Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The fourth revert

Thebainer thanks for your analysis, I find it very useful at this point. However I would like to point out that this edit [1] was made as a compromise, and by no means as a revert. Many of Mardavich's points were respected, such as keeping his non-neutral point of view about speaking abstractly of an "Iran" (rather than "in modern Iran"), his claims on a "heroic last stand" and specifying "Macedonians" rather than Greeks. Proof that this was meant as a compromise is the fact that the edit even to this point stands as the standard lead in the article Battle of the Persian Gate. This proves that it was a successful compromise. Only today (18/5) there was a minor edit on wiki-linking last stand [2]. How can it be claimed that an accepted edit in a controversial article was a fourth revert (and by consenquence edit-warring and disruptive editing)? Even if my word is not to be accepted, the hypothesis on a partial revert is refuted by the course of the events. Miskin 13:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin's Accusations

Miskin has made several accusations against me in the evidence page. I don't know how accusing others is helping in his defense but I can show that all of his claims against me are wrong. I will provide prove if the committee believes it is useful in the case.(Arash the Archer 01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I can't see how it's relevant. Arash is not a party to the case, so why is this going on? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what Miskin is getting at. He's citing evidence that Arash is edit warring as well. Unfortunately, that's beyond the scope of this arbitration, doubly so since Arash is not a party, and frankly I don't think he was ever mentioned even in passing in the RFAR, either by me or Miskin, or anyone else. And finally, even if Arash was edit warring (which I haven't looked into, may be true, may be not), it wouldn't excuse Miskin's actions. The old adage two wrongs don't make a right.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Miskin did mention Arash the Archer under "Some people who want me out of the picture" ([3]). A simple browser search command will prove that. And he of course mentioned him by name in his full statement, which he had to shorten([4]) Note that User:AlexanderPar is not mentioned here as a party either, while he participated in the edit warring, in the canvasing to get Miskin blocked and in the campaign on ANI. As for the whole edit warring picture, User:Swatjester seems to have forgotten he wrote this not so long ago:
[5]. I am glad to see that at [6] there is a growing consensus to do what Swatjester promised then. There is a strong suspicion that a number of the users canvasing against Miskin are in fact sockpuppets of banned users, which makes the use of e-mail in such circumstances very doubtful. --Pan Gerwazy 09:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That didn't take long, apparently User:Arash the Archer has had this page in his watchlist, what a surprise. Unless Arash and Mardavich prove that the diffs I provided are somehow fabricated, I don't see how they can disprove the points I have made. Arash you should have realised by now that since the matter has gone to ArbCom, it's not going to work exactly as you had it planned with Mardavich. Despite Swatjester's warm support, there's much more to investigate other than an implausible 3RR violation. Swatjester has accused me for being a disruptive editors and an edit-warrior. The sections he characterised as "beyond of ArbCom's scope" aims at demonstrating that Mardavich et al could not fit any better wikipedia's description of disruptive editing. See WP:DE, read the bulletpoints on the definition section one-by-one and pay attention on the last one: "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: violate other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles." Miskin 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email evidence

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that no email should be posted on the evidence page without the sender's permission, including the email from an unknown sender that Swatjester recently posted. Obviously, the email is relevant, but it should be sent to the ArbCom mailing list, rather than posted here. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very useful, a point is about to be made. Swatjester's entry will be very enlightening to the ArbCom case and all malicious allegations that are being constantly made against me. Miskin 13:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I do feel sorry to see how Swatjester is constantly jumping to erroneous conclusions, which are by default against me. Miskin 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus: I've already sent it to arbcom. It's been received. Also, I originally intended to post all of my screenshots of my mail here. I then realized that would be a rude breach of confidentiality, so I instead sent them to arbcom. Miskin has said quite a few times that he wishes to see the emails. If the sender does not mind, I'm more than willing to show them. It's essentially immaterial: they may be true, they may not. Every single one of them happened AFTER the block anyway, so it's irrelevant, I'm only posting them for transparancy purposes. In fact, the only real important emails are the first one which basically consisted of "See, I told you he'd be unblocked", and the latest one, which I've posted already here. All the ones in the middle are basically nothing more than correspondence of me helping Mardavich with the arbitration process, and him correcting me on some of my statements,(with the exception of a statement from another admin that had interesting things to say, and a statement from some other user that I'd never heard before.) ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note, so far only one of the mailers has requested that I keep the emails private. So if I hear back, then we may be good. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I commented on the main page while you were posting here. It would be best if everyone agreed to release the emails publically, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial emails regarding "admins"

I am in the process of screenshotting them and uploading them. I won't bother using Wikipedia file space, I'll do it on my own servers.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, I think you should release all information that you have on the issue. I have never questioned your integrity as a sysop, but I do think that you have been misguided by off-wiki communications. The above e-mail is elucidating, as it contains patent lies about me being ready to support Miskin in "whatever he does or says". I don't support him as a person, but I do support a certain set of principles that I feel have been neglected in this case. I challenge anyone to provide evidence that I have ever interacted with that particular user either on- or off- Wikipedia, or, better still, that I understand what the Miskin-Mardavich dispute was about, let alone have held some sort of interest in its outcome. Actually, I had not been aware of Miskin's existence before he was blocked. As for NikoSilver, I recall to have disputed with him (or, rather, with Yannismarou) once over a Macedonia-related issue, where I felt they had been unfair towards User:Dahn. That's about all I know about him. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add my two cents. I was rather critical towards Swatjester throughout this case but I have never ever received any of such emails. Similar to Ghirla I have never ever heard the names of Miskin and Swatjester before. I took it upon myself to comment on the case purely based on my perception that blocking a long term editor for a month without discussion is harmful, dangerous and plain stupid. I also have certain opinions about the kind of admin's liberal usage of the block button as well as the underlying reasons of such admin attitude that have everything to do with the weaknesses of human nature.
Everything else aside, Swatjester's act was inexcusable and harmful for the project. My comments were restricted to this narrow issue. Please don't try to sidetrack the main controversy (bad block) by piling on some irrelevant stuff to deflect the discussion. --Irpen 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that was not the main controversy. Remember Irpen, I filed the arbitration. The arbitration is to review Miskin's behavior, and Dbachmann's undoing of my block. Arbcom decision on my block is unnecessary, the community decided for themselves already it was excessive, and they preferred one week instead. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think ArbCom can consider any evidence they like and expand or contract the scope of the case as they deem necessary. If people are presenting irrelevant evidence the arbitrators will just ignore it. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this has turned into a threaded discussion (which maybe should be removed to the talk page?) I'll add my two cents. Email is not supposed to be posted on-wiki without permission from the sender, and I don't think it's appropriate to post it without identifying the sender. If it's relevant, send it to arbcom, but please don't post it here without telling us who's saying this stuff. The number one problem I have with this case is the allegation that Miskin has "admins in his pocket" with no evidence to back it up (including the accusation that I and other admins have been influenced by an email campaign on Miskin's behalf). The email that Swatjester reproduces above contains the same type of accusation, without any evidence, and placing it here allows someone to spread innuendo without taking responsibility for what they're saying. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't care about what Swatjester posts or does not post, after all it only goes to show that the entire Miskin case (ArbCom, AnI, alleged 3RR violation/edit-warring) was instigated by malicious off-wiki communication and false accusations which continue to the present moment. This is the only thing about Swatjester's email evidence that is relevant to the ArbCom case. Also Swatjester, please stop propagating that dbachmann "undid" your block, this is just not true. Dbachmann restored the standard 3RR block duration, he didn't examine my claim that there was no violation involved. Miskin 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I know Miskin, and I see him around frequently in WP because our articles of interest happen to coincide. I have tried in one case that I remember to bridge the gap between him and other editors and provide a compromise solution.[7] Other than that, I consider him a very knowledgeable editor, with a huge potential, and great contributions. Yes, I would support him because of these, but not to the extent of doing so "no matter what he does or says". Actually I take issue with this, because it implies I am biased for him for some reason. Extraordinary claims must come with extraordinary proof, but I now see that this is tactic has become a pattern: First Miskin is accused for [the unheard of, and still totally unsupported by evidence] "general disruption" (to call it politely), and now I am accused for being his lackey in trying to highlight this. I'm nobody's lackey, and apologies would be in order by whoever said it. I find it really unintelligent and shameful that this unsupported libel had to make its way here through the evidence of an admin. NikoSilver 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh god, don't start bandying about "libel", which does not apply here for multiple reasons. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see now that "libel" has more negative connotations than my maternal Greek λίβελος (libelos --both from Latin). Where is the evidence to back up that I'd "support him no matter what he does or say"? And if there isn't any, why are you posting this? Did you examine it before posting it here or did you take it for granted like those e-mails alleging Miskin's generally disruptive past (for which there are still no diffs either)? NikoSilver 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No diffs? I think The Bainer did a great job of providing the diffs of Miskin's disruption. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Which of these in particular would you call "generally disruptive"? Can you name one? (Let alone a pattern of many to support "general"?) NikoSilver 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And a me-too: when I first saw this thing I did not know Miskin from a hole in the ground. Respectfully wonder who these people who will "support him no matter what he does or says" may be. Even more respectfully suggest that the reason why the people who at first supported Swatjester at ANI are staying away now may be that they have since noticed that Miskin's earlier blocks were two years ago. I agree, Miskin's general behaviour here is rather naughty, but all this brandishing of secret information that he cannot refute because it is secret or should be secret or the senders should remain secret, is not really good for calm argument. These e-mails provide one side of the argument with an undue advantage, as chess players know: "The threat is more powerful than the execution" (Aron Nimzowitsch)--Pan Gerwazy 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are maybe forgetting that the arbitrators have the entire contents of the email: sender, addresses, everything? The entire history of all of them? As I said earlier: until I get approval from the last person to post the confidential ones, I cannot do so. Why is this continually being brought up? Come to think of it, why are we having a threaded discussion in the Evidence page?⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Who sent it is rather immaterial. We are challenging the claims made in these e-mails. We are stating that you took these for granted without proof. NikoSilver 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)