth doesn't mention the Flat Earth Society, and Apollo 11 has no indication that the moon landing was faked. In other words, in practice, NPOV does not mean that all views are represented.

My point being that Vogel's contention is not merely the anti-Semitic one. It is that pro-Semitic views are unworthy of recognition within an encyclopedia. Now, obviously, this is something to be debated. But, honestly, how often have they been? How often have people gone to Vogel politely, instead of deleting his comments as anti-Semitic trash? How often have people instead been snarky, rude, and dismissive? Given that, is it surprising that he responded in turn? Especially when the viewpoint he's advocating largely supports such a response?

I don't think it's surprising. Which means that the fundamental question of this, at least to me, is whether a committed anti-Semite can possibly be a good and productive editor of Wikipedia. Or whether the basic ideology of anti-Semitism, because it leads to a particular view on what is NPOV, as well as what is factually true and because it leads to a particularly vicious set of flame wars, needs to be banned from Wikipedia in its entirety. In other words, if Paul Vogel is banned, it may well be that the best reason to ban him would be under a newly created policy against anti-Semitism.

This addresses most of the charges, I think, except for ban evasion, To that, I note that there are many times when a Google search for a term brings Wikipedia as its top result. We are one of the primary sources of information on the Internet. There is, in many ways, a duty to try to ensure accuracy. Given the possibility of viewing his banning as politically motivated, biased, and unjust, I submit that it is Vogel's opinion that he was merely fulfilling a duty to the Internet at large in continuing his fight to correct misinformation.

Let me note that I do not personally like Paul Vogel. However, I feel that a suspension of the type being considered sets a grave precedent, and one that I am not confident can be set without opening the door to policies that will fundamentally harm the nature of Wikipedia. There are a lot of people I don't like - both editors of Wikipedia and otherwise. That does not mean they should be banned. Snowspinner 02:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, on the matter of personal attacks - he's an anti-Semite. The ideology he subscribes to involves hatred and anger against people. He cites David Duke regularly. I think personal attacks follow organically and naturally from that ideology - in other words, a ban on him for personal attacks, I think, is still functionally a ban on anti-Semitism. Snowspinner
I was going to write a long response, but I just want to clear something up first: are you saying that because PV is an anti-Semite (or "anti-Jewish" to use the term he apparently prefers) he should be exempt from Wikipedia:No personal attacks? --Camembert


I am suggesting that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not wholly compatible with the notion of freedom and the notion of NPOV. Which is not an argument that PV should be exempt from the policy. It's an argument that the policy is contrary to some of the explicitly stated values of Wikipedia. And that it has to be decided which of those values comes first. Snowspinner 14:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no mainstream encyclopedias that allow anti-Semitism or explicitly racist views. AndyL 17:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no mainstream encyclopedias that are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Snowspinner 17:43, 1 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
Just to be clear: if we were to ban PV from editing, it would not affect the rights he has to use the GFDL-licensed material in the Wikipedia in any way. We're obviously not in a position to do that. It would just mean that his editing privileges on the Wikipedia would be revoked. --Camembert
"I know of no mainstream encyclopedias that are released under the GNU Free Documentation License." You're talking about form. I'm talking about content. Wikipedia's formation, delivery, and usage is unique but content wise it aims to emulate mainstream encyclopedias such as Britannica rather than be a haven for fringe POVs.AndyL 18:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain that the two can be separated. It's pretty damn radical and fringe to say that something like Wikipedia can even work. And I think that part of the radical promise of Wikipedia is the degree to which it's a polyphony - and somethings a cacaphony - of voices. Silencing a particular voice for being fringe is not an acceptable approach. There are a number of charges on the table that have some validity. I do not for a moment deny that PV has made personal attacks, and that he has evaded bans. But the fact that both you and I find his viewpoint abhorrent is not a good reason to ban him. Snowspinner 19:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear - I do not want to ban PV for holding views which I find abhorrent. I may, however, want to ban him for making repeated personal attacks. I have no problem with editors holding fringe views, but when they make personal attacks which worsen the atmosphere of the Wikipedia, making for an environment less conducive to work and possibly driving other contributors away, they do the project serious harm. --Camembert
And that's more fair - I was mostly responding to AndyL's point that mainstream encyclopedias don't allow anti-Semitic or racist views, which seemed to me to be a claim that he should be banned because he's an anti-Semite. And I'm really troubled if his personal beliefs are even among the reasons for a ban, little yet the sole one.
I'd be a lot more comfortable if his anti-Semitism had never come up in here - if the evidence and claims presented were soley personal attacks, his more extreme edits, etc. But I can't quite escape the feeling that the way this is going in practice is "He's an anti-Semite, and offends us personally, so we've found these reasons to ban him." And I'm not OK with that.
To me, the situation is similar to the examples of Hitler and Saddam Hussein in Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If the case for Vogel's banning needed the claims of anti-Semitism, then it's probably not strong enough. It should be able to stand without them. Snowspinner 15:41, 2 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Snowspinner, you say that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is "contrary to some of the explicitly stated values of Wikipedia" - could you say exactly what these values are and point out exactly where they are explicitly stated?

To take the two examples you cite: I see no conflict between Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No personal attacks - the first says you should write articles from an unbiased standpoint; the second says you shouldn't make personal attacks while doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the vast majority of editors manage to do both with no difficulty. As for Wikipedia:No personal attacks not being "wholly compatible with the notion of freedom" - nowhere on the Wikipedia does it say that Wikipedia editors may say whatever they please about anybody else. The "freedom" to attack or threaten other users simply does not exist on the Wikipedia - that's what Wikipedia:No personal attacks is all about. It doesn't conflict with anything that I can see. --Camembert

One of the functions - both of freedom and of NPOV - is to provide a polyphony of voices. (Or, as I said above, at times a cacaphony) That is to say, one of the points of a free distribution and modification model is that it allows every viewpoint to be heard. (The exception to this, one assumes, is the viewpoint that a free distribution model is a terrible idea. But in that case, one assumes one would not want to be involved in the model)
In this case, a view that is contrary to Wikipedia:No personal attacks - i.e. a view that thinks personal attacks are good and essential - should be respected by Wikipedia. To that end, one who firmly believes in personal attacks ought be welcome to participate in Wikipedia - in order to best represent that viewpoint on those issues. One could appeal to the need to argue the opposing view, but, still, it seems as though an important part of this is allowing the opposing view to actually say its piece.
Put another way, what real harm does Vogel do? His edits are reverted, his attacks are deleted, and hopefully we're all mature enough not to take what someone who is blood cursing us too seriously. Sure, he comes back and makes the edits again and again. And people waste time reverting them again and again. But if we all were to take a little time out of our day to revert Vogel edits, even this wouldn't be too much of an imposition.
All of the checks and balances needed to contain and deal with Vogel are already in place with the structure of Wikipedia without the need for bans. Snowspinner 20:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what to say. If you, or PV, or anybody else for that matter, thinks that Wikipedia:no personal attacks should be modified so as to allow attacks from users who think they are Good and Right, then you should probably take it up on the talk page there and try to get the policy changed. However, my impression is that that policy has very wide support as it stands, so from an arbitration point of view, I think we have to take it into account. --Camembert
That's a fair enough point, and I don't really have anything to say in response to it. Snowspinner 00:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

How can you defend this PV quote "Do not falsely revert for my "vandalism" or I will be quite happy to give you a lesson as to what REAL "vandalism" actually is all about the next time. Besides, no "Kangaroo Court" is going to be able to stop me, for long, so they really should think twice before unfairly and unjustly and falsely and slanderously ruling against me.-PV"

This is rather blatent. GrazingshipIV 03:02, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Without knowing the context and what edits were reverted, I wouldn't begin to try. What article is being talked about there? Snowspinner 03:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the above discussion misses the point. The issue is not whether PV should be banned because he is an anti-Semite (an anti-Semite can make reasonable contributions to Wikipedia and not be banned). Nor is the point that anti-Semitism should not be represented in Wikipedia (there ought to be and in fact is an article on anti-Semitism, and if PV were to add to that article to make it clearer and more thorough that would be fine). The point is that PV, rather than contributing useful -- even if disturbing -- content to Wikipedia, has used Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate-speech. Note the crutical difference: he has not written about hate speech, nor has he even presented an account of a disturbing but important and interesting view of hate-speech (arguably, both belong in an encyclopedia); he has simply used Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate-speech. Slrubenstein

As PV has declined my offer of advocacy, I have withdrawn my statements in support of him. Snowspinner 15:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, allow me to clarify my personal position on the matter of Vogel, as opposed to the position I was taking so that he could have a defender, and so that the process could run more fairly. I do not think that Vogel has added anything of value to Wikipedia, and anything he has added has been more than overshadowed by his personal attacks, low quality of writing, and unwillingness to cooperate with others on any level.

Although my concerns about the nature of the no personal attacks rule is not wholly a product of needing a reason to defend Vogel, I think that the nature of the GFDL already handles these concerns well enough - Vogel is welcome to take the whole of Wikipedia to another site, and there he may engage in personal attacks to his heart's content. He may also set up a wholly new Wikipedia, containing all content of the original, but with no rule on personal attacks, POV, or anything else. But we are no more obliged to accept his edits on this site than Richard Stallman is to not filter e-mails from someone who he knows always sends in worthless code to the GNU project. The license does not mandate a total lack of editorial standards - it mandates that anyone who's not fond of those standards can go off, take all the content, and edit it as they will.

In short, under the current policies of this site, I do not think that there is an adequate objection to the suspension of Paul Vogel. Snowspinner 15:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vogel

"Vogel, You’re inflaming this situation unnecessarily. There is no conspiracy or cabal plotting against you. You need to calm down and get a hold of yourself before continuing in this behavior. You are only hurting yourself."

On the contrary, YOU are ONE of THEM and have forced me to resort to calling attention to what you and YOUR ILK of LYING HYPOCRITES and CENSOROUS BIGOTS have been doing to users here.

"Your views, no matter how offensive others might consider them, were not the reason you were banned."

That is simply and clearly a bald-faced lie.

"The behavior you engaged in was."

Hardly! Again, psychological projection and double-standards!

"By vandalizing pages, engaging in excessive reverts and circumventing temp bans you put yourself in this position."

I didn't vandalize any pages, or engage in excessive reverts, but, I DID circumvent any bans based upon any such false pov allegations and upon any such biased treatment and harrassment

"Take some time off wikipedia, collect your thoughts, review the editing rules and come back -after- your ban expires refreshed and ready to contribute."

I have not been the one continually violating such rules. YOU and YOUR ILK actually have, and enforce it only on those when you don't agree with their own pov.

"No one that I know of wants to suppress your contributions, they want you to make them in the way stated by wikipedia policy and deal with conflict in a more calm and rational matter. I am sure if you come back and behave yourself and make good contributions all will be forgotten. Thanks and good luck."

I don't believe you, for you do not mean what you say nor say what you mean, as your own actions and words have demonstrated over and over again with me. You are NOT HONEST nor SINCERE, either, Karl.

Those were the same kind of "patronizing" and and "insulting" and typical "personal insults" that I have come to expect from such a cabal or ilk and mob of "lying hypocrites"!

It is clear that some are only "covering" for these censorous bigots and that they do not want to review the "facts" or any "evidence" of my true allegations of the reality of this hidden cabal or ilk of these censorous lying and hypocritical bigots within the Wikipedia community.

If there is not proper justice done here and on my behalf, then I will know that this project is bogus and that this lying and hypocritical ilk is in full control of it, and so will almost anyone else that is "objective" AND "fair-minded".


Paul Vogel

It is clear that some are only "covering" for these censorous bigots and that they do not want to review the "facts" or any "evidence" of my true allegations of the reality of this hidden cabal or ilk of these censorous lying and hypocritical bigots within the Wikipedia community.

If there is not proper justice done here and on my behalf, then I will know that this project is bogus and that this lying and hypocritical ilk is in full control of it, and so will almost anyone else that is "objective" AND "fair-minded".


Paul Vogel


...the moment we set aside our requirements that all contributors behave in a civil manner is the moment that the trolls have won.-Nohat

Obviously, the "trolls" are the "ilk" here that have "won" by having only me be blocked, banned, and censored in their own typical "lying hypocrisy" and "double-standards".-PV


Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

  1. We should hear this. I believe it is Wikipedia policy that pushing an extreme point of view is not in itself grounds for banning. However there are a number of Wikipedia policies which by necessity must be violated in an effort to aggressively push a point of view. I think, based on a preliminary review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel there are sufficient grounds for consideration of his actions. Fred Bauder 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Fred; support. James F. (talk) 13:26, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  3. Both sides seem to want us to arbitrate, so by all means let us do so. Martin 21:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  4. Let's roll! Nohat 22:03, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)
  5. IIRC, I've temp blocked this guy twice so I should recuse myself. --mav 08:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  6. We certainly need to arbitrate this. --the Epopt 20:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

  • I think invocation of a blood curse upon another user (probably, but not necessarily Jewish) in Talk:Holocaust pretty much takes the cake. Following this up with "Does it require any "blood curse" for you and your own ilk to take the hint? Or will it take another Holocaust, before you finally learn the lesson? " pretty much defines the situation as far as I'm concerned. Fred Bauder 02:37, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think Snowspinner's argument above is an interesting one. Certainly, it would be possible for the community to support two rules which are mutually contradictory, and it would be our job as arbitrators to try to balance the competing concerns involved. However, there are two factors which I believe Snowspinner's argument overlooks:

  • Writing for the enemy: good Wikipedians should attempt to fairly represent viewpoints that they disagree with - even those they find abhorrent.
  • Polite bigots: while it might be nice to think that all bigots and extremists are slathering brutes, this is clearly not the case. "When Louis met the Nazis" provides documentary evidence for this.

Thus, I do not believe that no personal attacks is incompatible with neutral point of view in the manner Snowspinner suggests. Martin 15:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martin here: the moment we set aside our requirements that all contributors behave in a civil manner is the moment that the trolls have won. Completelly irrespective of users' beliefs, we must insist that users be civilized towards each other. Nohat 18:32, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

Proposed principles

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:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:32, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 18:33, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
  3. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. the Epopt 02:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:23, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 18:34, 2004 May 2 (UTC) Strenuously support
  3. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:
  1. the Epopt 02:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- I will not actively oppose this principle here, but I cannot support it.[reply]

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:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:24, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 18:34, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
  3. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (but Wikipedians should obviously discuss this if they think it's a bad guideline)[reply]
  4. the Epopt 02:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- unlike above, I cannot disagree with the mild suggestion that unnecessary offence should be avoided[reply]
Oppose:
Other:

Neutral point of view

Wikipedia: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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. the Epopt 02:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:
Fred Bauder 15:31, May 1, 2004 (UTC) As is well known, I carry no brief for NPOV, therefore I abstain. Additionally I see no problem with banning anyone who misrepresents totalitarian theory or practice as anything other than what it is.

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:
  1. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC) (but Wikipedians should obviously discuss this if they, for example, want to exclude Nazis from editing)[reply]
  2. 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[reply]
Oppose:
Other:

Proposed finding of fact

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: Wikipedia: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:

The arbitration committee notes that many accusations of "vandalism" levelled against Paul Vogel would more accurately be described as "NPOV violations".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:34, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 18:35, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
  3. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. the Epopt 03:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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:

  • [56] ("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?")
  • [57] ("More like scores of edits and all by the same lying and hypocritical and pov and psychological projectionist "ilk" as "Mirv", ad nauseum")
  • [58] ("a cabal of censorous pov bigots"; "a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites")
  • [59] ("it is pure "lying hypocrisy", and only on your own part.")
  • [60] ("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")
  • [61] ("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)
  • [62] ("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:

  • [63] ("you and YOUR ILK of LYING HYPOCRITES and CENSOROUS BIGOTS")
  • [64] ("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.")
  • [65] ("a cabal or "ilk" of pov censorious bigots, liars, slanderers, and hypocrites")
  • [66] ("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: [67] "The man is definitely a few beers short of a 6 pack" - user:Naturyl; [68] "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:
  1. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:
  1. the Epopt 03:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC) -- I agree that Vogel has engaged in personal attacks[reply]

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" [69].

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:
  1. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:

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:
  1. Martin 20:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the Epopt 03:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Other:

Proposed relief

Paul Vogel's editing priviledges on Wikipedia are revoked for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:13, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC) I would support a permanent ban.
  2. Martin 00:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC) (I support any time period between one month and one year).[reply]
  3. Nohat 18:45, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
  4. the Epopt 03:09, 5 May 2004 (UTC) I oppose permanent bans; if Vogel returns, unchanged, in a year, we'll ban him again[reply]
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:
  1. Martin 01:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 15:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Nohat 18:45, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
  4. 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[reply]
Oppose:
Other:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paul_Vogel&oldid=3455362"