Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

On the 3RR
As I have pointed out many times in the past, I was consciously not edit-warring during my second and third reverts and I did not make a fourth revert in that article. User:Dharmender6767, a new user with no understanding of WP:POLICY, had been edit-warring all morning on May 11 and I had chosen not to participate. 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). At that point, my conscious participation in the edit-war (regarding my first revert) aimed at showing group preference and editor consensus. Note that unlike other users, 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 enforce User:Dharmender6767's disruptive behaviour (which some have called trolling). On the other hand I had been discussing this matter for days and had come to an agreement with various established, non-partisan users, hence my edit-summary "back to Raider - please participate in the ongoing discussion". All of this can be verified in the article's talk page, as well as my contribution list.

By that afternoon User:Dharmender6767 had, despite multiple 3RR warnings, broken 3RR in at least two articles and found himself listed under 3RR. It had become evident to everybody that he was not to be regarded as a serious contributor. The only user who had showed support for his edits was User:AlexanderPar, who, as I've already stated, had never participated in the article's Talk page up to that point (Dharmender had). 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). As my edit summary reveals I had no intention of 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. I did make three reverts, yet only one of them was part of an actual edit-war, and even that one was made within reason (the editor had not participated in our lengthy discussion). Despite all accusations from involved editors like User:AlexanderPar, I did not participate in the edit-war that they instigated. It is at the least ironic to find myself punished, judged, and humiliated in such manner. One thing that should be noted is AlexanderPar's cunning behaviour. He awaited for other users to "waste" their reversions on Darmender's trolling, giving them the false impression that he had stopped supporting him. He then suddenly reappeared and reverted to his preferred non-consensus version, knowing that no-one would be able to contest him for another 24 hours.

His strategy was successful. All of a sudden more editors (belonging to a specific culture/ethnicity) showed up in order to offer support to the version of their preference, which involved undisputed NPOV violations. As a reaction to this, I felt that the only way of protecting NPOV would be to invite more non-partisan editors. Thus I left messages to a handful of editors and admins whom I knew to be familiar/interested in the topic at hand. At that point provokative statements were made against me in the Talk page, allegedly accusing me for "inviting my friends" (something that was amazingly believed later by Swatjester). The greatest irony in this was the fact that the editors of the opposing party were all known partisans of a specific pro-X ethnicity, while the rest of the editors were of mixed/irrelevant background, albeit familiar with ancient history topics. It was as if they were trying to stop me from involving more uninvolved editors. At that point two things were obvious to me:
 * The dispute's outcome was no longer decidedable by a clear editor consensus
 * The group of newcomers who supported Dharmender and AlexanderPar did not see NPOV as a priority (my queries in the talk page remained unanswered)

With that in mind I decided to start making fresh edits, in hopes of reaching a compromise solution between the opposing parties. I started by rewriting the fields in the infobox - which was by the way presented as an alleged fourth "partial revert". What was regarded as a fourth partial revert by Swatjester was in reality but a simple edit, largely attempting to make a compromise. I urge the arbitrators to make a comparison between the version of the undisputed three reverts and the version of the alleged fourth "partial revert". This edit was of course reverted. Further proof that this edit was intended as a compromise would be next day's edit which was a copy-edit in the head, i.e. a part of the article. It can be also seen that I was the first person to reassume good faith and bring this up in Talk. On the other hand AlexanderPar reached three reverts, all by conscious edit-war participation, without having offered prior input to the article's talk page.

On Swatjester's decision and AnI
On the next day I was puzzled to find myself blocked. The admin (swatjester) had not provided any concrete reasons for the block, as if it had been about something fairly obvious. I initially assumed that there had been a mistake, an IP confusion or something of the sort. I found out what actually went on when I visited swatjester's Talk page. The "group" of editors in question (whom I have confronted in several articles) had wanted me out of the picture. Apparently they had been trying to trap me under 3RR for a while now but with no luck. It should be noted that the alleged 3RR violation which later got me blocked for one month, was initially judged as a non-violation (correctly noticing that the alleged fourth revert was a compromise edit). The group of editors probably realised that the admins in the 3RR board were too experienced to fall for their scheme, and thus decided to approach an admin at random (or possibly one who enjoys giving out blocks). Of course their communication took place via email, so that no-one wouldn't be able to interfere. This is how they found Swatjester and convinced him that he had to "review" the violation. In this manner Swatjester was manipulated to be used as their proxy, and suddenly, the non-violation becomes a one-month block.

After my block was put, I found myself getting judged and accused in AnI for irrelevant things, mainly in reference to my 3RR violations and disruptive behaviour that occurred in 2005, when I was admittedly an innexperienced, passionate editor with a poor understanding of WP:POLICY and its spirit. Some of those blocks were borderline cases and were removed, however that doesn't change the fact that I had consciously put myself in borderline situations. This is true for all 6 blocks I've received, _except_ the block of September 2006 which had no basis whatsoever (unilateral moves?) and was removed without prior thinking. Hence why I'm not counting it. I have repeatedly urged Swatjester to go through my contributions and find the last time I came close to edit warring, or even the last time I surpassed two reverts in 24 hours. He failed to find something. Similarly, I urge people like Guy who is accusing me below for being "a disruptive edit warrior whose behaviour continues despite numerous blocks" to do the same, i.e. find me those instances of recent disruptive editing and edit-warring. If it is so obvious as they claim, then it shouldn't be so hard to prove it with some diffs. If they also fail to do so, then I would like to ask from them to refrain from making baseless accusations. Same goes for User:Ryan Postlethwaite. I have expressed my feelings on this matter in my talkpage. I find accusations about "admins in backpockets" very serious I would like to ask from the arbitrators not only to investigate those allegations (maybe by examining the content-dispute at hand), but also to hold the accusators responsible of their words. And this of course includes editors like User:Mardavich who deliberately spread those baseless rumours, as well as editors like User:Swatjester and User:Ryan Postlethwaite who have been so easily manipulated into believing it.

I must admit that in the beginning of this debate I was disappointed about two things: Regardless, I initially didn't hold any grudges against Swatjester, despite the fact that he made it seem as if I had wronged him in a past life. I thought he had been manipulated by User:Mardavich and his associates (via email of course) into thinking that he was doing the right thing. I still believe that this is the case, however, after having witnessed the endorsement of "backpocket admins" allegations and other out-of-order statements, I just think that he's simply too dangerous to be an administrator. All that he gains in passion and good will is negatively compensated by his bad judgement and lack of common sense.
 * How easily nationalist coalitions can manipulate admin opinion in order to breach NPOV
 * How unorganised and inefficient the AnI can be

On the problem's root
The group/coalition of users mentioned above is composed mainly by editors such as User:Mardavich, User:Arash the Archer, User:Azerbaijani, User:AlexanderPar, all known supporters of a common ethno-cultural group, who have been frequently accused for making organised attempts at violating NPOV (though by now it has become more than a certainty). I have confronted those users in several articles, where they would usually form a majority over the neutral (non-partisan) editors and present a pseudo-consensus as an argument to violate NPOV (claiming always that consensus view is above everything). Most of the time it works because few people tend to stick up for NPOV against a majority, the average editor will let it go. I was one of those people who would not, and this is why I became a target of elimination.

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 "Miskin's friend", and therefore 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).

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. Strangely enough, those names were not even mentioned as "involved parties". Of course I won't fall down to the level to speak about "backpocket admins", but I think it goes to show how some people have got it all wrong. There's indeed a much greater problem than a non-existant 3RR violation. Miskin 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Christopher Parham
I don't believe Swatjester's block length, or his approach to Miskin in general, was appropriate. Miskin has thousands of article and article talk edits in the 17 months since his substantial troubles in December 2005. All indications developed so far are that, after a rude awakening, he is attempting to work constructively and within guidelines, and has until now mainly succeeded. Swatjester reacted to a relatively minor 3RR violation by blocking for one month and indicating that a further violation would result in an indefinite block. Threatening an indefinite block on a long-term, generally constructive user for two 3RR violations in the last 18 months or more seems very excessive. The block summary described Miskin as having "clearly no intent of editing constructively." Given Miskin's 18 months of generally acceptable behavior and thousands of article edits, this seems a highly inappropriate and unfair statement.

Thus I believe Dbachmann's assertion that Swatjester is "throwing his weight around" is understandable. At the very least, Swatjester employed WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK in a way actively detrimental to the best interests of the encyclopedia, alienating a generally constructive editor through the highly mechanical employment of escalating blocks. The fact that between applying an initial 3RR block and then extending it, Swatjester took a mere two minutes (5:55 to 5:57, see block log). I don't believe this is indicative of a thoughtful approach to blocking a long-term contributor for one month -- two minutes seems a short time to decide that someone with 7000 edits has no intent to improve the encyclopedia. I think it is indicative of a mechanical escalation that while perhaps common, produced an unhelpful result in this case. Dbachmann's failure to contact Swatjester before commuting part of the block is mitigated by the extreme nature of the initial block and block summary.

As for arbitration I do not see a basis for such at the moment. No significant dispute resolution has been attempted in either the edit wars which produced the problem or the recent dispute over the block. Miskin needs further improvement in his demeanor and editing practices, but I think that forgetting this incident, which caused significant understandable exacerbation, is the best first step in that process. (On 2nd thought, Guy is probably right that a revert parole may be helpful.) Christopher Parham (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy
SWATjester clearly failed in his duties as an administrator here: before blocking a prolific edit warrior with a long history of blocks for disruptive revert warring, one must first fill out Form 22356b in triplicate, submit the pink copies with form ADM996/02 to the Cabal, raise the issue on the Village Pump/Indulgences craved by humble admins and wait the statutory three months before assuming consensus exists to block a disruptive edit warrior whose behaviour continues despite numerous blocks.

Oh, wait, was that a tiny bit sarcastic?

Question 1: Is Miskin's editing practice a problem? Hell yes, some times at least. Has he learned from the numerous blocks and comments he's received about this? Hell no. No, that's unfair: he has learned some, but still sometimes reverts to type. So: ArbCom may have a job to do here. It is quite likely that a revert parole at least is in order, and perhaps some kind of article parole. Yes, Miskin is causing disruption and needs someone whose authority he is willing to accept to correct the problem.

Question 2: Was SWATjester's response to the latest bit of edit-warring problematic? Not especially. Maybe a week would have been uncontroversial, maybe some would dispute it altogether, but prolific edit warriors blocked for edit warring is not exactly an example of rouge admin abuse. At worst it's an honest mistake in the heat of the moment. If it is indeed a mistake, which is open to debate.

So. I'd say there is a problem to be fixed here, and some of those above seem to have misidentified it. We do accommodate problematic but on balance positive editors, like Giano, and I have no reason to believe Miskin's behaviour is unfixable, but he is clearly not an unproblematic editor. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
I think Miskin's block log speaks for itself on a number of issues, regardless of when the blocks have been imposed, he is an edit warrer, he knows the consequences of his actions and knows that it will lead to a block. SWATjester's resonse to another 3RR violation was to block for a month, possibly a tad excessive, but certainly understandable given the circumstances. What the community has now settled on is a 1 week block which almost all agree is the correct action - therefore this request could seam moot. However, there are a couple of issues which the committee may wish to look at: Firstly, Miskin's conduct throughout hhis time here with the possibility of putting him on revert parole - I think this may be required here. Secondally, and perhaps the most serious, now I quote, Miskin seems to have "admins in his back pocket" and they seam all to willing to step up and unblock Miskin the minute he get's into trouble, I would suggest that ArbCom look at the conduct of these administrators (if there is firm evidence of who is responsible).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cool Cat
I am here because I was prompted to. I haven't conducted an investigation nor am I aware of the edit behaviour of the users involved at this point so I am more than disqualified to actually comment in a meaningful manner. However, I feel User:Miskin should be unblocked so he can participate in this discussion. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by commenting Ghirla
I confess to have never seen Miskin before yesterday but I tend to give credence to Dbachmann's characterization of him as a productive editor who made some mistakes in the distant past. I was prompted to decry the original month-long block for two simple reasons:

1. I was taken aback by this edit summary, which seem to have contained elements of baiting. One of Miskin's opponents apparently characterized him as an inveterate troublemaker in an e-mail to the blocking admin, which resulted in this controversial block. I don't believe that decisions about month-long blocks of long-standing contributors are supposed to be taken as a result of private communications in a spirit of secrecy and obfuscation.

2. Several commentators on WP:ANI were keen to justify the block by allusions to Miskin's apparently "dirty" log. I urge the arbitrators to comment on the developing practice of appeals to block logs. When someone cited Miskin's positive contributions, he was told that it does not matter. On the other hand, negative contributions are taken into account and remain a permanent stain. I assure you that I'm not the only one who fails to understand why an unfairly smeared block log should remain a "permanent record." Please clarify. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ploutarchos
Hello. To my understanding this is how the events unfolded:

Miskin was reported for violating the 3RR. The first admin to decide the case decided that it was not worth blocking him. Swatjester then turns up and decides that he will block Miskin for one month for the purported 3RR violation and claims that Miskin has"clearly no intent of editing constructively". Swatjester came into this after a bit of forum shopping against the original decision and a purported e-mail. Regarding the e-mail, God knows what was written in it, but it was obviously pure poison (and likely contained plenty of blatant lies too), so as to cause Swatjester to take action in the unproportionate, abrasive, bully-like and perhaps even fanatical way he did. As for who the sender was, we are not told, although I have a pretty shrewd idea myself of who it was.

I strongly disagree with Swatjester's handling of the issue. Miskin has not been blocked for violating the 3RR since 2005. He has been more active since then without violating the 3RR; in my view that does not constitute proof that Miskin had "clearly no intent of editing constructively" (as Swatjester puts it). I suspect the influence of that e-mail here; as far as I can tell, Swatjester's view does not emerge from the facts. That one month block was totally out of proportion, considering it was inflicted without warning on a user who had not been blocked for violating the 3RR in 17 months. Claims of aggravating elements are not to be taken seriously IMO - Miskin's conduct on that page was no worse than that of any other editor there. That sudden one month block was so ridiculous that it was obvious from that start that t would eventually get overturned and it came as no surprise to me that that was the outcome of Miskin's appeal (adding the unblock template). Questions posed by Swatjester over the legitimacy of this action resulted in this dispute.

There's much more for me to say, but it has already been covered by other editors, so there's no reason to flood this page further.

Requests to the committee

 * 1) It is my firm belief that is a sockpuppet of a user banned from editing Iran-related articles in Requests for arbitration/Aucaman, probably . I consider this issue relevant as AlexanderPar was a participant in the edit war which got Miskin blocked. Resources controlled by the committee such as temporary restoration of deleted evidence and IP checks will be necessary for this.
 * 2) Could the committee issue guidelines on how to interpret certain ambiguities in policy, such as the status of open proxy edits, edits by banned users (including those on partial/topic bans), edits made in violation of a revert parole etc for the purposes of assessing a 3RR violation. This issue was raised by me (and heavily disputed) during the discussions and a definitive answer by the committee could be useful in future cases.

Statement and motion by Newyorkbrad
I must be missing some aspect of this entire situation, which has spun out of control in a rapid, remarkable, and regrettable way. I am frankly shocked that in less than 24 hours this matter has been transformed from a routine allegation of a 3RR violation into an arbitration case.

I was planning to place a statement here, but given that the case now seems destined for acceptance, I will wait until the case opens (if it does) and present my detailed thoughts on the /Evidence page.

This may be procedurally premature until the case opens, but I move (or when the case opens will move on the /Workshop, but this page has a level of attention that the Workshop right after the case opens will not, so I'd prefer for the matter to be addressed now) that Miskin be unblocked so that he can participate in the case. I do not believe that such unblock needs to be limited to editing the arbitration pages only (although that would obviously be better than nothing). There is recent precedent for allowing a full unblocking of case participants in these circumstances (see, Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop), and I do not believe that Miskin represents such a clear and present danger to the encyclopedia that he needs to remain blocked during the case. In fact, it would obviously be quite foolish for him to be on anything other than his best behavior while an ArbCom case was pending against him. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Aldux
I'm probably the admin that has most often interacted, as well as most often clashed, with Miskin, as it's almost two years I know him, and I can say that Miskin, while he remains often too confrontational on talk pages, has made enormous progresses, as from his block log should be blatantly evident, and has become a quality mainspace contributor; punish him for misbehaviour committed in 2005 seems to me by far excessive, and more important, of no help to the encyclopedia. With all the respect for the original blocking admin, Swatjester, I believe he has committed an obvious misjudgement, reacting, to use the same words of Cristopher, "to a relatively minor 3RR violation by blocking for one month and indicating that a further violation would result in an indefinite block."--Aldux 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Viridae Talk
I followed this on WP:ANI and feel compelled to comment here. Old blocks should have no bearing on treatment of a user, if they are completely clean and completely changed, but as I stated at ANI, that he has broken 3RR again, a rule he is quite obviously very aware of because as evinced by the block log, justifies a harsher block than what would have been imposed on an editor that broke the rule for the first time. If, he had only broken 3RR once or twice during his initial time at wikipedia, I would agree that a longer block would be harsh. But considering that he broke 3RR (and was blocked for it - it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that some 3RR offenses go unreported) a total of 5 times previously, then I don't think the week long block imposed by Alison is at all unreasonable. No editor in good standing should have cause to break 3RR ever. Simple as that.

On the subject of the subsequent, unblocking and re-blocking. I believe that the month long block imposed by Swatjester was overly harsh. However that it was shortened by (what I believe to be) an admin with a conflict of interest, having had many interactions with Miskin previously, without refferal to the blocking admin or either of the administrators noticeboards is extremely bad form. Undoing another admins actions without discussion is at least tantamount to wheel warring and is very bad form. Viridae Talk 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Pan Gerwazy
Though I think I have never met User:Miskin, I find it rather strange that after administrators conceding or at least not denying that the very edit which sparked the canvasing for a block against him, was in reality an attempt at finding a compromise, he should now be accused of incivility, being a disruptive editor, not having learnt his lesson, and so on. The long block that it took an administrator two minutes to decide, was not even the subject of a warning. Having been involved in and witnessed a number of nationalist POV induced discussions, I would tend to think that seen in this light, the one-month block seems at least somewhat excessive.

However, the main point of my coming here is to express my astonishment that although User:Swatjester promised that both sides of the edit warring would be investigated, User:AlexanderPar is not mentioned as an involved party, which he obviously is, as he participated both in the edit warring and in the discussion on WP:ANI.

I also strongly support User:Ploutarchos's second request to the Committee. This must be cleared once and for all. For instance, can an anonymous IP who is forever reverting, even after receiving a warning on his talk page and not denying that he is a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user impose his version for 23 hours because established users do not dare infringe 3RR ? In that case, the sock had the misfortune that editors defending the consensus did not all live in the same time zone - but that is not always the case in tribal wars.--Pan Gerwazy 11:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)