Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Newyorkbrad
has been an editor since April 2005. He has about 7600 edits, including 3500 in mainspace. I first heard of him on Sunday afternoon, May 13, as a result of seeing this discussion on ANI.

The ANI thread was opened by, who originally captioned it Block review regarding "admins in troublesome user's back pocket". In his opening post, Swatjester reported having initially blocked Miskin for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. However, Swatjester then reviewed Miskin's block log, determined that this was Miskin's seventh block, and increased the block duration to one month. The block summary in the block log reads "3RR violation, huge past blocking list, clearly no intent of editing constructively. Last step before indefinite." The block notice on Miskin's talkpage alleges "extensive disruptiveness, culminating in a 3RR violation that earned your SEVENTH block. Your disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent."

Swatjester's opening post to the ANI thread also stated that he had received an e-mail from an unidentified user warning that Miskin had "administrators in his back pocket" and that it could be expected that the block would be overturned immediately. He continued, "That apparently was the case, he was unblocked within 24 hours, and I received several angry comments on my user talk page about it." This was a reference to the action of in overturning the one-month block Swatjester had imposed and reinstating the remainder of the original 24-hour block. (It also could be characterized as an assumption by Swatjester that Dbachmann had acted in bad faith.) Appropriately, Swatjester brought the matter to ANI for further discussion and hopefully consensus-building as to the best action to take.

The tone of much of the subsequent ANI discussion was regrettable, strident, and disconcerting. For example, one administrator, who is generally quite reasonable and level-headed, quickly opined that "Just looking at the block log, I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom. I'd love to hear the reason to unblock a user who has shown a continual inability to work with their fellow Wikipedians too." Another experienced and highly regarded admin joined the discussion with an offer to help write up the case for arbitration. This struck me at the time, at least, as being rather premature.

I took a look at Miskin's block log which was being relied upon as the basis for a one-month block, threats of indefinite or "permanent" blocking, and for the conclusions that this editor has "no intention of editing constructively," "needs his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom," and "has shown a continual inability to work with [his] fellow Wikipedians." I was surprised to discover that the block log of this supposedly incorrigible, "extensively disruptive" editor contained no prior blocks in 2007. It contained a single block in 2006, arising out of a page-move dispute, which was originally a 24-hour block but was overturned after less than an hour when Miskin promised to address the page-move issue consensually. It did contain four or five blocks (depending on whether one counts two on the same day separately or not) for 3RR/edit-war violations, but the last of these had taken place in December 2005, and the longest was for 36 hours.

Edit-warring is of course never desirable, and users who have been blocked for 3RR violations in the past are obviously meant to learn not to violate the rule again. Nor is Miskin to be regarded as a model editor; review of his talkpage suggests that concerns have been raised in the past about occasional incivil comments, among other things. At the same time, I was frankly astonished by several admins' conclusion that what would otherwise have been a routine 3RR violation could justify a one-month block, a statement that "the next block will be permanent," quick thoughts of an arbitration case, and denunciation of Miskin as lacking any intention to edit constructively.

Ultimately, suggested a compromise of a one-week block. I was unpersuaded that the evidence before ANI at that point suggested that anything more than the original 24 hours was really necessary, but there was clearly a consensus to the contrary, and I deferred to it.

Miskin has strong feelings about contentious topics and sometimes edits accordingly. I advised him on his talkpage on Sunday that whatever happened with his then-pending unblock request, he needed to modify the behavior that was putting him into conflict with other editors.

Yet as evidenced by his comments on his talkpage and in this case, I believe that Miskin has made substantial progress in improving his collaborative skills since the mistakes he made in his first months of editing. His talkpage contributions, nuanced changes in successive edits, and statement in this case do not, by any means, present a picture of a bad-faith edit-warrior. The extreme negative characterizations of his editing that I have quoted above are not justified, and certainly were not justified by any evidence that had been adduced during the ANI discussion. I also note that there does not appear to have been any form of prior dispute resolution undertaken with this editor, such as an RfC either as to user conduct or the content of the articles being disputed. In short, I doubt that in Miskin we are dealing here with one of Wikipedia's 200 most disruptive editors. The record with respect to Miskin's editing strikes me as thin grist for an arbitration case, as opposed to a strongly worded request that Miskin edit collegially and appropriately.

While I found some of the earlier discussion of this block sequence displeasing, I also see no on-wiki basis for any ArbCom actions addressing administrator conduct. While I considered the one-month block imposed by Swatjester excessive and his criticism of Miskin based on his block log grossly overblown, these were good-faith actions by a respected administrator. So too was the reversal of that block by Dbachmann, who acted properly and within his discretion as a block-reviewing administrator, although I agree that it would have been better had he brought this matter to the noticeboard for review rather than acting unilaterally on his review. Nor did any of the other comments made during this brouhaha rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom sanction, although I would strongly prefer that personal attacks and reference to "dragging [a editor's] sorry ass before ArbCom" be as absent from WP:ANI as from any other page of the project.

I leave to the last, and say nothing about, the allegations of editors supposedly having administrators in their pockets, or the role that allegations to this effect or reactions to such allegations may allegedly have had on any participant in this matter. I assume that evidence has been or will be presented to the arbitrators either on this page or via e-mail with regard to this issue. I do want to repeat that I do not recall ever having encountered Miskin or his edits before Sunday afternoon. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate posting in other people's sections. But yes, regarding the final paragraph, I will make it available privately to the arbitration committee, upon their request. Since it's a private email, and contains allegations against certain admins, some of whom I have a great deal of respect for, I wouldn't wish it to be public. If there's any action, or consideration to be taken, ArbCom do it privately. &rArr;   SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  13:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Initial 1 month block of Miskin
This whole saga started with Miskin being reported at WP:AN/3RR by Mardavich - this was initially turned down by Sam Blacketer. Swatjester overturned this and blocked Miskin for a period of one month due to a "vast history of disruptiveness", this was referring to Miskin's extensive block log dating over two years for 3RR violations. The reverts that resulted in Miskins block were as follows:
 * 1st revert: 13:34, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 14:06, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:26, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 18:44, 11 May 2007

Swatjester started a thread on WP:AN/I stating that he would like a block review of the above block, and that he was concerned that "the user has "admins in his back pocket" and he would be unblocked immediately". This resulted in a mixed response to the block with intially support from users including Nick, cyde, Krimpet but others were critical of the block including Ploutarchos, User:Newyorkbrad, Dbachmann.

For full AN/I commentary, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243

Reduction to 24 hour block by Dbachmann
Dbachmann raised concern regarding whether Miskin had actually infringed on the 3RR on Swatjester's user talk page. Dbachmann reduced the initial 1 month block down to 24 hours, encouraging Swatjester to take the matter to AN/I. When Dbahmann announced to AN/I that they had reduced the block to 24 hours, there was wide critisism from users including Jayjg, AlexanderPar, Kurykh.

Increase of block to 1 week by Alison
In an attempt to come to a compromise that everyone was happy with, Alison stated that she was "going to be bold here and extend this editor's block to 1 week for repeated violation of WP:3RR. This is not a month, nor is it 24 hours." - No concerns were raised to the extended block and argument continued over whether it was in fact a blockable offence in the first instance and generally the length of time blocks for multiple incidence of 3RR infringements over a period of time should last for.

Unblock post by Miskin
Miskin posted an unblock request, stating "I'd like to have my 3RR violation reviewed, and whether or not there was a fourth revert involved. In addition I'd like to have my one-week block reviewed (formerly one-month).". Newyorkbrad brought up this unblock request at AN/I and posted to Miskin that he had brought it up at there and stated that his own personal view was that the block should be reversed. Numerous users were against a reduction of the block including Swatjester, Wimt, AlexanderPar, DavidShankBone among others. There were a few users that supported the unblock including Ploutarchos, Newyorkbrad. ''See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243

Newyorkbrad later posted that the block should be commuted to time served, there was again no consensus to unblock (See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243) and Newyorkbrad accepted that there was no consensus to unblock. Mangojuice later formally declined the unblock request.

Conditional unblock by Ryan Postlethwaite
Ryan Postlethwaite unblocked Miskin after the arbitration case was filed so he could take part in the case. The condition was that he was only able to edit the arbitration cases that involved him and his user talk pages, if he did not keep to this then the initial block would have been re-instated. This was also posted on AN/I with little concern from other users (See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive243).

Ryan Postl et hw ai te  19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin reverted three times on 11 May 2007
This version of Battle of the Persian Gate was saved at 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC). Miskin reverted to it at 13:34 and 14:06 on that day, during a revert war. After Dharmender6767, with whom the revert war was being conducted, was blocked, Miskin again reverted to the same version at 14:26. These three reverts potentially engage the three revert rule and made it unacceptable for Miskin to revert again within a 24 hour period. The issue in the revert war was whether the article should reflect the 'western consensus' about the strengths of armies in the battle, or whether a view within the Encyclopaedia Iranica should be given more weight; Miskin was a supporter of the 'western consensus' who felt the Encyclopaedia Iranica view worthy of little or no mention.

Miskin edited again but did not break the three revert rule
At 18:44, Miskin edited again, not reverting to an old version but progressively amending the text. This edit was not entirely in line with the previous reverts, because it acknowledged that the claim that Ariobarzan's army was 25-40,000 strong was a Western consensus, whereas previous reverts had not made such admission.

A Three revert rule violation report was closed as no violation
Taking into account these four edits, I closed a report of a three revert rule violation as "No violation".

Miskin then broke the three revert rule
At 10:21 on 12 May (UTC), therefore within the 24 hour period, Miskin edited again. The edit summary was accurate: "according to western consensus the Macedonians were outnumbered - the only casualties inflicted were in the first ambush attack, no reason to hide this fact)". This edit therefore elevated the western consensus and constituted a revert.

Mardavich raised the issue on my talk page
At 5:34 on 13 May, Mardavich came to my talk page to assert that the 3RR report had been closed wrongly, and to urge the blocking of Miskin. He also asserted "I do understand that User:Miskin has a lot of administrator friends who maybe campaigning for him behind the scenes."

Swatjester then blocked Miskin for one month
After blocking Miskin for one month, Swatjester informed me that what he had done.

Miskin's block history (1)
Miskin was blocked for one day on 4 July 2005, for a three revert rule violation on Demographic history of Macedonia and revert warring on that and other articles. The block was correct. This was his first block.

Miskin's block history (2)
On 25 August 2005, Miskin was blocked for a three revert rule violation on Macedonia. Adam Bishop unblocked without comment less than an hour and a half later. The edit history of the page shows that Miskin did have four clear reverts to the same version. No edit in Adam Bishop's contributions explains why he overturned the block.

Miskin's block history (3)
On 13 November 2005, Miskin was blocked for the third time, for a three revert rule violation on Epirus. The block was correct.

Miskin's block history (4)
On 28 December 2005, Miskin received his fourth block for a three revert rule violation on Macedonians (ethnic group). This block proved controversial. The edit history shows that Miskin did revert six times to substantially the same version of the article, at 23:50 on 27 December, 01:31, 01:55, 02:16, 04:02 and 05:15. Merovingian unblocked Miskin on the basis that his edits "have been justified, as he was removing unsourced claims"; Izehar (in ignorance of the fact that Miskin was already unblocked) also unblocked on the grounds that Miskin had promised to stop revert warring. Dmcdevit then reblocked for 36 hours, but Merovingian again unblocked.

This series of blocks and unblocks constituted the last time Miskin was blocked for a three revert rule violation before May 2007.

Miskin's block history (5)
On 25 September 2006, FayssalF blocked Miskin for 24 hours for "unilateral moves". This block was for Miskin's repeated move of Cretan Turks to Cretan Moslems. Hoopydink unblocked, stating "after talking to him on IRC, he's promised to work with his fellow wikipedians on the page move situation".

This was the last block Miskin received before May 2007.

Evidence presented by Miskin
Much of this has been already detailed elsewhere, however I'll try to sum it up here and provide more evidence. Still, I believe that both pages should be consulted.

My three reverts and their purpose
I consciously made three reverts, which although I did not intend as part of an edit war, were clean reversions to a version that was at the time an editor consensus, contested only by a disruptive editor (User:Dharmender6767) who was about to be blocked.

1st revert: I made my first revert when User:AlexanderPar showed support for User:Dharmender6767 by reverting to his version, despite blatant NPOV violations and editor consensus that were involved (Dharmender had already been reverted by various well established editors ). At that point, my conscious participation in the edit-war (regarding my first revert) aimed at showing group preference and editor consensus. User:AlexanderPar had not participated in discussion up to that point, yet he had chosen to start reverting to the version of his preference and endorse User:Dharmender6767's disruptive behaviour.

2nd and 3rd reverts": On my second revert I was under the impression that User:Dharmender had already been blocked and that the rv-war had ended. My sole aim was to prevent having the article protected to a "bad" version while clear editor consensus was in favour of a different one. This was not intended as a participation to edit-warring and I tried to make this as clear as possible in my edit summary: "I'm only reverting so that the article won't get locked to the bad version". I waited until Dharmender was definitely blocked and after exactly 20 minutes I restored the "good" version one more time. This revert was done for the exact same reason as before, i.e. to keep up the consensus version in case of a possible article protection. There was no need to have the article protected because of a sole editor's disruptive behaviour, let alone having it protected to the bad version (it would actually going to show that disruptive behaviour may have an impact in wikipedia). The edit summary again tries to state that this is not part of an edit-warring: "with dharmender blocked the edit-war is over, so I'm likewise restoring the good version in case a protection is put". This is as far as my three reverts go.

Edit-warring by User:AlexanderPar and arrival of more editors
After my 3rd revert, User:AlexanderPar restored Dharmender's version, despite editor consensus and lengthy discussion in which he had not participated. In my opinion he cunningly awaited until Dharmender had "consumed" other people's reversions, so that he could restore the version of his preference uncontested. User:Mardavich, User:Azerbaijani and User:Arash the Archer showed up, all known partisans of a pro-X ethnicity/culture (will elaborate on this shortly). I had already confronted them in the past, and frankly I would have been surprised if they had not turned up. In any case I wasn't planning of participating in an edit-war, nor reverting any further for any reason. It should be noted that AlexanderPar finished with three pure rv-warring reverts, that Swatjester never commented on. and a compromise edit which could be easily called a "partial revert" on Darhmender's version Regardless, User:Swatjester never made the slightest remark about this.

My attempt to make fresh compromise edits (argued as partial reverts)
Up until now I thought that the only edit that was considered as a partial revert was this one. After reading Sam Blacketer's stamenent I realised that my next edit (made on the next day - yet within a 24h space) is also regarded as a potential partial revert. I don't know for which one I got blocked, but from my part, both of those edits were meant as compromises. I'm well familiar with the 3RR rule and I would not let myself get carried away, even if I had wanted to. The thing is that I would have never expected someone to view those edits as reverts, I thought it was a fairly evident compromise attempt. Similarly it never crossed my mind that I would be accused for edit-warring. I was the only person who participated in discussions before making reverts. When I made my first three reverts there was the impression of a clear consensus, whereas behind the scenes User:Arash the Archer was most likely calling for backup. When I tried to involve some neutral editors and admins who I knew to be familiar/interested with the topic, I was accused for WP:CANVASSING and for "calling my friends". And who makes this accusation? A known coalition of partisan users, supporters of a pro-X ethnicity who act as a group in several different articles.

My first alleged partial revert As Sam Blacketer correctly pointed out, the first edit in the infobox aims to find a compromise by isolating the "western" view in respect to the numbers. This is in my opinion completely unrelated to the previously reverted version, which involved edits in all sections of the article, along with different wording in the infobox.

My second alleged partial revert Sam Blacketer perceived this edit as a revert because it gave priority to the western view, therefore did not make a compromise. As a matter of fact if we consider the previously reverted version and the edit-summaries of Mardavich, then it becomes more evident this too was an effort of compromise. My first compromise edit was made in the infobox, and after it got reverted by User:AlexanderPar, I decide to make edits elsewhere in the article (if I had wanted to edit-war I would have re-edited the infobox). Mardavich makes the following edit summary: "it was a last stand by an army of volunteers, no doubts about it, and there is no need to say "modern Iran", Iran is Iran". Obviously this is an assertion which lacks neutrality, nonetheless I tried to respect Mardavich's concern and keep plain "Iran" in the new edit. Similarly, I also tried to abide by Mardavich's editing by keeping his claim on a "heroic stand" Despite the lack of neutrality on those edits, I kept them as part of the compromise. I also used plain "Macedonians" instead of "Greeks", as Mardavich had suggested. Much of the lead was therefore edited anew, please notice the difference between the two versions. It can also be seen that after my compromise edit in the infobox was reverted, I started a new conversation in an attempt to demostrate how this was an NPOV violation. Are those the actions of a disruptive edit-warrior who has not learned his lesson as Swatjester claims? I have repeatedly urged him to prove this with diffs but he has failed to do so.

Further proof that my second alleged partial-revert was in reality compromise edit, is the fact that the edit remains to the present moment in Battle of the Persian Gate as the article's standard lead. Not only it shows to have been a compromise edit, but also a successful one.

My alleged disruptive editing In brief, if the arbitrators and the majority of admins finally judge that I have violated 3RR, I want to make clear that my reverts/edits were not part of edit-warring and disruptive editing (as Swatjester propagates). I think my recent contributions prove this. During content disputes some 90% of my edits are made in Talk pages. As a matter of fact I almost never make more than two reverts within 24 hours. In fact I recently received a warning by Dmcdevit for having made two reverts in a very short period of time. I replied to him that there's nothing to be cautious about because 2 reverts is my limit (the rest of the edit refers to User:Mardavich and his associates, but on a different content-dispute where the same strategies were applied). If Swatjester's accusations about frequent edit-warring had been true, I'm sure that other admins would have noticed it in the past. In fact Swatjester has never encountered me before this event, and his conclusions about me are based on his private communication with User:Mardavich.

My effort to ameliorate the article
Prior to my intervention, the article Battle of the Persian Gate was one of those articles which were giving a bad name to wikipedia: use of one-sided views as in a school book, lack of sources, frequence in unencyclopaedic wording. A brief look on the article's Talk page should be enough to understand that the article was in bad shape. There, we see comments such as: "This article has very few citations and seems to generally paint a one-sided picture. It would improve its credibility to add the appropriate citations.", "This article is ridiculously POV. I'll sort it out in a few days.". This proves that my motive was to make an improvement by enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:CITE - hence why my changes gained rapidly editor consensus. Miskin 00:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I contend that I should have not been accused for a 3RR violation
WP:3RR is not a black-or-white policy, and it's a shame that it is largely seen in such manner. I contend that I should have not been accused for a violation for the following reasons:
 * 2 of my 3 reverts (diffs provided above) were, as explained, made in an attempt to restore the article to a consensus version, remedying the actions of an extremely disruptive editor (who I had thought to be blocked by then).
 * The definition of partial revert is a very abstract one. Based the evidence I provided above, Icontend that my alleged partial reverts were conscious attempts to introduce mutually acceptable edits (diffs provided above), and should not be regarded as reverts, let alone edit-warring.
 * Even if for some reasons those compromise edits were to be counted as partial reverts, common sense should not have found a 3RR violation. To quote from WP:3RR: "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule." I had no shown any prior signs of edit-warring, neither in this article nor anywhere in the near past (and that includes two out of three reverts).
 * User:Swatjester should have suspected the malicious motives behind User:Mardavich's claims, made during their private communication (to be treated below). Instead, he chose to show blind trust to Mardavich, and suspect all editors and admins who would potentially come to my support (which was Mardavich's fairly obvious purpose in the first place).

On my previous blocks and unblocks
Blocks in 2005 As a new user I was having a problem to understand wikipedia's definition of simple vandalism, and by consequence, the very thing that constituted an exception to the 3RR. My blocks number 2 and 4 (as enumerated by Sam) were removed by User:Adam Bishop and User:Izehar respectively, following a mutual agreement which involved applying a new approach to the dispute. This comes down to the fact that some administrators are more lenient with new users, and believe that blocks do not help them improve.

Block in 2006 This block had absolutely no basis and was quickly removed after an unblock request. An administrator who put the block supported that moving a page without an editor consensus is regarded as disruptive editing punishable by a block. There was no policy behind this and I don't know why it was stated as the result of an agreement. So there is nothing mysterious behind this block log as some people have suggested. The 2006 block should not have been counted at all, but I guess this the result of wikimedia's inability to characterise a block as valid or invalid, so everything just stays there. Miskin 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Had I chosen in 2006 to sacrifice my contributions to wikipedia and start anew as a supposedly different editor, none of those accusations would have been made against me today. But this would have not made me a different person except only in the eyes of administrators like User:Swatjester and the people who have endorsed his actions. However, the purpose on my participation in the wikipedia project has never involved such schemes, although it is evident by now that they would have been very useful. Some admin/editor in AnI proposed that I should start a new account because there's no point in continuing with such a block log. I really don't see a logic on this suggestion. In my view, I either stay under the same identity, willing to take responsibility for my past actions, or I do not stay at all. I don't see a reason to exploit wikipedia's nature as an internet community, I would rather see it simply as a community.

Evidence on the existence of a pro-X ethnicity/culture coalition which violates WP:NPOV on a regular basis
Summary

The evidence provided below aims at demonstrating that the actions of User:Mardavich and the involved partisan editors satisfy all of wikipedia's criteria on "disruptive editing" as defined one-by-one in WP:DE.

I contend that User:Mardavich, User:Arash the Archer, User:Azerbaijani and User:AlexanderPar are known partisans of a nationalist coalition, whose activity is restricted to violating NPOV on a regular basis and in an organised fashion.

There's generally nothing wrong with editors sharing a common interest on various topics related to one's cultural/ethnic background. In fact, a constructive cooperation between members of the same ethnicity tends to have a positive effect in wikipedia, and it is frequently an enforced practice (e.g. by the creation of wiki-projects). However, such a "cooperation" becomes disruptive when its activity focuses at violating WP:NPOV on a regular basis. I'm going to prove that the cooperation of the users mentioned above belongs to the disruptive category. I have personally confronted those users in several articles, where they would usually form a majority over the neutral (non-partisan) editors and create a pseudo-consensus (agreement between numerous partisan editors) as an argument to violate NPOV (claiming always that consensus view is above everything). I will elaborate on this by proving that the specific group of users has acted on several articles against the consensus of non-partisan editors, and have in several occations managed to violate NPOV by means of numerical superiority. I will also prove that this coalition has tried for a some time now to "put me out of the picture", for having bluntly confronted them in three different articles, and for having shown interest in many articles that are considered in their "domain".

My first confrontation with the group
My first serious confrontation with the group took place in the article 300 (film), where a great number of Iranian editors confronted a number of neutral editors in an attempt to label the film as a "fictional account", as well as insert comments of the Iranian governement and scholarship, presented as mainstream views. Their overall activity ranged from adding absurd categories such as "cat:Anti-Iranian articles" to moving the article's focus towards a political and racist POV. It can be seen in those diffs that User:Mardavich and User:Sa.vakilian make a revert which removes sourced content and gives more weight to a minority view. Both of their edit summaries call upon an alleged editor consensus. Mardavich also calls on an alleged consensus in the Talk page, though neutral editors seemed to have a different opinion on what constituted a fringe view and an editor consensus. It should be noted that Dbachmann was invited as a mediator, suggesting that all views need to be presented (per NPOV), and this is in my opinion what blacklisted him to the Iranians him as "Miskin's friend". However, the side which opposed the Iranian editors and their NPOV violation, was of a neutral status. Dbachmann's proposal was accepted and it was pointed out to him that the debate was between a specific coalition of "Iranians versus everyone else". It is therefore evident that at least in one article in which I was involved, the same coalition of Iranian editors confonted a group of neutral users, attempting to inject their POV per a non-existent consensus, on something which was to everyone but them a clear NPOV violation (and it should be noted that the POV was finally injected in the very lead of 300 (film)). Involved editors: User:Mardavich (always present), User:Azerbaijani, User:Rayis (in my opinion sockpuppet of User:Arash the Archer), among many other Iranian editors including User:Khorshid, User:sa.vakilian, User:Agha Nader, User:Alborz Fallah. I think that all those editors should be subjected to checkuser.

My second confrontation with the group
My second confrontation with the group took place in the article Roman-Persian Wars. After I cleaned up some unsrouced POV, I joined discussion and proposed a split that would allow wikipedia to treat the topic more efficiently, abiding by the mainstream scholarship, separating the conflict into Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian wars. I reached an agreement with the article's main editor User:Tourskin. We set up the article Byzantine-Sassanid Wars and attempted to move the corresponding information. Then User:Azerbaijani shows up in Talk:Roman-Persian Wars and accuses me for "anti-Iranian" edits, and for making "great decisions without consensus". User:Mardavich reverted Tourskin and later Azerbaijani reverted my edits, accusing me for making decisions by myself. When it was explained to them that I had come to an agreement with the article's main editor (user:Tourskin), and that a sufficient number of sources had been presented, User:Azerbaijani attacked User:Tourskin by saying "Do you even attempt to learn anything about the subject you are trying to cover?...you really dont know much do you? ... Tourskin, I dont know who you are or what part of history you study, but you lack of knowledge on the geography and history of this conflict, as well as your Western bias, hampers you ability to debate your case". The replies he received by myself and by Tourskin can be seen here. The subject was left in the middle because the partisan coalition was simply not in agreement with a split, although they never provided a solid reason. Myself and Tourskin agreed to let it go. In my opinion the group had agreed to revert Miskin's edits because he was already marked in their list as "anti-Iranian" - I can't find another reasonable explanation for such a negative behaviour. User:Tourskin who took my side, was also accused for being anti-something. That sort of accusation seems to be the group's pattern so far, applied to anyone who dares to question the neutrality of their patriotic feelings. Of course User:Arash the Archer did not take long to show up in the article. User:Behmod was a new partisan user who participated. Again as before, the same coalition of editors tried to go against WP:ATT and WP:NPOV by means of numerical superiority and reverting against a neutral editor consensus.

My third confrontation with the group
As it is known, my third and final confrontation took place in Battle of the Persian Gate. There, in constrast with the group claims in 300 (film), they made their reverts based on the fact "that NPOV should contain all views". It should be noted that earlier the same group used the argument that "NPOV is irrelevant, it's only consensus that counts".

In the case of Battle of the Persian Gate, User:Mardavich and User:Azerbaijani arrived just in time to balance out the consensus of the non-partisan editors. In order to violate NPOV by means of superiority, they came up with the story of "Miskin's friends" - aiming at preventing me from involving non-partisan editors (because they most likely knew that a neutral editor would not support their claims). In this manner, any editor who would oppose them, would potentially fit the description as a "Miskin's friend", and therefore someone non-accountable. This explains much of the subsequent need to create rumours on "backpocket admins", implied by User:Mardavich in Swatjester's talkpage. Those falsifications aimed at demonising Miskin and everyone who has ever supported him in his content-disputes. This becomes evident by the fact that all communication between Mardavich and Swatjester took place via email. In any case I was extremely surprised that such a primitive, malicious plan could ever be bought with such ease by a wikipedian, let alone an administrator. It should be noted that Mardavich's exact words were "Miskin has many admin friends", while the wording "admins in Miskin's backpockets" was coined by User:Swatjester (whose fitness for adminship should be seriously questioned). Strangely enough, the names of many deeply involved editors were not even mentioned as "involved parties". Of course I'm not going to imply anything about "backpocket admins", but in my opinion there is a certain irony coming out of this. To someone who has investigated the case, User:Swatjester's attitude can be much more easily be interpreted as "one-sided". Secret communication? Focus on a single editor ignoring all other parties involved? However, I firmly believe that Swatjester has only been the subject of manipulation. He may be also having difficulties admitting an initial mistake (thinking that all past 3RR violations were interconnected). In any case I think it goes to show how some people have got it all wrong.

The activity of the specific group of partisan/nationalist editors must become one of the central points of this ArbCom case, as this is what started it all. There's indeed a much greater problem than an arguable 3RR violation, which should be treated as a separate event. Miskin 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mardavich and User:Arash the Archer spent more time trying to frame me rather than discussing
Mardavich and his associates have tried to frame me many times in the past. During the dispute in 300 (film), I was reported by User:Agha Nader under in AnI for having supposedly made "prejudice and racist comments". Uninvolved Iranian editors would come to vote out of the blue and then disappear again, and when I pointed out that the vote was most likely biased via off-wiki canvassing, I was automatically called a racist. The administrator who refused to take Agha Nader seriously was also attacked and called a racist by User:Behnam.

Then, more recently, User:Arash the Archer reports me for a non-existant 3RR violation which is turned down. Once the difference between edits and reverts is explained to him, Arash the Archer is forum shopping by linking Battle of the Persian Gate in a desperate attempt to stop me from making edits. However, Arash's forum shopping continues in an admin's Talkpage, where Arash uses baseless accusations in order to beg for a block on User:Miskin. It doesn't work. After all has failed, User:Arash the Archer's next move is to "neutralise" all editors/admins who would potentially support me. Arash accused me openly for WP:CANVASSING, for having involved more editors of neutral background into the dispute (i.e. for having asked a third opinion). The motive here is obvious: "Anyone who is not with us is on Miskin's side, i.e. biased 'meatpuppet' whose opinion shouldn't count".

Then the effort continues with User:Mardavich and his forum shopping against me, which has already been detailed with diffs by numerous users. Forum shopping continues in admins' Talk pages. Mardavich makes passionates efforts to endorse the decision on my block in the AnI page that Swatjester started, implying that all uninvolved users who take my side are "partisans whose view should not be counted". Apparently "all admins and editors" who ever came to my support in that moment and in the past, were according to Mardavich members of my racist gang. Never did he ask himself why all those people that he accused were of a neutral/non-partisan background, while his own group were a fixed, large number of people of the same ethnicity (evidence/diffs already cited). He probably knew the answer. After all the evidence I have presented, the irony here is obvious. Mardavich concludes by presenting a successful comprimise as a revert. So there is an observed pattern in the group's behaviour: forum-shopping, plotting for blocks, off-wiki communication/canvassing, malicious rumours against other other users and their supporters. The objective is to pass a one-sided view in wikipedia (violate NPOV) by eliminating those who insist objecting.

It is therefore evident that both User:Mardavich and User:Arash the Archer spent more time on plotting against me rather than participating in the on-going discussions.

More evidence on the group's systematically disruptive behaviour
I initially did not intend to refer to this event, but as a result of new provocations and unsupported accusations, I feel obliged to prove that none of my claims are baseless.

During my second confrontation with the group (detailed above), I received a series of emails from a wikipedian whom I had never met in the past. The user was trying to warn me of Mardavich and the malicious activity of a certain partisan group, which he had himself witnessed. I initially ignored the emails, thinking that such unfriendly feelings are the result of heated content-disputes. However, when the editor became unanimous and more specific, to my great surprise I came to realise that he had made the exact same conclusions on the group's activity as I had. Some key excerpts:


 * [Approach]:"This user was supporting Mardavich's reversions... I looked at The1thatmatters's contributions and discovered that he was doing the same on Roman-Persian Wars, supporting Mardavich.... I am always interested in looking at the edit histories of new users who suddenly take an interest in Iran-related subjects where there is an ongoing edit war, and promptly vanish whenever a certain group of editors gets its way. It makes it very hard for anyone to challenge these POV warriors, to the point where Wikipedia rules are being undermined. I am literally blind reverted within minutes of making an edit, even when it is simple correction of spelling and grammar."
 * [Response to "What's it to you?"]:"I am someone who has become tired of Iranian POV warriors and their sockpuppets, who act as a gang to ensure that their "truth" is enforced. I hope that by sharing information with those similarly affected can ensure greater understanding of patterns of behaviour on Wikipedia."
 * "They also ran the Iranian Wikipedians notice board as a base for edit warring and directing members of their group to make it impossible for those they disagree with to edit... They were warned by admins that unless their noticeboard was altered, it would be taken to Arbcom. I believe the situation is much the same, but that they have moved this off Wikipedia."
 * "If you notice, whenever a dispute emerges, editors who were not involved in the disputed article pile in to ensure that they win straw polls, AfDs and reversions. The chief members are Madavich, Khorshid, Azerbaijani, Sa.vakilian, Zereshk, Gol and Arash the Archer (if you try holding a straw poll, I bet these people will vote in a block - try it on "Battle of the Persian Gate" and see what happens)".

As I said, I initially ignored those emails. It was fairly obvious to me that the sender had confonted Mardavich and his group in some kind of ethnic dispute, and that he was possibly emotionally charged. Despite various allegations against me, my sole motive on my involvement in the articles where I confronted Mardavich was the enforcement of the NPOV policy and article amelioration, hence I didn't want to get involved to national conflicts (that I'm not even familiar with). Eventhough I chose to ignore this editor's approach, I couldn't help but noticing that the sender was pointing out the exact things that I had concluded myself, i.e. the existence of pro-X cabal which systematically violates NPOV. The example that he brings up on the voting, was something that me and many other non-partisan editors had already noticed in the 300 (film), where uninvolved editors appeared out of nowhere in order to vote and then disappear again. Many of the names he mentioned included users that I had already encountered in several different articles and regarded them as part of a partisan cabal, notably User:Mardavich, User:Arash the Archer, User:Azerbaijani and to a lesser degree User:Khorshid and User:Sa.vakilian. Those users are in my opinion the definition of disruptive editors: oppose/bias consensus, violate NPOV, drive away constructive contributors.

None of the above accusations can be taken for granted, in fact I'm not in position to know whether or not the sender was right or wrong during his confrontations with the group. Nonetheless, I can safely assume that the sender confronted a certain group/cabal of editors, which in my own experience makes frequent and organised violations of the NPOV policy. The fact that so many users (including the ones who preferred not to participate) have made the same conclusions on the same topic, is certainly an indicator about what needs to be remedied in wikipedia.

Any of the above evidence including full conversations, email headers etc, can be forwarded to the arbitrators at request.

I would also like to point out that during my nearly two-year history of being a wikipedian, I've had very few off-wiki contacts and no ArbCom participations. During my disputes with Mardavich I had no off-wiki contacts other than the one described above, which was after all not initiated by myself. I've known User:Dbachmann for long but I've only emailed him for the first time in order to ask him to mediate in the endless dispute in 300 (film), precisely because I consider him one of the most neutral and reasonable admins I've known so far. Same goes for User:Aldux, two of the admins who were so shamelessly accused as "sell-outs". Then again those accusations expanded to include people whom I have never met in my wiki-life, hence there should be nothing surprising there. In my opinion the arbitrators should seek "remedies" for all those people who endorsed the "backpocket admins" and the related theories, rumours that were deliberately spread by users who I consider representative of wikipedia's disruptive element. Miskin 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Swatjester's role
In my opinion, User:Swatjester's poor judgment and unorthodox behaviour were a key factor to the problem's development. His error can be summarised as such:
 * Swatjester naively trusted the baseless claims of User:Mardavich during their private communication
 * Swatjester made a wrong judgement on the nature of the disputes for which User:Miskin had been blocked in 2005, and therefore unjustly gave an one-month block. He never admitted to a mistake - insisting that they're all related topics.
 * Swatjester has shown poor understanding on wikipedia's notions of revert-warring and disruptive editing.
 * Swatjester did not hesitate to publicly endorse Mardavich's allegations on "backpocket admins" and terrorised anyone who would dare to come to User:Miskin's defence - including people who had never met me in the past
 * Swatjester started a section in AnI entitled about "backpocket admins" - instigating hateful comments and a hostile atmosphere
 * Swatjester has been extremely hostile and largely uncivil to various editors and administrators, but most of all to myself
 * Swatjester thinks in terms of his personal self-image rather than wikipedia's well-being. He has been giving blind support to Mardavich because he's unable to admit to his mistakes. He has renounced Dbachmann because of his personal dispute against him.
 * Swatjester responded to WP:3RR poorly, ignoring the behaviour of the real disruptive editors and their 3RR violations

I'm not providing any diffs about Swatjester's behaviour because most of them are already linked all over this arbcom case. I can however provide diffs in request e.g. concerning Swatjester's hostile comments in my Talk page and obtuse accusations and implications against other wikipedians (for being supposedly my "muscles"). In all honesty, I find his behaviour embarrassing, and if I had not been to the situation he got me into, I would openly declare that his position as an administrator should be taken into serious consideration. He's a new administrator who has, in my opinion, proved himself incapable of offering good service to the project. Miskin 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Swatjester
Given that diff-style evidence has been posted elsewhere, I won't duplicate their efforts. Instead, I will explain the policy involved, and state some of my reasoning before someone else decides it for me. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate policy
According to WP:3RR, users may be blocked before reaching 4 reverts. You are not entitled to 4 reverts per day. In addition, partial reverts count. Violations to the spirit of the rule are just as block worthy.

Typically blocks are 24hr in length. However, again according to WP:3RR and WP:AN3, blocks, at the administrator's discretion, may be extended to longer length.

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations."

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'.[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours."

It is completely unimportant as to whether Miskin had 4, 3 or even 2 reverts. He was still in violation of the rule. The evidence shows that Miskin easily had 4 reverts anyway, so I'm not sure why it was a big deal.

After multiple 3RR blockings, one should consider themselves well aware of the 3RR. The fact that Miskin is an established user should not be grounds for leniency, in fact, it should be grounds for greater strictness: he should simply know better. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations have been made that I did not evenly block all sides of the edit-war. This is because the only person that was brought up on the 3RR notice board was Miskin (and another user who had already been blocked). Mardavich et al were not reported on the 3RR noticeboard, and thus not considered for blocking. There is no cabal. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrative actions
I disagree with the action that Dbachmann took, and the subsequent attitude that he took. I maintain that it was against both the letter and the spirit of both WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL.

But.

A big reason that I raised it 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. I also felt hurt by his insensitive and uncollegial attitude in regards to them. I recognize that maybe he feels the same way. I completely agree with Newyorkbrad that Dbachmann's actions were in good faith. He's doing what he thinks is right. I think it's wrong. We were unable to figure it out on our own, and among other things, we're now in Arbitration on it.

I ask that the committee view Dbachmann's actions from the angle of being in good faith, and to understand that I'm not calling for his head. I don't want him desysopped, or punished, or anything like that. That would be nothing more than a punitive, vindictive nature on my behalf. I simply am asking for ArbCom review as to whether the actions of Dbachmann were appropriate. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Military comments
In light of the insensitive, and inflammatory workshop "principle" that was posted regarding my military history, I find it worthwhile to note a comment left by Dbachmann on my user talk: "you are a janitor, not a sergeant major". That's the second military related, uncivil statement directed at me. Chronologically, it was obviously first, but I find it telling that the parties involved are becoming spiteful and incivil. I'm trying my absolute hardest to maintain civility and professionalism here. Given Daniel's (not me, the other daniel: bryant) evidence regarding Dbachmann, I feel some sort of statement on civility for admins is required here, or rather that the current ones be reminded of them. Also, I should note at this point that I've tried to deescalate the situation once it came to arbitration, toning down my edits, and inserting ameliorating statements towards other editors in an attempt to maintain civility. I should hope this does not go unrequited by the other editors and specifically admins. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich admin shopped in trying to get Miskin blocked
After Sam Blacketer initially found that Miskin had not violated 3RR, Mardavich posted on Sam Blacketer's user talk page asking him to reconsider the case. In that post, Mardavich provided additional evidence that Miskin had violated 3RR, including a diff of Miskin's edit of 10:21 12 May 2007 (UTC). 16 minutes later, Mardavich posted on Swatjester's user talk page, asking him to look at the case:. 5 minutes later, Swatjester blocked Miskin for 24 hours, then extended the block to 1 month.

This is an obvious, and unfortunately successful, case of admin shopping: Mardavich didn't like Sam Blacketer's decision, so he went looking for another admin to reverse it.

Mardavich alleged that there was an email campaign to unblock Miskin
After I made a post on WP:ANI noting that Mardavich had admin shopped, he responded, and a short conversation ensued, in which Mardavich said "There's been an "email campaign" to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of pro-Greek/Greek editors/admins showing up here out of the blue (such as User:Akhilleus) is a clear indicator of that fact." . He later modified the statement to "If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue..." but despite the conditional "if", this statement implies that I posted in the thread because of behind the scenes coordination. Given that the original title of the ANI thread was Block review regarding "admins in troublesome user's back pocket" I think the role of email in this dispute needs to be examined, especially since Swatjester has acknowledged receiving email about this from an unspecified user. For my part, I'll say that I have received no email about this matter, and that I take a very dim view of off-wiki coordination of on-wiki activity.

Editing dispute on Battle of the Persian Gate
From 8 May to 11 May there was an editing dispute on Battle of the Persian Gate, with most of the activity coming on 11 May. Several users made edits that could arguably be called reverts, including Dharmender6767, Miskin, User:Arvand, User:Arash the Archer , User:RaiderAspect , User:Aldux , User:AlexanderPar , User:Ploutarchos , and User:Mardavich. On 12 May, the dispute ended, or at least paused, as Miskin's edit at 10:21 (UTC) was the only edit on the article that day.

User:Dharmender6767 violated 3RR
Dharmender6767 violated 3RR on Battle of the Persian Gate and was blocked for 24 hours. He was later indef blocked as a sockpuppet using an open proxy.

User:AlexanderPar violated 3RR on Battle of the Persian Gate

 * Previous version reverted to: 08:42, 11 May 2007 by Dharmender6767
 * 1st revert: 08:54, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert: 09:31, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 10:40, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:03, 11 May 2007

User:Ploutarchos violated 3RR on Battle of the Persian Gate

 * Version reverted to: 10:26, 11 May 2007
 * 1st revert (partial revert restoring material in "Death"/"Outcome" section): 14:11, 11 May 2007
 * 2nd revert (partial revert restoring "ambush attack"): 14:14, 11 May 2007
 * 3rd revert: 14:48, 11 May 2007
 * 4th revert: 15:16, 11 May 2007

Edit warring on Battle of the Persian Gate
Other editors made reverts and other contentious edits to the article, but did not break the 3RR.
 * For example, User:RaiderAspect reverted 4 times over a period greater than 24 hours:.
 * User:Arash the Archer reverted several times over several days:.
 * User:Aldux reverted 3 times on 11 May:.
 * User:Mardavich made several edits on 11 May that restored or removed disputed wording:  (inserts "last stand"),  ("Macedonian" instead of "Greek"),  (removes "in an ambush attack").

The 3RR rule was unevenly enforced
In spite of the fact that multiple users were edit warring, as even a cursory glance at the page history makes clear, and despite the fact that several users broke the 3RR, only Dharmender6767 and Miskin were blocked. (They were the only users in this dispute reported at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.)

The 3RR applies equally to all parties in a dispute; the header of the 3RR noticeboard says, "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." The reason for this is clear; if only one party gets blocked, it gives the impression that the admin has taken sides in a content dispute or been otherwise unduly influenced by one of the parties in the edit war.

Several times Swatjester has mentioned that 3RR isn't an entitlement, and users can be blocked at 3, 2, or even 1 revert at the discretion of an admin; what's important is the spirit of the rule. This is a correct interpretation of 3RR, but it's important to note that under this standard, almost anyone who edited Battle of the Persian Gate from 9 May-11 May could have been blocked for edit warring. Again, even a cursory glance at the page history shows a number of edits marked as reverts. Yet as far as I can see most of the reverting editors weren't even warned, much less blocked. It appears as if Miskin has been singled out for special treatment, and Mardavich's role in getting him blocked looks worrisome.

Addendum. Swatjester responded above, saying in part that "This is because the only person that was brought up on the 3RR notice board was Miskin (and another user who had already been blocked)." This response is disturbing. To quote the 3RR noticeboard again, "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." It doesn't say "sysops should treat all sides equally, as long as they've been reported to the noticeboard."

Surely Swatjester noticed that there was an edit war on Battle of the Persian Gate. It's inconceivable to me that an admin would issue a 3RR block without looking at the page history of the article where the violation allegedly occurred. If one looks at the page history of Battle of the Persian Gate, focusing on the day of 11 May (the date when most of Miskin's alleged 3RR edits were made), one sees around 60 edits by several different editors, including at least 10 edits explicitly marked as reverts, with other edit summaries indicating removal of material, controversial revisions, and outright conflict. In other words, an edit war, with multiple participants. Furthermore, the page history shows that User:Mardavich, who asked Swatjester to look at the 3RR report, was one of the parties in the dispute.

Although even a brief glance at the page history (or even the article's talk page) reveals edit warring by numerous editors, Swatjester didn't block anyone but Miskin, apparently because no one else had been reported to the 3RR board (except Dharmender6767 who was already blocked). If I'm reading Swatjester's words correctly, he didn't look carefully at Mardavich's edits, even though Mardavich had essentially asked Swatjester to block Miskin. Perhaps it's just me, but when someone makes a request like that I try to make sure that their intentions are pure.

I don't doubt Swatjester's good faith. However, I do think he didn't scrutinize the situation adequately before blocking Miskin (remember, Swatjester blocked Miskin only 5 minutes after Mardavich posted on Swatjester's talk page), and because of that, the 3RR rule has been unevenly applied.

Applicable policies and guidelines: WP:NPA and WP:Civil
No personal attacks states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It's further explained that "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is prohibited. The policy concludes that "Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to be handled through the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban". Civility is defined as "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" with "Rudeness" given as a valid example.

Miskin clearly and regularly violates WP:NPA and WP:Civil
Miskin's comments on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate: Miskin's comments on other talk pages:
 * "Arvand your edit-summary has no basis...You know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time."
 * "Someone would think that you take pleasure in victimising yourself."
 * "At least I know how to sign my name."
 * " What can I say, this is for laughs."
 * "Fair enough, I'll play along....This dispute will put the many things about disruptive nationalist editors to the test."
 * "I have nothing to discuss anymore. You're not blatantly interested in making contributions, you're only interested in passing partisan POV. "
 * "...I smelled a rat behind the pro-Iranica coalition"
 * "The article has been worse than an Iranian school book for months, and you suddenly care about how many scholars choose Diodorus over Arrian? I mean come on, show some respect."
 * "Don't make me laugh....the editors who are causing the edit wars and violate NPOV are a coalition of Iranian and/or Indian partisan users who communicate by email in order to push their POV in several different articles. "
 * "You're not being neutral Jagged and I'm sorry."
 * "And as always, yourself, Mardavich et al are the only ones having difficulties to understand what seems to be obvious to other editors"
 * This and more evidence will be posted by Friday the June 8th.

Comments regarding Akhilleus's "evidence"
Akhilleus's "evidence" contain several misleading assertions. First of all, Miskin had clearly violated WP:3RR, the closing admin Sam Blacketer had not noticed Miskin's last revert, he later recognized this fact. I originally asked Sam Blacketer to review his decision, but noticed afterward that he had left for the day, so I brought the issue to the attention of a random adminstrator who happend to be online, asking if I should re-list the 3RR report. That does not constitute "admin shopping".

As for Akhilleus's assertion that "Mardavich alleged that there was an email campaign to unblock Miskin", please note that Akhilleus originally brought up this topic, alleging that there has been an "e-mail campaign for the block". Based upon his statement, I made an observation that "If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked" since I had noticed that a disproportionate number of the individuals showing up on WP:AN/I to support Miskin, namely User:Ploutarchos, User:Aldux, User:NikoSilver and User:Akhilleus, also happened to be regulars in Greek-related topics which appeared to be suspicious. I had good reasons to be suspicious considering User:Dbachmann's unilateral and pro-active unblocking of User:Miskin, despite their close on-wiki relationship and off-wiki contacts. 

Comments regarding Miskin's "evidence"
I invite the Distinguished Members of the ArbCom to closely examine the few page diff; links User:Miskin has provided in his 6644-word evidence section and how they do not support the accusations User:Miskin has made. I respectfully submit that user:Miskin has not provided any evidence except for conspiracy theories, bad-faith assumptions, and groundless accusations. To realize how groundless User:Miskin's accusations are, the Distinguished Members of the ArbCom could take a courtesy look at my contributions and compare it to that of User:sa.vakilian, User:Agha Nader, User:Rayis and User:The Behnam who, along with every other editor of Iran-related topics, User:Miskin alleges to be my "friends", "associates" or "group". I have absolutely nothing in common with these editors ideologically or otherwise, expect for the fact that we all happen to edit Iran-related topics to varying degrees. But User:Miskin believes that I am somehow accountable for words and actions of others who he's decided to call my "friends", "associates" or "group". Ironically, all the editors user:Miskin has conveniently lumped together and calls a "group" have had numerous disputes with one and another. (Here is an example of such disputes which involves three of the editors User:Miskin alleges to be a "group")

In regards to user:Miskin's "anonymous witness" and his defamatory e-mail, the sender of this accusatory e-mail is a problematic user on a personal vendetta, with a long history of disruption, and a long block-log to his name which includes 18 blocks for posting racial slurs, incivility, edit-waring, and sock-puppetry. I expected User:Miskin to identify this "anonymous" Wikipedian, so that the public, the parties and the Distinguished Members of the ArbCom can judge for themselves the credibility of the character who is making those baseless accusations.

As I had noted in my e-mail to the Distinguished Members of the ArbCom on May 22, I am in possession of several e-mails and chat-logs that I can forward you, which may help shed some light on a lot of issues. At the moment, I am extremely busy in real life as I am in mourning because of a death in my family. But I will also provide detailed evidence of User:Miskin's own behavior at the earliest possible time within the next week.

Miskin's block log


To illustrate the time between the entries in Miskin's block log, here is a graphical timeline:

Timeline
This is a timeline of the dispute that forms the basis of this arbitration, of the administrative actions in response to the dispute, and discussions around each. It is currently more or less complete, though if there are any edits you feel should be included in it, please let me know. --bainer (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Legend

All times are in UTC. Edits unrelated to the dispute, and miscellaneous edits (such as edits by bots) are not shown.

Analysis
Having collated the timeline above, I now present my analysis of the evidence. --bainer (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users edit warred
Multiple users were engaged in edit warring on Battle of the Persian Gate over the course of several days over the sizes of the respective armies during the battle. The edit warring particularly revolved around the figures given by Encyclopædia Iranica (abbreviated to EI in the timeline and below).

The warring began over the figures and over the wording of the lede:


 * Figures, 8-9 May
 * Miskin
 * Arvand
 * Miskin
 * Arvand
 * Miskin

Jagged 85 then attempted compromise.


 * Lede, 9 May
 * Miskin
 * Arash the Archer

At this point the different revert paths merged and users were reverting both the figures, the lede and several intermediate changes too:


 * Figures, lede and other changes, 9-11 May
 * Miskin
 * Arash the Archer
 * RaiderAspect
 * Dharmender6767
 * Miskin
 * Dharmender6767
 * RaiderAspect
 * Dharmender6767
 * RaiderAspect
 * Dharmender6767
 * Aldux
 * AlexanderPar
 * RaiderAspect
 * Dharmender6767

AlexanderPar then attempted a compromise by including both sets of figures after which the reverting started again:


 * Figures, lede and other changes, 11 May
 * Miskin
 * Dharmender6767
 * Aldux
 * Dharmender6767
 * Miskin
 * Dharmender6767
 * Miskin
 * AlexanderPar

AlexanderPar then altered the figures, Ploutarchos altered the lede. There was then more reverting:


 * Lede and "outcome" section, 11 May
 * Arash the Archer
 * Ploutarchos
 * AlexanderPar
 * Ploutarchos

In the middle of this, Miskin had moved the EI figure into a footnote, and following this last batch of reverting, Miskin altered the lede once more. After this point Miskin was blocked. There was further editing, though not revert warring, to the figures on 13 - 15 May by other editors.

Multiple users were participating in discussion concurrently with edit warring
Over the course of the same time period that the above listed users were engaged in edit warring, many of them were also engaged in discussion on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate.


 * Miskin:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Dharmender6767:, , , , , ,
 * RaiderAspect:, , , ,
 * Arvand:, , ,
 * Arash the Archer:, , ,
 * AlexanderPar: ,
 * Ploutarchos: ,

As an examination of these edits and the timeline will show, many of these talk page contributions consisted of justifications for reverts just performed or about to be performed.

Allegations of off-wiki email campaign.
I've received a private email alleging that Miskin has engaged in off-wiki canvassing, as well as "threats" regarding the block. I advise the editors who have received these letters to come forward. The text of the email follows:

''As I had predicted, all the vocal Miskin supporters were apparently solicited to comment on the ArbCom's Workshop, and make a "choir" to sway the opinion of the ArbCom members. I hope the ArbCom members don't fall for this "choir", as the AN/I discussion was a spontaneous reflection of how the larger community viewed this case, whereas the discussions on the Workshop are dominated by a circle of individuals close to Miskin like Ghirlandajo, Niko Silver, and others who would support him no matter what he does or says. I wish more of the people who had spontaneously commented on AN/I, would have also commented on the actual ArbCom case. From what I recall, there were 20 such admins who commented on AN/I, I hope at least a few of them comment before the case gets closed,''

''On a side note, you might be interested to know that Miskin has been raging an e-mail campaign about the case, contacting several editors, making threatening and derogatory comments like "people who brought this on me are going to regret it" or that "Mardavich is already done for" or "Swatjester will probably get away with it; for stupidity is not punishable in wikipedia". Two of these e-mails was forwarded to me by a recipient who wanted hear my side of the story. He has not so far given me permission to disclose them. I don't wish to betray the trust of this person by publishing any part of these e-mails on evidence page, but at the same time I think the community and ArbCom members should be made aware of Miskin's off-wiki efforts to influence the outcome of the case. I'm not sure what can be done about this, do you have any suggestions?''
 * Now, I disagree about Ghirla, I think he's fairly expressing his opinion. I don't know NikoSilver, so I have no opinion. However, if these other allegations are true, this brings to new light Miskin's behavior as being extremely disruptive, and incivil. If this is true, I will suggest an immediate block for making threats against other users, as well as canvassing to abuse an arbcom case, and incivility. As stated below, I am screenshotting and uploading my ENTIRE email history regarding this case for transparency.  &rArr;   SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have been more clear: it's going to Arbcom-l, unless the people involved tell me they don't mind me releasing publically the information. &rArr;   SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  05:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial emails regarding "admins"
I am in the process of screenshotting them and uploading them. I won't bother using Wikipedia file space, I'll do it on my own servers. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin has made prejudiced comments
I encountered Miskin in the 300 film article. He made several prejudiced and uncivil comments on that article. In this edit, user Miskin said "Judging by the number of Iranian editors involved here, I wouldn't be in favour of a vote, as the result would be determined by an oligarchy". Later when I asked if the vote was biased because some users are Iranian he responded: "Yes I do, for the following reasons: (a)Iranian/partisan voters form an abolute majority over the non-Iranians..." . If we allow this user to disenfranchise users because of their nationality, what kind of precedent would we be setting? He refers to those who disagree with as a "coalition of Iranian editors". User Arcayne proposed holding a vote on settling a dispute in the wording of the lead. Whenever Miskin would count and record the vote he would not count the vote of editors who had Iranian sounding names. His comments were prejudiced since he was saying that Iranian editors cannot be trusted to be unbiased and should thus be disenfranchised. You cannot assume someone is biased because of their nationality. His disregard of the opinion of those who disagree with him based on them being "partisan" is a violation of AGF. Miskin assumed bad faith when he said Iranian are incapable of objectivity at 300 (film). I had reported to this to AN/I, which I now realize was the wrong place to post the report. This incident shows prejudice, incivility, and a disregard for AGF.--Agha Nader 03:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.