Case Opened on 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

After the case is closed, editors may add to the

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

.

Involved parties

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Mt7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
) (initiator of case)

Statement by Thatcher131

Admin Darwinek has edit warred, used admin rollback in a content dispute, blocked an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute, and made personal attacks. Although the RFC is only a few hours old, Darwinek's responses show such a lack of awareness of how inappropriate his views and actions are for an admin to have, I feel Arbitration is the only remaining step.

revert Nr. 1 [1]
revert Nr. 2 [2]
revert Nr. 3 [3]
revert Nr. 4 [4]

At about the same time Darwinek made this allegedly personal attack on Talk:Koloman Gögh [6] (in Czech); and this clear personal attack (schizophrenic). On March 21 Darwinek resumed edit warring with Mt7 at Koloman Gögh.

Darwinek characterizes Mt7's edits as vandalism. [7] [8] I am not apologizing to vandals and xenophobes. Darwinek and others have suggested that edits that go against "common knowledge" to him as an inhabitant of the region are obvious vandalism [9]. I do not believe that characterizing a content dispute over ethnicity (is Gögh a Slovak or a Hungarian living in Slovakia) as vandalism is legitimate. Allowing "common knowledge" to be the yardstick against which vandalism is measured is a very bad idea when it comes to ethnic and regional conflicts, such as India-Pakistan border issues, Peru-Ecuador border disputes, and the Armenia-Azerbaijani disputes, all of which have eventually reached Arbitration. If edits against the "common knowledge" of one editor are defined as vandalism, then we can solve the current Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case by simply declaring one editor right and blocking everyone who disagrees with him as a vandal.

Also note that I also blocked Mt7 for renewed edit warring on Koloman Gögh on March 21. Edit warring is unacceptable even if Darwinek's original block was inappropriate.

Prior instance of inappropriate blocking

While preparing this request I reviewed Darwinek's block history and found an additional block that I believe was inappropriate. On 9 February, Darwinek blocked Ross.Hedvicek (talk · contribs) after engaging in a dispute with him on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Špaček, and after mutual personal attacks (Darwinek against Ross.Hedvicek: [10], [11], Hedvicek against others: [12]). The alleged 3RR violation was the removal of a personal-attacks warning on Ross.Hedvicek's own talk page.

Darwinek's response to the RFC

Darwin's response to the RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2, is even more troubling [13]. He equates changing a person's ethnicity from "professional Hungarian footballer from Slovakia" to "professional slovak footballer" to be the equivalent of calling a black person a "porch monkey"; considers Ross.Hedvicek, a registered user for more than a year to be a vandal, and has "NO problem with insulting vandals." In his further responses to my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 he confirms that to him, changing a person's ethnicity from Hungarian to Slovak is as offensive as using anti-black racial slurs, and he declares that because Ross.Hedvicek is a notorious person in the Czech republic, he is therefore a vandal on Wikipedia. [14]

Desired outcome

I am concerned that Darwinek's personal feelings about his country and his responses to this dispute show that he does not have the temperment or judgement to wield his administrative tools (blocking and rollback) on articles and disputes related to the Czech Republic and Slovak ethnicity. I know that generally the Arbitration committee does not favor limits on the use of administrative privileges, but I believe that in this case Darwinek needs to either be placed on Adminstrative parole preventing him from applying admin functions on ethnic and nationalistic topics or he needs to be de-adminned.

Statement by mt7

I did have a problem with article about Priskin. He is born in Slovakia and he is probably Hungarian from Slovakia. He played 5 years for a hungarian Club only 40 km away from his birthplace Komarno and one year ago he received in addition to his slovak passport a hungarian passport too. But user:K. Lastochka said, he is only a Hungarian. Very pitty. What now? I read some pages about wikipedia policy and I found Wikipedia:No original research and I see I have a problem. I give some people statement Hungarians in Slovakia without sources.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Have I source, that Priskin is Hungarians in Slovakia? Not exact. He give some interviews about soccer, but he didn't say I'm Hungarian, Slovak, whatever. But I have some sources, he is born in Slovakia, he has Slovak passport, his parents and friends live in Slovakia, he is coming home to Komarno minimum once a week (at that time he played in Gyor). Easy, he is certainly Slovak and Hungarian too. And if we have a source, that say, he is only Slovak or only Hungarian, we have remove another nationality.

And I have to remove statements about people, where I didn't have a source and security, they are Hungarians in Slovakia.

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

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. --Jimbo [15]

Darwinek say: see[16]

Prijdeš mi jako typický slovenský rasista, nemáš asi rád Madary a když už je nejaký úspešný, tak ho oznacíte za Slováka. LOL. Jak trapné. Stací se podívat na jméno a fotku a hned ti doklapne.

I see you are a typical slovak racist, who do not like Hungarians, and if one Hungarian is famous, than you say, he is Slovak. LOL. How pitty. It is enough to see his foto, look at his name and you know it in a moment.

I am from there, I know a many people with Hungarian name and both parents Hungarian, they say I am Slovak. Jimbo is clever.

I'm not antihungarian, I have a lot of edits in hungarian wikipedia.

And Darwinek's statement You don't understand it because you don't live in Central Europe is a mistake, Wikipedia is only one, for Slovak, Brasil and US-soccerplayers has wikipedia the same rules.

Dear Darwinek, I'm really sorry, if I did hurt you. Editwar is not the way. I have no problem, if czechs win against slovaks in icehockey. Please, be always cool. Please, no personal attacks. I say only, we are friends, have you really a problem with me?

Statement by Darwinek

Responding to Mt7: Yes, we can be friends. I have no personal problem with you. I was just embarrassed with your edits to Hungarian-Slovak articles. We can be friends, I am offering you my friendly hand based on your statement above. Friends? :)

To the rest of users: I don't have a time to hook up whole day on Wikipedia and respond again and again to various grievances. You know I am doing a great job there, although some of my actions are controversial. I can only assure you I will do more prayers and try to be cool as a cucumber in the future. - Darwinek 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Mt7 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After long hours of thinking and reconsidering my actions and behaviour I must say I completely endorse user:Piotruś's statement in the RFC. I should have never use blocking powers against users with whom I have been in dispute, as well as edit warring. I will never abuse that powers again in the future. If any controversial cases will appear, I will contact other admins to look at it, opine, advise and decide. - Darwinek 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept. Multiple inappropriate blocks are a concern that needs to be addressed. FloNight 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

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, or move-protecting articles to enforce a title preference.