Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop

message: I think we may need to widen the scope of this case, I have to say that there is evidence to suggest that Miskin did participate in edit warring, but what I'm more concerned about is other users that were involved here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be more to this.  conduct really does worry me, I would go as far to say that there may be some systemic bullying going on here with Mardavich being one of the key players, and this isn't just in this particular edit war. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this? Is there a way to change the scope of the case? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mardavich already is listed as a party to the case, though I don't believe anyone has submitted much evidence directly concerning him. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Miskin intends to submit such evidence. I also believe that Mardavich is involved in a wider dispute with Miskin; see Last stand for example. It's not totally clear to me whether it's ok to include this in the case, or whether it's supposed to be limited to the events surrounding Swatjester's block of Miskin. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about Last stand? I've never edited that page. Also, you made several misleading assertions in your evidence section, to which I will respond in due time. --Mardavich 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I moved this discussion from the Workshop page to this talk page because it seemed to be cluttering the page, and it's not directly relevant to the proposal. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester is correct that it is not physically possible for an administrator to change the wording of a block once it is entered. Perhaps Miskin is confusing this with something else? Newyorkbrad 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the block log, Miskin might be referring to the fact that Swatjester initially said that Miskin had "Seven blocks for disruption on 300/persian war related articles" , when those blocks were for 3RR on Macedonia-related stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, it's due to a mislabeling, but I still lump all the articles together in terms of being ancient greece/macedonia involved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure why you're lumping all these articles together, but I'm getting the impression that you consider all of Miskin's 3RR blocks to be part of the same, long-running dispute--that's based on your initial statement that the articles were all "300/persian war related articles". But it's not true that all of these articles are "ancient greece/macedonia involved"; Miskin's edits to Epirus, for which he was blocked, had mainly to do with medieval and modern history of the region, at least 1000 years after any period that could be called "ancient Greece". Perhaps more importantly, in 2005 Miskin was fighting with Slavic nationalists; right now he's fighting with Iranian nationalists. To draw an analogy, putting all these articles together is like lumping Invasion of Canada (1775), Oregon boundary dispute and International Falls, Minnesota together--all of these articles are "us/canada related", but disputes on those articles would almost certainly be different disputes, and if they were separated by two years it would be difficult to conclude that they were all related. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but to carry on your analogy, all of those things ARE related. If I held a very pro-US anti-Canada POV, I could push it in all three of those articles by edit warring. That's my point. If I were to edit Israel, Jordan, Shin Bet/Shabak, Lebanon, and Exodus, those things are all related: they are all middle east articles, and they all can be tied to Israel. They all however, refer to very different things and points in time. However, if I wanted to push an Israeli POV, I could do so on all of those articles. That is what point I am trying to make here. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point is that Miskin is pushing a pro-Greek POV and that all of his 3RR violations are related to that, I think you need to provide evidence for that assertion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence, propose a finding of fact to that effect, and perhaps propose a remedy for it. Otherwise I think this discussion is somewhat irrelevant. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Akhilleus, I find it quite disturbing that you generalize editors who have had difficulties with Miskin's disruptive editing as "X nationalists". There's no disputing the fact that Miskin's blocks have been the result of edit-waring on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view. --Mardavich 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with the disputes to adequately characterize Miskin's opponents, and "X nationalists" is probably too generalized, so I apologize. What I should have said is that Miskin has been in conflict with different groups of editors in these disputes. I'll also point out that it's contradictory to complain about the "X nationalists" characterization while simultaneously saying that he's "edit-waring on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view." Technically correct, I guess, but you're essentially calling him a Greek nationalist. Also, if you wish to characterize his editing as disruptive you should provide diffs of such behavior in the Evidence page. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should stop making bad-faith assumptions about the ethnicity of other editors. The dispute involved editors of various backgrounds who opposed you. --Mardavich 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you give some examples of such editors? :) I know that there was an Italian, a Dutchman and a German supporting Miskin (and later someone Swiss). Pretty ethnic diverse, don't you think?--Ploutarchos 11:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And there was an Indian, a Canadian, and a Bangladeshi opposing Miskin. Regardless, editors' actual or presumed nationality is irrelevant to this discussion. In Wikipedia, we don't treat or value other contributors based on racial, ethnic or national profiling. --Mardavich 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideally, yes. But I don't think what Mardavich just said is consistent with his earlier statement that Miskin "edit-war[s] on Greek-related topics, whilst maintaining a Greek point of view." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is consistent with my earlier statement. Miskin could be from Mars for all I care - it's his behavior that's the problem, not his presumed nationality. Of course, I will provide evidence to this effect. --Mardavich 19:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you believe it is his behavior that's problematic, it seems like it would behoove you to stop referring to his "Greek point of view." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: You can't justify your actions by coming up with conspiracy theories. It looks to me like all you've been doing in your defense is making bad-faith allegations against me and others you disagree with, or repeating such bad-faith allegations that have been refuted. By the way, who said anything about "West versus East conflict"? I've said all along that editors' actual or presumed race, ethnicity, and nationality is irrelevant to this discussion. You, on the other hand, have been trying to make a simple content dispute into an ethnic or national conflict from the very beginning, by bringing up the issue of editors' ethnicity or going as far as making false claims on behalf of the community that "wikipedia gives priority to Western scholarship"  --Mardavich 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Proposed principle #8, "Overturning blocks" 

message: Guys, stop all the arguments. This isn't doing anyone any favours, if I could suggest both  and  to go and find some evidence and put it on the evidence page if they've got any problems with one another - this is not the place start a war. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do that. Thanks for your advise. --Mardavich 21:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And unfortunately it's still going on at the workshop page. Accusing Mardavich of editwarring is beyond the scope of this arbitration, which is about Miskin's actions, and Dbachmanns actions, and my block. You guys need to stop, seriously. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Mardavich's conduct is outside the scope of the case, as it was his admins in his back pocket email that kicked all this off. If there's evidence to suggest Mardavich has been in the wrong, my impression is that it certainly can include him considering he's an involved party. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swatjester there's a huge irony when you accuse other people for having admins in their backpockets while at the same time you have been the most one-sided person of the dispute. Not only you haven't applied 3RR equally as the policy states, but now you continue to support Mardavich and his group and have it exactly the way they wanted, i.e. make it seem as if this whole mess is all about my imaginary edit-warring, 3RR-violations of 2005 and my near-vandalist behaviour. As for Mardavich and his crew, my elaboration in the evidence page is just about the evident clues. The real evidence has been forwarded to the arbitrators. The fact that you consider dbachmann as a supposedly involved party while you insist on excluding Mardavich is just _laughable_. Miskin 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments 

message: The workshop page has been turned into the "do your best to piss off Miskin and accuse him for uncivilty" page so I'll stop replying there. If Mardavich wants to continue the discussion then it should be moved in the Talk page. I'm still waiting for evidence on the accusations about the emails he allegedly received from at least three different users, which is the only thing that is relevant to the arbitration page. My reactions cannot be judged a posteriori to what Mardavich has said. If it is proved that his claims about those emails are a lie, then my reactions will be justified. 
The proposal I made in respect to Swatjester's uncivilty is also irrelevant and against WP:POINT. However, as another editor pointed out, Swatjester should also be subjected to remedy proposals, though I don't expect from anyone but myself to be interested in making them. After all Swatjester is an admin, I'm just a normal editor. Miskin 12:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocations 

message: I'm sick and tired of the trash spewing, the animosity, this misquotations, and the bad faith being displayed by Miskin and NikoSilver in this case. I'm done with it. I'm removing it from my watch list, I'm not going to be checking it again, I want no further contact on my talk page about it from anyone except the clerks notifying me that it has either moved to voting or been closed. Congratulations. You've upset an admin and a longstanding editor to the point of apathy. If that's not disruptiveness, I don't know what is. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement was made after the following comments . Just keeping it within context. Miskin 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done.