Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop

Changing the scope of the case

I think we may need to widen the scope of this case, I have to say that there is evidence to suggest that Miskin did participate in edit warring, but what I'm more concerned about is other users that were involved here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be more to this. Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) conduct really does worry me, I would go as far to say that there may be some systemic bullying going on here with Mardavich being one of the key players, and this isn't just in this particular edit war. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Is there a way to change the scope of the case? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich already is listed as a party to the case, though I don't believe anyone has submitted much evidence directly concerning him. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Miskin intends to submit such evidence. I also believe that Mardavich is involved in a wider dispute with Miskin; see Last stand for example. It's not totally clear to me whether it's ok to include this in the case, or whether it's supposed to be limited to the events surrounding Swatjester's block of Miskin. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Last stand? I've never edited that page. Also, you made several misleading assertions in your evidence section, to which I will respond in due time. --Mardavich 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't submitted evidence yet, but I've been looking over plenty of diffs, and I can't help but think somethings seriously wrong here - I haven't got time to put evidence together at the minute (final year exams next week), but I don't want this to slip through. I'm sure I recollect Mardavich being involved in another arbitration case where he helped get editors banned/put on revert parole - I'll have a look for it tomorrow. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I concur, Ryan. It's not a run-of-the-mill 3RR case. I'm concerned about Mardavich and the part they played in this in seemingly pushing a 3RR block through. Also the accusations of "admins in pockets" needs to to be clarified regardless of its veracity. - Alison ☺ 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan: Mardavich was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, but didn't play much of a role in the case. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mardavich, is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:ManiF (who is subject to different sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman). I think the arbitrators have already been e-mailled about this.--Ploutarchos 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, I'll keep looking, but as I said previously, I'm almost positive that there is more to this than meets the eye, just looking at some of the diffs from Mardavich makes me think there's a group bullying campaign going on in an attempt for him, and a number of other editors to get what they want. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think about this evidence presented by Miskin? It's part of what I'm trying to get at. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• ?? Broken link, Ryan - Alison ☺ 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume Ryan is referring to the evidence that Miskin added within the past couple of hours about "the Group." Newyorkbrad 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Link corrected, NYB's right, the 'group' evidence is what I'm getting at. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide further evidence, diffs and suggestions in the workshop about this topic. It will be up to the arbitrators to decide. Miskin 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• We should widen the scope of this case, to study the the systematic, organized, and wide scale POV-pushing going on Greek-related topics involving Ploutarchos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (under his various user-names like User:Domitius), User:Miskin and others who I will not name for now ( but will if I have too) verses various Turkish, Macedonian, and Albanian editors. --Mardavich 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Threaded comments from "Questions to SwatJester"

What multiple users? The X nationalist alliance? The emails need to be posted in public or not mentioned at all. Swatjester is deliberately poisoning people's opinions by implying "I've got all the info but it's too shocking to reveal", whereas in reality he has simply been a victim of manipulation. Until you post that evidence to everybody you've got nothing, and please stop making such ridiculous implications. Miskin 00:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stay in your own section. I've only said that I will send these emails to the Arbitration Committee. I've made that very clear: emails sent to me in confidence will be kept confidential, with the exception of (as mentioned) forwarding to the ArbCom, who maintain confidentiality themselves.

Note that I'm not on the ArbCom mailing list, so I won't see (and shouldn't see) anything submitted confidentially there. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression you were a clerk, or that clerks see the list. In any event, point taken. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks, though I have recused myself from acting as such in this case. However, clerks do not have read access to the arbitrators' mailing list. Newyorkbrad 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "communications from Miskin" you mean messages in other editors/admins userpages, then you need to consider seriously your role as an administrator. If I had ever wanted to do something immoral, do you think I would have been stupid enough to do it in someone's talk page? Apparently you've never thought of that since you didn't suspect Mardavich for preferring an email communication rather than wikipedia. I called many editors to make a POV-check and asked from various admins to become mediators regarding Mardavich's partisan group and its organised POV-pushing (detailed in evidence). User:Mardavich told you in an email that I had many friends (editors and admins) and you bought it. You said he named people - well, if you had done the slightest research before throwing around accusations, you would have known that he named the people I asked to be mediators. You were wrong and unable to admit it. How come you don't want to post the "interesting emails" right here? I'm asking you right now. Let us all see what's so interesting and convincing and confidential about it. The fact that you were warned that "Miskin would be unblocked within 24 hours" is a really weak excuse. This categorises many editors and admins who have never met me in the past as "people in my backpocket". Instead of insisting about such absurd allegations you might as well make it easier on yourself by admitting to a mistake, although I think that I'm asking too much. Miskin 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Concerning this statement [1], your excuse reveals poor knowledge of the WP:3RR policy. Please read it again, it's your responsibility to treat all parties equally before applying blocks. Miskin 01:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an arbitration workshop, not an accusation fest. Please try to maintain a civil attitude, and stop throwing about accusations. Also, there's no real reason for you to be cluttering up this section, it's for questions to the parties. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

It's easy for you to ask from other people to remain calm Swatjester, you're not the one who's being accused, insulted and judged. I'll post some diffs about your own civilty in the evidence page. My last section there will be about you, the way you handled this subject, and your recent behaviour. Miskin 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nice way to dodge my questions. Miskin 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way Swatjester I'm not being uncivil to you, I'm only asking you to stop calling me a disruptive editor and an edit-warrior. Do you expect me to just sit by and listen to this without reacting? This is rather offensive. If there's one here who's been throwing about accusations that would be you. Miskin 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the reason I'm posting this in the ArbCom page is due to the fact that I'm not allowed to edit anything, not even your user page. Miskin 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposed principle #8, "Overturning blocks"

I moved this discussion from the Workshop page to this talk page because it seemed to be cluttering the page, and it's not directly relevant to the proposal. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester is correct that it is not physically possible for an administrator to change the wording of a block once it is entered. Perhaps Miskin is confusing this with something else? Newyorkbrad 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: the block log, Miskin might be referring to the fact that Swatjester initially said that Miskin had "Seven blocks for disruption on 300/persian war related articles" [2], when those blocks were for 3RR on Macedonia-related stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, it's due to a mislabeling, but I still lump all the articles together in terms of being ancient greece/macedonia involved. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you're lumping all these articles together, but I'm getting the impression that you consider all of Miskin's 3RR blocks to be part of the same, long-running dispute--that's based on your initial statement that the articles were all "300/persian war related articles". But it's not true that all of these articles are "ancient greece/macedonia involved"; Miskin's edits to Epirus, for which he was blocked, had mainly to do with medieval and modern history of the region, at least 1000 years after any period that could be called "ancient Greece". Perhaps more importantly, in 2005 Miskin was fighting with Slavic nationalists; right now he's fighting with Iranian nationalists. To draw an analogy, putting all these articles together is like lumping Invasion of Canada (1775), Oregon boundary dispute and International Falls, Minnesota together--all of these articles are "us/canada related", but disputes on those articles would almost certainly be different disputes, and if they were separated by two years it would be difficult to conclude that they were all related. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to carry on your analogy, all of those things ARE related. If I held a very pro-US anti-Canada POV, I could push it in all three of those articles by edit warring. That's my point. If I were to edit Israel, Jordan, Shin Bet/Shabak, Lebanon, and Exodus, those things are all related: they are all middle east articles, and they all can be tied to Israel. They all however, refer to very different things and points in time. However, if I wanted to push an Israeli POV, I could do so on all of those articles. That is what point I am trying to make here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If your point is that Miskin is pushing a pro-Greek POV and that all of his 3RR violations are related to that, I think you need to provide evidence for that assertion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence, propose a finding of fact to that effect, and perhaps propose a remedy for it. Otherwise I think this discussion is somewhat irrelevant. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I find it quite disturbing that you generalize editors who have had difficulties with Miskin's disruptive editing as "X nationalists". There's no disputing the fact that Miskin's blocks have been the result of edit-waring on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view. --Mardavich 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with the disputes to adequately characterize Miskin's opponents, and "X nationalists" is probably too generalized, so I apologize. What I should have said is that Miskin has been in conflict with different groups of editors in these disputes. I'll also point out that it's contradictory to complain about the "X nationalists" characterization while simultaneously saying that he's "edit-waring on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view." Technically correct, I guess, but you're essentially calling him a Greek nationalist. Also, if you wish to characterize his editing as disruptive you should provide diffs of such behavior in the Evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How am I pushing pro-anything POV since every time I contested Mardavich I was on the side of a multi-ethnic editor group versus Mardavich's standard pro-X partisan coalition? This accusation doesn't make any sense, unless of course we consider Mardavich's absurdities about "Miskin's friends". The theory implies that I'm "friends" with a huge number of wikipedia editors/admins (of irrelevant ethno-cultural background) so everytime I have a content dispute they join my side, only for the sake of our precious friendship. Make your own conclusions. Miskin 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester please read my edits in the evidence page, and make sure you read the diffs in the section about Mardavich and his activity. I'm sure you'll reconsider who has been doing pro-X edits and NPOV violations, as well as who has been protecting NPOV. The fact that my "side" was always composed by people of non-partisan background (and people who I had confronted in the past) proves that I was one of the "good guys", or at least in the neutral side. The reason I was there was due to the fact that I was familiar with the specific topic and therefore able to notice a POV. It has nothing to do with pushing my own POV. Miskin 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop making bad-faith assumptions about the ethnicity of other editors. The dispute involved editors of various backgrounds who opposed you. --Mardavich 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you give some examples of such editors? :) I know that there was an Italian, a Dutchman and a German supporting Miskin (and later someone Swiss). Pretty ethnic diverse, don't you think?--Ploutarchos 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And there was an Indian, a Canadian, and a Bangladeshi opposing Miskin. Regardless, editors' actual or presumed nationality is irrelevant to this discussion. In Wikipedia, we don't treat or value other contributors based on racial, ethnic or national profiling. --Mardavich 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But I don't think what Mardavich just said is consistent with his earlier statement that Miskin "edit-war[s] on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is consistent with my earlier statement. Miskin could be from Mars for all I care - it's his behavior that's the problem, not his presumed nationality. Of course, I will provide evidence to this effect. --Mardavich 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe it is his behavior that's problematic, it seems like it would behoove you to stop referring to his "Greek point of view." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To Mardavich: If by Canadian user you mean Arvand then you're wrong to think that he opposed me. He made edits on my version, except that he initially preferred 25K over 40K [3], until Aldux and other editors pointed out that 40K it was a consensus figure [4]. Jagged89 (bangladeshi) did not oppose me either, we've worked together in several occasions and I know that he abides by NPOV. He never reverted me, Aldux, Raider nor anyone who was restoring the NPOV version from Dharmender's trolling. As for the Indian User:Dharmender6969, I give you that, he was on your side - except that as a sockpuppet he was probably under a fake identity. I would advise you from now on to be backing up your claims with diffs, you've spread enough false allegations already. Miskin 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

More diffs proving that Mardavich and his group constantly find themselves confronting neutral, non-partisan editors on a regular basis: [5][6]. Are those people who oppose Mardavich "anti-Iranian editors" and "Miskin's friends" as they call them or are they just random people who defend NPOV? Make your own conclusions. There's no point arguing with Mardavich until a checkuser is established. Miskin 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To Akhilleus: Absolutely not, I made that judgment based on his behavior, one's nationality is irrelevant to one's views. One could be Italian, and have a Greek point of view. I, myself, have a Greek point of view on many modern issues. Greece is embroiled in a row with Turkey, Republic of Macedonia, etc. and those who take Greece's side, share the Greek point of view. --Mardavich 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

When this group behaviour becomes an organised attempt to violate NPOV there's a problem. Nobody told you not to be in the wikiprojet Iran or have an interest in Iranian articles, but when you and your group constantly find yourselves against non-partisan editors, calling them anti-X and pro-X, then there's an obvious problem. Repeated coincidence is not a coincide. Miskin 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Miskin's claims, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Thebainer clearly establishes that Miskin engaged in a revert war with both Jagged89 and Arvand. --Mardavich 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting once per a given reason is not edit-warring, unless of course you're suggesting that all wikipedians are edit-warriors. Jagged89 did not disagree with the consensus version (and trust me if he thought there was an NPOV violation he would have), and Arvand disagreed only on whether 40K should be preferred over 25K in the infobox. In other words, neither Arvand nor Jagged ever supported the old version. Provide some diffs to prove the opposite (as I did above), and stop implying there there's a West (Europe-America) versus East (Asia) conflict. There's largely a "wikipedians versus a partisan coalition conflict", or at least that's the impression that everyone gets after they have confronted you [7][8]. Miskin 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't justify your actions by coming up with conspiracy theories. It looks to me like all you've been doing in your defense is making bad-faith allegations against me and others you disagree with, or repeating such bad-faith allegations that have been refuted.[9] By the way, who said anything about "West versus East conflict"? I've said all along that editors' actual or presumed race, ethnicity, and nationality is irrelevant to this discussion. You, on the other hand, have been trying to make a simple content dispute into an ethnic or national conflict from the very beginning, by bringing up the issue of editors' ethnicity or going as far as making false claims on behalf of the community that "wikipedia gives priority to Western scholarship" [10] --Mardavich 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My being in defence is the result of your bad faith, disruptive editing. I've provided my evidence, as have other people, let the arbitrators decide. I never expected you to admit to what's going on. Miskin 22:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

Guys, stop all the arguments. This isn't doing anyone any favours, if I could suggest both Mardavich (talk · contribs) and Miskin (talk · contribs) to go and find some evidence and put it on the evidence page if they've got any problems with one another - this is not the place start a war. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do that. Thanks for your advise. --Mardavich 21:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And unfortunately it's still going on at the workshop page. Accusing Mardavich of editwarring is beyond the scope of this arbitration, which is about Miskin's actions, and Dbachmanns actions, and my block. You guys need to stop, seriously. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mardavich's conduct is outside the scope of the case, as it was his admins in his back pocket email that kicked all this off. If there's evidence to suggest Mardavich has been in the wrong, my impression is that it certainly can include him considering he's an involved party. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester there's a huge irony when you accuse other people for having admins in their backpockets while at the same time you have been the most one-sided person of the dispute. Not only you haven't applied 3RR equally as the policy states, but now you continue to support Mardavich and his group and have it exactly the way they wanted, i.e. make it seem as if this whole mess is all about my imaginary edit-warring, 3RR-violations of 2005 and my near-vandalist behaviour. As for Mardavich and his crew, my elaboration in the evidence page is just about the evident clues. The real evidence has been forwarded to the arbitrators. The fact that you consider dbachmann as a supposedly involved party while you insist on excluding Mardavich is just _laughable_. Miskin 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Provocations

The workshop page has been turned into the "do your best to piss off Miskin and accuse him for uncivilty" page so I'll stop replying there. If Mardavich wants to continue the discussion then it should be moved in the Talk page. I'm still waiting for evidence on the accusations about the emails he allegedly received from at least three different users, which is the only thing that is relevant to the arbitration page. My reactions cannot be judged a posteriori to what Mardavich has said. If it is proved that his claims about those emails are a lie, then my reactions will be justified.

The proposal I made in respect to Swatjester's uncivilty is also irrelevant and against WP:POINT. However, as another editor pointed out, Swatjester should also be subjected to remedy proposals, though I don't expect from anyone but myself to be interested in making them. After all Swatjester is an admin, I'm just a normal editor. Miskin 12:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done.

I'm sick and tired of the trash spewing, the animosity, this misquotations, and the bad faith being displayed by Miskin and NikoSilver in this case. I'm done with it. I'm removing it from my watch list, I'm not going to be checking it again, I want no further contact on my talk page about it from anyone except the clerks notifying me that it has either moved to voting or been closed. Congratulations. You've upset an admin and a longstanding editor to the point of apathy. If that's not disruptiveness, I don't know what is. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement was made after the following comments [11]. Just keeping it within context. Miskin 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)