Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence

message: It increasingly looks like this is going to be a one-way investigation of my conduct. It's fair to note that many of the comments I have made were not made in vacuum and that there are other users involved ( and  in particular). But I'm going to use this section just to respond to some of the comments made on the Evidence page. 
===Evidence presented by ===
I would like to point out that I've never worked with this user before. The closest I've come to working with this user is his comment here accusing (me?) of using Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda. Judging from his statement here, together with the fact that the article Turkish Kurdistan (which I have created) was just voted to be kept, my only guess is that he's only here for some sort of a personal revenge. All I have to say about this is that I did not even participate in writing that article - I only created it.
====User Lacks Civility====
In all of these I'm not commenting on any particular user, but rather their edits/ideas:
 
#I'm sorry but the creation and use of the term "Aryan" is directly linked to anti-Semitism (both in Europe and Iran) and the fact that some users repeatedly insist on using this term as a marker for some unknown race (despite being presented with numerous better alternatives) is nothing short of spreading inaccurate information. I don't see how I'm "lacking civility" for pointing this out. 
#It's good to read that what I'm responding to. A statement made by me in another talk page was copy-pasted into a new talk page for users to comment on.
#This is a little off topic, but I was frustrated looking for help. I still fail to see what's so incivil about this. I never accuse anyone of spreading incorrect information for bad intentions. 
#Commenting on content.
====User pushs POV====
#I fail to see how this implies I "push POV". In any case that particular source is in fact outdated and I was referring to an earlier comment here. The source is from 1890, and the subject under question is highly time-sensitive (in 1890 Aryan was synonymous with "Indo-European" - now it's not).
#Again I fail to see how this implies I'm "pushing POV". It's good to read what I'm responding to.   This was basically a personal attack claiming that "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." The fact that I managed to respond to all of this without getting personal disproves a lot of wrong accusations against me.  
#Again I fail to see how this implies I'm "pushing POV". Using Iranian books are not exactly in accordance with WP:V (I've not been presented with any translations of these books and I doubt any exist).
====No understanding of certain wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR/WP:NPOV====
#"Published material"? I have not even been provided with a single title. This is the statement I'm replying to. Read it carefully. Then read the second sentence in WP:NOR. 
#From your statements (calling the article's title POV several times in an ArbCom case having nothing to do with it) it's pretty clear that you were disputing the neutrality of the article, not its factual accuracy. One person may agree with you but a lot of people don't.
===Evidence presented by ===
====User engages in Wikipedia:edit warring====
This doesn't really merit a response. The word "excessive" here is highly subjective. 
====User violates WP:POINT====
I try very hard to explain my reasoning before putting up dispute tags. I view dispute tags as a form of compromise aimed at preventing edit wars. They also warn readers of possible inaccuracies involving content. But the other side views dispute tags as some sort of an attack on articles. I find the fact that they're usually "offended" whenever someone even questions the content of "their" articles is rather remarkable. 
More to come. AucamanTalk 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aucaman's defense

message: ====User engages in Wikipedia:edit warring====
This doesn't really merit a response. The word "excessive" here is highly subjective. 
====User violates WP:POINT====
I try very hard to explain my reasoning before putting up dispute tags. I view dispute tags as a form of compromise aimed at preventing edit wars. They also warn readers of possible inaccuracies involving content. But the other side views dispute tags as some sort of an attack on articles. I find the fact that they're usually "offended" whenever someone even questions the content of "their" articles is rather remarkable. 
More to come. AucamanTalk 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence presented by {{User|Zmmz}}

message: I try very hard to explain my reasoning before putting up dispute tags. I view dispute tags as a form of compromise aimed at preventing edit wars. They also warn readers of possible inaccuracies involving content. But the other side views dispute tags as some sort of an attack on articles. I find the fact that they're usually "offended" whenever someone even questions the content of "their" articles is rather remarkable. 
More to come. AucamanTalk 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence&oldid=46867934#User_violates_WP:POINT User violates WP:POINT]

message: Do I even have to answer his claims? They seem so utterly unfounded to me, looking at the diffs he presents, and the charges so garbled and preposterous, that I hate to have to spend the time to answer them. I should think that looking at my edits would be enough to dismiss the charges. 
But I'll write a defense if other folks think it's advisable or required. 
Sheesh, I'd rather just be editing articles. Zora 01:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you do. James has already written a proposal including you. Dmcdevit·t 15:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zmmz's counter-attack 

message: Hi, please know that I am submitting evidence about two more users who are connected to edit-warring and incivilities, and who have been blocked for it various times.  Please allow 24 hours after this message is left, before I complete the evidence page.  Thank youZmmz 18:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on evidence 

message: It seems to me that that in order to take the heat off himself, Zmmz is trying to whip up a campaign against me. He's accused me in the evidence section. Now he's posting messages to people whose edits I have reverted asking them to testify against me. 
There is also apparently a campaign in email asking people to condemn me for my political views, as reported to me by one editor who got one of those emails  .  Since Ambroodey (quite rightly) did not report the source I cannot say that Zmmz sent the email, or caused it to be sent, but I find it an unsettling coincidence. 
I have political views, and I express them in talk pages. So far as I know, there's no WP policy against having political views, or having a POV. It's only wrong to push non-notable POVs into articles or to suppress alternate POVs, which I don't think I've done. In fact, in several cases I've gone out of my way to make the best case for POVs I don't share. I wrote a Shi'a POV account of the Battle of Karbala   and wrote most of the material in the "Muslim view" section of Pre-Islamic Arabia. It is possible for someone one does not believe something to nevertheless give a dispassionate account of it. (It's also of course possible that you think you're being dispassionate when you aren't, which is why I appreciate civil criticism.) 
Can Zmmz be allowed to turn his arbitration against Aucaman into an arbitration against me? Or should this be forked into another case? If this goes on, I would appreciate it if it could be split off, as I would like to have enough space to respond fully. Zora 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the case? 

message: User Aucaman was certainly in collaboration with Zora.  However, since I blew the whistle on this brouhaha involving Iranian/Persian articles, it is crucial to include user Zora who had actually initiated these edit wars that go as far back as May/2005, and involve user Southerncomfort, Ahwaz and others.  Since, correctly, ArbCom expanded the investigation to include other users, user Zora who is very much at the heart of this case needs to be placed in the same pool as others.  Numerous users are now emailing me in private, indicating they have had months long disputes with user Zora, and that “She [Zora] is an old problem case, but I’m afraid she has influence with ArbCom we dont ”, hinting that because she is well-connected and a veteran in Wiki, the Committee knows her, and that they may not take proper actions against her.  In return, I have left two messages on the talk pages of two users, informing them of this case, and asked them, if they have any grievances, then they could participate in presenting evidence.  I have never given any mention, or condemned anyone, including user Zora about their political views; although, as an acadamician  I do believe that such views, may at times, be hazardous to the health of an encyclopedia.    I have advised those who have emailed me with concerns, that ArbCom is exceedingly fair, and that they should remain civil, and patient.   Thank youZmmz 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respond to the `Split the case?` section above 

message: First and foremost, please know that user User:LukasPietsch himself is not neutral in this case.  I have noticed that some of the stuff he said about there being a cohesive Iranian faction, were even straight-up fabrications. Also, let me once again express my regret in that at the beginning, when still rather new to Wiki, I had asked other editors for help, which was a reaction out of frustration, after realising user User:Aucaman had asked help from others in reverting in the talk pages of other users, including User:Zora, as well as the discussion pages of articles like Anti-Semitism.
*See an example of Aucaman asking Zora for help,
*Another example of Aucaman asking Zora for help, and Zora obliging
*
At the start of the Rfc, and then this ArbCom case, and frankly before that, I acknowledged possibly going against Wiki etiquette, and have apologised for it since. Please see the evidence of compromise here, and support for Zmmz by various third party editors.
In regards to the `Watch Dog` group comment; apparently, much like a `Consumer Watch Dog` group, it had at some point served as a notice board to vandalism in Iranian articles, which they had spiked after the country of Iran was frequently in the news.  Yet, I had never participated in it, moreover, I was the one (on the good-hearted advice of admin William Connolley), who relentlessly asked others to stay civil, and even successfully asked them to clean-up that article (that was two months ago).  I considered some advice from admins like Inshaneee, William Connolley and others, and was the one who blew the whistle on these edit-wars, even though, as User:LukasPietsch himslef stated on my talk page, “You'll find yourselves in a lot of trouble there [ArbCom], though, and may very likely get banned yourselves.” .  I recognized the problem; I asked for mediation and then the Rfc, and finally this ArbCom (I only asked user Kash to help me with pasting diffs in the Rfc in the sections I could not edit in).  
Time and time again, users like Lukas have dismissed others` grievances  by indicating Iranian editors are, "whining",  "rambling", "...a disgrace to Wikipedia.", and that due to their knee-jerk reaction to some provocation by Zora and Aucaman, their voices are not as valid as others.  User:LukasPietsch has stated many times, it may be appropriate for he himself to be abrasive/uncivil at times, and for other users on the opposite pole, such as, Zora, to constantly tag others as “nationalists gangs”, etc. yet, others are in clear violation of policies, if they spew incivilities.  Some admins have disagreed with that assumptionSee evidence of incivilities and other by user Lukas here.
At this point, with all sincerity, as a concerned academician, I agree that all users, without exception should to be placed on probation, and Zora who initiated edit-wars as late as over one year ago, along with Aucaman who was blocked four times in the past month, and has shown zero interest in displaying good behaviour, should be placed on topical bans for certain articles.  
Contrary to Lukas’s allegations, no one is above Wikipedia`s policies here, and frankly if I may say so, they are non-negotiable.  A reasonable person can see from the evidence provided that there should be no exceptions here, and there needs to be a sweep across the board.  Regardless of the fear that some of these users have behind the scene, in that they express concerns that because Lukas and Zora are well-connected here, ArbCom may give more merit to their words; I have the outmost faith in the committee, and know that you are even-handed.  Thank you kindlyZmmz 20:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to respond in detail - anybody can check the links, and I encourage people to read also the exchanges between Zmmz and me before and after the one Zmmz quoted. Just with respect to the last one ([]): Somebody badly needs their irony meter readjusted. :-) Lukas (T.|@) 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that this comes from an editor who makes the ridiculous claim to have "never been incivil", link-checking is definitely in order. siafu 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We did not.  The article, btw, was Parthia, and the resolution to the dispute happened in the end despite your best efforts (including accusations of personal attacks, threats to "report" me, and repeated violations of 3RR).  Rather than drag it all out, I'll let Talk:Parthia and User talk:Zmmz speak for themselves, though it may be informative to look at some previous versions in both.  As far as the apology you "would be the first one" to give, I have yet to receive one; instead I've received several requests via email and messages on my talk page to come here and speak in your defense. siafu 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Curious response.  You said that you had never been incivil to any editor ever; clearly this was untrue, and I imagine that this is not the only such instance.  Whether or not I'm "holding a grudge" is not relevant. siafu 01:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't look like an apology. You are apologising for the fact that someone was angry with you, not for your actions which caused that person offence. You assumption of some moral high-ground and profound selflessness along with your holier-than-thou attitude and claims of blamelessness are absolutely non-convincing. You have spent the best part of your (short) time on Wikipedia drawing attention to what you perceive as others' faults. But, dare I say it, your level of edits is small and your contribution to Wikipedia has frankly been meagre. Yet you act like some old veteran and the valiant defender of Wikipedia values. I'm afraid, it doesn't wash with me. It feels like a crusade.--210.211.233.112 15:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to `Evidence presented by [[User:LukasPietsch]] `

message: ;It is not true that Zmmz acted as a whistle-blower on the "Iranian noticeboard" issue.
Although he did not contribute to the noticeboard himself, he gave it his full support advertising it through his spamming messages when it was still in its most inflammatory stage. He continued to do so until after it had become clear that it was untenable, as it had been very severely criticized by outsiders at the RfC and on AN/I, and in fact after one of the other Iranians, ManiF, had started cleaning it up (See []).
;Zmmz' allegations against me have crossed the borderline into wiki-libel.
After my critical involvement in the Aucaman RfC, Zmmz reacted with extreme touchiness and then started to accuse me of stalking and "harassing" him, and of "manipulat[ing] the system" and "buy[ing] the sympathy of the admins" - which is defamatory not only against me but against the admins in question too. 
(). For the background of what actually happened, see my explanation here (, ).  What gives this all a rather unsavoury note is the link to an entirely unrelated issue, which he has just now alluded to again by saying that I am "involved in disputes regarding Greek articles" (). I was in fact affected by the recent incident with the notorious Phaistos Disc troll who attacked Gator1 with real-life harassment and recently threatened Pmanderson in the same way. I was the first to receive such threats ([]). The attacker then contacted Zmmz as a potential ally against me (), and Zmmz found nothing wrong with responding positively to him (). I will give Zmmz the benefit of the doubt that when he first reacted to the anon's approaches he hadn't seen the attack itself, but he later wrote the following to me at a time when he clearly had read it: "Lukas, the things the other user had called you [...], is not much different from your own malicious language that you have used with me" (). I have repeatedly asked Zmmz to distance himself from these attacks, but he has failed to do so. Lukas (T.|@) 22:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejoinder by Lukas

message: It has been due to my well-intentioned efforts that ManiF, and others were convinced they should clean-up a certain notice board.  Lukas himself has acknowledged that; see here.  I had not edited in that particular page.  Also, it is absolutely true that from the beginning, it was I who immediately raised the red flag, and was the one who single-handedly has brought this case to ArbCom.  Lukas`s claim that there were others involved is actually false, See evidence for Lukas here.
I don’t want to prolong this any further, only that with all due respect, user Lukas (as the diffs should speak for themselves), had used very harsh language in the talk pages of some users, specifically, mine, even though I tried to extend an olive branch to him.  This is after, repeatedly leaving long, acidic comments on my page
, although, I advised him that it was inappropriate for him to do so there; rather he should state his concerns in the then, Rfc page set-up for Aucaman, for whom he acted as an advocate.  On one occasion a certain user followed him into my talk page and stated that Lukas was uncivil to many--after which I responded to that user on his talk page, and inquired further, asking him to provide some diffs about his allegations.  Just the fact that Lukas is implying, I may have  sided with a user when the links prove otherwise, is accusatory, and inappropriate.  There are hints of incivilities and disputes via Lukas in other articles such as I believe, Arvanites; however, they are more or less irrelevant to this case, and I do not wish to get involved in them. 
Here are the diffs showing Lukas did in fact, spam the page of the admins and users such as myself who were involved in Aucaman`s Rfc   *Moved all to evidence page, see here please
The rules apply to everyone, and no one is immune to the policies; even if we may feel we may be more right than others.  Thank youZmmz 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to `Rejoinder by Lukas`

message: The evidence presented there, are to simply illustrate that user Lukas is neither impartial to this case, nor, with all sincerity, have I, or in other editors he is in disagreement with, ever seen any [genuine] will by him to compromise.  On the other hand, there is just this simply, vitriolic atmosphere whenever he had interacted with all these other editors.
*In regards to spamming Southerncomfort`s talk page; I have clarified that the statements made to SC, indicate Lukas`s certain opinion on Zmmz,Kashk…… etc., and they are not his exact words.  Although, if one looks at his remarks, that is exactly what they indicate; the original quote was too long to put in the section.
*I clarified that instead of, Lukas stating, they are  “...a disgrace to Wikipedia ”, he had stated, those editors whose some contributions to a noticeboard may be a “...a disgrace to Wikipedia ”. 
*I updated the “Those Iranian nationalists mudsling..” quote to; Lukas indicates they are  involved in “Nationalists mudslinging”, i.e., his exact quote.    
*In regards to the stoning comment; he has made, and continues to make condescending, veiled remarks.
As for the evidence, I stand by them, and encourage the committee to investigate the diffs thoroughly.  They are not “made-up”, nor are they misrepresented in any form.  Those are his own words.   Thank you kindlyZmmz 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In defense of the evidence provided in regards to user LukasPietsch

message: Lukas claims that "Zmmz' accusations are either libellous or just terribly confused." .I believe, in fact, that the reverse is true and that Lukas should be held accountable by ArbCom for these blatant personal attacks. As a sidenote, for anyone who is curious as to what on earth a "meat puppet" is (in the context that Lukas is using), see Internet_sock_puppet#Meat_puppet. SouthernComfort 23:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More conspiracy theories from Lukas (re:"meatpuppetry")

message: Funny that a user who has repeatedly been incivil and has personally attacked and name-called me and others several times, not only in this case alone, but at other times would post evidence against me.
For the record I was not warned at the time about the civility policy therefore I was unaware of it. I had reported Aucaman on several notice boards and whatnot, and thats what I was pointing out in the talk pages.
About the others:
1- My criticism of Wikipedia's power structure can not be taken against me as "incivility", unless this user is joking here.
2- I stand by comment regarding his involvement with the RfC against Aucaman, in that case this user was doing a very similar action which is to take a special POV on the matter and do not report the actions of the other side (Aucaman).
3- I invite anyone reading those comments out of context to visit the pages to understand the context and stress caused by the individual (Aucaman) at the time.
Sadly I am too busy (in real life) to provide this user (Lukas's) incivilities but I am sure as well as many posted right on the evidence page, it is also more than obvious what I was referring to. I have learnt about the civility policy since then, however this users' repeated actions which have not stopped since, suggest otherwise about him. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responce to "Kash..has been incivil"