Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:


  • Hi, regarding your proposal here[1]; I think in regards me to me in particular, an all topical ban proposal is too; it hurts my efforts to see that after avoiding any further controversial editing, and my compromise with others, that I too may be banned from contributing to the topics which I am familiar with. If you need some evidence that point towards my attempts at compromise with other editors, kindly let me know. It has been weeks since I have reverted Iranian people (I only added some picture lately), or the Persian people articles, and since the suggestions by some admins, which I took to heart, I have not engaged in edit-warring, since early March, and I will not do so anymore. Although, Aucaman was blocked four times in the past month, and to this day continues his disruptive behaviour. I also feel it is appropriate that other users be put on probation, however, I wish that the committee had looked into Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)`s contributions as well; see here please[2]. Thank youZmmz 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I would like to request from the arbitration committee to reconsider my inclusion in the proposed decision, without a prior notice, on grounds that I was never officially a party to this case and totally unaware of the proceedings, up until today, to have the same opportunity as other parties in this proceeding to properly present an initial statement, and further evidence in my behalf. --ManiF 10:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While I whole-heartedly agree that all these editors, including myself are to be put on probation; nevertheless, I would like to request that Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to be placed on topical ban on articles relating to Iran/Persia, and some others such as Aisha etc. The user, along with some Iranian editors, is actually the instigator of some these edit-wars, which she started as far back as May/2005, and she also has a history of subtle incivilities. While she keenly stays away from participating in some full-blown/obvious edit-wars, she is very much connected with this case, and user Aucaman.Zmmz 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Motions by ManiF

The current proposed decisions and findings of fact are heavily one-sided in favor of a group of politically motivated individuals who have beem using wikipedia as a medium to conduct a campaign of hate and incitement against Iranian people. What is more troubling is the unethical involvement of User:Jayjg as outlined here, when judges with the slightest appearance a conflict of interest are (ethically) expected to recuse themselves in such cases.

Accordingly, several prominent US media personalities as well as the National Iranian-American Council who monitor ethnic and racial discrimination in the print and electronic media, have been notified about this issue, and they are closely monitoring these proceedings to determine the fairness and reliability of Wikipedia as a source and a community. I therefore ask the arbitrators to consider and include the following statements and findings of facts in their decision:

  1. Racial, Religious, and Ethnic Slurs: Harassing and derogatory racial, religious, and ethnic slurs, in any context, against any group of people, are not allowed and should not be tolerated.
    1. User:Aucaman makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian people. [3]
    2. User:LukasPietsch makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian people. [4]
    3. User:Xebat makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian people. [5]
    4. User:Zora makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian people. [6]
    5. User:Ahwaz makes inflammatory, discriminatory, and prejudicial comments toward Iranian people. [7]

More suggested proposals will be posted by tomorrow.

[edit] Motions by LukasPietsch

The currently proposed decisions and findings of fact are worded solely as based on the principles of "no edit-warring" and "civility". While the importance of these criteria is beyond question, I feel that in this case they address only the surface symptoms of the dispute and not the deeper problems. I also believe that some of the sanctions currently proposed are somewhat unbalanced. I therefore ask the arbitrators:

  1. To consider principles along the following lines for their decision:
    1. Divisiveness: It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to form political factions and organise group campaigns to influence the content of articles by force of numbers (J. Wales [8]) Lobbying for such concerted POV-pushing inside and outside Wikipedia is harmful.
    2. NPOV: Wikipedia requires inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.
    3. Respect for opposing viewpoints: Wikipedia requires editors to show respect for opposing viewpoints. Systematically and persistently labelling editors who hold opposing opinions as "attackers", "vandals", or as being motivated by "hate", or labelling them with polemic and inflammatory political epithets, is unacceptable.
    4. External lobbying: It is highly inappropriate to externally advertise Wikipedia debates in order to attract new users with specific opinions to strengthen one side of a debate (WP:SOCK).
    5. Dispute resolution: When involved in dispute resolution measures such as RfC and Mediation, editors are required to work seriously and in good faith for a consensual solution. They must not abuse such processes for making baseless and frivolous attacks and accusations.
  2. I ask the arbitrators to consider the following findings of fact:
    1. Zmmz has repeatedly expressed an unwillingness or inability to accept the principles of NPOV ([9], [10], [11]).
    2. Zmmz, Kashk, ManiF and Zereshk have systematically worked towards a political factionalising of Wikipedia members in a divisive way, with the goal of pushing certain politically motivated viewpoints in Iran-related articles ([12], [13], [14], [15]).
    3. ManiF and Zereshk have lobbied for Iranian-related POV-pushing campaigns on external fora ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
    4. Zmmz and ManiF have abused the processes of cabal mediation, RfC and arbitration, using them as a venue for baseless accusations and attacks against other editors. ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27])
    5. Kashk has repeatedly engaged in incivilities and personal attacks. ([28], [29], [30], [31])
    6. Zereshk has engaged in personal attacks against political opponents ([32], [33]) and labelled them as doing the work of foreign intelligence agencies ([34], [35]).
  3. I ask the arbitrators to consider the following with respect to the proposed remedies:
    1. Uphold the proposed sanctions against ManiF and Zmmz;
    2. Sanction Zereshk in some suitable form against factionalising behaviour.
    3. Possibly lighten the proposed sanctions against SouthernComfort, as his behaviour is less problematic with respect to the above principles. A revert and personal-attacks parole as a remedy against edit warring, rather than a topic ban, may be sufficient.
    4. Lift the proposed sanctions against Khoikhoi or replace it with a mere cautioning against edit-warring.
    5. Lift the proposed sanctions against Zora.
    6. Balance the proposed sanctions against Aucaman with those against Kashk, as far as they are made on grounds of civility infractions.
    7. Consider a general lightening of sanctions against Aucaman (e.g. revert/personal-attacks parole and mentorship, rather than a topic ban), as the severity of the measures currently proposed seem to be proportional more to the loudness of the opposition against him than to the factual disruptiveness of his own behaviour.

Lukas (T.|@) 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  • I propose everyone chill out and put together a smashing article on this subject's controversy in a new article, as outlined in Talk:Persian_people#A_proposed_solution. Aucaman even picked a title based off of my example of Who is a Jew? I say drop this mindless, dragged-out quasi-court battle and just work it out. People take this way too serious...seriously! לול/لول/LOL --How many emails do I have to get from you people? It's the internet, and opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and they often stink. The arb committee should make like the Honorable Judge Alex Kozinski and state "[t]he parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). -- Bobak 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well-meant advice, to be sure, but a bit late at a stage where half the people involved are currently facing topic bans. If people are going to get banned, we need to spend what energy it takes to work out who it should be. Lukas (T.|@) 07:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's never too late. This isn't a real courtroom, there has been no dollar amount spent by either side. People shouldn't let themselves get railroaded by the little fake political world created in an online encyclopedia. Just saying "political world created in an online encyclopedia" should make everyone step back for a second a consider how lame it sounds and how silly it is to be participating in it like this. -- Bobak 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Motions by Zmmz

What Lukas is doing is engaging in the politics of personal destruction. In an ArbCom case, LukasPietsch is attempting to marginalize other’s grievances by villifying them. He is also practically distorting some facts. I beg to differ with his analysis, and go further by saying; this might be a case of manipulation vs. evidence.

Unfortunately, the distinguished Doctor (Lukas) has consistently tried to exploit these disputes by relating them to the current political climate, and as an advocate hasn’t done anything constructive that I can think of, besides labeling others. Him connecting the so called “dots” and concluding there is a Persian conspiracy at work, had the case not been so serious, would be, I dare say almost entertaining. Nevertheless, for months, both Lukas and Zora have continued to maliciously label their fellow editors as a "Gang", "Iranian gang", “Nationalists chauvinists”, and “Persian chauvinists” etc., that has done nothing but to spread hatred and racism.[36][37](See example of Dr. Lukas lobbying that incivilities by him and Zora may be acceptable, since they are; “..calling an ace, an ace”).

For the record, I was the one who blew the whistle about these problems by exposing Aucaman`s activities, which led to a temporary injunction; the benefits of which are seen in articles such as Persian people etc: Edit-wars stopped; constructive cooperation among editors started [38]. And, despite the misinformation provided by Lukas, no one but I, requested the mediation for the Persian people article via the third party editor Khoikhoi, and then the Rfc[39]. I only asked other users to participate and present forth their arguments. I then sat back to see if the mediation/Rfc would work; yet, not surprisingly Aucaman failed to show the slightest interest in compromising with others (something that goes-on to this day, acknowledged by admins/arbitrators) [40]. As for my call for others to help voice their opinions in Iranian articles, it was a knee-jerk reaction to Aucaman`s calls for help in the talk pages of other users, but this was back in Feb-early March (I joined Wiki back in February: I was inexperienced). I was told by admins William Connolley and InShaneee, this was against etiquette, and have since apologized for it[41], in the mean time, not only I stopped editing in most Iran articles, but as the Evidence page shows, I successfully mediated in articles like Angel and Persian Gulf and ended the long edit-wars there (third party editors have graciously attested to that)[42]. And yes, as an academician I believe the freedoms bestowed to us in this unique encyclopedia can be abused, in that many try to interject their own agendas into articles under the banner of NPOV (user Xebat now set to be indefinitely banned spammed my talk page under the heading “ Concerns of a neutral user ”[43], or Zora introducing historical inaccuracies into the Ahvaz and other article in the name of minority groups and their unheard voices, instead of, for pure academic reasons)evidence here. I do hold the belief that unless a hypothesis has gone through a rigorous, universal scrutiny it should not be allowed in the main article, rather a sub-article stating different hypothesis should be created.


In regards to Aucaman and Zora, interestingly Lukas has failed to mention that even though under an injunction, as early as yesterday Aucaman has spammed the talk pages of 20-25 other editors asking help from them in articles [44]. Lukas has also failed to mention that recently evidence were discovered that show as far as a year ago (before I, and possibly many other editors involved in this case have ever joined Wiki) User:Zora had recruited help from sites outside of Wikipedia against the so-called “Persian chauvinists” (using a vulgar signature to sign her name saying, We`ll win against the Nazis)[this was Zora`s request asking for help online, outside of Wikipedia; due to respect for her privacy the URL would not be provided publicly, unless an admin needs it to be emailed to him or her]. It is alarming that after such exposures, being party to three previous ArbCom cases, subject to two incident reports filed against her, and numerous complaints about her rudeness/incivilities by separate editors that are not connected to this case, Zora`s activities still go unaccounted for.


I urge the committee to spent some time investigating the Evidence page *thoroughly*, as they are some bullet-proof diffs there clarifying these accusations from both sides. The discussion section of the Proposal page in which some proposals against user Zora and a less harsh one against Lukas himself are also important pages to look at.


[edit] Requested Proposals
    1. Aucaman has proved to be too obstinate and should be banned on all articles relating to Iran.
    2. Zora should be put on probation (not banned) so that her abrasive incivilities and under the radar edit-warring can be kept in check. This also gives a message to other editors like the Iranian, Indian, and Muslim editors that their voices are heard and no one is above the policies here.
    3. Lukas should be given a caution warning in that he should not sponsor a hostile environment here, misrepresent facts, and rather should act as a true advocate representing what Wikipedia inherently stands for.
    4. Zmmz humbly requests leniency, in that he`ll be given a ban on only two articles as suggested by Domini. Zmmz is to be put on one year probation along others.
    5. All other users should be given serious warnings and be put on probation for a year, as they have demonstrated for the past month, a la the absence of the destructive influence of Aucaman that they can work with each-other and other editors to Improve Wikipedia.Zmmz 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

  • Comment by Arbitrators:
  • Comment by parties:
First and foremost again, please let me express my regret in that at some point I personally may have been frustrated, and had asked other editors for help on their talk pages, done so in an inappropriate fashion. Although, I had always stressed other users to “…be factual and be respectful”[45], nevertheless, such requests were certainly against etiquette policies of Wikipedia, and do not represent my character: for that I apologise. If and when in the past any policies such as breaking the 3RR were violated by me, kindly know it may have been attributed to clumsiness in regards to unfamiliarity with Wiki, rather than a blatant effort to disregard the system. There absolutely, under no circumstances, is any mob mentality ongoing that I am aware of or participate in, as it may be suggested by some, and I personally take full responsibility for requesting help from other users, however, this case is about User:Aucaman` s unconditionally inflexible behaviour. Although I do not take any particular pride in the possible banning of any user on my conscious, unfortunately, nevertheless it is possible that the user is trying to illustrate a certain WP:POINT. His activities has concerned me; ; to an extent in which it became transparent the only authority he may respond to, would only be—ArbCom. Zmmz 05:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment by others:
It may be a mistake to call attention to myself (some editors have been telling me privately that a caution is no bad thing, just ignore it) but I can't help wanting to make some sense of the possible caution. Cautioning me is not going to change my behavior if I can't see what I've done wrong. I've gone over 3RR once and immediately reported myself for punishment -- so it can't be said that I take going over 3RR lightly. The intent, then, must be to tell me that I'm not to make some unspecified number of reverts under 3RR. Since I've never received any admin warnings not to edit war, it can't be said that I'm flouting warnings. So I'm not sure just why I'm being cautioned, and what I'm supposed to avoid in the future.

Edit warring on Aisha? I certainly reverted a lot of vandalism. After discussion with the other editors (the ones who have it on their watchlist and discuss, instead of just editing and leaving), I got a go-ahead to rewrite the article to display the "pedophile" claims and give links to sites advancing that POV. Which I did. With no reaction whatsoever. How can I be an edit warrior if I rewrite the article and nobody cares? Zakir Naik? I did my best, but when Ali Sina supporters and Muslims go for each other's throats, there's no stopping it, I guess. Without reinforcements, I can't stop the fighting at that article. The Iran-related articles? -- I've given up on until some of the fighting dies down AND I can do some more reading. References, that's the ticket.

I'm one of the minority of editors who research and write extensively instead of just nitpicking over a word here and there. Once it becomes clear that we really are at an impasse, I can usually rewrite until I come up with something that all editors can accept. I only get angry and discouraged when I run into editors who aren't willing to budge at all, or allow any other views but theirs. If you want to give me useful advice, tell me how to deal with that, please. I tried mediation once, at the Khuzestan articles; the mediator gave up, and told me that I had a case I could take to arbitration -- however, he didn't advise it, since arbitration tended to savage all parties. So, if no one comes when I put up an RFC, and arbitration is out, what's to be done? Give up? They have a bigger gang and more reverts, so let them have the article?

Saying anything may be a mistake, but if I'm to be punished, I want to understand why and how to avoid it in the future. Zora 08:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)