Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Proposed decision

message: I`d be grateful if you re-evaluate my contributions for the past month and a half, and you commute the decision regarding me to a probation/ban on two articles, rather than a topical ban. Please see the evidence of compromise here.  Thank youZmmz 06:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed final decision

message: #I can't see evidence of Zora edit-warring disruptively. Of course, she's clashed with some of the Iranian editors on numerous occasions, but in general her contributions have been sensible, open-minded and well argued.
#I'm not sure if Khoikhoi should be placed in the same group with Zmmz, Kash etc. Instead, I'd urge to consider the role of  more, as he is something of the "master-mind" behind the Iranian group.
#I'd suggest to reconsider if it's fair to single out Zmmz from the Iranian faction handing down much stricter sanctions on him than on the others. He's been acting only as a representative of that group in the Arbcom and the preceding RfC etc., but his role in the dispute itself is really not that much worse (or better) than that of the others.
#On the other hand, if both Aucaman and Zmmz get topic-banned, that will effectively still boil down to a "victory" of the Iranian faction - their main opponent silenced, and their own collective monopolization of the Iranian articles strengthened despite the "sacrifice" of Zmmz. What is really needed, in my view, is a measure that reduces the collective "reverting fire-power" of the Iranian team. Some form of collective reverts limitation perhaps?
#I'd urge more lenience with Aucaman. Although his behaviour has not been blameless, it ought to be seen in the context of his being the victim of an extensive campaign of harassment and intimidation, with the express purpose of silencing him. Aucaman should be given a chance of contributing and voicing his legitimate concerns about content in a less hostile atmosphere for once.
Lukas (T.|@) 09:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on proposed decisions

message: *In light the new evidence provided in the evidence page here, I am proposing the following,
1.  The committee to kindly give him a simple warning; in regards to promoting a hostile atmosphere in the community.
2. Due to persistent bad-blood between the user and what he calls the “Iranian, factionalizing nationalists ”, who as an advocate, Lukas should have conducted himself better,  it is suggested that he’d be placed on a one year probation, as per decision applying to the Iranian editors per se, not Iranian articles .  As such, this may put a lid on further inflamed/heated exchanges, and/or he [Lukas] trying to provoke the other editors, or get on their case, and vice-versa.   Thank youZmmz 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for user Lukas 

message: Firstly, I take great offense at Lukas' attempt to divide and factionalize WP according to what he perceives to be ideological and/or ethnic lines. This is not the first time he has attempted to lump all editors who he perceives to be "Iranian" into a single category - for the record, as my userpage previously stated and which he and others were aware of, I am an American of Iranian descent. I wasn't born in Iran and neither were my parents, and I have never lived in Iran, nor do I ever plan to. And yet he is quite content to lump us all together into one group as if we all agree on everything - if this isn't prejudice, then I don't know what is. Certainly those of us who Lukas and Zora enjoy pigeonholing according to their bias do not in fact agree on everything and there are usually more disagreements than otherwise, especially when it comes to issues such as Islam and controversial figures such as Ruhollah Khomeini. Again, I take great offense at Lukas' conpiratorial allegations (which read like some half-baked conspiracy theory) and attempt at ethnic pigeonholing - this isn't the first time he has done this, as previously he tried very hard to lobby for Zereshks inclusion in these proceedings. His bias is even more clearly evident when he is willing to overlook those he clearly backs up, such as Zora and Aucaman, ignoring evidence of bad behavior (concerning Aucaman), and even urging ArbCom to be more lenient with Aucaman than Zmmz. This is appalling.
Lukas himself has claimed to oppose factionalism, and yet he continues to promote this sort of prejudicial mentality - those he perceives to be totally NPOV and totally in the right (despite clear evidence to the contrary) versus the "ultranationalist Iranian (or Persian) contingent/faction/unit/army/etc" who of course, are always terribly wrong and who obviously work in concert to disrupt and antagonize WP with their "ultranationalism." I find this distressing and I urge ArbCom to take action and notify this user that such behavior and rhetoric has no place here, and that as such, he should cease and desist such rhetoric which, IMHO, are nothing but veiled personal attacks. SouthernComfort 03:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Lukas' comment

message: Although it must be more than obvious to everyone by now, I have to second what has been said regarding Lukas and his comments. He has never been involved in the content of the disputes as far as I know - but everytime he gets the chance to group some Iranian editors together, he will make sure that he does so! He has been very much incivil in this case and he has repeatedly grouped Iranian editors - mentioning my name every time - and calling names such as nationalist, ultranationalist, etc with his false accusations, even after I have personally asked him not to.
The content disputes have been over Iranian articles, so ofcourse much of the editors are going to be Iranian! Even Aucaman claims to be Iranian. However Lukas shamelessly and repeatedly continues his incivil ways, regardless of the fact that many non-Iranian editors have been involved in the case trying to resolve the disputes that Aucaman has created.
This arbitation is against Aucaman, and I invite everyone to be reminded of the root of all these problems, Aucaman; who has repeatedly been causing disputes in Iranian articles by rejecting sources using incivil remarks, not agreeing to compromises even after discussions that have taken over a month and have involved much waste of time doing endless incident reports, mediations, request for comments, etc etc. Yet he still has not settled to comprimise over the endless disputes that are still going on.
We need harsh judgments but I invite everyone to understand the problem here and see the reactions as the consequence of it. The situation would have never got this far if Aucaman had stayed civil and had settled for the compromises that were offered many times. 
Therefore I ask the Arbitrators to review the proposed decisions and reconsider the decisions regarding other editors (against Aucaman), considering all the time and life most of the editors against Aucaman had spent to resolve the issue and also collect evidence not only for this arbitation but for our previous efforts to resolve this issue in the  mediation case and  RfC, which had caused much stress which had lead to what this Arbitation has referred to 'constant edit wars' as well as many articles being protected several times during the last month, which had truely disrupted the process of updating these articles (that were of great importance as the previous month contained the Iranian new year festival and attracted much visitors, who found the articles bombarded with such tags as POV, Article protected, Unsourced, etc often several at the same time).
Much thanks,   -  K a s h  Talk | email 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again, Regarding Lukas and his comments and the proposed decision

message: Re. the proposed findings and sanctions against Xebat/Diyako: Just for the sake of fairness, may I point out that he has - to my knowledge - not yet been informed  of these proceedings against him, and that he is currently blocked and hence has no way of defending himself? - Not that I would disagree with sanctions against him in principle, as the evidence is sadly clear. Since he hasn't been contributing even to his user page for a while, due to his block, I suggest Arbcom inform him by e-mail. Lukas (T.|@) 19:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xebat 

message: "SouthernComfort topical ban"
I am very concerned about this. SC is one of the best editors for Iran-related articles that I know of. Isn't probation enough? His loss would be absolutely detrimental to the project. Couldn't we just have more of a specific ban like just Persian people and Iranian peoples? It's Aucaman that is the main issue. :( —Khoikhoi 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also just like to say that I think Jayjg's involvement in this ArbCom is highly inappropriate. Don't get me wrong, he's a really great guy and I really respect him, but I just feel that whenenver he was in a dispute with the Iranian editors on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini and Talk:Persian people, he always seemed to take Aucaman's side. I'll provide some diffs:       . Is it possible for an ArbCom member to leave the case becuase of this? —Khoikhoi 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second both comments above -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from [[User talk:Dmcdevit]] 

message: When I first read some of User talk:Jayjg`s comments in those articles such as Persian people, and Khomeini, I thought he was another user whose POV was simply opposite of that of editors like Southerncomfort.  I was surprised that; nevertheless, he was an ArbCom member who has now gone head-to-head with some the same editors whom he is  making proposals against?  He is not 100 percent neutral here (there is a conflict of interest), and he should recused himself from this specific case, like Domini did with the case of Zora.  There is no excuse for this, as the diffs in the above section show some tilted comments.  In fact, as another ArbCom member just indicated via vote, some of proposals emanated by Jayjg are “ overkill”.   And, despite evidence showing for the past year, user Zora had extensively lobbied outside of Wiki to recruit editors against the so called Nazi Iranians, here Jayjg failed to submit a vote on the proposals against her?
In regards to the situation, there is just a geo-political climate around that can easily be seen in Wiki as well, in that certain ethnic groups are trying to dismember a country like Iran, and all these editors came in to try to defend the accuracy of their heritage.  Many average Joes like Zora are being manipulated into falsehoods by paid authors and/or native political activists on  Wiki for example, that are sympathizers with terrorist groups like Al-Ahwaz that are fighting to detach an ancient Persian province from Iran due to its rich petroleum productivity.  Under the name of human rights, even people like Zora are tricked into believing the province belongs to Arabs (which was Zora`s first dispute a year ago in the Ahvaz article; i.e. she was disputing the etymology by saying it is Arabic, while she had no idea it is historically inaccurate; yet, she realized it herself later: the whole thing was suggest to her by a now gone/banned user named…yes, Ahwaz).  In the mean time these Persian editors are labeled fascists, nationalists etc....which really isn` t true, specially, in the case of users like Southerncomfort.  Incidentally, the geo-political issues are not limited to a volatile country like Iran; indeed, Greeks too are finding themselves defending against the de-Hellenisation of her proud past (Former Yugoslav Republic, now renamed for some reason Macedonia, is claiming Alexander was not Greek?).  
Jayjg, naturally has not responded positively to request that he should excuse himself from this case, and indicates he sees no reason why he should to do so.  I feel, at this point, it is appropriate to ask Jimbo to possibly intervene, as such that this poster case for many of the problems in Wiki.  In the mean time, I urge the other arbitrators to keep Jayjg `s involvements in mind when voting.Zmmz 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate involvement of arbitrator [[User talk:Jayjg]] 

message: User:Jayjg has been involved in POV disputes on two of the main articles at the heart of this case Persian people and Khomeini, on the side of the main party to this case user:Aucaman, and against the same editors he, Jayjg, is now proposing sweeping topical bans for.  Those ArbCom members with a conflict of interest are (ethically) expected to recuse themselves from related arbitration cases. Therefore, recusal is the only appropriate course of action here. --ManiF 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I indeed had a "conflict of interest" I would recuse myself.  Some mild requests by me on a Talk: page, and other people posting stuff to my own Talk: page, do not constitute a conflict of interest. And the sweeping topical bans have already been proposed, I'm just suggesting they be extended to all the warring parties. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This a clear case of conflict of interest, you were involved in both Persian people and Khomeini, coming out in blatant support of the main party to the case user:Aucaman and  against the same users you are now proposing new remedies against. In Addition, there are dozens of talk page messages between you and user:Aucaman, seeking and granting "help". As I said before, recusal is the only appropriate course of action here. --ManiF 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your spin on this situation does not accord with reality.  In addition, the Arbitration Committee has been fully apprised of this situation and your request, and not one member supports the petition.  To top it off, Jimbo himself has been made aware of it, and has expressed his full support for me, and stated that there is no reason whatsoever that I should recuse.  You are also aware of this, of course, since Jimbo has told you this directly. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those are the facts, there is no "spin". To elaborate further I will provide detailed evidence and description of your partisan involvement under this section by tomorrow. I'm doing this not because I hope to change your mind, but rather because this case is being watched by National Iranian-American Council as well as several prominent US journalists who have been notified of these issues, and are investigating the fairness and reliability of wikipedia as a source and a community. Also, I have never talked to Jimbo, so I'm not aware of his views. --ManiF 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jayjg]] should recuse himself 

message: Again I'm accused of an "extensive" campaign to recruite meat puppets. Two Usenet posts? NOT asking for help? Do Zmmz or ManiF know anything about Usenet? I posted "Newsflash! I'm a Bengali" to rec.arts.sf.fandom. That's a discussion group for people who attend science fiction and fantasy conventions. If I were trying to recruit, I would certainly pick a better group than that. I would also tell people what to do, instead of posting that I'd like some nice saris and jewelry to go with my new Bengali status. They also seem to think that my sig is accusing Iranians of being Nazis. This despite my link to signature block. Do they not know who Cthulhu is? And perhaps they don't realize that I have a sig file with 55 different sigs, and my posting software (slrn) picks a sig at random? It was just as likely that that post should have ended up with the sig: 
: "What a waste it is to lose one's mind--or never to have a mind. How true that is." -- Mr. Edible Starchy Tuber Head
As for being a gullible fool recruited by a sinister conspiracy to dismember Iran -- I was active in the Khuzestan articles long before Ahwaz arrived. After he left, too. He tends to lose his temper quickly and leave. He has come and gone a few times. The "Iranian Watchdog" folks have a tendency to see me as the bogeyman they expect (Arab nationalist) and completely ignore my protestations that I'm not an Arab and I loathe nationalism. I don't want to break up Iran. Splits along ethnic lines usually end in blood and misery and I'm definitely against blood and misery. IMHO, ethnic separatism is often fueled by an incompetent and repressive central government -- it's one way of opting out of the mess, and seems easier than fomenting a general revolution. Fix the central government and ethnic separatism will go away. People will want IN, not OUT. 
Right here and now, in WP, all I want is all POVs represented in Iran-related articles. That necessarily includes separatist POVs. I do not believe that describing those POVs is going to lead to the demise of Iran. Describing is not advocating. WP does not advocate. Nor should we censor, or allow one political POV to censor other POVs. Zora 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Iranian Watchdog" is not a label created by Zora. siafu 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that the "Iranian Watchdog" was the first to use the term self-referentially, you should not be surprised to see others use it against you.  I'm simply pointing out yet another gross misrepresentation. siafu 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm spreading hate now?  I also wasn't aware what Zora did or did not do had anything to do with the fact that you and others used to term Iranian Watchdog before Zora. siafu 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am merely pointing out a fact.  If you're upset that the term "Iranian watchdog" has been turned around, you have no one but yourself to look to. siafu 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, User:ManiF is the one who apparently came up with the term.  Apparently he's also part of the "gang", as you've decided to label it.  As for "uninvolved parties", given that you've been soliciting outside opinions from quite a few users through talk pages and personal email, including myself, this should also be no surprise. siafu 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You used the term "gang", I only repeated it (in quotes).  Zora did not create the term "Iranian watchdog", which you implied your statement.  My position is not stated, and irrelevant, so I'm not going to be baited. siafu 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zmmz's latest  -- Zora replies 

message: I was preparing a Motion to be submitted in the Workshop page when on my watch list I saw yet two more editors who complained against Zora.  
1.	User Mystic who left a note on Zora`s talk page about her incivilities, under the heading `Your Rudeness`. 
2.	Another user, namely Anwar saadat  who left a message to Jayjg about Zora`s continuous blanking of sections and edit-warring.
I then contacted these users, informing them of the case, and very civilly asked them to participate in the case if they wished, such that their voices will be heard.  One of them already left a comment above, so he did have a concern.  Afterwards, I was blocked by David Gerard, but I had no idea why, and was not given any warning or explanation prior to this or afterwards.  Zora herself had spammed the pages of many editors asking for help.  So, I genuinely thought my actions were legitimate, since these users`s grievances seemed very similar to the editors who are involved in this case, and are complaining against Zora.  I was never uncivil, or obnoxious, and have never contacted Zora directly.   Admins, Alex Bakharev  and Woohookitty were then kind enough to go as far as writing in  the noticeboard, and unblocked me .Zmmz 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zmmz`s response to the recent block 

message: re: "Aucuman is uncivil"
How can a group of people decide about the "personality" of an editor? Even a couple of actions should not give the others the right to judge about the personality of some editor. The title should be "Aucuman edits uncivil". I expect this title to be changed and the one who created this title should apologize Aucuman. --Aminz 22:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HELLO! Is there anybody here ;) Before closing this project, please have a look at my comment above. Thanks. --Aminz 06:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not making a sweeping judgement of his personallity, simply of his actions, which, as you can see they have concluded, have been uncivil. --InShaneee 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks by this project 

message: I am concerned about Zora's behaviour, If you recently check Rani Mukerji's page, she totally blanked out the page, leaving only trivia section there. I think you should ban her only from Rani's page. I have been editing the page too. I have had no problems with others. We were able to compromise and reach decisions when problems came. But, then Zora kept reverting my edits. I may not be a professional writer but she should at least see my edits and put them appropriately in proper language. Yet, she just reverts them unlike other editors who look into details and make great changes. I hope you ask her to stay of Rani's page since she has been only creating conflicts and stress. She has no research on her. She knows nothing about her. In addition, she has no interest. If she did, she wouldn't vandalize the page by clearing everything. Please ask her to stay off the page. Thanks! shez15Ü 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned about Zora's behaviour in Ajith, Rajinikanth and Vijay articles too. She blanked out whole paragraphs, sections and even supporting links arbitrarily without any discussion whatsoever. What is the point in giving links when editors don't bother to read them? I demand to know what action would be taken on her. She was already blocked for vandalism in Zakir Naik article. She passes off her POV as NPOV even while admitting lack of basic knowledge of the Kollywood industry in general. She threatened to block me for 3RR when I reverted her vandalism. She is a loose cannon. Anwar saadat 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous. It was a mistake. No established editor with 10,000+ edits and more than 10 barnstars would go and deliberately blank a section of the page and then reinstate it to get into trouble.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this case is closed. No use going on arguing here. Lukas (T.|@) 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's behaviour