Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Revert wars considered harmful

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Three revert rule

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Provocation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

No entitlement to 3 reverts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Unblocking

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Overturning blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being specific. I was referring to Swatjester's undecidability on the nature of my previous blocks. First he said it was a 300/Persian [9] but then he corrected this to something much more general [10]. However he never admitted to a mistake. This error was apparently evident to dbachmann and the other editors who have clashed with me in the past, hence why they were more entitled to judge me. Had Swatjester simply admitted that he was wrong about the 2005 blocks being on the same topic, the matter would have never reached ArbCom. Yet I do hope that something good will come out of it after all (but not for me). Miskin 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support - makes perfect sense to me - Alison ☺ 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

Open proxies banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Two of Miskin's reversions were reversals of edits made by Dharmender6767 [11][12], who was editing through an open proxy [13]. John254 01:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly disagree. There was nothing certain about Dharmender at the time but it was fairly obvious to everybody that something was wrong. Many commented on this [14] and the guy had been blocked 8 times in less than 48 hours (only twice by myself and only when I thought that he was already blocked). Please PGK and Jester, stop bullying editors who do not agree with you. I've never talked to nor met John254 prior to this incident, and yet you accuse him for "lawyering", implying that he's another member of Miskin's imaginary cabal. Swatjester has already bullied enough editors on this aspect, including editors I've never met before [15]. A remedy should be proposed for all the people who bought Mardavich's allegations on "Miskin's friends" - i.e. his deliberate attempts to prevent neutral users from expressing their opinions. Miskin 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The particular case's retroactive enforcement is irrelevant to the big picture. I agree that ArbCom should help clarify the content of the WP:3RR policy to explicitly include or explicitly exclude proxy edits within its current wording. It now states in the exceptions: "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block". NikoSilver 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user wasn't banned or blocked at the time. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I thought that the user had already been blocked by the time I reverted him. He had broken 3RR in at least one other article (last stand I think), and I had already warned him about the policy over five times. He wouldn't take it from me and I thought he needed to hear it from an admin so I left messages to Dmcdevit and FPS about his disruptive behaviour. Alas it wasn't until he made 10 reverts in one day and was reported under 3RR that got himself blocked. I reverted him in order to avoid having the article protected to a bad, non-consensus version. Disruptive editors and vandals should not be given the chance to have an impact on a dispute. Had the page been locked to the bad version due to his disruptive behaviour, it would have proved the opposite i.e. that any kind of disruption can have an impact. Seriously, by the time I was reverting Dharmender6767 I thought that such logic would be taken for granted. Two of my three reverts were made in order to protect wikipedia from a disruptive editor who should have been blocked long ago. I still contend that there was no fourth revert, and yet here I am being accused as a disruptive edit-warrior. Miskin 11:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound like a lawyer particularly at this time, but surely there must be a reason why the word "currently" is only put in front of the word "blocked", and not in front of the word "banned"? My guess: because it may not be a past participle, but an adjective denoting a characteristic as in "Dharmender6767 was always banned, from the moment he made a disruptive edit to Wikipedia". Roger Casement was hanged on a technical point of legal grammar less clear than that one.--Pan Gerwazy 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

A big reason that I raised... [ Dbachmann's shortening of the block on Miskin ] as a concern, is because I felt hurt by his actions. In the military, when someone goes behind your back to do something against a regulation, often times people die. That's the environment that I come from. I recognize that one of the large reasons for my directing part of this arbitration at Dbachmann, is because I felt hurt by his actions...[16]

John254 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, whether or not you choose to take WP:3RR bureaucratically, Dharmender's merit as an editor in an indispensable factor on the fact that he was being reverted. There was an obvious suspicion about him [17], but since there was no proof editors had to assume good faith and say nothing direct against him. I think the fact that he was reverted 8 times in less than 48 hours (only twice by me) goes to show that he was displaying a near-vandalism behaviour. In a non-bureaucratic fashion, this goes to show that reverts against him were justified, and therefore should not be regarded as edit-warring. Miskin 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Scholarly Works

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am proposing this principle based on Miskin's declaration that "wikipedia gives priority to Western scholarship" [18], feel free to re-word it. --Mardavich 21:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Seriously bad idea given that it's only periphally connected with the ArbCom case at hand. --RaiderAspect 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block reason descriptions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Agreed, also re. second 'unblocking' statement - Alison ☺ 16:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.

15) Administrators are expected to use on-wiki channels of discussion (WP:ANI) before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions, especially for a period exceeding 24 hours. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester brought it to the attention of AN/I - there's no fof or remedy for this so it's moot. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He brought it to ANI not as an after fact not beforehand and there is a huge difference. This is an excellent proposal that if followed would save us from a lot of harmful drama. --Irpen 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, admins can block without discussion, it's just for controversial blocks, they should take them review. If we had to discuss every block that's all we'd do. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both in this. Explanation: There is certainly a [now gray] line after which admins should seek consensus for a block. I don't know if that line is on 24h, and I don't know how the [vague] "long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions" can be quantified, but certainly there are more or less obvious cases where long blocks to respectful editors must be discussed. I am open to proposals, but this wording doesn't do the job. NikoSilver 09:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion not an excuse for edit warring

16) Participating in discussion on the talk page of an article is not an excuse to edit war on that article. Editors are expected to participate in talk page discussion, or other forms of dispute resolution, in lieu of edit warring and not in conjunction with it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, see proposed finding of fact #19 below. --bainer (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

19) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

20) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Miskin broke the three revert rule

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Based on the diffs cited above, Miskin did not violate the three-revert rule. Two of Miskin's reversions were reversals of edits made by Dharmender6767 [19][20], who was editing through an open proxy [21]. Per the Open proxies banned principle, such reversions are exempted from the three-revert rule. John254 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Swatjester's month long block was excessive

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After reading all this once more, I noticed (again excuse me if I look like wikilawyering) that the evidence against "good faith" presented by Miskin and NikoSilver actually refer to what happened later when ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} sought to (incorrectly, in my view)justify his block. I suppose admins should always check the behaviour of the person reporting the misdemeanour, but well, nobody's perfect. I agree that the WP:TWINKLE was too much. I think adding the word "basically" to the phrase, would take care of that. "although basically made in good faith" seems to cover the fact that the WP:TWINKLE is a side issue. --Pan Gerwazy 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the "later than the block" issue. I was not suggesting that the block was necessarily done in bad faith, since I have no evidence to support it; and it is indeed a serious accusation that needs serious proof. Noting that it did happen in good faith, however, (either "basically" or not) is an assumption I cannot take for granted in light of the evidence after it.

If you want my opinion on what exactly happened, I think that Swatjester indeed thought he was extending the block of a serial violator when he hit the twinkle button, having misread the block log. Given the latter, I have no serious objections, but I must note that this is merely a hunch which is not verified by SJ himself. I therefore think that the word we are searching for is "originally" rather than "basically". This may (or may not) be interpreted to signify that AGF could probably get lost on the way... NikoSilver 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user's block log must be read carefully

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Redemption is important

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Otherwise we should not allow previously blocked people to be nominated for adminship, which is quite unfair. User:Khoikhoi is the brilliant example of a former vandal who evolved into a wonderful admin. The present case (and its discussion on WP:ANI) spotlighted the deeply rooted assumption of the blocks in perpetuity, which leads people like Khoikhoi and Giano to abandon their old accounts and to set up new ones. Is there a guideline that leads us to assume that the previous blocks were reasonable and that the block log is an accurate gauge of a wikipedian's accomplishments in the project? This issue needs to be addressed by ArbCom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin's block log

5)Between May 13 and May 14 2007 Miskin was blocked and re-blocked a number of times[22] in order for administrators to gain a community consensus, they were not attempting to wheel war. (See Evidence presented by Ryan Postlethwaite)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Miskin's block history

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miskin's block history (alternative)

6.2) Prior to Swatjester's block, Miskin had not been blocked for breaching the three revert rule for sixteen months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Half empty or half full? Accusatory basis is supposed to be a defect of judicial (OK, quasi-judicial) proceedings. Let's assume good faith instead of rummaging in the block log. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin edit warred

7) Despite discussing on the talk page [23][24][25][26], Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went against consensus and edit warred at Battle of the Persian Gate [27][28][29][30].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Further proof on the fact that I reverted to a consensus version can be seen in the page's edit history. User:Aldux reverted User:Dharmender6767 , prompting him to consider the majority view and stop further reversions [31][32]. User:RaiderAspect had also been protecting consensus version by reverting Dharmender multiple times [33][34][35][36] within 48 hours. Those were justified reverts, aiming at protecting consensus and NPOV. There was an consensus between three established editors against a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user (User:AlexanderPar) and a troll. Even when the rest of the Iranian users like User:Mardavich showed up, there was still a consensus on the non-partisan view, as both User:Iblardi and User:Ploutarchos showed their support [37]. So I never reverted nor edited against consensus. Please have a look at the article's history, I feel you haven't investigated sufficiently and that your views are based on Mardavich's fallacies, which have reached us via his private communication with User:Swatjester. Miskin 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin was blocked for 1 month

8) Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) initially closed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as no violation[38]. Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to edit war and was reported again, Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked him for 1 month[39].

8.1) Miskin was blocked by Swatjester for 3RR for 24 hours but a minute later his block was extended to one month based on "holy block history batman" and "vast history of disruptiveness"[40], for which no evidence has been produced (and no evidence could have been evaluated in the given time). Reacting to ((unblock)) request as an uninvolved party in this incident, who has had a mostly confrontational relation with Miskin on top in the past, User:Dbachmann reset the block to 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Update: I struck the "uninvolved party: Dbachmann has clearly had a history of communication with Miskin, including recently before the block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

There's a timeline problem here. Sam Blacketer closed the 3RR report at 11:19 12 May (UTC) [41]. Miskin's last edit to Battle of the Persian Gate came at 10:21 12 May (UTC), before the 3RR report was closed. Clearly, it is not correct to say that Miskin "continued" to edit war after the 3RR report was closed. Some rephrasing is in order, I think--this point should say that one of Miskin's edits came after the 3RR report was filed, and Sam Blacketer didn't take that edit into account because it wasn't part of the report. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Proposed modification. The block was extended to one month for alleged "vast history of disruptiveness". This is important. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know (and can prove with numerous diffs), Dbachmann's earlier communications with Miskin were mostly confrontational. I removed striking for "uninvolved", and added instead the clarification "uninvolved party in this incident". I also added "who has had a mostly confrontational relation with Miskin on top in the past". NikoSilver 09:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin has edit warred before

9) In 2005, Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was correctly blocked three times for edit warring at Demographic history of Macedonia [42], Epirus [43] and Macedonia [44].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Mardavich canvassed for a block

10) After Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) orginally declined a 3RR block for Miskin, Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted him on his talk page requesting that he looked into it again[45]. Later, Mardavich canvassed Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to block Miskin[46], which resulted in Miskin being blocked for 1 month.

10.1) After Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) orginally declined a 3RR block for Miskin, Mardavich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted him on his talk page requesting that he looked into it again[47]. Mardavich did not wait to see whether Sam Blacketer took action, and instead requested correction from Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin/Evidence#Comments_regarding_Akhilleus.27s_.22evidence.22. Miskin had violated WP:3RR, but Sam Blacketer had not noticed Miskin's last revert, he later recognized this fact [48]. I originally asked Sam Blacketer to review his decision [49], but noticed afterward that Sam Blacketer had left for the day, only then I brought the issue to the attention of Swatjester, a random adminstrator with whom I had never had any prior contact, who just happend to be online, asking if I should re-list the 3RR report.[50] That does not constitute "admin shopping", "canvassing" or anything of sort. --Mardavich 23:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

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

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

This is a rather obvious case of forum shopping to have one's opponent in a content dispute blocked from editing Wikipedia. Generally, this practice should be viewed as disruptive. When "friendly" people tell you "See evidence of X being incivil [diff]", that will make someone look at a link with "incivility" already in mind - and blocks will fly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users edit warred on Battle of the Persian Gate

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

That's not true. I didn't "participate as much as User:Aldux", I didn't even make a full revert, let alone "edit war", I only made a few minor adjustments to the lead [51]. --Mardavich 11:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have 5 edits there in that time period. Two could perhaps be disregarded, since they are indeed "covered" by your comments on the talk page under "shepperd's betrayal". Leaves three edits in a very short time (two with rather aggressive summaries: "utter nonsense from fringe sources", "You want a source Ploutarchos ? Here is a source for you."). You must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. You decided to add your weight, so you actively participated. Three times at least, just like Aldux - he reverted, yes. But one of your edits was a revert as well, see [52] --Pan Gerwazy 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is flawed...Participation in editing is not the same as participation in reverting, my edits were all successive, and do not constitute a single full revert all put together. If I wanted to participate in mindless revert-waring, I could have simply reverted the person before me, Ploutarchos, who actively participated in the edit-waring [53], instead of keeping his version of the article while making some minor adjustments [54], tagging a section [55], and adding a new source [56], all in successive edits. That clearly shows that I was trying to find a middle ground and avoid the escalation of the edit-war. --Mardavich 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reported me under 3RR, accusing me for having made a "partial-revert" about an edit which was clearly intended as a compromise (detailed here [57]). The only difference between my edits (reported as partial-reverts) and yours (ignored) were that yours unarguably violated WP:NPOV by presenting a fringe view as a mainstream view and including uncyclopedic comments (I welcome other editors to see for themselves), ignored WP:CONSENSUS already established in the talkpage, and did not intend to make any compromises. Oh yes, did I mention that you had not participated in the article's discussion before making them? Well, you hadn't because you were too busy trying to frame me for non-existent violations [58]. One more thing is that your edits were accompanied by baseless and patriotic comments in your edit-summaries [59]. One by one, your edits are by your own terms, undisputed partial reverts: [60][61][62][63][64]. Miskin 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a bunch of false assertions again. My edits, a few minor adjustments, were all successive, and do not constitute a single full revert all put together. Furthermore, my edit summaries are self-explanatory and perfectly fine, and I did participate in the discussion page [65], and there is nothing "uncyclopedic" "baseless" or "patriotic" about my comments, that's a personal attack, and based on your own opinion.--Mardavich 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

More statements that are inherently unprovable, accusations that are based on pure assumptions and your own bad-faith, unless you can somehow read my mind. There was no editor consensus about anything on that page. But as I explained above, if your bad-faith assumptions are true and that I intended to somehow revert your prefered version, I'd have simply reverted the editor before me, instead of keeping most of your prefered version, while only tagging the main disputed section [66] and opening up a dialogue about it on the discussions page. [67] --Mardavich 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant denial about what consituted a consensus is all the evidence I need. Your pattern on denying the views of neutral users, along with refusing to accept what is globally considered as NPOV practice, has already been elaborated here [68] (see diffs on Mardavich's past behaviour). Whenever a consensus of neutral editors/admins opposes your partisan views, they all become racists, anti-X or "Miskin's friends" - this is most likely why you don't admit to a consensus yet. You were lucky enough to find one person in wikipedia who would buy that story, but it's rather naive to be expecting from the entire community to fall for it. Maybe those are mere assumptions, but they are assumptions made by many, many editors who have confronted you in wikipedia ([69][70]). I have also received emails from users that I had never met in the past, telling me that they had had the same problems with you and your group. I haven't mentioned anything about this in my evidence yet, and I didn't intend to do so, but since you continue provoking me I'll reconsider forwarding this to the administrators. Is this a huge coincidence which repeats itself every time Mardavich, Arash the Archer, AlexanderPar, Azerbaijani et al enter a content-dispute in the articles they think they WP:OWN? Is it a racist campaign organised by User:Miskin and his imaginary friends against Mardavich? Or is it simply proved that Mardavich and his group are disruptive editors who breach NPOV on a regular basis? Make your own conclusions. Miskin 10:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim a consensus where there is none - and it's not up to you to decide who is a "neutral editor" and who is not, so you can disregard opinions of those with whom you disagree. I don't consider you a neutral user either, but I do abide by WP:AGF and WP:CON when dealing with you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, "my way or no way" is not the right attitude to create a collaborative encyclopedia. For the record, I've never called you a "racist", "anti-X" or anything similar, that's just more false accusations from you. I have also received several emails from random Turkish, Albanian, and Macedonian editors, whom I have never heard of before, regarding you and several other related editors' questionable behavior on many articles. For what it's worth, even some of the Greek editors have confronted you in the past calling you an "ultra-nationalist Greek" [71], and this is the sentiment shared by many of those editors who have contacted me. What's more, you have even used profanities against other editors in Greek language.[72] So please get off the high horse and realize that your behavior is far from appropriate.--Mardavich 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be really desperate to be citing diffs that date over 14 month ago and exploit the past relations of individual editors (and I'm saying past because me and Macrakis have reconciled). That was a real cheapshot, though it does again help at proving a point - that the best defence you can come up with is based on isolated statements that were made over 14 months ago. If you think that any of those editors involved in those diffs have had problems against me (and none against you) then we should invite them to the ArbCom case and listen what they have to say. Otherwise I contend that you have no clue on what's being said. As for those imaginary emails - you are simply lying about it. I haven't had an edit-dispute with an editors of such a background in a long, long time. If those emails are true then forward them to me, otherwise stop spreading lies about it. And then I will forward you mine, and then we'll forward everything to the arbitrators, how's that for a deal? I'm not going to decide who's a neutral editor and who isn't, other people will. So far your list of non-neutral people must comprise over 15 editors of irrelevant backgrounds, including five administrator or so. My list of non-neutral editors includes you and your associates who systematically violate NPOV in a series of articles. As you can see neutral (i.e. non-partisan) editors find it clear as crystal that your group is on the biased side [73][74]. You're right, you haven't directly called me "anti-Iranian" or "racist", but your other friends have, and you have implied similar absurdities against various editors in many occasions (need I remind you your baseless accusations against User:Behnam?) Even now, by calling me non-neutral and claiming that I'm pro-X you are also implying that I'm anti-Y, otherwise I see no reason for such an argumentation. So you really are contradicting yourself once again. Really, I don't understand how is it that every time you have confronted me, it so happens that I gain the support of neutral editors while you gain the support of same partisan coalition? Any comments relevant to this that date less than a year? As for your lies on the alleged emails you received against me, you must be thinking that we're really stupid to believe that you've had such evidence all this time and you suddenly just remembered about it. It's the damnedest thing, it only came to your recollection when I said out in public that I had email complaints against you! Another bloody coincindence involving Mardavich's activity. You're only wasting your time by throwing around more accusations, by now it is evident to everybody that your wikipedia dispute resolution methods are based on harrassing other contributors in order to have it your way. I think an observer will easily draw a parallel between the allegations you made on your last edit and the allegations about "admin friends" that you made to Swatjester (and who knows what else in your email). It also goes to verify my claims on the evidence page, about how your primary interest has always been to get rid of me. Your pattern has been exposed, but I guess some people don't know when to stop. Miskin 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Swatjester enforced WP:3RR unevenly

12) Swatjester had errouneously thought that administrators should block solely the violators who were reported under 3RR [75], and not all violators as WP:3RR states. He ignored the activity of other users who had been edit-warring, including users who had arguably breached 3RR [76][77][78][79], and focused solely on User:Miskin. See further evidence here [80][81]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

I'm sorry but your very response proves that you haven't understood 3RR and the way it should be dealt with. Check your own message to me, you're actually urging me to report Mardavich under 3RR while I'm already blocked for one month [82]. And your logic is again erroneous, some editors are more interested in finding solutions to content disputes rather than getting others in trouble. Once a violation is reported, it's up to the admin in charge to determine which users have been disruptive/edit-warring. And precisely because people can get blocked for less than 4 reverts (when they're rv-warring), you have no excuse for not blocking User:AlexanderPar. Miskin 08:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Actually, the three-revert rule clearly states that "In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Thus, Swatjester's placement of a block on Miskin, without any attempt to ascertain whether other editors violated the three-revert rule on Battle of the Persian Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during the same period of time, was improper. Furthermore, Swatjester's insistence that he enforced the three-revert rule properly [83] seems to suggest that he will engage in similarly improper enforcement of the three-revert rule in the future. John254 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove "due to his imperfect understanding of the rule" from the heading. We can't really assess Swatjester's understanding of the policy on 3RR violations. He may have been unaware that other parties had been guilty of revert-warring and 3RR violations, since their blocks were not actively sought for. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I just corrected it. I only added this in order to emphasise that Swatjester wasn't acting in bad faith. Then again there is no point to be making such assumptions, I really don't know what his motives were. Miskin 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin has been incivil during this arbitration

12) Miskin has been incivil and accusatory throughout the proceedings of this arbitration, including incivil comments on the evidence and workshop pages, and their associated talk pages. [84][85] [86][87][88][89]When an attempt was made to stop the incivility, Miskin continued it instead of agreeing. [90]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Over-emotional rather than deliberately incivil. Miskin's behaviour during this arbitration is beyond the scope of the current page. If Swatjester feels Miskin has been incivil on this page, he is advised to go through standard procedures of dispute resolution prior to referring the case to ArbCom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if Swatjester could highlight the parts that he finds uncivil in the above diffs. I, for once, didn't notice any incivility in them, while I see defensive responses to uncivil comments. NikoSilver 14:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the block was perfunctory and incivil

13) Discussion of Miskin's block by other administrators on WP:ANI was full of incivil and simplistic comments ([91], [92]), prompting User:Dbachmann to refrain from further participation in the proceedings with the following comment: "I am disappointed to see a lot of undignified hooting ("did I hear something quack", "drag his sorry arse to arbcom") from people who clearly didn't invest their precious time in actual investigation. This isn't a "cabal" so much as depressing mob justice, we seem to running short of old-fashioned thoughtfulness and deliberation in admins, thinking first and adding their funny comment later."[93]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support due to the following reasons:

Swatjester presented his own assumptions as facts: He started a topic in AnI which focused on the absurd allegations about "admin's in backpockets", and ignored the actual question which involved my 3RR violation. The opinion of the admins was biased into believing that (a) the block was based on an unarguable 3RR violation and disruptive behaviour from my part, (b) I've only been getting away as a disruptive editor because of my alleged "admin friends" (propagated by Mardavich). I even remember someone congratulating Swatjester for his "internal affairs" accomplishment. The event proved that the AnI acts largely as a mob.
Swatjester threatened directly or indirectly all users and admins who would potentially oppose his decision, by implying that they'd be my "muscles", or "backpocket admins" as he elegantly put it. This fact alone has forced many people to stay silent or maybe even take his side. Swatjester has even made those implications against people whom I had never met prior to this event.
Swatjester's one month block was based on an erroneous assumption about the nature of my 2005 blocks, a mistake to which he never admitted.
Swatjester's decision was based on an off-wiki communication which was instigated by unarguably malicious motives.

The fact that even Ryan had initially believed the "admins in backpocket" story, proves that this proposal is useful. Miskin 11:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. User:NikoSilver seems to have been the only ~~admin~~ wikipedian to investigate the case in depth, yet his summary of the situation was greeted with the comment "Did I hear something quack"?[94] I see that WP:ANI does not serve its original purpose these days, frequently escalating problems rather than defusing them. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is helpful, there isn't going to be any remedy from this, no users that made any of those comments are going to receive sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should establish how the situation developed and what were the factors leading to the arbitration. The purpose of ANI is to solve problems rather than aggravate them. The issue is serious and needs to be mentioned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of arbitration is to make findings that lead to remedies, this one doesn't I'm affraid. Every discussion has pointless comments in - c'est la vie, there's no need for the arbitrators to rule on everything here. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin was accused of being uncivil during the arbitration, just scroll down above. I believe he has had good teachers throughout the case. And he's not even a sysop. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, neither am I... (am I?) NikoSilver 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin's behaviour in 2005 was invoked to justify his block in 2007

14) After Swatjester's blocking summary "huge past blocking list, clearly no intent of editing constructively, last step before indefinite", the discussion of Miskin's block on WP:ANI focused not so much on Miskin's behaviour as on his presumably "dirty" block log. Specificially, appellations to his block log were intended to justify the propriety of the current block:

"Before continuing to read this paragraph, please view the user's block log. My block was the SEVENTH one he had received for either disruptive editing, or 3RR violations." (User:Swatjester, 16:48).
"That block log is really weird. Blocked -> unblocked, blocked -> unblocked with references to IRC chats, etc. Strange!" (User:Alison, 16:51)
"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" (User:Nick, 16:53)
"Obviously it's not helping that this guy keeps "getting away" with his clearly wrong actions... Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management". (User:Cyde, 16:54).
"I too agree, the one-month block was reasonable given his past blocking history as a repeated offender. This whole "admins in his back pocket" thing smells fishy". (User:Krimpet, 17:03).
"At what point do we say "Enough already"? Apparently not after repeated blocks and persistent incivility, to judge by some. Suggest a one-month block at this point, with each subsequent block to be twice the length of the previous one" (User:Raymond arritt, 17:18).

To that, User:DavidShankBone commented: "This discussion raises a valid problem: there is little reason why a block log should remain a "permanent record." Even though I think Miskin's abrasive editting style deserves a week-long block, I find it very problematic that block logs are never expunged".[95]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I quote these responses one by one, because I find them highly relevant to the issue and typical of how WP:ANI tackles tricky situations these days. Blocks are viewed as a universal solution: no man - no problem. When someone cited Miskin's positive contributions, he was told that "no one here gives batshit about whatever awards or honors he has". On the other hand, "negative contributions" seem to be eagerly taken into account and remain a permanent stain. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant unless this is for support of the block. Please bare in mind that Miskin was blocked for 7 days in the end, which was by way of community consensus. His previous blocks were taken into account, but that was because the community deemed it necessary to look at these when deciding the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really consider your own opinion a "community consensus"? I have seen no consensus on the issue. Sure, there was a company of ANI/IRC bigmouths who normally rush to support each other on ANI after they heard about the matter on IRC. This is not exactly my idea of "community consensus". Neither me nor Brad nor dab supported the 7-day block. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Brad and Dab were about the only people that didn't support the block, everyone else on AN/I supported the block. There was clear consensus that the 7 day block was correct. It's not my opinion - it's fact. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were 6 admins opposing (Seraphimblade, Dbachmann, Newyorkbrad, Christopher Parham, Akhilleus, Aldux), and 3 users (Ghirla, me, Ploutarchos) -at least. I think someone should work on the exact numbers for ANI consensus/no consensus in the fof. NikoSilver 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, get your facts straight Niko, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive243#Unblock_request_posted - there was a clear consensus not to unblock miskin. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say there was no consensus; neither that there was. I said I want it counted. I find this fof very relevant to the case. "6+3 at least" is a fact; what should I "get straight"? NikoSilver 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call that "IRC consensus". Furthermore, there was no unblocking. The duration of Miskin's block was modified to comply with our guidelines. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, evidence is clear that the block was justified due to clear consensus to keep the block on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have someone count the "clarity". NikoSilver 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that counting is necessary, but it should be pointed out that Christopher Parham wasn't an admin at the time of the ANI discussion. Also, I don't think that discussion resulted in consensus; if it had, this arbitration case would have never started. I'd say instead that a majority of users in the discussion supported the 1-week block. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Akhilleus, especially for the clarification on the 1-week, rather than 1-month. If everybody agrees with your wording, (rather than "there was a clear consensus not to unblock miskin") then no counting is necessary indeed. NikoSilver 09:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a relative majority rooting against me, hence why the matter was brought to ArbCom, but I'm not sure whether this constitutes a consensus (WP:CONSENSUS speaks of an absolute majority). This presumable consensus was in any case the result of Swatjester's unorthodox approach. He started a topic entitled "admin's in backpockets" where he presented all of his baseless assuptions as facts. He mislead the AnI participants into believing that (a) there had been an undisputed 3RR violation, rv-warring, disruptive behaviour from my part and (b) it was being covered up by my alleged admin friends. This largely implied that my entire existence in wikipedia has been restricted to making disruptive edits and having my admin friends covering up. Swatjester brushed aside the real questions that involve a block, e.g. whether or not there was a policy violation etc. Ignoring all those key questions, he presented his personal hypotheses as factual information and started speaking about his alleged discovery on corrupted admins being in the backpockets of disruptive editors. What followed was a demostration of the AnI's inefficiency. The majority of the people who participated blindly believed in Swatjester's claims, and with no investigation whatsoever, endorsed the block and congratulated Swatjester on his fictitious discovery. That's how the "consensus" was formed. Miskin 12:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I should add that the the vast majority considered the one-month to be excessive, but agreed that my 2005 behaviour should be a factor since "I have not shows any signs of improvement" (one of the baseless assumptions that Swatjester presented as facts). Sorry to have been repeating myself on this page. Miskin 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin's opponent was indefinitely banned

15) Miskin was blocked for one month following Mardavich's 3RR report about Miskin's actions against User:Dharmender6767 who has been indefinitely banned as an "obvious sockpuppet/troll on an open proxy with other socks".[96]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Miskin could not have been aware that Dharmender was an open proxy at the time of his edit warring. He may have realized he was a troll, per Ghirla below, but even so, his rationales that his reverts were acceptable because open proxies are banned, do not hold water. He could not have known his opponent was an open proxy, furthermore only open proxies are banned, not the user's that were using them. For instance, editors behind the Great Firewall in China. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't know whether Miskin was aware that Dharmender was a sock when he reverted him, but he sure was aware that his opponent was a troll. At least I am aware of trolling when I have to deal with it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter that the user was using an open proxy because Miskin didn't know that at the time. Miskin also reverted a couple of other editors on his way to a block[97][98]. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't, perhaps it does. I feel that the fact deserves to be noted. Miskin was not revert-warring against editors in good standing. We should distinguish between one-purpose cranky accounts and those editors who work for Wikipedia for a long time on a wide range of subjects. It's not fair to hold them accountable to the same standard. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, your second link concerns another user who is a suspected sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. Furthermore, I agree with Girla. Apparent trolls are what they are: apparent. How can you not assume god faith and give Miskin the credit of supposing this, when he is an experienced editor, highly involved in the article? NikoSilver 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a content dispute, regardless of who it was with, it was still edit warring, Miskin knew he was edit warring that's my point. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your point was "It doesn't really matter that the user was using an open proxy because Miskin didn't know that at the time." NikoSilver 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase it all then, Miskin didn't know who he was editing with, Miskin hasn't got CheckUser to determine that it was an open proxy, so it boils down to the fact that Miskin was edit warring with an ordinary user, regardless of what happened to that user later. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the blocking admin's wording "obvious sockpuppet/troll on an open proxy with other socks" ring any bell? NikoSilver 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, obvious after a checkuser was run. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interpretation of someone else's words. Care to ask him please? NikoSilver 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was run, you can't tell an open proxy without checkuser and Dmcdevit is one of only a small number of users with checkuser. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to ask him what he means by "obvious" please? NikoSilver 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know that Dharmender was a sockpuppet and due to WP:AGF I didn't try to assume it (I've already made mistakes on this). However, it was evident to me and to everybody (see Talk page) that Dharmender was a disruptive element engaging in near-vandalism behaviour. I've already detailed my motives in reverting Dharmender many times now, I thought he was blocked by the time I reverted him. As a response to Ryan, the alleged fourth partial-revert [99] was done as a compromise edit. I have detailed this in the evidence page, this new edit preserved many of Mardavich's additions and enforced neutrality to the paragraph. The proof that this was done as a compromise edit is the fact that my version remained in the article Battle of the Persian Gate to the present moment. Not only it was a compromise, but also a successful one. As for this revert [100], yes this is most likely the only actual revert, done on a non-vandal editor. Yet this revert was also made within reason and not as part of mindless edit-warring. This is also detailed in my evidence section. I don't really want to get into the content-dispute itself, although it could help by showing to what ridiculous degree WP:ATT and WP:UNDUE were being voilated. Miskin 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also my sole clear revert was done on an editor who finally made three pure reverts as part of rv-warring, with no significant input in discussion, and a fourth arguable partial revert on Dharmender [101][102][103][104]. Despite how many times Swatjester and other admins have pointed out that "wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and "three reverts are not allowed" and "3RR aims to prevent rv-wars", the editor User:AlexanderPar did not even receive a single warning and was not even listed as a participant in the ArbCom case. Miskin 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no warning before Miskin's block for "vast history of disruption"

16) Prior to his one-month block and this message, Miskin was not warned by Swatjester or any other admin about his need to modify his behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Miskin had been blocked before for 3RR. This means that he was aware of the 3RR rule, and therefore did not need to be warned about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I find warnings useful, because they help cool down a problematic user and remind him of our policies, especially if he is a long-standing contributor. Until this year, our blocking policy contained a proviso that "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block" are considered controversial. After that clause was deleted, we see that administrators are equally facile at blocking a long-standing contributor and an open-proxy troll. This is disturbing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but were the other blocks enough warning? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact. Ghirla speaks about alleged incivility -not 3rr. NikoSilver 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Miskin was blocked for one month over alleged "vast history of disruption". Although I agree that he behaved like a WP:DICK, Miskin needed to be explained what was so disruptive about his behaviour. We should try persuasion before resorting to blocks. Blocks are the last resort. It is sad that no attempt was made to communicate with him prior to that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been blocked before for similar behaviour, you know not to do it, Miskin was blocked this time for edit warring, like all the other blocks. Admins shouldn't need to talk to users that have been blocked numerous times and continue their behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He had never never blocked for disruption/incivility before May 2007. The previous warning/block for revert-warring happened in 2005. Whether admins are here for blocking long-standing contributors from editing Wikipedia or for helping them to reform I will leave to the arbitrators to decide. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, a month-long block is not routine. NikoSilver 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A one month block is routine if your an avid edit warrer and know what to expect if you do edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Only we are talking about Miskin here, who isn't. NikoSilver 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous blocks suggest he knows what he's doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't find that the wording surpasses the meaning of "[almost] edit-warring in one instance after 2 years is disruptive", to the point of asserting that Miskin is a generally disruptive editor? So what was he blocked for? Edit warring or general disruption? NikoSilver 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block log shows that he is a disruptive editor, regardless of the time span of it. If you've been blocked that many times before, it should be drilled into your head not to edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring or general disruption? NikoSilver 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring could be classed as general disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike "general". NikoSilver 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan please do not take Swatjester's accusations on the alleged 3RR violation, rv-warring and disruptive behaviour as facts. Let's not repeat the same mistakes that were made in AnI. I was a WP:DICK (I guess) because I knew that my opponents were part of a cabal which systematically breaches NPOV. I've done my best to expose them in my ArbCom case. Miskin 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-month block was not preceded by on-wiki discussion

17) Prior to Miskin's one-month block, there was no discussion of the block anywhere in Wikipedia (barring the 3RR report, which was closed by Sam Blacketer with "no violation" summary). On the other hand, Swatjester concedes in his statement that there was some off-wiki communication, including a certain e-mail that warned him about Miskin having "several admins in his pocket, some of who were named directly".[105]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm reviewing my email records, and my first email that I have received regarding Miskin was AFTER the unblocking. Apparently I was mistaken, and the contact first occured on my talk page. I am screenshotting my emailbox to show you and am forwarding the link to arbcom-l. If it's agreed that I may rescind my previous offer of confidentiality, I will also forward the link to the evidence page. If an arbitration clerk wishes to see them as well, I have no problem forwarding it to them too. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. 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. "It is serious evidence of off-wiki lobbying for support in administrative actions", as User:NikoSilver has noted.[106] --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The email followed after the block had occured. My concern with this one is that Miskin had previously been warned about the 3RR report, but yet reverted again after the initial report went in - that's why he got blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't been previously warned simply because there was no 3RR violation found until Mardavich convinced Swatjester about it. Swatjester didn't really block me for a 3RR violation, just for disruptive editing and edit-warring. Theories on a fourth partial revert were made a posteriori. Miskin 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence as to whether the controversial e-mail preceded the block or was sent later. Anyway, the one-month block of a long-standing contributor was not preceded by any on-wiki discussion. This is not acceptable. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't need to discuss to block, it's called being bold and although Swat was possibly a little too bold, consensus was reached and the block reduced down to 1 week. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are talking about alleged general disruption in the TW block comment, which frankly I cannot spot anywhere. Can someone provide diffs for his disruptive past, or should there be an fof titled "Miskin was wrongly accused of long disruptive past"? I suppose the latter is in order. NikoSilver 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did have a disruptive past, he's been blocked numerous times for edit warring, regardless of how long ago it was - he knew what he was doing. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I cannot equate "disruptive past" with "[debatable] 3RR violation once after 2 years of significantly contributing history". "Disruptive past" should come with a handful of recent disruptive diffs. Is there one other than the debatable 3RR? NikoSilver 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree because that block log says it all to me, as it did to numerous other on AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree that I disagree with all of you. I consider the block very trigger-happy, and the blocking rationale very insulting and undeserving. For me, "general disruption" must be what it says: "general". Not once after 2 years, and that for an alleged 3RR offense which is debatable. The point remains: There is no evidence so far to warrant "general" disruption. Only plain "disruption", and that too mild and debatable IMO. NikoSilver 15:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, despite the nature of my blocks in 2005, I will never admit to have "repeated a mistake". I made two reverts in good faith on a vandal-sockpuppet and two compromise edits and I'm being accused for a 3RR violation. I tried to improve a ridiculously POV article from the activity of a well known POV-pushing cabal, I received the support of numerous neutral users and admins with expertise on the topic and here I am, being accused for disruptive editing. Instead of assuming bad faith about me and claiming that I have repeated the disruptiveness of 2005, you should wonder why the people who opposed my/our edits spent more time on trying to get me blocked rather than solving the content dispute at hand (and with Swatjester's blessings). At this point I'm so disappointed to wikipedia that I don't care at all about ArbCom's decision on myself. I'm not even interested in making edits at the moment, and in all honestly the way I used to see wikipedia has changed. I just hope that along with all injustice, some real remedies will be applied. After all that's happened there's no more hope in finding justice for myself, so I hope at least that the real problems involved with my ArbCom case will also be discovered. Miskin 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester's blocking rationale was unnecessarily harsh and unfair

18) Miskin was blocked for "extensive disruptiveness, culminating in a 3RR violation that earned your [Miskin's] SEVENTH block. Your [Miskin's] disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent." [emphasis unchanged] [107] These claims were consistent with the block log justification, that would further assume "clearly no intent of editing constructively".[108] No evidence of "extensive disruptiveness" has been brought forward despite multiple requests (let alone evidence for supporting clear future lack of intent for constructive edits), and nothing could warrant unilateral permanent block threats without community consensus. Miskin did not have seven, but three blocks in the distant past (for 3RR), and one block for "unilateral moves" six months ago that was later revoked.

18.1) (alternate)

Miskin was blocked for "extensive disruptiveness, culminating in a 3RR violation that earned your [Miskin's] SEVENTH block. Your [Miskin's] disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent." [emphasis unchanged] [109] These claims were consistent with the block log justification, that would further assume "clearly no intent of editing constructively".[110]. This rationale was unnecesarily harsh.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps it was. However, I disagree that no evidence of extensive disruptiveness has been provided: per Thebainer's extensive evidence at the Evidence page, Miskin's editwarring has been well documented, and as we all know, edit warring is disruptive. Furthermore, per the evidence page comments, the 3RR block and the prior blocks were warranted, further evidence of disruption. Let me be clear: Edit warring is disruption. The evidence has been provided, and I'm tired of seeing it bandied about that "You've provided no evidence" just because Miskin does not agree with the evidence that's been provided. He CLEARLY violated 3RR, as stated by MULTIPLE people. That is disruption, plain and simple. He edit warred, he did not attempt to gain consensus on the talk page.....all of which are disruptive editing, by definition. Furthermore I did not ever state that Miskin had 7 3RR blocks, I stated that this was his SEVENTH BLOCK. I didn't say "this is his seventh 3RR block." Stop throwing that about and stop changing my words around. Do not misquote me for the purposes of an ArbCom, I find that rude and a blatant disregard for your fellow editors. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternate 18.1 without that false statements. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and avoid making malicious implications against other editors^{"stop changing my words around"..."Do not misquote me for the purposes of an ArbCom"}. TheBeiner provided diffs that were relevant to the event, including before and after the block. You seem to be the only person who intreprets his contribution as evidence against me. Plus, theBainer made his contributions weeks after the event, this does not justify your constant a priori failure to back up your claims. If you blocked me because you believed I was edit-warring, then you take the blame for not blocking or warning the other editors who were edit-warring as well. An editor's arguable 3RR violation is less important than an administrator's unwise and unjust decisions, but that's just my opinion. Also, although I contend that I wasn't edit-warring, disruptive editing that you keep invoking is not really about edit-warring. Read the definition section in WP:DE, disruptive editing is the deliberate violation of WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, the very things myself, User:Aldux and numerous other editors were defending against Dharmender's trolling. Disruptiveness is also about "a campaign to drive away productive contributors", the very motive which instigated the rumours on an alleged disruptive behaviour from my part, and the "admins in my backpockets". Miskin 10:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "malicious implications" I was also referring to the "and I'm tired of seeing it bandied about that "You've provided no evidence" just because Miskin does not agree with the evidence that's been provided" statement. In both AnI and the present ArbCom case, Swatjester has accused anyone who didn't agree with him for being my alleged collaborators - even people to whom I've never spoken before. Curiously enough, Mardavich and Swatjester's anonymous contacts use the same strategy [111]. Miskin 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. NikoSilver 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have to agree with this. Newyorkbrad 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with 18.1, since all statements in 18 are true, and I really don't see where the "misquoting" is (when clearly that sentence is not quoting Swatjester). I only moved "for 3RR" in parentheses in the end, so as not to seem like Swatjester asserted he had been blocked 7 times for 3RR (which wasn't an intention either way). Swatjester only said he had been blocked 7 times (in general). He also commented "Whoa, holy block history batman", and he continued multiple times to miscount the blocks.[112] [113] [114] Finally, numerous requests for evidence on general disruptive editing behavior have been made,[115] and only vague responses that "edit warring is disruptive" have been given, with no specific proof/diffs to highlight the alleged "general" pattern. I urge Swatjester, once more, to provide evidence on Miskin's general disruptiveness. TheBainer's table does not contain such evidence, apart from the borderline partial fourth revert. Finally, I think it is unfair to accuse Miskin (of all participants) that "he did not attempt to gain consensus on the talk page.....all of which are disruptive editing, by definition." He was the one to participate the most in that talk, and his edits show a very compromising attitude. I am concerned that Swatjester fails to recognize this even now. I am also concerned that a couple of minutes between his two blocks were enough for him to identify this "general" disruptiveness, when no evidence has been provided for almost a month now. I think it would be wise if he just apologized in misreading the block log, rather than standing by his obviously wrong decision. NikoSilver 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the evidence is right there in the Evidence page, in TheBainer's long list of diffs. You want them here? Fine, I'll give them to you. Civility is disruptive. several diffs of incivility, [116][117] [118][119][120][121][122].

On the articles in question, bad edit summaries,8 may edit war 1, 8 may edit war 2, 8 may removal of sourced statements hidden inside other edits, 8 may edit war 3, 8 may edit war 4, tagged as "de-pov", is really shift to opposite POV, 9 may revert, false claim that WP:ATT is official policy, 10 may revert, 10 may edit war, modifies own personal attack, 11 may,reverts attempt to neutralize and end the debate by presenting both sides, implies he reserves good faith only for the people he "knows", disruptively reverts to have article protected on "his" version, taunts blocked user, reverts again, 11 may, essentially claims "victory" in edit war, 11 may revert again, 11 may edit warring, 11 may edit warring. That's just 3 days worth, from May 8-11. I did not even finish going through TheBainers list, or I'd have filled up this page. The fact is, it is very clear that Miskin has been edit warring, and edit warring by definition is disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no disruption or incivility in any of these, past or present; apart maybe from their wrong interpretations which are reflected in your descriptions of the links. In fact your tone here is much worse than his in my opinion. Which words exactly do you find offensive? And, again, which exact second of the 60 that passed until you increased your block to a month did you notice these? NikoSilver 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's puzzling that, per Swatjester, my disruptive activity includes actions such as willingly toning down my comments right after making them [123] and then apologising for having assumed bad faith [124]. I changed my edit within seconds, yet Swatjester and Mardavich (in the evidence page) have been using this as some sort of evidence on my alleged disruptive behaviour. Neither my block nor the ArbCom case were based on uncivilty, this is a new accusation added to the stack. The accusations against me started from an arguable 3RR violation and escaladed a posteriori to constant edit-warring, uncivilty, personal attacks and now even real life threats (see Swatjester's "email evidence"). What else is there to accuse me for? Maybe Swatjester's anonymous contact (we have to pretend that we don't know who it is) can come up with something. Miskin 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it's worth mentioning that Swatjester's block was "based on a 3RR violation" and "extended to one month because of the egregiousness of my prior behaviour" (in 2005 - implied), as it is "well within his rights to do that". Now apparently this has evolved to general disruptiveness based on uncivilty. When asked about providing evidence on his claims, he replied that my "edit-warring habits are are contained in my block log, in the 3RR report, in my userpage history", hence there is "no need for him to rehash them". When asked the same question above by Nikosilver, he replied that the everything is included in TheBainer's evidence (hence still no need to rehash them). After he has finally decided to rehash them, it appears that the reason for his one-month block has changed. Miskin 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in my opinion, Swatjester has displayed some serious authority problems, as he could have admittedly blocked me "even for one revert" if he had wished [125]. In the same diff it can be seen that Swatjester endorses Mardavich's claims on "backpocket admins" by stating "Given your out-of-process unblocking, his claims about "admin friends" actually seem rather reasonable" and "file a 3RR report on Mardavich if you have a problem. Or go ask another admin to do something about it. As I'm too involved at this point, it would be a conflict of interest for me to take any action on Mardavich.". And I guess I need to move this to the evidence page. Miskin 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users were participating in discussion concurrently with edit warring

19) From 8 May to 11 May, a number of users who were participating in discussion on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate, were also edit warring on Battle of the Persian Gate, including Miskin (talk · contribs), Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs), RaiderAspect (talk · contribs), Arash the Archer (talk · contribs), AlexanderPar (talk · contribs), Arvand (talk · contribs) and Ploutarchos (talk · contribs) (evidence, timeline).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, see proposed principle #16 above. --bainer (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise block by Alison

20) Alison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) substituted a block of 1 week [126] in an effort to resolve the dispute. She indicated her intention to do so in the discussion at WP:ANI [127] having been a participant in that discussion [128].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My intent was to try to find a compromise to be fair to Miskin (IMO, the one-month block was excessive) yet be fair to others and prevent further revert-warring which I felt was evident. Also, the situation in ANI was getting heated and a number of people were objecting to dbachmann's change of block duration to less that 24 hours - Alison ☺ 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This element has been touched upon and it appears to have been an important step in calming the dispute. WjBscribe 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins in back pockets

21) This case has seen claims that blocks on Miskin have been overturned because he has the support of unidentified administrators who will protect him. Were this true, it would be a severe breach of Wikipedia policies. However, the evidence presented shows it was not the case here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed to deal with the arbitrator's difficulty in closing the case. Not set on this particular wording though, perhaps it could be clearer. Sam Blacketer 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

22) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

23) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Miskin admonished

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miskin placed on revert parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I oppose this proposal. Miskin used to revert war, but I feel that at least some of his opponents were one-purpose accounts or open-proxy trolls. Holding a prolific contributor accountable to the same standard as an anonymous IP or one-purpose account may encourage sockpuppeteering and trolling in this delicate segment of Wikipedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin placed on Civility Parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied directly from [129]. See finding 12) Miskin has been incivil during this arbitration. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Miskin was not blocked for incivility. I don't think the proposed remedy will solve the problem that precipitated the current arbitration. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester admonished

4) Swatjester is admonished to use on-wiki channels of discussion (WP:ANI) before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions, especially for a period exceeding 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Completely disagree. Since when must blocks be discussed first at AN/I, before blocking? You continue to allege "off-wiki" discussion. There was no off-wiki discussion. I got an email, at the same time that I got a talk page comment. I blocked over the talk page comment. I did not respond to the email until well after the block. While we're on the topic of "off wiki discussion", I'm about to put up the allegations I've now received that Miskin has been not only canvassing, but making threats, through email in regards to this case. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Independently to my role, Swatjester has made crucial errors both as an admin and as a simple wikipedian. I think this is undisputed to anyone who has followed the case closely. Miskin 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this remedy. Administrators can block users for violations of policy however long standing they are without having to seek a concensus at WP:ANI first. In some cases it may be desirable, but there is certainly nothing in WP:BLOCK that requires it. Length of block should be determined on the basis of the seriously of the policy violation, the likelihood of further disruption if a shorter block were imposed and prior history of blocks - i.e. those with a history of a particular sort of disruption are more likely to continue in it etc. I also don't think "admonishment" is appropriate for an admin acting in good faith - and I see no evidence to suggest SwatJester was not doing so. WjBscribe 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin advised

5) Miskin is advised to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse/Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as the only remedy for Miskin. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an advice be worthy to someone who admittedly already practices it?[130] NikoSilver 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adjusted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sensible though I would prefer "cautioned" to advised as far as the phrasing goes. WjBscribe 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester advised

6) Swatjester is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorse/Support. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one - it seems to imply that SwatJester didn't consider this at the time, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Is it suggested he should give greater to weight to this? WjBscribe 00:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, basically. It seems the major fault with Swatjesters block is the length of time, most probably due to not checking time between previous blocks - Miskin was a far less experienced editor with his previous 3RR blocks, but this seems to not have been taken into account, or if it has, then with not enough weight. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison thanked

7) For her efforts to diffuse the dispute by setting a block with a compromise duration of 1 week, Alison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is thanked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sorry, but I must strongly object to that. It's part of the job of being an admin; no more, no less. I appreciate the sentiment, though - Alison ☺ 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Bold efforts from univolved users to assist in calming such disputes should be encouraged. WjBscribe 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like Alison, as do I, but this is not going to happen. This does not need to be a remedy from ArbCom. IMHO, it had little effect in calming the dispute as there was a clear divide of users that wanted a full unblock, and users that wanted a month block. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ArbCom doesn't have to accept this. But statements of thanks have been included in past cases (e.g. [131]) , including for actions that were ultimately unsuccessful [132]. Perhaps the latter format is more appropriate in this case than a separate section. My opinion of the editor concerned isn't the point - those who attempt to resolve these dispute should be acknowledged. WjBscribe 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's block was definitely in good faith. Whether Miskin "deserved" one week or not is immaterial in view of the broader good of defusing the inflamed situation. Unfortunately that did not happen, but Alison's attempt had many chances. NikoSilver 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Request for clarity

Civility request

John254 dismissed from the case

Selective removing/moving of comments by parties

Case dismissed

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties[edit]

Questions to Swatjester

Questions to Dbachmann

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Revert wars considered harmful

Three revert rule

Provocation

Consensus

Blocks

No entitlement to 3 reverts

Unblocking

Overturning blocks

Open proxies banned

Bullying

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Scholarly Works

Block reason descriptions

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.

Discussion not an excuse for edit warring

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Miskin broke the three revert rule

Swatjester's month long block was excessive

A user's block log must be read carefully

Redemption is important

Miskin's block log

Miskin's block history

Miskin's block history (alternative)

Miskin edit warred

Miskin was blocked for 1 month

Miskin has edit warred before

Mardavich canvassed for a block

Multiple users edit warred on Battle of the Persian Gate

Swatjester enforced WP:3RR unevenly

Miskin has been incivil during this arbitration

Discussion of the block was perfunctory and incivil

Miskin's behaviour in 2005 was invoked to justify his block in 2007

Miskin's opponent was indefinitely banned

There was no warning before Miskin's block for "vast history of disruption"

One-month block was not preceded by on-wiki discussion

Swatjester's blocking rationale was unnecessarily harsh and unfair

Multiple users were participating in discussion concurrently with edit warring

Compromise block by Alison

Admins in back pockets

Template

Template

Proposed remedies[edit]

Miskin admonished

Miskin placed on revert parole

Miskin placed on Civility Parole

Swatjester admonished

Miskin advised

Swatjester advised

Alison thanked

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence[edit]