Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for clarity

1) This is a request for a clerk to remove non-relevant communications from the "Questions for the Parties" section for ease of readability, and to reduce clutter. Specifically I refer to comments made by Miskin, as they are irrelevant to Newyorkbrad's questions and my answers. They should be moved to the Talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Swatjester's suggestion that Miskin has not chosen a good location on the page for his remarks is probably well-taken. I will post on the arbitration clerks' noticeboard asking a non-recused clerk to keep an eye on this page. Newyorkbrad 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Threaded comments moved to the talk page. --Srikeit 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility request

2) Request: Having seen the accusation fests that many ArbCom's degenerate to, and noting that significantly there has been a relatively collegial atmosphere in this ArbCom, I request that an arbitration clerk examine this thread for incivility and redact or remove incivil comments from relevant pages in this arbcom (the evidence page, the workshop, and the talk pages). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

 Clerk note: Miskin is reminded to tone down his aggression and maintain civility. --Srikeit 13:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone ask from Swatjester to stop making accusations without any proof? He keeps implying that he's got "interesting emails that are too confidential to reveal". He should either post the evidence or not mention it at all. Miskin 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is accepted practice that highly confidential material can be forwarded privately to the arbitrators. The arbitrators would be aware that other editors have not seen the material and would take that into account in scrutinizing and evaluating it. Newyorkbrad 13:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what kind of information Swatjester is talking about. Swatjester can you please specify whether or not this information concerns my activity or that of other people (you don't have to name them)? I got upset because you gave me the impression that you had more evidence in your pocket against me. And I'm sure everybody else got the same impression. Miskin 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed this comment earlier, my apologies, but yes it does. A lot of it has been duplicated in evidence already, but a significant portion has not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John254 dismissed from the case

3) Due to John254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) unhelpful remarks in the case, he is banned from editing all Miskin related arbitration pages for the rest of the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am requesting that John254 (talk · contribs) is dismissed from the case with immediate effect. The contributions he's given so far are completely unhelpful and have little respect for evidence submitted to date. It seems that he is more interested in getting a few admins into trouble than any actual resolve in this matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - out of proportion, and contrary to recent precedent (see InShaneee' /Workshop and /Proposed decision pages). Hopefully the editor in question has gotten the message to adjust his tone. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Selective removing/moving of comments by parties

4) I respectfully request an arbitration clerk to remind User:Miskin not to temper with other editors' comments by selectively and unilaterally removing/moving other parties' comments without their consent. Earlier today, User:Miskin removed/moved my response to one his comments on the Workshop [1], labeling my comment "irrelevant polemics" while keeping intact his own accusatory comment [2] to which I was responding [3], each as relevant as the other. So this selective removing/moving of comments, appears to be an attempt by User:Miskin to have the last word on this page, and hide/censor my refutation of his allegations against me. --Mardavich 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I can't believe that you're being disruptive even in my own ArbCom case. Can you make one discussion without malicious implications of the type "selective removals" and "admins in backpockets"? Our edits were moved to discussion where they belong. Does anyone else agree that this needs to goto the Talk page, just as my previous disputes with Swatjester did? I moved from the part on which you started making accusations about irrelevant events that took place 14 months ago. I don't think that anyone but you wouldn't admit to the irrelevant nature of your edits. Anyways you have my response in the Talk page. Miskin 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My first comment [4] explicitly refuted several assertions and accusations you had made in your own comment [5] ("consensus", "neutral editors", "anti-X", etc). You should not have removed my defense to your allegations, while keeping your own allegations on the page.[6] As far as I am concerned, this was an attempt to remove my defense from this page.--Mardavich 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the clerks please review this? I intend to continue the conversation on Mardavich's latest accusations, and it will probably get long. Miskin 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, whether or not it needs to go to the talk page is for the clerks to decide, not us. If you want to move something, make a request here like I did. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood, I undid my action. I did this out of ignorance of the procedure, Mardavich on the other should too acknowledge that he shouldn't have reverted this move as if it were about a content dispute [7]. Making a request with his typically malicious implications should be enough. Miskin 09:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

*sigh* I'll posts to the clerks' noticeboard again. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions to Swatjester

1. Please explain the facts you relied upon when you (i) determined that the appropriate length of Miskin's block should be one month, (ii) stated in your block summary that Miskin had "clearly no intent of editing constructively," and (iii) stated that Miskin's next block would be indefinite or permanent. In particular, please explain whether you took any facts other than the current 3RR violation and Miskin's block log into account in making these decisions.
2. Please explain the basis for your suggestion on ANI that based upon the reaction to your one-month block of Miskin, it "apparently was the case" that Miskin has "administrators in his back pocket."
3. Please explain whether you still believe that a one-month block coupled with the comment that the next block would be permanent was a proportionate and reasonable response to Miskin's alleged 3RR violation and overall editing record. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1: (i): When determining the length of Miskin's block, I first determined that a 3RR violation existed. I then determined that Miskin had an extensive block history, and that it was involving 3RR cases before. Since Miskin was aware of the rule, multiple times over, I chose a NON PERMANENT length that would prevent him from disruptively editing. (ii) That statement was in reference to his multiple blocks, as well as the fact that despite being aware of the 3RR, having been blocked for it multiple times, he chose AGAIN to intentionally violate it. Clearly, that shows no intent of constructive editing. (iii): Per standard escalation, given the repeated history of his violations, I considered this to be a "final warning". Seven block is entirely unacceptable for a user. If, after this harsh warning, he would choose to violate again, that is a clear sign of disruptive behavior that would warrant an indefinite block. I based my decision on his 3RR violation, the 3RR report, his user talk page, and the block log. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

2:I was warned privately in email, that Miskin would be unblocked by another administrator, in less than 24 hours. After the unblocking, and upon review of Dbachmann's talk page I found communications from Miskin prior to the block, I consider my comment justified. As an aside, since the opening of this case, I've received further emails, from multiple users, regarding the "admins in the back pocket" issue. It seems to be the case that there is some fishy business going on. As I mentioned, I will gladly forward all information to the ArbCom on request. Newyorkbrad, I have no problem whatsoever with you viewing them there. But someone from ArbCom needs to ask me first to submit them. Believe me, I am sure they will find them extremely interesting.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

3. I believe that it was exactly that. However, I defer to the community. Since a 1 week block seems much more palatable to them, I am perfectly ok with that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt responses. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions to Dbachmann

1. Please explain the facts on which you relied in reducing the length of Miskin's block.
2. Please state whether you were influenced by any off-wiki contacts or prior relationships with any editor in deciding to reduce the block. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I believe my statement here is detailed enough to fully explain my actions, and frankly, fully establishes the untenability of the month's block (that's a no-brainer).
2. Miskin wrote me an email complaining about his block. I get many such emails. My interaction with Miskin in the past (and by 'past' I mean 2005) has been mostly one of controversy if I remember correctly (but check the archives of Talk:Ancient Macedonian language yourself for that story, I didn't review that before making my decision (because it didn't, and doesn't, matter). dab (𒁳) 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Revert wars considered harmful

1) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

1.1)Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A standard principle from several previous cases, I understand. Sam Blacketer 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with 1.1. Sam Blacketer 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 1.1 as an alternative, for a start it's less wordy, and it's also a bit more relevent, 1 would be better as a principle for a user that has revert warred on numerous occasions recently. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

2) The three-revert rule prohibits editors from reverting an article more than three times in any 24-hour period, except in cases of simple vandalism. The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (Struck the last sentence, which I think is irrelevant. Sam Blacketer 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; adapted from long precedent. Sam Blacketer 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, but only if it is decided that edit warring from 2 years ago should be considered when making future blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Provocation

3) It is no excuse for editors who are found to have broken the three revert rule to claim to have been 'provoked' by other editors. Only simple vandalism and unsourced claims about living people are explicitly excepted from the three revert rule. Editors who find themselves in a revert war with a provocative editor should attempt to talk, disengage and summon help.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A bit rough around the edges but I think it gets close to what I want to say, which is essentially that every one of us can probably 'provoke' someone else with our views, and if we give latitude for this then enforcement becomes meaningless. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This principle is an inaccurate description of Wikipedia policy. The three-revert rule has at least six exceptions, as described in Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions. John254 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Realistically the other 4 can be condensed into the two mentioned, with the exception of user page, which clearly does not apply here. I do suggest modification of this principle, because the intent should be to state that "being provoked into it" is not an excuse. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, this is an appropriate principle. Sam Blacketer 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - though this should not be taken in black-and-white. Pages like the X-nationality notice board can easily overturn a neutral consensus. Editor consensus should not take priority over WP:ATT and WP:NPOV Miskin 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Proposed (taken from an earlier case) - This seams relevent in this here, the fact that Miskin was discussing on the articles talk page whilst edit warring suggest that there was no consensus for editing to take place. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was and I've already provided evidence on this. Miskin 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

5) Blocks should be given as a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Although block logs can often give an insight into previous disruption by a user, the length of time since a previous block should be considered by administrators before deciding the length of a future block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support so far as it goes but I think it could be expressed in a slightly stronger form. Sam Blacketer 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No entitlement to 3 reverts

6) The three revert rule does not entitle an editor to more than three reverts per day. Editors may be blocked for less than four reverts, particularly for repeated violations or aggrevated instances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is almost word for word from WP:3RR ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, though I think the heading should be '3 reverts' rather than '4 reverts'. Sam Blacketer 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, this shows that a disruptive edit warrer can be blocked without reverting three times, my only concern is that there is evidence that Miskin did revert 4 times. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

7) Editors should not be unblocked by without first consulting with the blocking admin. Deference should generally be given to the administrator's decision. If a user protests a block, they may use the unblock template, or email unblock-en-l mailing list.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This needs to be addressed in addition to Miskin's actions.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was only unblocked by Ryan in order to participate in the ArbCom case (apparently you consider me too dangerous to be let out on the loose). Admins like Alison and Dbachmann only changed my block's duration, correcting your fairly obvious mistake about my being an extremely disruptive editor. Miskin 12:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying 'deference should generally be given' to the original administrator is bad precedent. How about rephrasing as a presumption of good faith instead? Sam Blacketer 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The second sentence of this is out of step with current policy. Administrators are peers. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, I'm not sure about this one, I think the key to the blocking/unblocking should be whether these were accepted by the community, if blocks were wrong - they can be overturned without the blocking admins consent Ryan Postlethwaite 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think reference of the relevant portion of the blocking policy would probably be the best approach here. With regard to the second sentence of the proposal, deference to the blocking administrator's decision is appropriate in the sense that a decision by a fellow admin starts out with a presumption of correctness; and yet, at the same time, a contributor (and especially a contributor who has been blocked for a full month) is entitled to a truly neutral and independent review. Newyorkbrad 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad says what I was trying to say better. That's what I meant by deference: I meant a presumption of correctness. How about a 7.1?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Overturning blocks

8) If an administrator overturns another adminstrators block, they should give a full reason for doing so on their talk page or an appropriate noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The block was never removed, it was only reduced to a common 24-hour 3RR violation. Swatjester had erroneously thought that all my 3RR violations in 2005 had been on the same topic (i.e. what User:Mardavich had informed him in their emails). He later realised his mistake and changed the description in the block log. However something tells me that we will never witness him admitting to a mistake. He would rather step on others in order to hide it. Miskin 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I never changed anything in the block log. In fact, I didn't even know you could change block log descriptions until recently. How about some proof to support that allegation? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See my logs. I've never changed a block log. This allegation is misleading and extremely disturbing. I find it rather telling, as well. According to #wikipedia-en-admins, it's not even possible to change block reasons. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being specific. I was referring to Swatjester's undecidability on the nature of my previous blocks. First he said it was a 300/Persian [8] but then he corrected this to something much more general [9]. However he never admitted to a mistake. This error was apparently evident to dbachmann and the other editors who have clashed with me in the past, hence why they were more entitled to judge me. Had Swatjester simply admitted that he was wrong about the 2005 blocks being on the same topic, the matter would have never reached ArbCom. Yet I do hope that something good will come out of it after all (but not for me). Miskin 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. A good principle. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(removed discussion to talk page--hope that's ok) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies banned

9) Per Wikipedia:No open proxies, editing through open proxies is forbidden. One may therefore reasonably consider the IP addresses of open proxies to constitute banned users. Reversions of any edits made through open proxies are thus exempted from the three-revert rule as "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. License to edit-war, as Swatjester says. Sam Blacketer 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. John254 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Where have open proxies edited? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Two of Miskin's reversions were reversals of edits made by Dharmender6767 [10][11], who was editing through an open proxy [12]. John254 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin didn't know that at the time, no-one knew that until a checkuser confirmed it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, reversions of edits made by users who actually are banned are absolutely exempted from the three-revert rule. No further inquiry is required as to the intent of the editor performing the reversions. Only if the user being reverted is not actually banned must we consider whether a reasonable editor, acting under similar circumstances, would reasonably have believed that he was reverting edits made by a banned user. John254 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. The intent of the policy is quite clear, it is to stop edit warring. Lawyering that certain reverts don't count because someone was subsequently found to be a banned user is totally against the spirit of the policy. Simple question at the time of the reverts were "you" edit warring? If so then the policy applies. --pgk 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This is open license to edit war. First off, the exceptions to the 3RR are quite clear, and open proxies are not one of them. Second, bans are by community consensus (generally), not due to open proxy (it's not the user that is wrong, it's the proxy). Third, it's difficult for an average user to know that the person they are edit warring with is on an open proxy. John254 you said it yourself: reverts of users who ACTUALLY ARE BANNED are exempted. That's it. Nothing said about open proxies. Remember, the exemptions to the 3RR are to be taken narrowly, per the page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits made through open proxies are forbidden. The open proxies are thus banned by community consensus, as expressed through the enactment of Wikipedia:No open proxies. Furthermore, failing to exempt reversions of edits made through open proxies from the three-revert rule would render Wikipedia:No open proxies a largely ineffectual and unenforceable policy, since while open proxies (and accounts utilizing them) could be blocked, any editors who cleaned up the damage caused through the open proxies could be blocked for 3RR violations or edit warring generally. Additionally, blocking users (or allowing users to remain blocked) as a result of reversions of edits made through open proxies would encourage trolling through open proxies, by allowing trolls to provoke good-faith users into 3RR violations, while hiding behind the open proxies to immunize themselves from sanctions. Dharmender6767, for instance, was described as an "obvious sockpuppet/troll on an open proxy with other socks" in his block log. John254 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies are blocked through foundation policy, the are not "banned" nor is it by community consensus. User editing through open proxies aren't automatically banned either, they are free to edit provided it is not through an open proxy. Provocation is not a defense to WP:3RR, nor is retrospectively discovering it was a banned user, if you were edit warring the policy applies. --pgk 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is "community consensus" required for a ban? See WP:BAN for the sources of bans.--Ploutarchos 10:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly bans originate or are supported by community consensus, however not sure the relevance, no one seems to be saying anything to contradict that. The key point here is that using an open proxy is not a bannable offence for a user, you simply aren't allowed to use the open proxy, you (assuming no other blocks/bans are in place for you) are free to edit without using an open proxy. --pgk 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There was nothing certain about Dharmender at the time but it was fairly obvious to everybody that something was wrong. Many commented on this [13] and the guy had been blocked 8 times in less than 48 hours (only twice by myself and only when I thought that he was already blocked). Please PGK and Jester, stop bullying editors who do not agree with you. I've never talked to nor met John254 prior to this incident, and yet you accuse him for "lawyering", implying that he's another member of Miskin's imaginary cabal. Swatjester has already bullied enough editors on this aspect, including editors I've never met before [14]. A remedy should be proposed for all the people who bought Mardavich's allegations on "Miskin's friends" - i.e. his deliberate attempts to prevent neutral users from expressing their opinions. Miskin 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to explain to me how responding to a user here is "bullying". I am responding to a point I strongly disagree with. You know part of this is an exchange of ideas and opinion. Sorry you want to gag one side of that. --pgk 11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can exchange opinions without using wording such as "absolute nonsense" and "stop lawyering". Miskin 12:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't said 'Stop lawyering', and I stand by my description of the concept as absolute nonsense. It make absolutely no sense to me. --pgk 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense if you choose to view this bureacratically and assume that my compromise edits were partial reverts. I was blocked and accused for 3RR and disruptive editing in a bureacratic fashion, so it's reasonable for some editors to bring up bureaucratic counter-arguments. Double standards should be avoided. Miskin 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. My opinion of it as nonsense remains. --pgk 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullying

10) Due to the collaborative nature of the project, it is important that users work civilly together. Users that are found to be involved in a bullying campaign may find themselves subject to a ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Typo fixed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Sam Blacketer 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. fof and remedy to follow later. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The principle is awfully vague. Where's the definition of "bullying"? I can't find the term in our blocking policy. I feel bullied each time I see scores of IRC personalities team up against me on some public noticeboard. Should they all be blocked? Please remember that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

11) Administrators should not treat good-faith editors as enemy combatants, nor reversals of their actions as tantamount to insubordination in time of war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is absolutely ridiculous and offensive. That's a low blow John254. There is no reason to couch that in "military" terms, knowing well my past. My statement was an apology. It's not meant to be twisted around like this. Your principle has literally nothing to do with the text of WP:NOT, which is about users in disputes with each other, not admin actions vs. an editor. The word administrator does not show up ONCE in WP:BATTLE. Your principle is completely out of line with WP:BATTLE, and quite frankly I'm incredibly, incredibly insulted by this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unhelpful in the extreme. Suggest withdrawal of this one - Alison ☺ 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Unhelpful attempt to hype Swatjester's opinions and take them out of context. Sam Blacketer 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Swatjester's explanation of his actions regarding this case:

A big reason that I raised... [ Dbachmann's shortening of the block on Miskin ] as a concern, is because I felt hurt by his actions. In the military, when someone goes behind your back to do something against a regulation, often times people die. That's the environment that I come from. I recognize that one of the large reasons for my directing part of this arbitration at Dbachmann, is because I felt hurt by his actions...[15]

John254 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal/thread has no prospect of being helpful, and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd suggest further that we might want to be less active on the workshop page; I can't see how this mess is going to help the arbitrators, who are perfectly capable of crafting their own findings and remedies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree 100%. However, there are a LOT of arbitration cases open right now. To speed up the process and make it easier on the committee, I think it's merited here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite claims to the contrary, this principle doesn't relate to Swatjester's background, which is not at issue here. It pertains to the explanation that Swatjester himself has submitted to the Arbitration Committee regarding his administrative conduct, which I quoted above. He is essentially claiming that he is treating concerns regarding the conduct of good-faith users on military lines, which reflects poorly upon the administrative conduct which may be expected from him in the future, unless this situation is remedied. John254 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal does have a basis. Those parallels between adminship and generalship are out of order. Swatjester's war experience is globally irrelevant. I've been insulted more than anyone here, and most of it came by Swatjester. Unless his being correct is the status quo, I don't see a reason to remove proposals that may appear unpleasing to him. Miskin 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

12) The intent or spirit of policy is the important aspect, that intent is broken at the point an editor acts. Retrospective uncovering of facts which make the editors acts within the letter of the policy, do not change if their act was within the intent of the policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --pgk 10:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea IMO. In the context of this dispute, all it does is encourage circumventing policy -- it encourages revert warring though open proxies. For example, one can find 20 open proxies, with at most three reverts each, that's 60 reverts by one person per 24 hours. Those edits made in violation of policy should not enjoy the protection of the 3RR. 3RR is for legitimate edits only. There is nothing to lose by overturning a 3RR block imposed for reverting illegitimate edits, even if it is something which emerges later. This proposal is the true wikilawyering masked behind pious arguments of "letter/spirit of policy" which are totally inapplicable in the situation as is the title of this section.--Ploutarchos 10:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes absolutely zero difference to that. If you revert User:SomeArbitaryUsername you have no way of telling if they are using an open proxy. If you revert them, you are not doing so because they are a banned user, or a user who is using open proxies to avoid WP:3RR you are reverting them because you want to revert them. Do that enough times and you will be edit warring. If you later discover it was an open proxy, your original motivation for reverting doesn't magically change. --pgk 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with this proposal, precisely because I contend that my reverts were not part of edit-warring, and this is proved by my compromise edits (bureaucratically judged as partial reverts). Also I would like to ask from User:Pgk to check Battle of the Persian Gate's talkpage in order to find out who has been really edit-warring, i.e. on whom 3RR should apply. In a non-buraucratic fashion he should be looking at users' Talk-page participation, consensus, sources and contribution lists. A non-bureaucratic manner requires further investigation, which has obviously not been made. Miskin 11:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you can see this for what is supposed to be. I'm not trying to draw a conclusion as to the exact nature of your experience, and the same principle applies to why admins should be flexible in their approach to enforcing things like WP:3RR (look at the bigger picture not just count edits). --pgk 12:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Had I seen 3RR bureaucratically I would have never taken the risk to revert Dharmender's trolling and then make those compromise edits. I would have just dropped it. Miskin 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, whether or not you choose to take WP:3RR bureaucratically, Dharmender's merit as an editor in an indispensable factor on the fact that he was being reverted. There was an obvious suspicion about him [16], but since there was no proof editors had to assume good faith and say nothing direct against him. I think the fact that he was reverted 8 times in less than 48 hours (only twice by me) goes to show that he was displaying a near-vandalism behaviour. In a non-bureaucratic fashion, this goes to show that reverts against him were justified, and therefore should not be regarded as edit-warring. Miskin 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism for the purpose of WP:3RR is pretty narrowly defined. However as this is a principle that debate is completely irrelevant here. In a finding of fact that you broke WP:3RR it may be relevant, the general principle here is that your did/didn't break WP:3RR based on your action at the time, some later revelation about the user doesn't alter original intent. If you were breaking WP:3RR at the time, the subsequent revelations don't alter that, if you weren't they don't either (As an opposite example of this situation, if a user has two accounts (legitimate alternate accounts), a troll/vandal whatever adds one to the list of banned users, the editor then starts using the other accounts, I revert believing them to be banned, if after 5 reverts it becomes revealed that they aren't actually banned, then I wouldn't expect to find myself blocked for breaking WP:3RR. I was acting within the spirit/intent whatever of the policy)--pgk 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. As I said, everyone had at that point suspected the user and had realised that he was not to be taken seriously. I only reverted him when I thought that he had already been blocked under 88RR (but he hadn't). If you want to take 3RR non-bureaucratically then you have to see on your own that there was an conscious, collective effort by at least three editors to protect an article from a troll. This is not edit-warring, and this concerns only my first three reverts. Whether or not there was a fourth revert (or rather "partial revert") is a whole different question. At the end of the day, it's blatant that a block under 3RR was in this case "pulled by the hair", let alone receive one month for it. My newest addition in the evidence page proves that users like User:Mardavich and User:Arash the Archer had been spending much of their time in reporting me under fabricated policy violations rather than participating in the content dispute per se. Miskin 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not missing the point at all, I'm saying I don't care. This is a principle, not a finding of fact that you edit warred or exceeded WP:3RR. If in a finding of fact it is found your actions were reasonable and didn't break WP:3RR (or there is no finding of fact to the contrary) then that's fine, no requirement for this crap about finding out after the event that it was an open proxy means you had less reverts. --pgk 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly Works

13) Wikipedia does NOT discriminate between different scholarly works based on the part of the world in which they are published.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am proposing this principle based on Miskin's declaration that "wikipedia gives priority to Western scholarship" [17], feel free to re-word it. --Mardavich 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No way ArbCom should have this as a principle - the case is about edit warring not article content. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about article content, it's about the principle that all reliable scholarly works are treated as reliable scholarly works, and that Wikipedia does not "give priority to Western scholarship" as Miskin has declared on his own.--Mardavich 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reworded to better reflect the meaning of the term "western" in this context. The previous wording was of course true, but irrelevant. --Random832 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Ryan, this is both irrelevant and misleading to say the least. Miskin 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Block reason descriptions

14) Because the blocking summaries contained in a user's block log and on the user's talkpage are a primary means for communicating with both the blocked user and with other admins who may review the block, and because block logs are virtually indelible, administrators should take care to be accurate and temperate in describing the reasons for a block. The same is true when an administrator gives reasons for unblocking a user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Indeed - and it may be worth adding, the same goes for the reasons for an unblock. Sam Blacketer 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per Sam Blacketer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good proposal. But "unblocks" should be included in the wording of the proposal as well. For example, if you look at Miskin's block log, on numerous occasions, he's been blocked for a valid reason and then unblocked without any on-wiki discussions, as a result of off-wiki communications away from the security of the community. --Mardavich 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection to Sam Blacketer's change; second sentence added. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

15) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Miskin broke the three revert rule

1) Miskin reverted to this version of Battle of the Persian Gate at 13:34, 14:06, and 14:26 on 11 May. His edit at 10:21 on 12 May constituted a substantial revert in one aspect. These four edits constitute a breach of the three revert rule.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think it's clear that this did happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is up to the arbitrators and anyone who cares to examine the situation closely. See also my version of the story. Miskin 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. That's why we're here at arbitration. If they believe you did, they will vote on this finding. Are you clear as to how this process works? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the diffs cited above, Miskin did not violate the three-revert rule. Two of Miskin's reversions were reversals of edits made by Dharmender6767 [18][19], who was editing through an open proxy [20]. Per the Open proxies banned principle, such reversions are exempted from the three-revert rule. John254 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like lawyering the letter of the policy rather than the intent. As he didn't know it was a banned user he was clearly engaged in edit warring, the subject of the intent of the policy. --pgk 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's entirely disagreeable that your argument even holds water. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound like a legitimate ground for overturning a block to me. It makes no sense to afford the protection of legitimate edits to open proxies.--Ploutarchos 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If the edits from an open proxy are reasonable we don't just blindly revert them, that would just be "biting off our nose to spite our face". The no open proxy rule does not make the content of any edit from an open proxy illegitimate in some way. WP:3RR is not about adding legitimacy to edits, it is about preventing the disruption edit warring causes (Hence the section about the intent of the polocy). Finding out after the fact that your opponent was using a method of editing which is not permitted, does not remove the disruption and does not impact the policy. --pgk 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's month long block was excessive

2) Swatjester's block of Miskin for one month for this three revert rule violation, although made in good faith, was on mature consideration, excessive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In line with Ryan's comment below I've edited it (in purple). Sam Blacketer 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While I stand by my block, since it appears to be the general consensus that it was excessive, I'll support it so long as the good faith notation stays in. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive - yes. Done in good faith - certainly. - Alison ☺ 00:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this should have a reference to "made in good faith," I'm sure no-one is going to argue it was mallicious. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How was that made in good faith? User:AlexanderPar had also made three clean reverts and an arguable compromise-edit/partial-revert, and he didn't even receive a warning in his talk page (see the diffs I provided in the evidence page). User:Swatjester believed the ludicrous accusations about "corrupted admins", and so did you btw User:Ryan Postlethwaite. I can't believe that an arguable 3RR violation and my blocks in 2005 have become the centre of attention while the real problems are going unnoticed. Miskin 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith does not mean it was correct. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot take good faith or bad faith for granted without evidence to support either case. In light of the facts that 3rr was enforced unevenly (discussed below), of the excessive month-long block (discussed here), of the non-consideration of redemption (discussed here and here), and most importantly in view of the fact that the blocking admin maintains even until now that he acted correctly, I think the purple comment should be deleted (at least). NikoSilver 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh....the principle part of "good faith" is the FAITH aspect. You don't need evidence, you just need to assume that the person is acting in good faith. I don't understand your request for evidence of "good faith", or why that's here and not on the evidence page? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The "FAITH" part needs to be removed from the principle. We cannot assume anything about Swatjester's faith in this issue. WP:AGF policy is about editing, not about administrative actions. Obviously unreasonable block is just that. Talking about FAITH when discussing blocks should end at last. Swatjester could have thought that one month block is appropriate in this case but it is a duty of an admin to understand that blocking is a very serious action not to be taken lightly, blocking an established and productive user for as long as a month is (while sometimes warranted) a totally exceptional and extreme measure and should not be implemented without conferring at ANI. --Irpen 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Irpen on this issue. I have no other way of assessing good faith of the blocking admin, except this link to WP:TWINKLE which he left in the blocking summary. Compounded with his later revelations that the blocking action was spurred by off-wiki communications, the link did look like baiting of a long-standing contributor who is powerless to reply. That prompted my intercession on his behalf, although I had had a high opinion about Swatjester's understanding of the blocking policy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A user's block log must be read carefully

3) Because block logs are only on very rare occasions expunged, administrators must be very careful in assuming that previous blocks were correctly placed. This applies particularly where the block was subsequently overturned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Just a word of caution. Sam Blacketer 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It does read like a principle. Also, seems to imply that the blocks were incorrect. Review seems to show that they were in this case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This reads like a principle. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Redemption is important

4) A user with a history of blocks must be allowed to redeem themselves by good editing and staying out of trouble. It may be wrong unfair for administrators to take into account blocks which are many months and years old if a user subsequently transgresses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I've tried to keep this very general, and perhaps it should be beefed up. Sam Blacketer 22:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Past behavior is always an important consideration. It can certainly be considered and overlooked, but it's ridiculous to think that after some magic period, say a year, that any blocks just "don't count" towards a user's behavior pattern. That's exactly what trends over time suggest: patterns. In the case at hand, it's important to note that the user's prior block log helped establish a pattern of contentious editing on articles of similar topics.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This reads like a principle. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin's block log

5)Between May 13 and May 14 2007 Miskin was blocked and re-blocked a number of times[21] in order for administrators to gain a community consensus, they were not attempting to wheel war. (See Evidence presented by Ryan Postlethwaite)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modify it to say that the admins were not attempting to wheel war, and I will support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Now support ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed but may need refactoring. I think it's important to get an understanding that administrators involved in the blocking/re-blocking weren't attempting to wheel-war with each other. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Modified per Swatjester - added they were not attempting to wheel war. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin's block history

6) Miskin has been blocked for breaching the three revert rule on five four separate incidents, although on several occasions he was then unblocked. It is however clear that he did break the rule on all these occasions. He has also been blocked for unilateral page moves. However, the last block for three revert rule violation was in December 2005 and other block was from September 2006. See Evidence presented by Sam Blacketer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Having looked into this I can't say that any of Miskin's blockings were unjustified. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, per sams' evidence. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The block of 2006 wasn't based on any policy whatsoever. There's no blocking policy for renaming a page without a consensus, unless of course you can prove the opposite. We're only looking at four blocks in 2005 (and not 7 blocks on the same topic as Swatjester propagated in AnI). Miskin 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking policy covers the vague but broad concept of disruption. Page moves can be disruptive and can lead to blocking. I'm not saying that is what happened here (I haven't looked), but looking to the letter of the law, and getting indignant about it, rather than the spirit is usually a bad start here. --pgk 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption is an abstract term which needs to be backed by evidence on warnings, general behaviour etc. None of them were provided during that block, hence why it was contested so easily and removed. Miskin 13:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No where in the letter of the blocking policy does it say that any blocks for disruption need to have prior warnings etc. (Though as elsewhere the letter of the policy isn't paramount which is precisely the point). You seem to miss the point, arguing you didn't break the letter of the policy is "silly", per wikipedia is not a bureacracy, wikilawyering etc. your focus should be on was your behaviour reasonable for the goals of building the encyclopedia and in view of the general accepted standards of editor behaviour. --pgk 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with wikipedia's definition of disruptive editing and not the blocking policy which applies on it. Miskin 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin edit warred

7) Despite discussing on the talk page[22][23][24][25], Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went against consensus and edit warred at Battle of the Persian Gate[26][27][28][29].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Might consider changing title to "on battle of persian gates", and have another finding saying "Miskin has edit warred before". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

How come you have yet to support this with diffs of recent edit-warring rather than accusations on 3RR blocks that took place in 2005? How come you haven't investigated the behaviour of users such as User:Mardavich and User:AlexanderPar and the 3RR violation that the latter committed on the very same article (as WP:3RR states)? Miskin 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Refuting. I find this accusation baseless. Two out of three reverts were made in order to protect consensus from a disruptive editor. My first revert was made in order to demonstrate group preference to User:AlexanderPar, who started edit-warring without prior participation to the article's talk page. Consensus was challenged only when User:Mardavich, User:Arash the Archer, User:AlexanderPar and User:Azerbaijani chose to make an appearance, i.e. after I had made my three reverts. See My three reverts and their purpose for further details. Miskin 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Further proof on the fact that I reverted to a consensus version can be seen in the page's edit history. User:Aldux reverted User:Dharmender6767 , prompting him to consider the majority view and stop further reversions [30][31]. User:RaiderAspect had also been protecting consensus version by reverting Dharmender multiple times [32][33][34][35] within 48 hours. Those were justified reverts, aiming at protecting consensus and NPOV. There was an consensus between three established editors against a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user (User:AlexanderPar) and a troll. Even when the rest of the Iranian users like User:Mardavich showed up, there was still a consensus on the non-partisan view, as both User:Iblardi and User:Ploutarchos showed their support [36]. So I never reverted nor edited against consensus. Please have a look at the article's history, I feel you haven't investigated sufficiently and that your views are based on Mardavich's fallacies, which have reached us via his private communication with User:Swatjester. Miskin 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin was blocked for 1 month

8) Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) initially closed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as no violation[37]. Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to edit war and was reported again, Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked him for 1 month[38].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. It speaks for itself. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - it's somewhat self-evident - Alison ☺ 14:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, it's a fair description of what happened. Sam Blacketer 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a timeline problem here. Sam Blacketer closed the 3RR report at 11:19 12 May (UTC) [39]. Miskin's last edit to Battle of the Persian Gate came at 10:21 12 May (UTC), before the 3RR report was closed. Clearly, it is not correct to say that Miskin "continued" to edit war after the 3RR report was closed. Some rephrasing is in order, I think--this point should say that one of Miskin's edits came after the 3RR report was filed, and Sam Blacketer didn't take that edit into account because it wasn't part of the report. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, he wasn't "reported again"--no new report was filed. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, since the intent is to state for record, Miskin was blocked for 1 month. However, feel free to propose a modified 8.1, and I'll support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin has edit warred before

9) In 2005, Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was correctly blocked three times for edit warring at Demographic history of Macedonia[40], Epirus[41] and Macedonia[42].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, a record of edit-warring in 2005. Miskin 12:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Support so long as it is made clear these blocks were in 2005. Sam Blacketer 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, to go with finding of fact 7, showing a previous history of edit warring. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to mention when these blocks occurred. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Modifed to note that the blocks occured in 2005. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich canvassed for a block

10) After Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) orginally declined a 3RR block for Miskin, Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted him on his talk page requesting that he looked into it again[43]. Later, Mardavich canvassed Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to block Miskin[44], which resulted in Miskin being blocked for 1 month.

10.1) After Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) orginally declined a 3RR block for Miskin, Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted him on his talk page requesting that he looked into it again[45]. Mardavich did not wait to see whether Sam Blacketer took action, and instead requested correction from Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree as to usage. After Sam Blacketer declined, Mardavich pointed out that there had since been a reversion. Mardavich's statement was quite accurate. Further, I don't believe that asking one administrator is canvassing. If he had been asking 20 people, I'd think differently. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That could have been done on the 3RR noticeboad, he didn't have to go looking for a block on admin talk pages - hence the word canvass. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin/Evidence#Comments_regarding_Akhilleus.27s_.22evidence.22. Miskin had violated WP:3RR, but Sam Blacketer had not noticed Miskin's last revert, he later recognized this fact [46]. I originally asked Sam Blacketer to review his decision [47], but noticed afterward that Sam Blacketer had left for the day, only then I brought the issue to the attention of Swatjester, a random adminstrator with whom I had never had any prior contact, who just happend to be online, asking if I should re-list the 3RR report.[48] That does not constitute "admin shopping", "canvassing" or anything of sort. --Mardavich 23:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed but may need refactoring. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich shouldn't have been going out looking for a block - this could all have been done (and should have been done) on the 3RR board. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious - in this and other articles. To be treated soon in the evidence page. Miskin 12:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users edit warred on Battle of the Persian Gate

11) From 8 May to 11 May, a number of users edit warred on Battle of the Persian Gate, including Miskin (talk · contribs), Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs), RaiderAspect (talk · contribs), Arash the Archer (talk · contribs), AlexanderPar (talk · contribs), Arvand (talk · contribs), Ploutarchos (talk · contribs) and Aldux (talk · contribs) (evidence, timeline).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, and thanks to bainer for his helpful analysis. Sam Blacketer 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Edit-warring" is not a black-or-white notion and should not be regarded as such. Some editors reverted to versions which abided by WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, other reverted to versions which simply satisfied their patriotic motives feelings, while others reverted trolls like User:Dharmender6767. Those criteria can give us an idea on who was being disruptive and who was being constructive on the specific dispute. If we make further investigation on the participant editors' individual backgrounds, we'll have a full picture on who are the disruptive editors in general. I don't want to point fingers, I've elaborated on this in the evidence page. I feel obliged to repeat that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if we're to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia and its articles then we need to use more sophisticated criteria than simply looking at the log of an edit-history. Miskin 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --bainer (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, unless User:Mardavich is added, since he participated as much as User:Aldux. (see Evidence presented by Akhilleus, Edit warring on Battle of the Persian Gate)--Pan Gerwazy 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I didn't "participate as much as User:Aldux", I didn't even make a full revert, let alone "edit war", I only made a few minor adjustments to the lead [49]. --Mardavich 11:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You have 5 edits there in that time period. Two could perhaps be disregarded, since they are indeed "covered" by your comments on the talk page under "shepperd's betrayal". Leaves three edits in a very short time (two with rather aggressive summaries: "utter nonsense from fringe sources", "You want a source Ploutarchos ? Here is a source for you."). You must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. You decided to add your weight, so you actively participated. Three times at least, just like Aldux - he reverted, yes. But one of your edits was a revert as well, see [50] --Pan Gerwazy 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed...Participation in editing is not the same as participation in reverting, my edits were all successive, and do not constitute a single full revert all put together. If I wanted to participate in mindless revert-waring, I could have simply reverted the person before me, Ploutarchos, who actively participated in the edit-waring [51], instead of keeping his version of the article while making some minor adjustments [52], tagging a section [53], and adding a new source [54], all in successive edits. That clearly shows that I was trying to find a middle ground and avoid the escalation of the edit-war. --Mardavich 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You reported me under 3RR, accusing me for having made a "partial-revert" about an edit which was clearly intended as a compromise (detailed here [55]). The only difference between my edits (reported as partial-reverts) and yours (ignored) were that yours unarguably violated WP:NPOV by presenting a fringe view as a mainstream view and including uncyclopedic comments (I welcome other editors to see for themselves), ignored WP:CONSENSUS already established in the talkpage, and did not intend to make any compromises. Oh yes, did I mention that you had not participated in the article's discussion before making them? Well, you hadn't because you were too busy trying to frame me for non-existent violations [56]. One more thing is that your edits were accompanied by baseless and patriotic comments in your edit-summaries [57]. One by one, your edits are by your own terms, undisputed partial reverts: [58][59][60][61][62]. Miskin 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a bunch of false assertions again. My edits, a few minor adjustments, were all successive, and do not constitute a single full revert all put together. Furthermore, my edit summaries are self-explanatory and perfectly fine, and I did participate in the discussion page [63], and there is nothing "uncyclopedic" "baseless" or "patriotic" about my comments, that's a personal attack, and based on your own opinion.--Mardavich 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits didn't try to make any compromises, they only aimed at gradually restoring an older version of the article, which violated NPOV and had already been rejected in the Talk page by editor consensus. This is much more of a partial revert than the one you reported me for. As I have demonstrated in the evidence page, you and User:Arash the Archer spent more time trying to frame me rather than participating in the content dispute with well respected editors like User:Aldux. You just awaited until they were all tired and unable to revert to the good version, where you entered in order to restore your POV via partial reverts, and then leave a symbolic message in the Talk page (albeit irrelevant to the content dispute at hand). See definition of disrupting editing point number three and four: "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators" and "Campaign to drive away productive contributors". Miskin 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

More statements that are inherently unprovable, accusations that are based on pure assumptions and your own bad-faith, unless you can somehow read my mind. There was no editor consensus about anything on that page. But as I explained above, if your bad-faith assumptions are true and that I intended to somehow revert your prefered version, I'd have simply reverted the editor before me, instead of keeping most of your prefered version, while only tagging the main disputed section [64] and opening up a dialogue about it on the discussions page. [65] --Mardavich 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your constant denial about what consituted a consensus is all the evidence I need. Your pattern on denying the views of neutral users, along with refusing to accept what is globally considered as NPOV practice, has already been elaborated here [66] (see diffs on Mardavich's past behaviour). Whenever a consensus of neutral editors/admins opposes your partisan views, they all become racists, anti-X or "Miskin's friends" - this is most likely why you don't admit to a consensus yet. You were lucky enough to find one person in wikipedia who would buy that story, but it's rather naive to be expecting from the entire community to fall for it. Maybe those are mere assumptions, but they are assumptions made by many, many editors who have confronted you in wikipedia ([67][68]). I have also received emails from users that I had never met in the past, telling me that they had had the same problems with you and your group. I haven't mentioned anything about this in my evidence yet, and I didn't intend to do so, but since you continue provoking me I'll reconsider forwarding this to the administrators. Is this a huge coincidence which repeats itself every time Mardavich, Arash the Archer, AlexanderPar, Azerbaijani et al enter a content-dispute in the articles they think they WP:OWN? Is it a racist campaign organised by User:Miskin and his imaginary friends against Mardavich? Or is it simply proved that Mardavich and his group are disruptive editors who breach NPOV on a regular basis? Make your own conclusions. Miskin 10:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot claim a consensus where there is none - and it's not up to you to decide who is a "neutral editor" and who is not, so you can disregard opinions of those with whom you disagree. I don't consider you a neutral user either, but I do abide by WP:AGF and WP:CON when dealing with you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, "my way or no way" is not the right attitude to create a collaborative encyclopedia. For the record, I've never called you a "racist", "anti-X" or anything similar, that's just more false accusations from you. I have also received several emails from random Turkish, Albanian, and Macedonian editors, whom I have never heard of before, regarding you and several other related editors' questionable behavior on many articles. For what it's worth, even some of the Greek editors have confronted you in the past calling you an "ultra-nationalist Greek" [69], and this is the sentiment shared by many of those editors who have contacted me. What's more, you have even used profanities against other editors in Greek language.[70] So please get off the high horse and realize that your behavior is far from appropriate.--Mardavich 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be really desperate to be citing diffs that date over 14 month ago and exploit the past relations of individual editors (and I'm saying past because me and Macrakis have reconciled). That was a real cheapshot, though it does again help at proving a point - that the best defence you can come up with is based on isolated statements that were made over 14 months ago. If you think that any of those editors involved in those diffs have had problems against me (and none against you) then we should invite them to the ArbCom case and listen what they have to say. Otherwise I contend that you have no clue on what's being said. As for those imaginary emails - you are simply lying about it. I haven't had an edit-dispute with an editors of such a background in a long, long time. If those emails are true then forward them to me, otherwise stop spreading lies about it. And then I will forward you mine, and then we'll forward everything to the arbitrators, how's that for a deal? I'm not going to decide who's a neutral editor and who isn't, other people will. So far your list of non-neutral people must comprise over 15 editors of irrelevant backgrounds, including five administrator or so. My list of non-neutral editors includes you and your associates who systematically violate NPOV in a series of articles. As you can see neutral (i.e. non-partisan) editors find it clear as crystal that your group is on the biased side [71][72]. You're right, you haven't directly called me "anti-Iranian" or "racist", but your other friends have, and you have implied similar absurdities against various editors in many occasions (need I remind you your baseless accusations against User:Behnam?) Even now, by calling me non-neutral and claiming that I'm pro-X you are also implying that I'm anti-Y, otherwise I see no reason for such an argumentation. So you really are contradicting yourself once again. Really, I don't understand how is it that every time you have confronted me, it so happens that I gain the support of neutral editors while you gain the support of same partisan coalition? Any comments relevant to this that date less than a year? As for your lies on the alleged emails you received against me, you must be thinking that we're really stupid to believe that you've had such evidence all this time and you suddenly just remembered about it. It's the damnedest thing, it only came to your recollection when I said out in public that I had email complaints against you! Another bloody coincindence involving Mardavich's activity. You're only wasting your time by throwing around more accusations, by now it is evident to everybody that your wikipedia dispute resolution methods are based on harrassing other contributors in order to have it your way. I think an observer will easily draw a parallel between the allegations you made on your last edit and the allegations about "admin friends" that you made to Swatjester (and who knows what else in your email). It also goes to verify my claims on the evidence page, about how your primary interest has always been to get rid of me. Your pattern has been exposed, but I guess some people don't know when to stop. Miskin 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself, with the same old accusations based on no evidence or proofs, insisting on your self-fulfilling prophecy that I am somehow accountable for words and actions of others who you've decided to call my "friends", "associates" or "group". To be honest, I am tired of this conversatioon. You make an unfounded accusation that I called you X or Y, I say I never called you X or Y, then you reply that "no you haven't directly called me X or Y, but your freinds did". Frankly, this is just hopeless. I'll just provide my evidence in the appropriate section by the end of next week.--Mardavich 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice example of civilty. To be honest I prefer Azerbaijani's name calling rather than your malicious accusation of the type "Miskin has many admin friends" and secret emails with god knows what inside. Your (plural) name-calling is the last thing that concerns my being in wikipedia. I'll be waiting for that evidence, but please do us all a favour and keep it relevant. Unless it's about something extremely important, do not cite messages from my Talk page with Macrakis that go back 14 months ago, stick to the point, i.e. the disputes that you had with me, the accusations you never backed up about "admin friends" etc. Miskin 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: Those lies about you possessing imaginary emails against me, will be of course used as further evidence against you in the evidence page. In order to prove that you're lying, I will typically give you have 24 hours to forward those emails to me and/or paste them in the evidence page (pasting them alone will obviously not suffice as proof). Once you have failed to do so I will be demostrating yet another point. Beware, if you're planning to fabricate them (which is pretty much what I'm hoping for), know that you're taking a great risk, and that people around you are not as stupid as you may assume. Full protocol header of the email will be required (I'll give you directions how to retrieve it). You might as well admit that you lied about it. It's a risk, the choice is yours. Miskin 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, I really don't appreciate your rude tone, or the fact that you're calling me a liar and other names. The contents of e-mails can not be disclosed or posted on-wiki without the sender's consent. But I had already notified the ArbCom on May 22 that I am possession of several e-mails and third-party chat-logs that I can provide them with, which may help shed some light on off-wiki activities of several editors, should the ArbCom members deem it necessary. --Mardavich 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a liar nor any names, I just said that you're telling lies. Unless a great number of wikipedia admins who have confronted you are all "sell-outs" has you have implied to Swatjester, your lies are by now a fact. So, earlier you were talking about many emails from at least three people, and now it became an email from a user whose name you cannot reveal? So you're sticking to the story by telling us that this is another bloody coincidence. I said I received complaints against you and then it comes out that you received the same thing against me only times 10. Oh, and of course it's confidential, how convenient can that be? Seriously, what do you take us for? You spoke of emails from a specific group of editors who spoke to you about me, can you back it up or not? Let me make it easier for you, as a first step you can send me those emails and remove all names involved. You must for once take responsibility of your words. Miskin 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester enforced WP:3RR unevenly due to his imperfect understanding of the rule

12) Swatjester had errouneously thought that administrators should block solely the violators who were reported under 3RR [73], and not all violators as WP:3RR states. He ignored the activity of other users who had been edit-warring, including users who had arguably breached 3RR [74][75][76][77], and focused solely on User:Miskin. See further evidence here [78][79]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Miskin 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My poor understanding of the rule? Coming from a person who can't figure out that people can be blocked for less than 3 reverts, or for more than 24 hours at administrator discretion? I think it is YOU that doesn't have an understanding of the rule. This is pointless. If other people truly did violate the 3RR, they would have been reported. It's not administrators jobs to hunt down every last 3RR violator. That's what thw WP:AN3 noticeboard was for. When will these pointlessly inflammatory proposed sections stop, huh? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your very response proves that you haven't understood 3RR and the way it should be dealt with. Check your own message to me, you're actually urging me to report Mardavich under 3RR while I'm already blocked for one month [80]. And your logic is again erroneous, some editors are more interested in finding solutions to content disputes rather than getting others in trouble. Once a violation is reported, it's up to the admin in charge to determine which users have been disruptive/edit-warring. And precisely because people can get blocked for less than 4 reverts (when they're rv-warring), you have no excuse for not blocking User:AlexanderPar. Miskin 08:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Actually, the three-revert rule clearly states that "In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Thus, Swatjester's placement of a block on Miskin, without any attempt to ascertain whether other editors violated the three-revert rule on Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during the same period of time, was improper. Furthermore, Swatjester's insistence that he enforced the three-revert rule properly [81] seems to suggest that he will engage in similarly improper enforcement of the three-revert rule in the future. John254 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin has been incivil during this arbitration

12) Miskin has been incivil and accusatory throughout the proceedings of this arbitration, including incivil comments on the evidence and workshop pages, and their associated talk pages. [82][83] [84][85][86][87]When an attempt was made to stop the incivility, Miskin continued it instead of agreeing. [88]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Remedy exists below. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the diffs, they represent a broad and varying range of incivility and accusations from Miskin, which is contrary to the easy resolving of this case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

13) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

15) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

17) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Miskin admonished

1) Miskin is admonished to make every effort to discuss future edits on talk pages rather than edit warring.

1.1) Miskin is admonished to abide by consensus on talk pages rather than edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this should be toned down and reflect that Miskin was active on the talk page all through the editing dispute, otherwise it gives a false impression. Sam Blacketer 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support 1.1, he WAS talking on the talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Early, but it seams fair after looking through all evidence on this case, at present, I don't see a need for revert parole. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this misses the mark. Miskin was posting to Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate throughout May 11-12; you might argue he was edit warring, but he was discussing while he was doing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is, I don't think that there is strong enough evidence to show that this is a continuous pattern of behaviour - I feel he's learnt his lessons from when he first joined the project and this was just a mistake in his judgement. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I think it's just a problem in phrasing, because at present this item implies that Miskin didn't discuss at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I too think that this is a mockery. I've got more Talk participation than all of the involved editors, and 3RR or not, I will never admit to have been edit-warring. This should be clear. Miskin 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think that might be better as a finding of fact with this remedy as an outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.1 as an alternative. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the edit-warring part - moving my statement above. Miskin 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a remedy, if you disagree with a finding of fact, present it above. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, at least at this stage. The evidence thus far does not establish the level of serious issues with Miskin's editing that would warrant a remedy at the ArbCom level. The proposal can be reevaluated if substantial additional evidence is submitted. Newyorkbrad 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin placed on revert parole

2) Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on article talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. At present, I think this is too strict, but it should be something to consider. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, at least at this stage. The evidence thus far does not establish the level of serious issues with Miskin's editing that would warrant this remedy. The proposal can be reevaluated if substantial additional evidence is submitted. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Alternatively, support modified revert parole of enforced 1RR per day. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest when was the standard revert parole changed from 1/page/day to 1/page/week? Christopher Parham (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't swear that these were the first ones, but 1R/wk is what's been used in several recent cases, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Newyorkbrad 00:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with NYBrad. Bad proposal. --Irpen 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin placed on Civility Parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied directly from [89]. See finding 12) Miskin has been incivil during this arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how many things you're going to find against me: so far you've called me an edit-warrior, a disruptive editor and now an uncivil editors just to name a few. Do you by any chance still exchange emails with Mardavich? Miskin 01:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Miskin's incivility is a serious a serious problem that has been overlooked for a long time --a problem that's getting worse. I'll provide further evidence and diffs in the evidence page about this topic by the end of the week.--Mardavich 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Although civility is at least as important on arbitration pages as throughout the rest of Wikipedia, civility parole is rarely imposed purely for statements made by a party within the context of the arbitration case itself. Experience suggests that this process does not bring out the best in many users. Having said that, both Miskin and other editors would be well-advised to uphold the highest standards of civility from this point forward. Newyorkbrad 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with NYBrad. Unwarranted. --Irpen 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester placed on Civility Parole

5) Swatjester is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by another administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or baseless accusations, then he may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied directly from [90]. Swatjester has been uncivil to editors and admins in several occasions [91][92], endorsing User:Mardavich's allegations about corrupted administrators, scaring off people who would pontentially not support him [93]. Miskin 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

'Oppose with prejudice: There's not a single example of incivility in any of those diffs you posted. This is purely retaliatory, and it's disruptive at this point. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there's much more uncivilty there than in the diffs you posted against me. Plus this does not concern edits that were made during the arbitration. Miskin 09:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see any incivility there and suspect this is a 'tit for tat' proposal after the above. Sam Blacketer 22:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. A retaliatory, tit-for-tat proposal based on no solid ground, which may violate WP:POINT. --Mardavich 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I was vexed by the attacks I received by Mardavich and Swatjester when proposing this. This does admittedly go against WP:POINT. Swatjester's occasional uncivil behaviour is irrelevant to the ArbCom case. I think that different proposals need to be introduced for Swatjester, maybe along the lines Irpen describes below. Miskin 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. See my comments above. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As it can be seen at few random examples, Swatjester has been far more uncivil than myself (if we are to use his criteria of civiltly). Of course it should be noted that Swatjester has been hostile while for no prior reason, while I've been passionately defending myself against malicious rumours and fallacies. Miskin 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive. If any remedy wrt to Swatjester is needed it is about admin actions (deadminning in extreme case, requirement to confer before implementing a non-obvious block whish is just a common sense anyway, requirement to be respectful to other users even when those are non-admins, etc.) --Irpen 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1.1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed to go with remedy 2. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, at least at this stage. The evidence thus far does not establish the level of serious issues with Miskin's editing that would warrant this sort of remedy, and hence there would be nothing to enforce. The proposal can be reevaluated if substantial additional evidence is presented. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And? If the remedy is turned down, the enforcement fails to exist. If the remedies are supported, they'll need enforcement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators' inadvertently adopting an enforcement provision that was not supported by an underlying remedy has caused substantial confusion in at least two prior cases, and should be avoided. Newyorkbrad 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is the arbs who move stuff from here to the proposed decision to vote on, I'm sure they wouldn't move one without a corresponding remedy. Waiting until the arbs have endorsed a given remedy to propose enforcement seems a little late, since that will normally be right at the end of the process. However I'm sure the enforcement provisions are pretty straightforward for arbs to propose and move forward themselves. --pgk 11:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: