Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Cool Cat (talk · contribs)[edit]

User Lacks Civility[edit]

  1. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Declares some wikipedians (or their actions) Anti-Semitic and cites them as examples of Anti-Semitism.
  2. User:Cool Cat/def
    • An exchange of continuing incivil comments.
  3. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Indirectly accuses "a lot of users" adding "racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda". Which may be true, but his tone is still incivil.
  4. User:Cool Cat/def
    • A variety of comments that can be easily interpreted as personal attacks.

User pushes POV[edit]

  1. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Suggests several cited and published material "outdated and insignificant".
  2. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Generalises and talks behalf of Iranians and dismisses theories "brought by outsiders to iranian scholars". So iranian and outsider pov is false which basicaly is everyone.
  3. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Dismisses "Iranian books" and declares them unusable in an article talking about Persians.
  • I am not fascinated with the politics behind Persian people, but from what I recall from history persians lived in the same area occupied by modern Iran. I personaly believe the best source of information about any culture, ethnic group, etc. is from the culture, ethnic group, etc. I do not believe Iranian books are to be ignored especialy when Iran is being discussed.

No understanding of certain wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR/WP:NPOV[edit]

  1. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Complains about published material violating WP:NOR which is self conflicting.
  2. User:Cool Cat/def
    • Is fast to remove/replace anything disputing factual acuracy with {{npov}} (or remove it all together) in the middle of an ongoing discussion.
    • Aucaman started this article with a pov title (Turkish Kurdistan = Turkish lands owned by kurds). Many other editors, one being Gruntness, agree with me on this.

Good contribution(s)[edit]

  • User:Cool Cat/def
    • RC patroling here, which is a good thing. Although test2 before test1 is bad, but he fixed that error of his, himself

Evidence presented by Zmmz (talk · contribs)[edit]

The evidence being submitted here are an attempt to show that User:Aucaman, regrettably engages in a cyclical pattern that results in a disruptive influence on some articles. The user may be obstinate to the point that even a pending ArbCom case has not resulted in an attempt at a good behaviour: some requests made to him to stay calm, should have served as a temporary remedy, in that the user could have taken full advantage of this opportunity to allow for a cooling-off period to set in, yet instead, his usual activities continue. Example: he was recently blocked for another 3RR violation, but blocked again for a second consecutive day, this time for civility infractions; however, even so, while still blocked the user threatened to file an Rfc against the administrator(s) who blocked him[2].

  • These activities ligature other violations that are the result of, or result in the user`s many disputes.


User engages in Wikipedia:edit warring[edit]

1. Excessively reverting many articles such as Persian people, Iranian people, Parsi, and Iran: the user disagrees with the use of the word Aryan[3], and/or Indo-European in many articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32][33] [34]

User violates WP:POINT[edit]

1. Places numerous dispute tags on articles, namely Persian people, Iranian people, Parsi, Turkish Kurdistan, and Iran: (sometimes simultaneously) [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49][50] [51]


User does not Work toward agreement[edit]

1. User Aucaman refuses to properly cooperate/collaborate with others, including third party editors/mediators, e.g. does not accept references, erases comments and warnings from his talk page etc. [52][53][54] [55] [56] [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]

User goes against WP:POV[edit]

1. Inserts highly inappropriate comments in articles to perhaps illustrate certain points of views, e.g., trying to relate Persia to Nazi Germany [65][66][67] [68]

User violates WP:3RR[edit]

In most instances the user is very active in articles and just stops short of the 3RR, timing his edits just outside the 24 hour period in order to evade the policy, but at times he has gone over 4 reverts in 24 hours.

1. 27 March 2006 [69]

2. 11 March 2006[70]

3. 1 March 2006 (not reported for it) 1st revert: [71] 2st revert: [72] 3nd revert: [73] 4rd revert: [74] 5th revert: [75] 6th revert: [76] 7th revert: [77] 8th revert: [78]

User goes against WP:Etiquette/Civility infractions[edit]

The user is also an intelligent, and savvy Wikipedian, and is well connected here, yet one who unfortunately indirectly involves others in what seems like a non-ending loop, in which he refuses to reason in the discussion pages or mediations, reverts articles, then if others revert it back, he reports them to the admins for various reasons (often unmerited); such reasons may include his accusations that others follow him around, he reports others unjustly for 3RR in the hope that they will stop reverting his POV etc. In all the user tries to game the system, e.g. contacting and trying to buy the sympathy of the admins, and in general there is just a certain unwillingness by the user to confluence with various groups of editors; his tone has been consistently immoderate and abrasive.

1."You made a good analogy with the right-wingers in America, except that these people are the clear minority - most of them were kicked out of Iran". [79].

2."Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgotten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary" (note: this comment was translated[80]), [81].

3. Other incivilities[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99][100][101] Zmmz 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Zereshk[edit]

User never assumes good faith[edit]

User certainly lacks etiquette. But also fails to assume good faith to warn others first, methodically reporting them for 3RR, sometimes incorrectly: [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]

User manipulates discussion pages[edit]

Ive seen this user remove comments and warnings from his talkpage and removing other's comments from discussion pages as well, moving articles entirely such as parsi etc. without discussing anything with anyone.

[107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

When confronted, he engages in combative behaviour with other editors such as User:ManiF (which Ive personally seen), instead of trying to resolve things by talk. That's why I rarely engage this user (Aucaman) at all. It disrupts any attempt to make some real contribution. All ones time will be waisted on quarreling with no ending. That's not why I'm here on WP.

It cannot escape the notice of outside observers such as myself that people such as him make optimal use of gaming the system, and that is a bad precedent for WP.

Interesting is that, as far as these edit wars go, the obvious pattern is that Aucaman seems to be obsessed with only Iranian articles. I dont see this user engaging in edit wars anywhere else.--Zereshk 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Khoikhoi[edit]

User:Aucaman[edit]

User pushes POV
Recently Aucaman has been POV-pushing on the Ruhollah Khomeini page. He insists on adding a paragraph called "views on non-Muslims", although this is disputed by several other users, who have explained that the Shi'a tradition of ritual purity is not unique to Khomeini, and is common to most, if not all Shi'a theologians. Despite this, he continues to add the paragraph ([112] [113] [114]) and revert about it ([115] [116] [117] [118] [119])

User removes people's comments

I've caught Aucaman deleting the comments of others on talk pages - specifically at Talk:Iranian peoples. Just because the comments were unsigned, there isn't any justification for this. [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] --Khoikhoi 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Heja helweda[edit]

WP:NPOV violations

  • [125] Kingdom of Kurdistan page - The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad. The British were not much kinder to the Kurds. It is wrongly preserved that the first regime that used poison gases against Kurds was Saddam Hussein’s government. This is wrong. British were the first regime to gas Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan. (Hardly neutral at all, especially the "gas attack" section summarized above)

WP:3RR

Bad faith

Evidence presented by SouthernComfort[edit]

User lacks civilty[edit]

  • Referring to me as a "troll" and my edits as "trolling" [136] [137] [138] (was blocked as a result for the last comment [139]; had been warned beforehand by an admin [140])
  • Referring to me as a "devils advocate" and "racialist-nationalist" among other incivilities and baseless accusations [141] [142]

User violates WP:POINT and WP:V[edit]

Evidence presented by Zmmz (talk · contribs)[edit]

Evidence showing the willingness to compromise[edit]

Hi, regarding your proposal here[154]; the aforementioned articles, namely Parsi, Persian people, and Iranian people that show I had engaged in edit-warring in, are actually a few weeks old. At some point, I took the advice of the admins to heart, and did not become frustrated by Aucaman`s offensive edits, rather left those articles. It has been a month and a half since then, and I have taken Wiki even more seriously, moreover, I had made numerous attempts, with some success at compromising with various other editors (in some cases, such as the Persian Gulf article the long edit wars ceased after I intervened). Here are some diffs showing my successful attempts at compromising with various other editors,

[168].

Support by third party Wiki editors confirming good behaviour by Zmmz[edit]

  • This diff shows some comments by others[169]

Hello I was asked to add a comment here by Zmmz. I would generally say I have an opposite POV on the articles where I have come into contact with Zmmz, but in the cases where we have had serious conflicts we have been able to compromise. Zmmz definetely has a stong POV, but I think it would be wrong to block him from editing these articles since on the whole I think he makes useful additions. I think it is kinda strange that out of all the Pro-Iranian editors it is Zmmz that has been picked on, since he is easily the most reasonable and not to mention courteus of all of these users.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from above link) Ditto to most everything Moshe just said. In my case, I had a brief conflict with Zmmz a couple months ago when he was brand new on the scene here, and still did not know all the ropes - but we were indeed soon able to reach a compromise that was satisfactory to everyone, by each giving a little... From what I can tell, he seems to have adjusted to becoming a "wikipedian" remarkably swiftly; and since this here is the first time I have ever commented on any arbcom case in any way, it could be said that he is more experienced than I am in certain areas! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codex Sinaiticus (talk • contribs)

I must agree with all of user:Moshe's comments above. I was in a pretty good debate with Moshe where Zmmz made strong efforts to mediate, and to maintain an air of civility and a spirit of community. My experiences with Zmmz came on the Talk:Persian Jews page, where he showed great willingness to compromise and find consensus. For those concerned, a quick read (!) of the talk page there should answer lots of questions about the behaviour of all these editors. - black thorn of brethil 00:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above regarding zmmz and his ability and willingness to compromise. I have seen it many times. Also, I think it would be a bad idea to block him since as Moshe said, he makes useful additions. Gol 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never Incivil[edit]

I have never been blatantly uncivil to other editors, since I have joined Wiki. Zmmz 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment as well. I have closely followed many of the discussions he was part of and I don’t ever remember him being uncivil. Gol 20:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:InShaneee[edit]

User:Ahwaz[edit]

WP:POINT

  • [170] Removes a large section of text in a page (that he wrote) to protest the removal of other pieces of text he had wrote.

WP:CIVIL

  • [171] "I'm not convinced...that sitting tight and working within the rules [of Wikipedia] actually works...The only solution...is to oppose them and their system"
  • [172] "Go on, report me. You'll get some medals and awards for bravery to pin on your user page."
  • [173] "You are imposing your POV with the support of your gang."
  • [174] "Ahhhh, are you getting tearful, ManiF? Take a few deep breaths, blow your nose and try to get things into perspective. Oh yes, you'll probably run off and tell someone to ban me for being uncivilised. Go ahead!"
  • Archive "Who the hell are you? Who invited you?"
    • Note: This diff points to the user's talk archive out of neccesity due to the deletion of this user's talk page. This should not be taken as a sign of the user's 'leaving the project', as a perusal of his contributions shows that he has claimed to have left at least 3 times before.
  • [175] "These nationalist Wikipedia editors want a holocaust against Arabs."
  • [176] "Wikipedia is a pile of rubbish and the people that run it are donkeys. The code of conduct is there for powerful gangs to impose their agendas."
  • [177] "I did not write any fucking anti-Iranian rant. I wrote about the fucking human rights situation with evidence from human rights organisations, you fuckwit."

WP:3RR

  • [178] "I will continue to revert as a matter of principle"

Evidence presented by User:Zmmz[edit]

These evidence are in regards to user Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may have a pre-meditated pro or against agenda before she edits an article, which makes it highly inappropriate to edit an encyclopedia. Due to her “anti-nationalist” ideology[179], it is at [best] plausible to assume, and frankly fair to dismiss some of the multiple disputes put forth by this user in articles relating to Iran, or Persia: she has an obssesion with these articles, indicating there is no such thing as a “Persian culture”, or even “Persian people” per se. For the past year and a half, she has spread labels such as "gang", "Iranian gang", “Nationalists chauvinists”, or “Persian chauvinists” etc., that does nothing but spread racism and hatred among fellow editors, and sponsors a hostile environment.

User:Zora engages in Wikipedia:Edit warring[edit]

The user engages in edit-warring in all articles related to Islam, Muslims, and Arabs, diverging into articles about Iran/Persia. The following articles include, Islamic conquest of Persia, Battle of Karbala, Muawiyah I, Aisha, Zakir Naik, Muhammad, Husayn ibn Ali, Salafi, Richard Nelson Frye, Persian people, Iranian people, Khuzestan, Ahvaz, Rumi and perhaps elsewhere. Many times, only one edit or revertion of her is enough to cascade an edit-war, while keeping in mind, many of her disputes are buried in discussion pages. Many times she edits/reverts articles, even though she may have no historical knowledge of the factual content of some of these articles; she may do so due to her sympathy for the minority political groups, Zora herself stating, Abolish the U.S.! Abolish the Islamic Republic of Iran!...I spit on all flags...!, Zora herself claiming to be “..a heretic anti-nationalist American”, here too, as compared to for pure academic reasons here (e.g. the repeated indications of the possible Turkish origin of a particular scientist, is historically inaccurate, and not found in any academic sources, such that at his time the Turks had not invaded/mixed with Persians in that area; it occured 250 years later). As the subsequent diffs show, the user’s claims that others push a POV, and that she neutralizes articles in an NPOV fashion are reciprocal in nature to this edit-warring here [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227][228][229].

  • Mass deletion of entire sections that may come with valid sources, promoting an atmosphere of biased persuasion, although done in a gentle, and subtle fashion (either not discussing it with others, or leaving a comment, then almost immediately deleting texts, not giving others a chance to respond)

[230][231][232] [233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243] [244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251]

  • Other users not related to Iran articles have filed an incident report, as early as yesterday, in regards to Zora`s edit-warring, and other[252][253]

User violates Wikipedia:Verifiability[edit]

  • User redundantly refuses authoritative sources such as encyclopedias; claiming even recent editions may not be cutting-edge enough; dismissing some scholarly work as hearsay

[254][255][256] [257] [258][259] [260][261][262]

  • “Cogent argument, that :) Ah, a little more googling suggests that the source for all of this is CAIS, Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, which is apparently a group of Iranian diaspora academics, no longer connected to the University of London, with explicitly nationalist aims”[263]
  • She, for example, has discredited one of the foremost renowned scholars in ancient Near East history, namely Sir Richard Nelson Frye Prof. Emeritus of Harvard U---because apparently the user was dismayed by his views, stating, All I heard was “Persians good Arabs bad”. She dismissed his views by indicating, “That's a man who's 79 years old and resting on his laurels. Vast upheavals in academia have escaped his notice”, and indicated he is “anti-Arab”, and “old-fashioned”. She wrote a statement in the discussion page of the Richard Nelson Frye article, yet, within minutes, without giving anyone else a chance to respond, she went ahead and erased practically the entire article, containing the Professor’s quotes that represent his views [264][265][266][267].

User violates WP:POINT[edit]

As per Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy.

  • User, admittedly has some sort of “anti-nationalist” ideology, which may or may not explain her fascination with notions such as, the fact that she repeatedly claims Iranian peoples are not genetically related, and/or they are not really descendants of Aryan tribes see definition hereetc., etc.“..I'm a heretic anti-nationalist American”[268][269][270][271]
  • Trying to erase the Persian ethnicity of Rumi, stating, We should call him a Muslim instead, since he simply traveled from one Muslim principality to another. I thought it was highly inappropriate to do that in an encyclopedia, which is an academic source[272][273].
  • In an article called Khuzestan, user many times tried to erase the fact that the early Persian settlers there, who eventually formed a nation, actually did not settle there, and rather they were megalomaniac warriors who captured that area by force, which is against all academic sources that I know of[274]
  • “The article, however, is using the term "Iranian peoples" for ill-defined contemporary groups who speak a language related to modern Persian. However, no evidence is given that any of them define themselves as "Iranian peoples". So who is applying the label?”[275]
  • Despite pleas to her to start sub-articles that support alternative hypothesis/possible original research relating to an article, and allow major articles to marinate in more universally accepted theories, multiple disputes are sprung by her in discussion pages, claiming there may “really” be no such thing as a so called “Persian culture”, or “Persian ethnicity” as one cohesive national unit[276][277][278][279][280]
  • For the past year, trying to delete the Iranian peoples article herehere
  • ““Mani, Shi'a don't just "tend" to vilify Muawiya; they do. You make it sound as if there's some range of opinion on this subject among Shi'a, and I have seen no range, whatsoever. Just hatred.”here
  • May/2005: Zora sympathizes with Ahvaz separatist groups, stating they are oppressed, and trying to introduce academic inaccuracies about the etymology of this province, when she had no idea about that region’s history, all the while refusing to accept authoritative sources, and accusing users Southerncomfort, and Zereshk of being, “blind, Persian ultra-nationalism “, who tried to shove their opinions on minority Arabs in that region. Zora states, “Attempts to argue that Ahwaz/Ahvaz is actually a Persian name strike me as nationalist fantasies.”here
  • “it's a straight steal from the website of the Khuzestan Province Governor Generalship”more here
  • “I've seen too many junk etymologies. Real linguists demonstrate an overall pattern of sound shifts, instead of making them up on the spot.”and here
  • “Zereshk and Southern Comfort are attempting to impose their POV and censor any others.”here too
  • June/2005: Zora finally succumbs to over-whelming evidence, by saying, “Yes, I found a citation for a late Sassanid use of Xuzestan in the Eransahr book, in a 3rd century inscription of Sabuhr I. It's now clear that the province name, Khuzestan, as promulgated in 1936, is a revival of the Sassanid name.”there.
  • Based on the same ideology, Zora keeps repeatedly reverting a controversial article, out of sympathy, as compared to for sound academic reason; Zora introduces the possible Turkish origin of a major scientist, which is not found in any academic sources, the Turks had not invaded/mixed with Persians in that area; it occured 1000 years later, here.
  • Based on evidence, an admin agrees Zora`s edits are, “Totally unsourced, I've never heard anyone (outside Wikipedia) claim that he was a Turk..”here.

User violates Wikipedia:Civility[edit]

  • “The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk.”[281]
  • We have a brand-new user named RedCrescent who believes that he has a direct line to Allah[282]
  • Zmmz is one of a posse of Iranian nationalist editors who have been extremely active lately...[283]
  • “Just stay calm and give Dariush enough rope to hang himself”[284].
  • Persians like to say, “We are the biggest and the best, huzzah for us!”[285]
  • ManiF, removing ALL mention of language in a discussion of effects of the Arab conquest is sweeping something under the rug, isn't it? You may not LIKE to be reminded of your Arab heritage (scolding a user, when she knows he is Persian, and Iranians are not Arabs)[286]
  • “This page is about ZN not your hate site. Create your own if you want. Hence anything ZN does and creates will go here. If you dont understand simple english please take a crash course on English.” [287].
  • “What kind of impression of Islam are you giving with these antics?”[288].
  • That leads me to suspect that you can't find any cites because it's NOT there, and you're just trying to muddy the waters -- like a squid squirting ink to cover its escape.(ink refers to urine)
  • I don't BELIEVE in ethnic and linguistic nationalism. Abolish the U.S.! Abolish the Islamic Republic of Iran! Abolish Ahwazistan! Abolish everything! I spit on all flags impartially!(spit)
  • “I.....appreciate some statements of support from other editors here if the poop hits the rotating blade.

”(poop)

[296] [297] [298] [299] Zmmz 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Zora[edit]

Zmmz charges that I have a POV: "she may have a pre-meditated pro or against agenda before she edits an article, which makes it highly inappropriate to edit an encyclopedia."

Of course I have a POV. Multiple POVs. Everyone does. That's why I believe in NPOV. I give the best case for my POV (if it's notable), other editors give their best cases, and the reader decides. When people do that, it usually settles WP disputes -- if not the real life ones underlying the WP disputes.

He says: "she has an obssesion with these articles, indicating there is no such thing as a “Persian culture”, or even “Persian people” per se. "

I have said, over and over, that I do not believe in cultures as "bounded entities", as per structuralism, or structural-functionalism. It's not just me: read the WP articles on Nationalism and Ethnicity. Zmmz seems to think that cultures are "facts" or "objects", as concrete as a chair. I, and others, are saying that who belongs and who doesn't, who gets to say what is included in "Persian culture" and what isn't, is a matter for negotiation, and constant renegotiation, and that people have various motives for taking the stands that they do. This is not "original research". This is a respectable academic stance. It is espoused by authors such as Anthony Smith, Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm, Prasenjit Duara, Benedict Anderson, James Clifford, Dan Sperber. Academics hold conferences on the subject, such as this one [300] that just finished at the University of North Carolina,

Zmmz tells me that an encyclopedia should only include the mainstream view and exclude new or radical views. Usually, WP editors take pride in how up-to-date WP is.

Zmmz blames me for causing controversy. Controversy is wrong? I thought we -- and all intellectual endeavor- -- thrived on it. As long as views are notable, none should be excluded from WP just to keep things pleasant. If editors are willing to set aside a section for the minority or opposing views, there's no problem; it's only when other views are forcibly suppressed that dispute arises.

Zmmz accuses me of "frivolous edit-warring in all articles related to Islam, Muslims, and Arabs, diverging into articles about Iran/Persia.” Frivolous? I'm iconoclastic, at times, but not frivolous. I think if you asked most of the editors in the non-Iranian subjects to which I contribute, they'd say that I argued hard, admitted error when I made a mistake, tried to compromise, and contributed lots of good articles and material. Look at my user page. Look at my edit count. I don't keep a boast list of articles I've started, but I've created quite a few. I have made enemies (look at my user page!) but I think I've made more friends than enemies. If you actually look at the edits that Zmmz says are evidence of "warring", you'll see me saying things like, "No, you can't put PBUH after Muhammad, this is a secular encyclopedia", or "How about this? will this work for you?" I looked over his long list of "proofs" that I'm a bad editor, and I don't see one of which I'm ashamed.

Zmmz believes that I violate verifiability by refusing to accept the Encyclopedia Britannica as the final word on a subject. Yes, I dismiss general interest encyclopedias as sources. A peer-reviewed scholarly article or a recent book from an academic press has much more weight than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

He accuses me of discrediting Frye. I haven't discredited Frye -- I couldn't. I have doubted, publicly, that an 86 year old scholar is keeping up with the latest research. He republished his 1975 The Golden Age of Persia in 1999, and added a forward saying that he saw no need to revise his work in any way, since "no new discoveries or revision of our period of history have appeared". To a scholar, the claim that nothing new has appeared in the last 25 years is ... mindboggling. It is perfectly OK to doubt and question -- particularly when it's on a talk page. I didn't put any of that in the article. In fact, I emailed Frye and asked him to check out the article for accuracy. Would I have done that if I had masterminded a hatchet job on him?

Zmmz claims that I'm violating WP:POINT because I don't fall in line with his views of things. He accuses me of "trying to erase the Persian ethnicity of Rumi". Hmm, that's assuming that he's right and I'm wrong, which is not a given. It's not "disrupting WP to make a point" to argue with Zmmz.

Zmmz accuses me of being uncivil and then gives a list of quotes. I really can't see that any of them are personal attacks. If you look at his diffs, and the context of my remarks, what you’ll see is me discussing my political opinions on a personal talk page, asking an angry editor to calm down, arguing vigorously – but no personal attacks. What I call a personal attack is something like this [301]. I have taken such assaults in silence rather than running to admins. I hope that anyone reading this can see the difference between a real personal attack and argument, or between attacking someone to his or her face, and making a political comment on a friend's talk page.

If someone comes to me and says, "You're hurting my feelings, please don't say X," I'll listen. I don't want to gratuitously hurt someone's feelings. But I do not like being stalked for "evidence" that I'm a bad person, or accused of incivility if I argue vigorously.

This is a second version of my defense; I didn’t see the warning to keep it under 1000 words, so I’ve been cutting drastically. He has slung a great many accusations at me, and I don’t really have space to discuss them all. If he’s going to attack me, I wish he’d do it in a separate Request for Arbitration, so that I’d have room to defend myself. Zora 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zmmz is tracking my edits and adding things to his statements. Now he's saying that asserting that "Shi'a Muslims hate Muawiya" is slander, and that asking other admins to support me if the "poop hits the rotating blade" is incivility. This is getting increasingly surreal. You have only to look at [302] or [303], or just look at the history of edits at Muawiya I to see that Shi'a Muslims hate Muawiya; it's not slander if they're proud of their stand. As for referring to "poop" in an alternate, cleaned-up version of the saying "when the shit hits the fan" (let's be bold here), is that incivility? Is guessing that I'm being stalked (when I am, when comments that I make are added to the arbitration minutes after I make them) incivility? Zora 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now Zmmz is accusing me of saying This page is about ZN not your hate site. Create your own if you want. Hence anything ZN does and creates will go here. If you dont understand simple english please take a crash course on English. That is clearly uncivil and it's a comment by someone else. Check the diff. Zora 08:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AMbroodEY on evidence presented by Zora[edit]

All i can say is that Zora cant claim not to have a POV. I've noticed while editing India articles she relies heavily on scholars adhereing to a particular ideology and isists on allowing only HER version of article and completely disregarding other's POV. She dismisses he detractors or people whose POV doesnt agree with her's as mere insane nationalists, extremists and zealots. Whenever something is amiss in Indian she automatically blames everything on Hindutva [304] , [305]. Her failure to see that people being individuals have an opinion and are not always part of some monolithic nationalist conspiracy tends to get irritating. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by LukasPietsch[edit]

Section removed, superceded by revised version submitted by Aucaman below. Lukas (T.|@) 05:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora has NOT been edit-warring[edit]

How does one prove a negative? The following four pages have been named as examples where Zora engaged in disruptive edit-warring:

  • Islamic conquest of Persia: Checked the last few months of page history: Normal active editing; a few reverts in between, but all of them clearly argued for; no repeated reverts of the same material, no edit-warring. Legitimate editing behaviour, good co-operative discussion behaviour on talk page even during a heated debate last summer.
  • Aisha: Yes, quite a high percentage of Zora's edits are reverts here, but they are good tidy-up edits, well argued, none of them repetitive edit-warring. This is just good tidying-up work in a religiously sensitive article that was being filled with clearly POV and OR material by many other contributors.
  • Persian people: A total of 3(!) edits within the span of one month (12 March, 13 March, 8 April), all re-instating a {disputed} tag. No edits during the preceding months at all.
  • Khuzestan Province: Just 4(!) edits since last August (!). All reverts, but clearly argued for; no repeated revert-warring.

I absolutely fail to see how this editing pattern could be described as edit-warring. Lukas (T.|@) 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update after renewed accusations today: Look at this exchange to see that Zora is co-operative and constructive even when she's reverting, at Aisha. Lukas (T.|@) 07:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ManiF and Zereshk have been lobbying for meatpuppetry outside this site[edit]

This is complementary evidence to the charge of factionalising, as set out below.
  • In early March, ManiF posts a manifesto on the Iranian expat site Iranian.com, urging Iranians to join Wikipedia, presented as a POV battleground: ([306]): "Separatist Arabs and Kurds, plus a few politically-motivated Arab and Israeli nationals, have been repeatedly and systematically vandalizing the Iran-related articles on Wikipedia [...] propagating false information, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting such articles without one shred of proof [...] we need to have a large Iranian presence on Wikipedia and guard the integrity and quality of all the Wikipedia articles that are related to Iran and Iranians. [...] the more people means easier victories."
Update, 2 May: When I first posted this, the manifesto on the iranian.com page was signed "Mani F". As of 2 May, the page has been modified to read just "MF". A copy of the earlier version could still be found in the Google cache ([307]). Lukas (T.|@) 11:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two other, very similar messages on two other internet fora here: [308], [309].
  • Possibly in response to this or similar appeals elsewhere, on 4 March, Iranian Patriot (talk · contribs) joins Wikipedia. First edit to his talk page: "I am new here at Wikipedia, and my job is to stop Pan Turks and Pan Arabs from destroying Irans 7000 year history" ([310]). Welcomed by Zmmz and Kash ([311]), then straight on to Aucaman case ([312], [313]).
  • On 6 March, MysticRum (talk · contribs) joins ("after a friend of mine showed to me how easy it is" [314]). His first edit is to a CfD page(!) (Category:Kurdistan). All his other edits are concerned either with Kurdish-Iranian ethnic politics, or with complaining to various people about Aucaman ([315], [316]), or with entreating other editors to "not give up the fight against the 3 anti-Iranian wikipedians!" (to SouthernComfort, [317]).
  • On the same forum, Zereshk, under the name of Nima Kasraie, posts about his work on Wikipedia. ([318], 14 April): "The ethnic posse are already hard at work on Wikipedia, actively defaming Iran and her people in every possible way, and selling the idea of Balkanization of Iran to Wikipedia's 2 Billion visitors per month."
  • Shortly after the "Iranian wikipedians' notice board" had to be cleaned up (see below for details), on 23 March, Zereshk also used the Persian Wikipedia as an alternative forum for whipping up support and inciting opinion against Zora: [319].
    • The posting is about the "mass prosecution of Iranian users on the English Wikipedia". It names several editors who have been "constantly and actively present in anti-Iranian articles", among them Zora, myself, and even admin InShaneee (whose role in the whole affair has just been to police NPA rules on both sides). Just like earlier on the noticeboard, it also repeats distorted and out-of-context quotes from Zora ("There's no such thing as Iranian culture") to incite opinion against her. Zereshk then urges Iranian contributors from outside en.Wikipedia to go and comment on this Arbcom case. (Translations provided to me by Aucaman; full text available on request.)
    • Further down there's another post by Zereshk from 1 April ([320]) with a list of .en articles said to be "constantly under attack by anti-Iranian elements". He labels opponents at Persian people (i.e. Aucaman) as "Zionists" (صهیونیستها). All this shortly after Zereshk was obliged to promise on WP:AN to stop the offensive factionalising behaviour on the "noticeboard" ([321]).

Lukas (T.|@) 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kash and others have been incivil[edit]

  • 194.170.175.5 (talk · contribs)
    • [322] ("Get a life man. [...] for some reason, wherever I go on wikipedia I see you editing and damaging the Iranian articles. You are an Israeli jew [...]")
    • [323] ("This Aucaman character is full of you know what. Give it up buddy, [...]")
  • Kash:
    • [324] ("Have you escaped from a place where they usually chain you to something?") Later retracting this contribution, but apologizing not for the insult but only for a factually mistaken presupposition ([325])
    • [326] ("You have no point but to give headache to Iranian Wikipedians. Stop wasting our time.")
    • [327] ("STOP with the ANTI-Iranian POV! If you don't like Iranians go and find something else to do, you keep coming here and trying to make our life difficult, but we will not give up.")
    • [328] ("you are a Iranian-hater who uses Wikipedia to promote propoganda and waste people's time. Read the arguments below, and do not waste anymore time [...] This user has very Anti-Iranian Bios and has been reported")
    • [329] ("this illogic man called Aucaman")
    • [330] ("you [...] just tried to give us even more work, then again, this is exactly the weakness of Wikipedia's power structure. No one bothers to be fair, [...] you have created even more hassle. Well done. It's these behaviours and weak judgements people make on here everyday that makes Wikipedia weaker and weaker. I hope you are happy.")
    • [331] ("Why did you get involved in to this? [...] you couldn't wait to get your hands dirty! your comments such as [...] should surely discredit you already? You have been involved in even more 'vs Iranian' activity [...] too, right? May I ask whether you have a tendency to back people against Iranians?")
  • ManiF:
    • [332] ("the majority of the individuals continuously vandalizing these pages are Kurdish separatists (plus a few more religiously inspired and politically motivated individuals of Arab and Jewish ancestry) seeking to use wikipedia as a platform for their own political/racial/religious agendas.")
  • Zmmz:
    • [333] ("Your disgusting and malicious comments relating Iranians to Nazi Germany is no longer valid, nor welcomed here. Now that it is clear what your problem is, there will be zero compromise with you. Hopefully, soon, an admin will get involved, and you will be banned")

Outside comments in support of Zora[edit]

Pepsidrinka[edit]

I'm not quite sure how these RfArs work, but I think I can add my two cents in here. This seems like the most appropriate topic for me to add in my view. The only person involved in this RfAr that I have worked with in the past is Zora, and the only article from the above list that I have edited and watch is Aisha. For the former, I have had minimal problems with Zora. She is usually fair in her editing and reverting. She doesn't, atleast from my watch, edit war. I feel confident enough in her editing that often times I don't need to check the diff links on certain pages, simply because she was the last one to edit the page. The Aisha page is a page of much controversy at times. Many anti-Islam editors will approach that article to disparage Islam as much as possible by calling Muhammad a pedophile and other such hate filled comments. As far as I've seen, Zora has maintained the integrity of the article, and by extension, the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Pepsidrinka 02:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz[edit]

Before everything I apologize if this comment is completely irrelevant. I have not read the discussion here but I was surprised to see that Zora is accused of doing edit-warring!!! I have found her too knowledgeable, quite mild, and logical. I may not agree with her on some issues but all of us have the right to have our own opinion. I will never ever believe she joins a revert war. No way! Even if it happens, there should be a good reason for that. I don't know what her charges exactly are, but I am Persian and her edits has never bothered me. Were she anti-Persian, I should have felt it. My POV is that if an editor like Zora encounters any penalties, this should be mentioned in the "criticism of wikipedia" article. I am sorry if this was not the place to add this comment. Feel free to remove this comment if it is not relevant. --Aminz 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsath[edit]

I am fairly new to wikipedia, and known Zora since the day I started at wikipedia. She is an extremely knowledgeable person and quite polite most of the time. Once I have noticed she being incivil, in the Muhammed talk page, hey we all have our bad times. She is quick to revert things if she doesn't agree with something, but most of the time she does make a good case. Once she removed an entry that I added in the Muhammed page saying it is Hagiography when there was very good reference seehere. I sometimes have mixed feelings about Zora's behaviour, and do not always agree with her way of doing things. But I have good faith in her and I personaly think punishing her would demotivate other good contributors. Mystic 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I have been watching user Zora closely in the recent times and her behaviour has changed completely, I no longer endorse Zora as a good wikipedian, she continues to be rude, self centered and completely ignores the efforts of the other wikipedians. Just take look at her talk page right now. She assumes that she is the foremost authority in all the subjects she's contributing, and mercilessly removes contributions by others that she doesn't agree with. She also fails to assume good faith and uses rude language see this diff here  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 06:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonym[edit]

Zora is a fair and bold editor on many Islamic articles. I've had several disagreements with her, but she is usually willing to compromise and keeps POV away on the Islam articles. The article Aisha is one of them and she helps many of the editors on the page keep the horrible anti Islamic comments and vandalism off the page. I do not know her editing style on Persian articles, but according to what I've seen on my long time working with her, she keeps many articles clean and encyclopedic even if it makes her very easy to blame for something like edit warring. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Zmmz[edit]

I think it may be inappropriate, that even in the ArbCom case, User:LukasPietsch is attempting to marginalize other’s grievances. He has consistently tried to tie these disputes to the current geo political climate, and he has done nothing constructive, but to spread racism and hatred by labeling others. I hear is just a lot ambivalence, nothing substantive. What he indicates is slander.

User:LukasPietsch further flames Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

From the start, when Lukas began to get involve, and represent Aucaman as an advocate in the Rfc I set-up for him, in which not surprisingly Aucaman showed almost no interest in, Lukas has engaged in grossly inappropriate inflammatory exchanges with other users involved on the opposite side. I have yet to see any evidence of his willingness to compromise. As an `Advocate`, instead of displaying a certain amount of magnanimity, and good spirit towards other Wikpedia members, to demonstrate an spirit of community and cooperation, he has harassed, and intimidated other users. He has indicated, in more than one instance that, “...this has to stop, and right now I feel inclined to do whatever it takes to make it stop.”, and right from the start, to this day, assuming, “This is an institutionalisation of this nationalist factionalising....which is a deeper-seated problem....involving poltical nationalists”[334].


  • Lukas spamming and taunting the talk pages of some involved users, such as myself (e.g. “Notice to Robert McClenon: responding to an explicit request by Ed Poor to "cue him in"; and it was you who had previously brought up my name in that discussion ([46]), so you can't complain I joined it. (By the way, I like your typo there, "his first order of bossinessbusiness" - that's a good one. Just noticed it now. ;-)”.....etc.)[335][336]
  • Using unusually excessive writing on my talk page, even after, with concert with my advocate, I tried to extend an olive branch to him[337]
  • Further insulting a user’s character and intimidating him to retract from a then pending Rfc, and eventually coming to ArbCom, pointing to all the negative aspects on presenting the Rfc, instead, of trying to get both parties to perhaps remedy the situation, stating for example, “...it was your doing. It's called a "Request for comments" for a reason, you know.”[338][339]
  • After another user who had started yet a different Rfc against Aucaman, namely user Coolcat, had pleaded with him to help him format his Rfc correctly, because Lukas is more experienced, Lukas completely disregarding Coolcat`s concerns, , indicating, “Hmm, sorry, no offense, but ... rather than assisting, I'm probably going to shoot it down.”[340]
  • Spamming the talk page of user Southerncomfort; and basically indicating, he thought of Southerncomfort as being better than user Zmmz, Kashk, and......etc...etc.[341][342][343][344]
  • Spamming and lobbying in the talk page of admin, VoiceofAll[345]
  • Warning Zmmz: You'll find yourselves in a lot of trouble there (ArbCom), though, and may very likely get banned yourselves.[346]
  • Spamming and lobbying in the talk page of admin, William Connoley, trying to turn admin against a bunch of other editors, promoting an atmosphere of biased persuation[347]
  • Instead of encouraging a user, to cooperate and welcoming him to Wikipedia, Lukas insulted/provoked him. Within a few days this brand new user, namely,User:MysticRum stopped contributing to Wiki and left in dissapointed. Originally, user MysticRum had been been outraged by one of Aucaman`s ethnically vulgar personal attacks, and inquired about a message left on Lukas`s talk page, simply leaving a polite question there, since Lukas was acting as Aucaman`s advocate

1. Kashk`s, followed by user MysticRum`s well-intentioned inquiry to Lukas, indicating, does as an advocate Lukas allow this behaviour by Aucaman?[348]

2. Lukas`s response to MysticRum`s grievances: “Yawn. This incident has been discussed to death, I've commented on it earlier myself, he's himself done all the explaining it needed.....Now stop it”.[349]

3. Lukas`s response to MysticRum, after MysticRum expressed shocked that as a newcomer (see the second diff), such things occur in Wiki: “Please re-read every single word of what I said above, try to take it in, and then go away”.[350][351]

User:LukasPietsch violates Wikipedia:Civility[edit]

He is promoting a hostile environment. He has failed yet, to assume good faith about others involved; there has not been [one] instance that comes to mind in which User:LukasPietsch has been whole-heartedly courteous to what he refers to as, the “Iranian nationalists”, “Iranian factionalizes ”, “the masterminds behind all this”, and “Nationalist mudsling”, whose some contributions to a noticeboard may be a “...a disgrace to Wikipedia ”.

Such behaviour is a bad precedent to set in Wiki, and it is as such toxic to the health of an encyclopedia. I will not operate in fear of retribution by user Lukas; rather, I fear the ramification of the clash of ideologies in an academic source that is, an encyclopedia of all places. I do hope that the committee will not look kindly upon such behaviour. No one is above the policies here, not even someone as intelligent, saavy, and well-connected as Lukas.


Zmmz 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Aucaman (talk · contribs) (Part I)[edit]

Note: The following were prepared in close cooperation with User:LukasPietsch, but User:Aucaman is responsible for the accuracy of the evidence. The first part focuses on the general behavior of these users, whereas the second part focuses on the specific behaviors.

Zmmz is part of an organized POV-warring faction[edit]

This group, which has been acting in close concert, includes:

Other users in the background:

  • Zereshk (talk · contribs) (This user does not actively edit the disputed articles, but he sometimes drops by to give his approval of some of the personal attacks and to undermine any sort of compromise.)

Other users:

Details[edit]

  1. In late February, Kash, ManiF and Zereshk organized the "Iranian Watchdog" here, a POV-pushing team against people who "vandaliz[e] the Iran-related topics [...] propagating false information, maliciously editing/disputing/deleting [...]", in order to "guard the integrity and quality of all the Wikipedia articles" and to "keep Iranian pages free of such wrongful accusations". Quote: "we are at a war!"
  2. Until mid-March, the "Iranian Watchdog" takes shape in the "Iranian noticeboard", including a list of articles "under attack" as well as a black list of hostile editors - among them Zora and Ahwaz. ([358]). This page is also used to advertise polls for vote-stacking, e.g. this AfD ([359]).
  3. User:Zmmz spammed other editors' (often newcomers) talkpages with factionalizing welcome messages advertising the notice board, and requesting them to take part in coordinated POV pushing on WP:AN or WP:RFC and similar fora.[360]. Note especially the part where he advertises an AN/I discussion containing complaints against the alleged anti-Iranians ([361]), presenting it as an opportunity to "vote for limiting the editing privileges of these users".
  4. The language of the noticeboard was cleaned up after it was heavily criticized at the Aucaman RfC and at here on WP:AN. However, its function remains, and comments by Zereshk ([362]) show that the changes are intended to be only cosmetic. See highly inflammatory tone of some later contributions on the board ([363]).
  5. On 2 March, Zmmz, Kash and ManiF together start a Cabal Mediation procedure with Aucaman ([364]).
  6. Only a day later, Zmmz, Kash and ManiF together bring a user-conduct RfC against Aucaman.([365])
  7. The advertising of the case by the "Watchdog" lead to a massive amount of inflammatory, partisan comments on the RfC and elsewhere, often by clueless newcomers (here, here, here, here).

The "Iranian Watchdog" editors have a pattern of strong POV pushing[edit]

  1. They commonly refer to editors who hold opposing views as "attackers", "vandals", "anti-Iranian", often accusing them of having "agendas" or disseminating "propoganda" etc.[366][367][368][369][370]
  2. They commonly describe their own role as that of "protecting the integrity of articles", implying that their POV is the only possible truth.[371][372][373] "Integrity" in fact means nothing else than complete monopolization of articles by their POV.
  3. In reality, they're on a POV campaign: systematically emphasizing the continuity of Iranian culture and history at the expense of the historical contribution of other neighbouring peoples. They consistently and persistently try to label various ethnic groups, individuals, and geographical areas Persian/Iranian/Aryan, often crushing any alternative points of view/sources/theories. This has been happening across some 35+ articles, of which I've been directly involved in only 5 (Kurds, Persian people, Persian Jews, Iranian peoples, and Persian Gulf). To understand how broad and widespread this campaign has been take a look at various other complaints against these users, coming from totally different corners of Wikipedia.[374][375][376]
  4. On the discussion pages, the large volume of articles involved and the lack of English sources supporting these users' claims has led to the their abandonment and dismissal of any civil discussions, often cluttering discussion pages with out-of-context comments designed to derail any ongoing talks/consensus-building/compromise. They consistently make edits/claims that directly violate WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS - often asking people if they have the necessary background to be editing such articles.[377][378][379][380] These have led to the disruption of these talk pages, often creating environments in which newcomers feel out-of-place and discouraged to participate.[381]
  5. On the article level, these users systematically revert any edit coming from outside their POV circle. The edit summaries often ask people to read the (by-now-incomprehensible) discussion pages. (For examples of Zmmz doing this, see this.) Dispute tags are removed in order to prevent any unwanted attention and repel outside users from commenting on the disputes. Individuals are then personally harassed and offended until they respond back, in which case they're reported to admins to be blocked. After they're unblocked they're constantly harassed again - this time for responding to personal attacks and having been blocked. This cycle continues until the users either gives up editing articles or their blocks are extended. (User:Mesopotamia, User:Diyako, User:Mansour, and User:Ahwaz have been virtually eliminated due to these tactics. User:Ahwaz even went back and retracted many of his edits as a sign protest for all the personal attacks and harassment.)

The "Iranian Watchdog" editors have harassed and tried to intimidate Aucaman[edit]

See some examples here.

Aucaman wasn't editing against unanimous consensus[edit]

There were several editors who expressed at least partial support for his views regarding the term "Aryan", among them User:Dbachmann, User:Ed Poor, User:Tombseye, Afghan Historian, User:LukasPietsch, and User:Zora.

Zmmz et al. neglected the mediation, never showing interest in a substantial compromise or consenus[edit]

  1. Zmmz et al. brought the RfC against Aucaman only a day after they began the mediation.
  2. Unlike Aucaman, who responded positively to suggestions by the mediator, Zmmz did not even bother responding to the compromise proposal, instead filling the page with various accusations which later turned out to be false and irrelevant.[382]
  3. The filing of the Mediation was simply for cosmetic purposes. Zmmz et al. had already declared Aucaman "illogical" and were actively looking to "ban" him so that "these arguments will not rise again." [383] Most of this had been happening early on into the dispute. In fact, the dispute was declared to be over before the filing for Cabal Mediation, and Zmmz had attested "there will be zero compromise with [Aucaman]".[384]
  4. On the same day the Mediation was filed (and the subsequent days), Zmmz et. were busy spamming various places looking to "ban" User:Aucaman and others.[385][386][387][388]
  5. After being told that individual users cannot ban anyone from Wikipedia over a content dispute ([389]), Zmmz et al. filed the RfC against Aucaman. They then spammed some 20+ users (most of them newcomers or people Aucaman had never worked with) presenting the RfC as a chance to "combat anti-Iranianism", claiming Aucaman was doing "sneaky vandalism" for "political and Zionist reasons", asking them to help out in banning him.[390]
  6. In the RfC, Zmmz et al. claimed to have assumed "months" of good faith even though the RfC was submitted less than a month from when Aucaman first started editing the Persian people article. Also note the inaccurate nature of most of the "evidence" provided there - something I'll expand upon below.)
  7. It took more than a week for the mediator (User:Fasten) to get the other side's attention. The response was a vague rejection of the compromise offer. Further attempts by User:Fasten to get Zmmz et al. to elaborate on their position were left ignored and remain unanswered as of right now.[391]
  8. Even though the dispute was clearly not over, the dispute tag was removed a day after the page was unprotected, and Zmmz expanded the disputed language to the first line of the article without even bothering with an edit summary.[392] Subsequent attempts to reinsert the dispute tag were reverted within minutes.[393] (Note how Zmmz knows "the matter is being mediated" but uses that as a justification for removing the dispute tag.)
  9. After the mediator explained that Aucaman was right in demanding a dispute tag in the middle of dispute (and Aucaman further explained his use of dispute tags here), Zmmz et al. did not even bother to explain the need to remove the dispute and have not done so until today.[394] (The section that begins with "Please explain the demand [...]")
  10. After another compromise proposal was rejected and turned into a campaign to personalize the conflict, User:Fasten declared the mediation over.[395]

Zmmz' allegations against Aucaman's personal behaviour were largely groundless[edit]

  1. Aucaman has admittedly been angry, and has incurred blocks during the last days ([396]). The latest one, for personal attacks, was a rather strict sanction for calling somebody else a "troll" in the context of a heated debate, on 27 March.([397]).
  2. Earlier, there was one other instance where Aucaman lost his temper under provocation and replied to an ethnic slur, then retracted ([398])
  3. This incident occurred after Zmmz et al. had brought the RfC against Aucaman; the original list of alleged incivility infractions by him contained nothing substantial whatsoever. Aucaman is only now showing nerves after an intense campaign of harassment and intimidation against him.
  4. The alleged evidence of incivil behaviour brought originally against him in the RfC ([399]) contained nothing substantial, and should be seen as vexatious litigation.
  5. The later incident was then blown out of proportion by his opponents, who even days later flooded talk pages ([400], [401], [402], [403], [404], [405]) and his own user page ([406], [407]) with complaints, until they were themselves warned ([408],[409]) or blocked ([410],[[411]) for harassment and wikistalking.
  6. It is characteristic of the low quality of Zmmz' evidence that he let Robert reproduce a blatantly false allegation of previous 3RR blocks against Aucaman here at Arbcom, even when the error had been pointed out and Zmmz had been forced to apologize over it previously.

Evidence provided by User:Aucaman (Part II)[edit]

Kashk (talk · contribs)[edit]

Incivility[edit]

  • Constant disruption of talk pages by calling others and I "anti-Iranian", accusing us of disseminating "propaganda" etc. etc.; mostly for baseless reasons:[412][413][414][415][416] <--Second paragraph
  • Calling me illogical, saying I shouldn't be editing articles.[417][418]
  • Repeatedly disseminating irrelevant, offensive comments about what he perceives to be my ethnic/racial/religious background. He was reported here (and warned for it), but he still made this edit here.
  • Other personal attacks (self-explanatory): [419]

Harassment[edit]

  • Following the incident described here, this user continually posted unwanted messages on my talk page until he was warned about them: [420][421][422].
  • He also has this bad habit of warning me for "vandalism":[423][424][425][426].

Zmmz (talk · contribs)[edit]

Harassment[edit]

At some point this users determined that I had no business being on Wikipedia ([427]). In order to implement this decision,

  1. He went on a rampage of constantly posting messages on my user and talk page, constantly replying to other people's messages on my talk page.[428][429][430][431]
  2. He unilaterally reverted any edits I made without even participating in the discussions.[432] When asked to participate in discussions, he would only make various accusatory statements. (See the examples here and the discussion that followed here.)

Due to his actions described above, he was blocked for "harassment". These are all in addition to him going around spamming various users telling them about my "Zionist intentions" etc. etc.

Zereshk (talk · contribs)[edit]

Accusing users of working for "western intelligence agencies"[edit]

  1. "These people are supported by or aligned with western intelligence agencies, and they specifically intend to bring "violent fragmentation" to Iran." [433]
  2. "It is unfortunate that such editors have made Wikipedia a megaphonic platform for their racist anti-Iranian hatred. But as I said, these people are actually doing the work of information agencies preparing for war against Iran. Before any war can happen, there is always preparations made on the internet to incline popular perception against the target country (then Iraq, now Iran)." [434]

Other personal attacks[edit]

  1. Saying that you hate Iranians is not a personal attack. It's a fact, plain and simple.[435]
  2. The level of anti-Iranian hatred you exhibit actually hurts many Kurds. and I'm not an ethnically driven bigot like you and your twisted friend[436]
  3. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[437]
  4. You have quite a hatred against Persia and Iran[438].
  5. A bigot by definition is someone who is "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Im sorry, but that is exactly the behaviour you exhibit.[439]
  6. Edit summary of Iranian Kurdistan: I know you hate Persians. Take your hatred elsewhere [440].
  7. Please kindly retract your hatred of Iranians[441].
  8. they fucking hate Iran and Iranians from the bottom of their hearts? Mercenaries with an agenda to spread hatred against Iran on Wikipedia.[442]
  9. Every Iranian editor is insulted by your Iranophobia. Leave us alone[443].

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user is the most disruptive one by far. Has been blocked for personal attacks many times. Also has been using sockpuppets to circumvent blocks and over-represent his side (see here). I'm not going to bother listing his personal attacks, but his contributions to my talk page would make a good set of evidence against him. Other accounts used by this user:

Response to some of Acuaman's evidence[edit]

"Zmmz is part of an organized Iranian POV-warring faction"[edit]

  1. Mostly through the work of Zereshk, the "Iranian Watchdog" takes shape in the "Iranian noticeboard", including a list of articles "under attack" as well as a blacklist of allegedly hostile editors - among them Aucaman, Zora and Ahwaz ([444]). This page is also used to advertise polls for vote-stacking, e.g. this AfD ([445]).
Wrong, the notice baord was created by another user, totally uninvolved in these conflicts, months before the "watchdog" messages.
  1. Zmmz, Kash and ManiF acted together in bringing a user-conduct RfC against Aucaman. ([446])
Actually, not quite. Zmmz asked me for help as the situation at the Persian people page was not improving. That was when I suggested that he create an RfC, they did not "act together".
  1. The language of the noticeboard was cleaned up after it was heavily criticized at the Aucaman RfC and at WP:AN (here). However, its function remains, and comments by Zereshk ([447]) show that the changes are intended to be only cosmetic. See highly inflammatory tone of some later contributions on the board ([448]).
From the comment you provided, Zereshk said "We can mention which pages are under "attack" without actually naming any specific users." I don't know how you read it, but it looks like he agrees that the notice board should not personally attack users. There are many other country notice boards which list articles that have POV problems. See Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#Problem articles and Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics for example. As for 69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs)/Manik666 (talk · contribs), he isn't even part of this arbitration, so I'm not sure why you pointed to the user's (currently blocked for 1 week) edits.

"The "Iranian Watchdog" has the goal of silencing opposing POVs"[edit]

  1. The "Iranian Watchdog" editors commonly refer to editors who hold opposing views as "attackers", "vandals", "haters of Iran", "malicious falsifiers" etc. Examples on the noticeboard, and here:
    1. "actively trying to misrepresent Iran." (Zmmz on 27 February, 22:56 [449])
This is the exact same reason why ManiF removed all of these attacks. If you look at the current state of the notice board it looks fine.
  1. They commonly describe their own role as that of "protecting the integrity of articles", implying that their POV is the only possible truth
I can understand why they would say this, after a user wants the word Aryan removed from all Iran-related articles[450][451], another user goes on a rampage labeling historical figures with disputed ancestry as Arab.[452], and another makes claims that Ruhollah Khomeini molested boys based on an extremely questionable source. Of course users should not have been labeled, which is the exact reason why Mani removed them.
    1. Zereshk about his own role: "a massive portion of my time has been spent on protecting the Persian/Iranian pages from attacks by the likes of Heja, Diyako, Zora, and other Iran antagonists" (Zereshk, 4 March [453])
If you take a look at Diyako's contributions, for example, you will understand what he's talking about. On one instance he added a {{prod}} tag to the Iranian peoples article numerous times, saying "it does not exist". The user has also made claims (and implemented them) that the Kurdish celebration of the Iranian new year is completely different from Norouz,[454] although there are sources such as the BBC that claim otherwise.[455]
    1. ManiF about his own role: "here to protect the accuracy, integrity and security of Iran-related articles." ([456]). "Integrity" in fact means nothing else than complete monopolization of articles by their POV.
(See my above response)

"Aucaman wasn't editing against consensus"[edit]

There were several editors who expressed at least partial support for his views regarding the term "Aryan", among them User:Dbachmann, one of the most competent Wikipedians in the field ([457], [458]).

Ok, that's one user that agrees with him, although there is no proof that he also believes that "Aryan" should be removed from all Iran-related articles. Furthermore, the great majority of Wikipedians disagree with him.[459]

"Zmmz neglected the mediation, never showing interest in a substantial compromise or consenus"[edit]

  1. On 2 March, Zmmz, Kash and ManiF together started a Cabal Mediation procedure with Aucaman under User:Fasten as mediator ([460]) - just a day before they brought the user-conduct RfC against him.
Wrong. I first entered the dispute by adding a proposed compromise here. Zmmz clearly agreed to it as well. I quote, "OK let`s write Indo-European, and in a parenthesis next to it write the term is technically not used anymore". Kash and ManiF agreed to my proposal as well, but it was Aucaman who was not being flexible. After hours of further discussion, with new proposals being suggested, Aucaman still wouldn't compromise. (See Talk:Persian people/Archive 2) That was when I filed a Request for Meditation.
  1. Unlike Aucaman, who responded positively to suggestions by the mediator ([[461]), Zmmz et al. hardly engaged in constructive discussions of compromise proposals, but filled the mediation with personal accusations instead.
This was all after the long discussion with Aucaman, after everyone got mad at him for his attitude on the subject.
  1. The mediator later declared the mediation failed, more or less openly laying the blame for the failure on Zmmz et al ([462], [463]).
This was because it wasn't getting anywhere, I don't even recall the mediator putting that much effort into the mediation in the first place. There was a majority of editors who agreed on keeping the paragraph as it was, and there was one user who wanted (wants) to change it.

"Most of Aucaman's recent "edit-warring" was just about a "disputed" tag"[edit]

While Aucaman's edits at Persian people have been clearly controversial, he has not been revert-warring to any excessive extent, except with respect to the {disputed} tag he wanted to have included. This was an understandable attempt to reach at least a symbolic acknowledgment from his opponents that his views were part of a legitimate dispute and not simply disruption. Justified in the matter, though misguided in the means. Aucaman's contributions to the content were mostly constructive, reasonably well referenced and properly argued.

Wrong, the recent edit waring at Persian people for example was about his inclusion a bogus paragraph (i.e. the Aryans of Iran being "Nordic"), not the dispute tag. His edit waring at Persian Gulf was about the bolding of the term "Arabian Gulf", and his edit waring at Ruhollah Khomeini was about the inclusion of a section.

"Zmmz' allegations against Aucaman's personal behaviour were largely groundless."[edit]

  1. Aucaman has admittedly been angry, and has incurred blocks during the last days ([464]). The latest one, for personal attacks, was a rather strict sanction for calling somebody else a "troll" in the context of a heated debate, on 27 March. ([465]).
  2. Earlier, there was one other instance where Aucaman lost his temper under provocation, answered an ethnic slur with another, then retracted ([466])
  3. The later incident was then blown out of proportion by his opponents, who even days later flooded talk pages ([467], [468], [469], [470], [471], [472]), and his own user page ([473], [474]) with complaints, until they were themselves warned or blocked ([475]) for disruption and "wikistalking".
Blown out of proportion? This is understandable. The anon called Acuaman, "the Jew [Cyrus the Great] freed from the chain" and Aucaman went off on him calling him a "death-worshiper", "illiterate mental", and called Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire an "illiterate murderer".

—Khoikhoi 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Zmmz[edit]

The evidence are in regards to Diyako (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Xebat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who had collabrated with User:Aucaman[476], and he himself engaged in extremely disruptive behaviour. The user has been blocked multiple times, and is currently blocked for three months. My fear is User:Xebat will come back with another username, like he did before, but this time more cautious in disrupting articles; nevertheless, still tangent to edit-warring, and occasional incivilities.

User:Xebat engages in Wikipedia:Edit warring[edit]

User has engaged in persistent edit-warring in the following articles,

User:Xebat violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks[edit]

  • “In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terroris pro ahmadinejad who even can do not recognoze UN emblem and think it is PDK's”[483]
  • Taunting an admin: “Just so you know, I've now extended your block for a period of one month, and it can be extended further (indefinatly, if

neccisary) if you will not act civilly” vs. “Jusht sho you know, I've now exhtended youl plocq fol a peliod of one mounth, and it kan bee exhtended fulthel (indefinatly, if nechchisaly) if you wil not act chivilly. The above comment ish..” (former by admin, later by Xebat).

  • “You are a child or teenager and do not deserve to be an admin on this childish forum wikipedia. There are some Irani

terrorists vandalising this forum and no one cares.” [484].

  • “I cannot stop laughing at you and you irani friends!! and I'm not sorry for what I said. I am very glad.”[485].
  • “These Iranis lie. The same as their imam and their president.”

[486].

  • “Block me?! I'm really starting to no longer believe in wikipedia.”

[487].

  • “Any way I'm proud that i did not let khoikho become an admin. because i prevented a wikipedian catastroph a tsunami. I'm

proud for that. I feel myself a hero.” [488].

  • Removing other user's comments

[489].

User:Xebat violates Wikipedia:3RR[edit]

[490].

  • Others (see Xebat`s block log).


Evidence by ManiF (talk · contribs) (Part I)[edit]

Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs[edit]

  • User:Xebat (previously known as User:Diyako) makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian editors: "There are some Irani terrorists vandalising this forum and no one cares. These are pasdar terrorist and I am glad that soon their country will be bombed and divided into several free countries. I'm happy for that :)" [491]

"In fact I am discussing with a racist Qashqai turk pasdar terrorist pro ahmadinejad who even do not recognize UN emblem and think it is PDK's" [492]

  • User:LukasPietsch makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian editors: "If you all could just refrain from stoning me to death for a little while, I'll submit a suggestion for a wording shortly." [493]
  • User:Zora makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranians in general: "The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk." [494]

"You may not LIKE to be reminded of your Arab heritage" [495]

  • User:Ahwaz makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian editors: "Nazi", "fuckwit", "brainless", "goon", "thug", "racist", "extremist", "ultra-nationalist", "Persian supremacist monarchist", "don't speak in your caveman language, speak in a civilized language like the Arabs thought you" and etc. [496], [497], [498], [499], [500], [501], [502], [503], and [504], [505], [506]

"Mutual aid" and "collective support"[edit]

These users who, as demonstrated above, share strong negative feelings toward Iranians, collaborate and coordinate their efforts with User:Aucaman and each other, through emailing and talk page conversations, to inject controversial and potentially offensive racial, religious, or political views into Iran-related articles.

Zora describes her role in Wikipedia as an "online duel" and seeks external help against "Iranian nationalists"[edit]

On several internet fora, Zora, under the name of Karen Lofstrom, posts about her work on Wikipedia describing her interest and involvement in the project as having been "sucked into Wikipedia" for a "fierce" "online duel" agaisnt "Iranian nationalists" , and declaring "Cthulhu vs. a bunch of Nazis? Oh, I am sure *our* side would win hands down!". [547], [548], [549], all the while admitting that she lacks references and has little or no knowledge of the subjects at hand.

More evidence might be submitted later on, as I'm currently busy in real life --ManiF 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence from Zora wrt Usenet posts[edit]

Mani, that is just so ... silly. You've reported the same message twice (it's the same thing on different sites that mirror Google groups). That was a post to the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.fandom, made a YEAR ago. I wasn't asking for help. I didn't even mention the articles involved. I was just amused at being told I was a Bengali. The post then sparked a 564-post thread that ranged over heck-and-gone, but with some attention to saris [550]. The best place to look up Usenet posts is on Google groups -- though perhaps, having told you that, I can expect to have things I posted to Usenet back in 1992 dragged out for inspection as proof of my evil nature. You mistook my signature block for part of the message, and decided that it was sinister, instead of funny. As for your third cite (which is actually a second post), that was an attempt to get information about a subject. Also posted on Usenet, on sci.archaeology, some ten months ago. I did not ask people to jump over to Wikipedia and support me; I asked for references to excavation reports. Here's the exchange, from Google: [551].

Y'know, I think there's a distinction between chatting with my friends, asking for information, and posting notices begging people to come fight for Iran.

Further points:

  • There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance. I do it all the time. I even make mistakes, and then publicly admit them. The humbler I get, the more I learn.
  • Accusing me of complicity with everyone who has ever left a message on my talk page is senseless. Look through my voluminous archives. By your standards, I'm complicit with hundreds of people, some of whom dislike me :) As for exchanging email with Lukas -- well, if every word we say to each other is going to be scrutizined for proof of our utter depravity, the sensible thing to do is take it to a private venue. As I believe the Iranian Watchdog has done, yes?
  • All this is so unnecessary. All I'd like is for different POVs to co-exist on the same page. You let the POVs I represent have room, and I'll make sure the POVs you represent have room. Fight over. Why don't we try it? Zora 00:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence&oldid=1142571837"