Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case closed

See also User:Paul Vogel

Contents 1 Evidence 2 Request for arbitration 3 Comments by outside users 4 Relief requested 4.1 User:AndyL 4.2 User:Mirv 4.3 User:GrazingshipIV 4.4 User:Slrubenstein 4.5 Defence by Paul Vogel (advocate) 4.6 Texture 4.7 Snowspinner 5 Statement by Vogel 6 Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter 7 Discussion by arbitrators 8 Decision 8.1 Vandalism 8.2 Vogel's counter-accusations 8.3 Relief

[edit] Evidence

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

[edit] 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. 24.45.99.191 is 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Relief requested

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Defence by Paul Vogel (advocate)

• 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: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paul_Vogel/Evidence#Defense

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)

I have reviewed the 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)

[edit] 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)

• 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]

Vandalism (May 5): In addition to spamming articles and talk pages with a copy of his changes to cosmotheism, Paul is replacing at least one archive page with the same spam: first vandalism of archive page - second vandalism of archive page

• Additional archive page spam: [56]

[edit] Snowspinner

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)

[edit] Statement by Vogel

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

"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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (now retracted and on Talk page) 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)

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)

[edit] Decision

One arbitrator (Gutza) had internet connectivity problems during this decision. There were no recusals. Detailed proposals, principles, and minority opinions to /Proposals. Perhaps worth noting is a minority opinion regards personal attacks, which narrowly failed to pass (5-1, three abstentions). Martin 21:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

• 14 Apr 2004: Judaism - text plagiarised from Amazon, in violation of copyright policy.

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

Supported by seven arbitrators, with no opposition, and two de facto abstentions

[edit] 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.

Supported by six arbitrators, with no opposition, and three de facto abstentions

[edit] Relief

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

Supported by seven arbitrators, with no opposition, and two de facto abstentions

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.

Supported by seven arbitrators, with no opposition, and two de facto abstentions