Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Swatjester[edit]

Incident started when I recieved an email from an aggrieved user, as well as a talk page message from Mardavich. Among other things, I was directed to the 3RR report on Miskin, which closed as "no vio" (mistakenly). I planned to correct Sam Blacketer's mistake, and give a cursory 24hr block for 3RR vio; upon block log review, I saw that Miskin had received several 3RR blocks, and blocks for disruptive editing/page moving; six blocks in total. They were all on the same topics: related to ancient Greece, Persia, Macedonia, etc. This fit in line with the 3RR request, and, given the extensive prior block history, I determined that Miskin was well aware of 3RR policy and intentionally chose to violate it. Given the priors, I extended my block to 1 month. (Perfectly reasonable considering blocks escalate: 24hr->48hr->1 week-> multiple weeks/month->year or longer) Sam Blacketer later agreed with the found violation. I should note now, that whether or not there were 4 reversions or not is of no consequence: WP:3RR allows for blocks with less than 4 reverts, and for partial reverts. Whether or not the 3RR was broke is indisputable: it was clearly broken.

In the email I received, I was warned that Miskin has "several admins in his pocket", some of who were named directly, and I was told that he would undoubtedly be unblocked immediately.

Dbachmann unblocked Miskin after I went to sleep, without consulting me first. I brought this up on AN/I for block review, which shows a wide, overwhelming array of support for the block, and a handful of editors disagreeing with either the block in general, or in some cases, the length. In compromise, Alison reblocked for 1 week, minus the 12 hours or so already spent. Newyorkbrad at first indicated intent to unblock, then stated that the consensus was towards remaining blocked.

I'm upset that despite the weight of WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK policy on my side, the block was undone without any sort of discussion. Miskin has a long history of disruptive editing, and contentious edits on the Ancient Greek/Macedonia area. I urge ArbCom to look at TWO distinct issues here:

  • The reasonableness of inital block length, and the subsequent unblocking without consultation, given the allegations from the email; and
  • Review of the disruptive editing habits of Miskin, including personal attacks, and 3RR violations.

This whole discussion is beginning to turn bitter and vitriolic, especially given the inexplicable behavior by Dbachmann, including allegations that I'm "a newbie admin throwing his weight around", and that I was playing some sort of "bad cop" routine. This seems like a colossal failure to assume good faith, something that a fellow administrator should know better by now. The tone of Dbachmann's response in this statement, being entirely incivil and inflammatory, further strengthens my argument.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In regards to Newyorkbrad's statement, I should state, I have no objection to Miskin being unblocked for the purpose of this ArbCom. If he edits other stuff during that time, fine. He'll have to be on his best behavior, which is what this is all about anyway: him misbehaving. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miskin[edit]

Sorry about that, I have no prior experience with this. My statement was too long so I moved it here. A shorter statement can be found here [1]. Miskin 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (Statement transcluded to page by User:Phil Sandifer):[reply]

Yes, I'm willing to do what you desribed above for the simple reason that this is what I've been doing for at least a year now. I cannot lie to myself and admit to you that I've been edit-warring. I haven't. Check my edit-history as much as you want, you won't find more than two reverts in 24 hours for a very long period of time. In my opinion I didn't violate 3RR in Battle of the Persian Gate. My alleged fourth "partial revert" was an edit, and the 2nd and 3rd reverts aimed at keeping the consensus version up in case of article protection. I never thought that defending an article against a clear troll/sockpuppet (with three reverts) could ever be considered as rv-warring, let alone a violation of 3RR and punishable with a one-month block. So what do you expect me to say? I'm being accused for errors that I committed 17 months ago. Have I regretted it? Yes. Have I changed? Yes. Can I pretend that this is connected to the recent alleged 3RR event? No.

But why am I suddenly being judged for uncivil behaviour? And how are those people in AnI more civil than I am? Let's have a look at the language they use:

I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

or

Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. 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.

or

Did I hear something quack?

How are all those people better than me? At least I apologise when I say something improper. But of course it's too easy accusing someone when he's not able to defend himself. Some people want me desperately out of the picture [2] [3], and amazingly they're doing quite well. Once unblocked I'll take this subject to the highest level of wikipedia justice, and if it comes out that wikipedia judges me guilty (for this 3RR and the violations of 2005), then I'll sincerely be happy to leave it behind. This is not a threat nor big talk, it's just the way I feel. It will simply prove to me that it isn't worth it. Miskin 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dbachmann[edit]

original issue: [4] Miskin (talk · contribs) was tempted into a fourth revert by Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs) (trolling account since blocked by Dmcdevit), which earned him a block of one month from Swatjester (talk · contribs), together with a warning that "Your disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent".

This sorry story is an epic feat in the art of escalation on the part of Swatjester, turning a minor trolling incident into a frustrating shouting match. My take on it is summarized here. I am ready to believe that Swatjester in best faith believes that Wikipedia needs bad cops and manly decision-makers, but this very case proves him wrong. My gripe is that he keeps misstating the particulars in spite of better knowledge. I never "unblocked" Miskin, I shortened his block to the original 24 hours, which was an arguable penalty. My unblock wasn't "out of process" or "wheel warring", I reacted to {{unblock}} request as an uninvolved party, and immediately notified the blocking admin, advising him to take the matter to AN/I if he disagreed. Which he did, notably without notifying me, or without mentioning my concerns in his request entitled block review regarding "admins in troublesome user's back pocket", but instead of leaving it at that, he turned the incident into a matter of personal honour of bringing his felon to justice, harping ("REPEATEDLY") on Miskin having a history of disruptive editing back in 2005. Swatjester's block of Miskin wasn't Miskin's "SEVENTH" block for disruption as he puts it. As I established here, there were five previous blocks, three of them revoked before expiration, amounting to a total block time served of 56 hours, the last block, lasting for all of 38 minutes for "unilateral moves", dating to last September. This simply isn't the profile of the disruptive troll Swatjester wants to insist his chosen victim irredeemably is.

Swatjester's colossal failure to de-fuse, de-escalate, and acknowledge his mistakes does not bode well for his future admin career. I recognize his second RFA in February received near-unanimous support, but his recent actions prove the severe concerns expressed in his first one were only too justified. Taking this to RfAr in a huff is just a further show of unrestrained temper. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Blacketer[edit]

(The first two paragraphs are a copy of what I wrote on the Administrators' Noticeboard)

Investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout.

This case seems to have developed more into a discussion of administrative actions and the circumstances under which one admin can reverse the actions of another, and I think this may be a more productive line of inquiry (although the ArbCom has addressed it in other cases before). I'm not on any particular side in it. It may be worth drawing to attention (a) the fact SwatJester did not 'consult' me before blocking for one month, but told me he had done so; (b) Miskin has only twice had a block that was not commuted or cancelled, but they have been by different Admins; (c) no admin has stepped in to unblock for this violation, except Alison who commuted to 1 week (still a relatively long block) in line with community consensus. Another interesting issue in this case is the extent to which a block history dating from 18 months ago should be taken into account in determining behaviour now, and in this context I think SwatJester and JzG have (in different ways) overstated how problematic an editor Miskin really is. Sam Blacketer 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alison[edit]

I became involved in this issue when it was posted to WP:ANI. User:Swatjester originally requested a review of his block of User:Miskin. I commented that the block log looked a little strange as there were a number of block reversions in his past. Almost immediately, an increasingly heated discussion started up about the length of the 1-month block that SJ imposed. Some hours later, things were not much better and comments were starting to get personal. At this point, about 4 hours after User:Dbachmann had reduced SJ's original block to 15 hours from 1 month, I stated that I would be bold and set the block to a total of 7 days.[5] I waited a short while, then imposed a block of 6 days (7 less the theoretical 1 day already served). I did this as an uninvolved admin in full view of the community, with a view to achieving some sort of consensus, with a certain fairness towards the blocked editor and with the intent of defusing a situation which was already getting more and more heated. In retrospect, this didn't happen, though the block held and at least it didn't degenerate into wheel warring.

Subsequent to this, some unfortunate comments regarding my decision being "patent bad judgement" were posted to the blocked user's talk page. This certainly didn't help matters. My comment on User:Miskin's talk page had read as follows; "Re. to the discussion on WP:ANI, I have modified this block to extend it to 1 week, less 24 hours for the existing block time. One month is too long. However, you have repeatedly violated the 3RR rule and, given the amount of time you have been here and your previous 3RR history, you should really be familiar with the rules at this point".

User:Miskin then sent me a polite email requesting unblocking. I declined as the blocking admin and suggested they use the {{unblock}} tag to ensure an uninvolved admin reviewed the block and decided accordingly. Miskin did not subsequently email but instead, posted an {{unblock}} request. The debate re-started on ANI at this point, with User:Newyorkbrad suggesting unblock. I later replied stating that while I'd personally be against unblocking at this point, I would however, defer to community opinion. My comment was as follows; "as the current blocking admin, I'd like to say that while I would personally be opposed to lifting the block at this time for numerous reasons, I would certainly defer to community opinion here. Given that the matter was brought here in the first place by SJ for that very reason, that is the most appropriate response. Having said that, I have to say I am disappointed by the way this whole issue was handled here by numerous people on all sides of this heated debate; the assumption of bad-faith on behalf of others, the incivility, the making of grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of the blocked user in question, the email campaign that started up. And on it goes. While blocking for 3RR violation is not meant to be a punishment, I don't feel the user in question has learnt from this experience. My one-week re-block was done in good faith to prevent this whole issue getting out of hand, which ultimately it ended up doing anyway". Newyorkbrad stated then that it appeared that the consensus was to maintain the block & I agreed.

That ended my involvement in this case. Later on, User:Ryan Postlethwaite would overturn my block to enable User:Miskin to take part here, a decision I find to be entirely acceptable.

I'd like to point out, too, that I felt the original 1-month block to be excessive. Blocking is never meant to be punitive and would like to say that my 1 week block was not meant in that way.

It was commented early on that User:Miskin had "admins in his back-pocket". While this is just hearsay and I certainly disregarded this comment when imposing the block, I'd like ArbCom's opinion regarding it. It's worrying on a number of levels; that there may be some truth to it and that if not, someone is spreading that rumour by email. - Alison ☺ 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are a fucking idiot. 'Admins in back pockets?' What kind of idiot believes this shit. This is part of a protracted campaign to get rid of excellent Greek editors like Miskin.--NeroDrusus 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever about the appropriateness of the comment above, it should be emphasised that the "admins in pockets" rumour had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my block. My mention of it here is out of concern that a "whispering campaign" may have been carried out. - Alison ☺ 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Edit warring considered harmful[edit]

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.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

2) 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.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

3) 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.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking[edit]

4) Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

passed 11-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Block summaries[edit]

5) 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.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Equitable enforcement[edit]

6.2) Administrators enforcing the 3RR are expected to familiarize themselves with the edit history of the article at issue and the facts of the edit war. Once this is done, administrators should treat all sides fairly and equitably in placing blocks.

passed 10-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks should be preceded by on-wiki discussion.[edit]

7.2) In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Findings of Fact[edit]

Several users broke the three-revert rule at Battle of the Persian Gate[edit]

1.1) The locus of the dispute was the article, Battle of the Persian Gate. An edit war over the article was under way and had peaked around 11 May 2007. Miskin (talk · contribs), AlexanderPar (talk · contribs), and Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs) each made edits during this time that could have been construed as violations of the three revert rule.

Dharmender6767 made four obvious reverts and was blocked at 14:24 (UTC) on May 11 by an administrator unrelated to this proceeding.

Miskin reverted to this version 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 may be construed to be a breach of the three revert rule, which administrators are encouraged to interpret with judgment rather than in a mechanistic fashion. Misken had been blocked on five previous occasions for three revert rule violations, most recently in December 2005, about sixteen months prior to the current dispute.

Under like criteria, AlexanderPar could have also been construed to be in violation of the three revert rule, based on reversions to the version of 12:42, 11 May 2007 by Dharmender6767 at 12:54, 13:31, and 14:40 followed by a related edit at 19:03.

passed 8-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's block was excessive[edit]

2) Swatjester's block of Miskin for one month, while performed in good faith, was excessive.

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's block[edit]

3) Swatjester's block of Miskin was based upon a complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Swatjester did not investigate the complaint sufficiently to determine that there were other editors at Battle of the Persian Gate who were as much in violation of the three revert rule as Miskin. Swatjester based the lengthy block duration on the large number of previous 3RR violations, and either overlooked or lent little credence to the comparatively long periods of time and large volumes of editing between violations.

passed 9-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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 cautioned[edit]

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

passed 12-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester advised[edit]

2.2) Swatjester is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly.

passed 11-0 at 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans[edit]

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin&oldid=1140417422"