Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

For quite some time now, Mitsos has brought a severe bias to articles dealing with Nazism or Greece. He makes edits that blatently promote his admitted political bias with little or no regard for Wikipedia's policices. Efforts to reason with Mitsos prove futile, as he is more committed to having his version of an article than a community agreed upon version. This RfC will will attempt to show Mitsos how his attitudes and actions negatively affect the community and project as a whole. In doing so, we hope he will begin to focus his energies towards the betterment of WikiPedia. →Bobby← 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  1. First, a collection of instances where the user removed completely justifiable NPOV tags: 1,2, 3, 4, and 5.
  2. Early example of page move used to avoid negative stigma.
  3. Note revisions that limit any mention of Turks, as well as misleading edit summary.
  4. Some clear OR as can be seen in edit summary "I don't think..."
  5. Another move which violates NPOV.
  6. Generally abusive edit summary.
  7. Mislabeling a well intentioned edit as vandalism.
  8. Insising on a POV caption where a perfectly acceptable description was already offered.
  9. Personal attack.
  10. Personal attack.
  11. Here's a verifibility issue; WP is not a crystal ball.
  12. Userpage issues...scroll down to read a couple of copyvio essays and just generally inflamatory material. I know WP is not censored, but that does not mean WP is not decent.
  13. The same revert (or almost exactly the same, with a comment denying the extensiveness of the revert
  14. Same (or very similar) revert
  15. One of the other reverts that was the same, or close to the same as the ones listed above
  16. Deleted a legitimate 3RR warning on his talk page
  17. Apparant personal attack - accusing another editor of supporting murder
  18. Deleted the same 3RR warning on his talk page again
  19. An earlier unjustified revert to same article linked to above (and which the 3RR warning was for)
  20. Personal attack including insulting racist language
  21. Example of political bias - changed neo-Nazi to nationalist to avoid stigma and other wording changes to sneak in political agenda
  22. Personal attack - accusation of drug use and lack of education
  23. Deleted legitimate warnings on his own talk page
  24. Personal attack, including the use of profanity and caps (yelling)
  25. diff A recent example where Mitsos blanked a page he did not agree with.
  26. Another misleading edit summary using vandalism as the reason for edit.
  27. Personal attack, racism
  28. Profanity, incivility
  29. Mischaracterising another user's good faith edit as vandalism
  30. He even vandalized this RFC page by deleting two signatures and deleting two examples in this section!
  31. Violation of 31 hour ban; used anonymous IP to make edits.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:V
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:NPA
  5. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. Blocked for 31 hours & his response
  2. 3RR discussion
  3. POV tag discussion
  4. Edit discussion
  5. Edit discussion
  6. Warning about personal attacks

See also the discussions that User:Mitsos deleted from his talk page (because they showed him in a negative light). Examples of that are listed higher on this page in the list of offences.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Spylab 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SandyDancer 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. →Bobby← 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Addhoc 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Haber 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. El_C 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Aldux 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Francis Tyers · 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

First of all, I will say that I have made hundreds of constructive edits to Wikipedia, and these are just 25 cases of supposed "disputed behavior". I 'm going to respond to all "evidence" about my "disputed behavior" here.

  1. About the Allied War Crimes article, I have stated why the tags are not justifiable on the talkpage. About the Pontic Greek Genocide article, I was blocked for removing the tags.
  2. It was one of my first edits to WP, and I was wrong because I did it without disscusing first. I wasn't aware of WP rules at the time.
  3. I don't think it's a disputed edit. I improved the article's neutrality and corrected grammar mistakes. The edit summary is not misleading, because I was reverting and I warned the other Wikipedian to stop edit-waring.
  4. It's not OR. I based my claim to the fact that Hrisi Avgi supports islamic groups.
  5. It does not violates NPOV. Everyone can see that.
  6. It's not abusive at all. I didn't offend anyone.
  7. It was vandalism because he deleted two sourced statements.
  8. I don't think it's a disputed edit. The caption wasn't POV, and the description was far from "perfectly acceptable".
  9. OK, I shouldn't have done that. But also mind that he had made personal attacks on me.
  10. I was blocked because of that.
  11. I it's not future tense if that's what you mean. It's present tense which means that the march was held in 2006.
  12. The essays are now removed because an adminstrator thought they violating copyright. Apart from that there was nothing wrong. WP is not censored as you said.
  13. I had explained about these edits earlier, so I didn't had to say the same things again.
  14. It's the same thing as 13.
  15. The same again.
  16. I wouldn't delete it if it came from an adminstrator, but it came from a user who was also edit-waring.
  17. I said that because User:SandyDancer had stated that those who attacked Hrisi Avgi's offices did well.
  18. For the same reason as 16.
  19. The revert was completely justified, see the article's history.
  20. He had made a lot of personal attacks on me, and I replied. At first I ignored him and deleted his trollish comments on my talkpage, but I got angry eventually.
  21. It wasn't me who made these edits. I was reverting to a previous version by another user. I just saw this version was better and I reverted. I didn't even saw that "political bias".
  22. I was joking. L0b0t is a very good Wikipedian.
  23. OK, I know this wasn't right. I have stopped doing that.
  24. It wasn't a personal attack. It was incivility though.
  25. The page was unsourced, POV-pushing, and it was created by a Wikipedian who uses WP for propaganda. He had created other articles like that, and were all deleted.
  26. It was vandalism because he deleted sourced statements.
  27. It wasn't a personal attack. Anyone can see that. It was an uncivil comment which I later removed myself.
  28. It's not a disputed edit. Anyone can see that.
  29. It was vandalism. I have explained in the article's talkpage.
  30. It happened during an edit conflict. I 'm not so foolish.
  31. User:Spylab and I were involved in an edit-war on Hrisi Avgi. An adminstrator blocked me, without blocking Spylab or protecting the article. I requested to be unblocked, but my request was denied. Because my block was unjustifiable, I used an IP to make completely legitimate edits on Hrisi Avgi. After all, I was blocked again for evading my block.

Also, I must say that one of the accusers, SandyDancer, has violated WP policies many times, including deleting comments from his talkpage with a false edit summary, making personal attacks, and even vandalising an article. As for the second accuser, Spylab, he was edit-waring in a series of articles, such as Neo-Nazism. He never tried to solve the dispute in Hrisi Avgi, and he refused to discuss with me. In the end, I shall say that behind all that there is the political bias of certain Wikipedians. Many other users have violated WP policies, including "userpage issues".

Response to Damac[edit]

I used to edit anonymously, indeed. But after Damac warned me, I 've never edited anonymously again. He said that I haven't kept my promise, but he is wrong. As you can see in the contribution list of my IP (which Damac said I used for sockpuppetry), among many (completely uncontroversial) edits, I 've made a correction in one of my comments on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject History of Greece, which proves that I simply got loged out and forgot to sign in again. About the Ian Stuart article: I simply didn't do it. It was someone else.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mitsos 11:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Weirdoactor[edit]

The user acts in an uncivil manner to any suggestions that they correct their behavior, and in fact deletes warnings or any comments that might paint them in a bad light. They seem to only be interested in using Wikipedia articles and talk pages as a soapbox for their political agenda, and would seem to be unable to interact/collaborate with other editors in a civil and productive manner. My opinion is that this user should probably be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 16:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spylab 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --SandyDancer 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Irishguy[edit]

The talk page comments, [1] and [2] for instance, are clear violations of WP:ATTACK. As for the heavily racist essay on his userpage, while Wikipedia isn't censored, the talk page guidelines are quite clear that userpages should not consist of Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia and/or Polemical statements. It appears the he has been given numerous warnings that he either blanks or simply casually ignores. While he may claim to keep his POV out of his edits, his edits show a completely different story. I see nothing constructive about this user's work.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. IrishGuy talk 16:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Spylab 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OBriain 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. →Bobby← 13:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --SandyDancer 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FirefoxMan 22:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. NikoSilver 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I would like a concrete proposal for action to follow this rational approach.[reply]
  9. --Aldux 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Baristarim 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Damac[edit]

The user has engaged in anonymous sock puppetry on countless occasions on Wikipedia from ISP 87.203.xxx.xxx. I warned him about this on 24 September 2006 [3] and he accepted that had engaged in making anonymous posts and promised he would refrain from doing so again. [4] An examination of edit histories of the articles he's interested in shows that he failed to keep his promise. While edits made from these accounts are similar to those made from the Mitsos account, there have been some cases of blatant vandalism.[5] For a list of Mitsos anonymous sockpuppets, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mitsos. While there is no evidence to suggest that Mitsos has registered under other names, the use of anonymous accounts to is a violation of WP:SOCK in my opinion. I think Mitsos has been rather disruptive on Wikipedia and his persistent engaging in anonymous editing in controversial topics should be punished.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Damac 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --→Bobby← 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Spylab 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Aldux 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Francis Tyers · 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I remember this. Khoikhoi 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Baristarim 06:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Mitsos claimed today on my talk page that he has not made any anonymous edits since I warned him about it on 24 September. This is simply not the case, and contributions were made from the ISP User:87.203.229.22 [6] on 30 September 2006. This can hardly have been accidental as Mitsos was very active on Wikipedia the same day.--Damac 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Michalis Famelis[edit]

My personal interaction with Mitsos has taken place at the Hrisi Avgi article, from mid-August to early October. Despite the current deadlock in the article (which I believe is his fault), our previous collaboration, although not always smooth, greatly improved the preexisting article (diff) in a constructive way. In the light of my own experience I would therefore say that, despite his proven bad record, Mitsos can contribute to the Wikipedia project. That, on his defense. Now, on the other side of the story, as shown from the above evidence, Mitsos has indeed broken several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, numerous times, persistently and against warnings given by other wikipedians. Such behavior is completely unacceptable and Mitsos should face (I daresay severe) consequences. I would even propose that he be placed under probation. It should be noted though that one of the "accusers", SandyDancer, has actively trolled bad behavior out of Mitsos with comments such as this. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Hectorian 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hectorian[edit]

Firstly I would like to say that I am totally opposed to Mitsos's ideas related to "Aryan race", "Nazism", and similarly. There has also been a discussion in his page, about two months ago, related to his userpage and his comments [7]. (If someone needs translations for what was said in Greek, I would be glad to help). As for this 'Requests for comment', I would like to note a few things: I think that some of the links provided as 'evidence of disputed behavior', simply should not had been used for this reason. For example, this one; in this case, he expressed the Greek POV, as opposed to the Turkish POV (this is not the right place to get into details, but the talk page of the respective and/or similar articles could help any user realise what I mean). About his userpage (which, personally, I didn't even bother reading), has been changed now (and this was something that maybe had to do with the discussion in his talk page that I mentioned above). I also think that some of his PAs and incivility, was "provoked" by other users-this, of course, does not mean that he should had replied in the way he did, but at least we must acknowledge that some of the users these comments of his adressed to, were just trolling... In the current state, I do not want to fall into the WP:POINT trap, by naming other wikipedians, but incidents of personal attacks, disruptive behavour, polemic language, nationalistic etc templates and userpages, are quite common. If certain policies will be claimed and adopted against user Mitsos, same policies shall be adopted for other users as well. I believe that for an encyclopedia to be written in the most neutral way, all ideas should take part in the construction of the articles. I do not care if some user is nazist, nationalist, islamist, or fundamental christian... I believe that all are needed, even if they are just to show another POV. I strongly oppose censorship. Perhaps the best action to be taken in this case would be a topical ban for a specific period of time, or maybe a block, also for a time period, since he has clearly violated rules. To sum up, I think that if the Wikipedian community would indefinitely ban him, we would have just overeacted. Hectorian 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Hectorian 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aristovoul0s 10:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NikoSilver 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aristovoulos[edit]

Please allow me to attempt to contextual -ise. The term race is liable to ambiguity, and clearly a matter of perception, it is expressed so by {worldwideview} tag. From the existing article in wk that i have never edited it states: "Many regard race as a social construct. Many think it has genetic basis. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), genes, and self-identification. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial, for scientific reasons as well as because of their impact on social identity and identity politics.

The point that i am trying to make by the prologue is that the term "race" allows for many interpretations and thus conflicting views. Ideas related to "Aryan race", "Nazism", and the similar are just ideas and hypothesis, laughable at a certain point however still ideas and they should be treated as such either good or bad. Maybe {worldwideview} tag is appropriate to some more articles. Now

  1. [8] Why does this edit offend ? "Nationalsozialismus" was where the abbreviation "nazi" was derived from. "Nazi" as a standalone word has no actual meaning as a social-system other than "National Socialism". Going a step further, many "National Socialism" systems have precipitated at various periods and different geographic areas. Arguably starting from the society structure that Spartans established then ancient romans fasces (strength through unity) and Mousolini down to Nazis being the most known perhaps for their atrocities. One could argue that National Socialism as a system could be used as an umbrella term suitable, perhaps, to cover both.[9] [10].I can not interpret this editors edit[11] as an "attempt to avoid negative stigma". The edit clearly pinpoints and defines the ideology. The argument "attempt to avoid negative stigma" is going a little bit too far (personal opinion).
  2. For this edit. Why did user Kertenkelebek reverted the edit here. Turkish War of Independence is what Turks call the war. It was and is viewed as "independence" by the Turks, but not for Greeks because Greeks believed and believe that they were liberating Greek areas that had earlier in time conquered by the advancing Ottomans [12]. If you check user Kertenkelebeks contributions to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) on 29th of June 2006 he/she reverted the same edit 2 times one the same day. Once [13] Two[14] And then came back the following day to do it again [15]. Why? Is the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) recognized as Turkish Independence War by the world at large? Has it been referred as such by the world at large? User Mitsos was merely stressing that Kertenkelebek could "mind that you might be blocked from editing wikipedia if you keep doing that" referring to my understanding to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I fail to understand why the edit summary "is misleading".

Please read the arguments above with a clear mind and you shall see that it is a matter of perception and not objectively true "example to avoid stigma" and "misleading edit summary" as stated by the "accuser". I agree with Hectorian and his argument that "If certain policies will be claimed and adopted against user Mitsos, same policies shall be adopted for other users as well. I believe that for an encyclopedia to be written in the most neutral way, all ideas should take part in the construction of the articles. I do not care if some user is nazist, nationalist, islamist, or fundamental christian... I believe that all are needed, even if they are just to show another POV." I also strongly oppose censorship. User Mitsos needs to calm down, maybe have a break from wikipedia but an indefinite ban is not the answer.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Aristovoul0s 10:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NikoSilver 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hectorian 12:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by NikoSilver[edit]

Arguably if everybody here pastes a different proposal, we're not getting anywhere. I'll post my questions here and expect responses/clarifications in the respective sections.

IrishGuy[edit]

Regarding "nothing constructive about this user's work", I must disagree. All POV's are important for WP to become NPOV, as long as they are not forced by violating policies. I made the mistake once of accusing someone for being biased because he was editing articles exclusively in the fields of pedophilia and pederasty. We may all hate e.g. pedophiles, but WP needs to have an article about them too. I request revision of this comment.

Damac[edit]

Mitso's promise was on 12:26 (UTC), September 25, 2006. I'd like to know the following:

So what do 7 users there exactly endorse? Last time I checked WP:RFCU wasn't supposed to be a poll!?

Mitsos[edit]

Did anybody read his responses to all 32 (or so) diffs? Just pick a random sample of -say- 5 and check if he's wrong. WP:NPA is one thing, and perma-banning another. Nobody is a saint, so go ahead and check how many times Mitsos committed the offense, and under what circumstances. My examination produced very few instances, and I find this long listing to be a WP:POINT violation by the applicants, not to mention that it is misleading. I request removal of all adequately responded to/justified edits. Users who endorse the summary must be informed that they largely endorse lies. Aristovoul0s pointed this out too.

Hectorian[edit]

WP:POINT is not applicable. WP:SELECTIVE POINT would be (i.e. double standards). I can provide dozens of inflammatory userpages, and I have also participated in deleting content from such userpages in a joint effort to tone down heated debates. That's really far from banning (BTW most of these users back then have re-enstated the inflammatory content...)

All others (sorry)[edit]

I'm one of those who detest extremity in any form. I'm also one of those who admire sincerity. The accused specifically admits being a white supremacist and all that, knowing that he will be confronted. Just please make sure you're not confronting him for what he is.

Proposal[edit]

  • Force user to tone down his userpage content according to the joint opinion of -say- 3 uninvolved users (I offer to try and be one of those three)
  • WP:RFCU for the WP:SOCK accusation. Punishment accordingly if confirmed (24h-48h-?)
  • WP:PROB for -say- 2 months on these articles (please specify which)
  • I haven't seen WP:NPA working effectively lately, apart from some efforts by certain admins (notably Inshaneee). Probation on that too, on the grounds that he was highly provoked by the same method.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --NikoSilver 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hectorian 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aristovoul0s 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Closing comments[edit]

This RFC was closed after a lengthy period of inactivity with no additional statements of dispute. Additional comments regarding this RFC's outcome on the talk page. --Muchness (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mitsos&oldid=1136069446"