Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposed final decision

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)

[edit] Comments on proposed decisions

  1. 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.
  2. 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 Zereshk (talk · contribs) more, as he is something of the "master-mind" behind the Iranian group.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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)

Update
  1. Having gone through the discussion on Persian people again, I repeat my request to reconsider the role of Khoikhoi (talk · contribs). He should NOT be censured for his involvement, as he was initially making a very honest attempt at mediating a compromise on that page. I'm saying this even though I strongly disagree with his assessment of the overall situation as expressed during this Arbcom case.
  2. I urge to reconsider the judgment that Aucaman has "frequently" been incivil. Going through the ridiculously long (and clearly slanderous) list of alleged infractions given by Zmmz, I can find a total of 2(!) genuine instances of indisputable incivilities (the notorious "death praiser" one and the "troll" one). If, as Dmcdevit has proposed, edits like this [1] ("you're waisting my time") are to be counted as incivilities too, then the same needs to be applied to others, most notably Kash (see new evidence on evidence page.)

Lukas (T.|@) 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to proposals/evidence by user Lukas

Firstly, I think it may be inappropriate, that in an ArbCom case, Lukas is attempting to marginalize other`s grievances. I salute Lukas`s efforts, but what I hear is a lot ambivalence, nothing substantive. He is making slander. In regards to “sacrifice of Zmmz”, I am not exactly sure what he is implying here?; but whatever that is, it is incorrect. This case has merit. I raised the red flag on these edit-wars that have been going on, even despite Lukas` early warning on my talk page[2]. For over a year user Zora, Ahwaz, Southerncomfort and others have been spewing toxicity at each other, while recently even Lukas himself had joined-in, diminishing the academic integrity of this encyclopedia (although, a quick glance at the discussion page of Ahvaz will show editors like Southerncomfort reacted to inflammatory claims by Zora, as compared to instigating it). The fact that users like Zora, who actually initiated these disputes, that often have no academic value, or accuracy, done so, merely due to sympathy for minority groups in Iran (see evidence here), may be cause to impose stricter proposals on her, and Aucaman. See evidence of incivilities and other by LukasPietsch here ,and here.Thank youZmmz 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for user Zora

  • As per the statement above, it may be necessary to topically ban Zora on all articles relating to Iran/Persia, and some others such as Islamic conquest of Persia, Aisha, and Muawiyah I (in that article, I personally intervened to as a third part editor, and she kept reverting a perfectlly legitimate source from Islamic academia, relevant and appropriate to the article, perhaps because it was deemed offensive to her and/or to the prophet of Islam). As such Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, and perhaps at this point, she has violated Wikipedia:No original research too many times[3]; since Feb/2005, as she is not a stranger to being party in various ArbCom cases. The user is resting her edits solely on free speech. Instead of trying to build what is at its core, an encylopedia, she may be using it as a tool to promote what she selectively refers to as all sides.

Note: As early as two days ago, editors involved in India articles have filed complaints about her in the incident notice board, on grounds on edit-warring, and other, first complaint, second complaint .

    • Zora defends herself
I think Zmmz is misreporting the Rajput dispute. One editor complained after I made a mistake. We're fighting off an attack by a banned user using sockpuppets on Rajput and I thought some edits made by a brand-new user (no other edits) were from a sock. The user complained, I reviewed the edits, decided I had been wrong, and apologized [4].
The second comment, by Tijuana Brass, was not a complaint -- it was saying that while my edit didn't seem justified, there was clearly edit-warring on the part of the sockpuppets. He later observed that I had just made a mistake, no big deal [5]. Zora 10:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Zmmz immediately went to the editors who had commented and asked them to come here and complain about me [6], [7].
If that mistake is going to be grounds for banning me from editing any India-related article, I imagine that my co-workers on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema (which I started) are going to be upset, as are the other editors at Rajput, Sari, Partition of India, Nathuram Godse, and Salwar Kameez.
I think I've been blocked for a 3RR violation once, at Zakir Naik. A new user wanted WP to claim that one position held by a Muslim evangelist was contrary to the Qur'an and Sunnah; I told him that WP did not take positions in religious matters. He kept adding the claim and I kept removing it. I then realized that I had gone over 3RR. I reported myself to an admin I knew to be on duty and got a 6-hour block. I can't give a diff for this, as it's already archived [8]; it's in Archive 9, under Zakir Naik.
The Zakir Naik article has been extremely contentious. It's a collision of pro-Islam propagandists and anti-Muslim Ali Sina fans. I have re-written that article many times trying to come up with a version both sides will accept. I think we may be close to a solution now. [9]
Any review of my edits will show lots of reverts on Islam-related articles. That's because they are frequently vandalized or edited by people with axes to grind. On the one hand, there are the devout Muslims who want PBUH after every mention of Muhammad's name or delete anything they regard as critical of Islam; on the other hand there are the anti-Muslim editors who want the articles to say that Muhammad was a pedophile and a mass murderer, and that Islam is synonomous with terrorism. We also have the Sunni versus Shi'a disputes, and the Salafis against everyone else disputes. I have tried to make sure that all views are represented and that none are over-represented, which has led to lots of name-calling and harassment. The editors who are there for the long haul (who are Muslim, Christian, atheist, and one Buddhist, me) fight a lot but we generally manage to come up with compromises. If you want to see how other editors regard my work on Islam-related articles, look at my userpage User:Zora, both the barnstars and the collection of epithets. If you ban me from working on those articles, you are seriously crippling the effort to keep the Islam-related articles balanced and useful.
I should also add that though I do not keep a boast list, I have started or written many Islam-related articles. See Abu Dharr, Battle of Uhud, Fatima Zahra, Ziyarat for samples of my work. Are you sure you want to prevent any other such articles from being written?
The Aisha article is the only Islam-related article in which I've encountered Zmmz. Quite recently, he made some edits [10], which I reverted [11]. I'd still stand by that revert -- Zmmz's edits were sub-par English and not helpful to the article as a whole. Zmmz then restored most of his version [12], claiming that his version was more NPOV than the old one. Anonymous Editor reverted, pointing out that the article did not hide the controversy, in fact most of it concerned the controversy [13]. Zmmz tried again [14], and Anonymous Editor reverted [15]. Zmmz then put a dispute tag on the article [16]. Kashiyar Karimi, one of the editors who supports Zmmz, then showed up and made this edit [17], which I think is ugly. But I left it; I had a feeling that I was being set up for complaints and that any further edits on my part would show up here.
I reverted once; Anonymous Editor reverted twice -- and I'm the one to be banned for edit-warring? Something is not right here.
Zmmz now claims, above, that I "kept" reverting, and that I rejected his legitimate source -- I reverted once, and he never cited any sources. It's difficult dealing with someone who keeps changing his story, AND totally misrepresenting what happened. Zora 10:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
After my revert, I put a note on the talk page as to why I'd done so. That led to an accusation from Zmmz that the article was POV. I asked him to help by looking up hadith references [18], at which point he ran to a friendly admin and complained of my "incivility" [19], for which the admin duly admonished me [20].
All this is infuriating, because for more than a year I (and other editors like Anonymous Editor) have tried to keep the article balanced. We get the Muslim editors who want to PBUH and censor everything, and the anti-Muslims who want to use it as evidence of pedophilia. I have the impression that Zmmz was chiding me for being too pro-Muslim, but I'm not sure. I also do not understand why "If you want to be useful" should be considered a personal attack which warrants admin intervention.
As to the Iran articles -- I have written Jamshid (musician) and worked on Persian literature, Shush Castle, and Richard Nelson Frye. I have worked on a number of Khuzestan-related articles, but after many months of having dispute tags removed, all edits reverted, proposals for outlining several POVs rejected, and a failed mediation, I have drawn back.
I also got involved in a struggle over Islamic conquest of Persia, which was extremely biased against Arabs. Here's one of the worst versions [21]. Note the picture, with the evil Arabs seizing the lovely Persian maiden. I rewrote the first section, and added more details re the actual military conquest. However, the problem with any new version was less a description of the events of the actual conquest than it was an assessment of the consequences of the conquest. I tried moving all that debate into "Arabization and Islamization in post-conquest Persia", which then became the battleground. Over my protests, one of the editors changed the title to Islamicization in post-conquest Iran, on the ground that there had been no Arabization whatsoever. This is all a refraction of Iranian politics, in particular diasporic politics, in which opponents of the theocratic regime sometimes call its supporters "Arab-parast", Arab-lovers, and deplore or minimize the consequences of the conquest.
I have never been disciplined for 3RR violations in these articles. The other editors have reverted my edits, removed dispute tags, and refused to allow the usual Wikipedia solution of "X believe A and Y believe B." If I'm banned from editing Iran-related articles, the ArbCom will have been co-opted by editors who want to suppress alternate viewpoints. It wouldn't matter so much if there were other editors who could take my place, but so far as I can tell, there are no academic-oriented editors specializing in Iranian studies poised to help out. I wish they were here now; they'd probably know more than I do.
Actually, I think this is a large part of the problem. I do not regard the people with whom I've been having problems as "typical" -- I think we've just got a temporary configuration with a fair number of editors who share a lot of views, and very few editors with different views. If WP continues to attract new editors, this disproportion will probably disappear and we'll get a more balanced mix. However, in the meantime, I think it's important that WP support a variety of views, and insist that all POVs be represented.
I've been prolix, but I don't know how else to respond to Zmmz's insinuations. He can accuse me in one word, and I have to take several words to refute it. Zora 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for user Lukas

  • 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)

[edit] Regarding Lukas' comment

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)

[edit] Again, Regarding Lukas and his comments and the proposed decision

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)

Wow. "master-mind". I'm flattered.--Zereshk 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Proposal for User Zora: An Open Letter to the Committee

Dear Committee:

Kindly know, that I, as an academician in a University in the East Coast, and my fellow colleagues here, as well as a great many, are watching and following this case carefully. Wikipedia has become a prominent source of everyday knowledge, and a popular one that. As such the integrity of it is of paramount importance.

As you may well know, numerous users do manipulate their editorial privileges in order to use Wiki as a political tool. As it pertains to this case, User:Zora to this day is a rather permanent fixture on these edit-wars ( see Aisha), ( Muawiyah I), (Battle of Karbala), clearly displaying some sort of subtle agenda, while the great many of her edits are historicaly inaccurate, done so simply due to, her sympathy for the minority political groups, Zora stating, Abolish the U.S.! Abolish the Islamic Republic of Iran!...I spit on all flags...! here Zora herself claiming to be “..a heretic anti-nationalist American” here, look here too, as compared to for pure academic reasons (more evidence here); adjoined with POV bent on softening the image of Arabs/Muslims (e.g. “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.”), or Zora admitting, “What kind of impression of Islam are you giving with these antics?” here here too. See two examples below (the first is the dispute that instigated all this),

Example 1:

  • May, 2005: Zora sympathizes with Ahvaz separatist groups, arguing they are oppressed, and trying to introduce academic inaccuracies about the etymology of this province and/or Khuzestan, 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.


Example 2:

  • June, 2005: Zora, immediately, starts another historically inaccurate dispute in the Sialk Ziggurat showing/admitting her dismay with the “Iranian culture ”, stating, “ I've gotten sucked into Wikipedia, and into an online duel with several Iranian nationalists who are determined to annex the Elamite empire for Iran. (Even though the Elamites didn't speak an Indo-European language or worship Ahura-Mazda, they were Iranians, dang it!) ”, [this was Zora`s request asking for help online, outside of Wikipedia; due to respect for her privacy the URL would not be provided publically, unless an admin needs it to be emailed to him or her].


Example 3:

  • March, 2006: A year later, still frivolous disputes continue. 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 two and a half centuries 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

Example 4:


I have personally contacted Sir Richard Nelson Frye of Harvard U, and as a graduate student, I am constantly contacting scholars such as Dr. Kaveh Farrokh, Prof. Richard. Donner of U of Chicago, Michael Witzel of Harvard U, as well as, the renowned Iranologists formerly of University of London, currently at `The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies`their website, who are only an example of some of the multiple scholars that Zora has gravely insulted and accused, but more importantly discredited them, such that their findings were perhaps in disagreement with her views Discrediting US government publications, from the Library of Congress, stating, the govt. officials are “liars and deceivers” here, Discrediting/accusing Dr. Frye of racism, stating he may be “anti-Arab” here, here too, Demeaning Witzel`s Aryan people theory, and Iranians/Aryans, stating “The Iranians are just as scary as the Hindutva folk.” here, Discrediting/degrading CAIS by stating, they have a“..explicit nationalist agenda” here, here, there. I have let Dr. Frye know about this, and the CAIS (specially), and others are already keeping an eye on this case, not due to any accusations, rather in mere curiosity of the credibility of Wikipedia as an academic source.


Based on these observations, I, and frankly many of us, strongly believe that a mere caution warning is insufficient as a proposal for this user, specially, in light of the facts mentioned above, and that as [many] users from different backgrounds (excluding I), insist “She has an influence with ArbCom”. These are only some examples of a pattern of misbehavior; the symptoms of which run deeper, and cover articles about Persia, Islam, India, etc. This has been party to at least three other ArbCom cases in the past year. One or two persons may be wrong, but unconnected groups of editors, complaining about this user for the past year and a half proof here cannot be. The committee needs to realize that there is a problem here.


History is intermittently faulty; nevertheless, I fear the ramification of the clash of ideologies in an academic source that is encyclopedia of all places. I urge the committee, due to the finding of facts, to treat this user with no exceptions, and act more even-handedly in this case.


Thank you

PS: I will be glad to forward you some comments/concerns by the scholars mentioned via email (if necessary).Zmmz 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)



Interesting. I'd like to know how I've insulted and defamed Fred Donner and Michael Witzel, since I think their work is admirable. I've cited Donner many times in various Islam-related articles. I have two of his books. As for criticizing sources -- it's one of the things we're supposed to do on talk pages. Zora 11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't accuse Frye of racism. I said he wasn't keeping up with scholarship. A modern take on the same topics would probably deal with ecological issues, climate history, and Wallerstein's world system theories. Not to mention the nationalism/ethnicity problems I've mentioned, post-modernism, subaltern theory, etc. Nor did I criticize Witzel. I was being breathlessly enthusiastic on Dbachman's talk page. Yes! to Witzel's "Afghanistan was Aryan vaeja" theory. Zora 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
More accusations. Those "Ahwaz" arguments are a year old, Zmmz, and in the end, I was the one who figured out why I was wrong. I couldn't see how Ahwaz (Arabic) could be derived from Huz (Xuzi or Khuzi). They seemed to have nothing in common. After buying a copy of the Eranshahr, and finding Xuzestan (Khuzestan) [22], I then bought a (VERY EXPENSIVE) copy of LeStrange's 1908 Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, where he explained that Ahwaz is the Arabic broken plural of Huz. I checked that with an Arabic-speaking editor, Mustafaa, and then told Zereshk that I had been wrong. (No one had never explained the "broken plural" business to me.) It's hard to admit that you're wrong, but truth is more important than ego. If I seem hard on other people in the pursuit of accuracy, I'm just as hard on myself. I don't have a diff for my message to Zereshk; it's archived, in [23]. It read (I removed para breaks, to make it shorter):
Zereshk, I should have said something straight out. As soon as Mustafaa confirmed that Ahwaaz was the Arabic plural of Huz, I realized that the word IS the Arabic plural form of Huz-Khuz-Khuzi, etc. Neither you nor SC had explained it that way. Perhaps you both assumed that I knew Arabic broken plurals? You'll also note that I immediately added the bit re the late Sassanid citation for Khuzestan as soon as I found it in the Daryaee book. Sometimes I say cranky things because I'm so TIRED of the endless controversy. I'm sorry for the times I've lost my temper. But I hope that you recognize that I'm trying to puzzle out the truth rather than support a pre-determined position. If I'm not convinced by your evidence, it's not because I'm mean, it's because I've been trained to be picky about these sorts of things. You may be right about something, but just not presenting convincing evidence for it, or explaining yourself clearly. My purpose is 1) to participate in making a useful, free resource and 2) to learn things and clarify my own ideas by discussing them. If I'm opposing you, it's only because I believe strongly in 1). We may also be having a culture clash. The article I cited on archaeology in modern Iran was fascinating in that regard, in that it showed archaeology and history taught as patriotic endeavours to discover and publicize the glories of the past. If that's the sort of training you received, it's no wonder that we're meeting head on. Zora 08:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As for this "Turk" business Zmmz keeps trumpeting -- I was trying to write a section for Al-Khwarizmi that would outline the various theories as to his ethnicity, and the arguments for them. One editor had suggested that he was a Central Asian Turk, so I wrote that Al-Khwarizmi might have been a Persian, an Arab, or a Turk. I was incorporating every theory that had been brought up. Zmmz and his friends removed that, on the grounds that of course Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian, and Zmmz has since then been claiming that this proves that I don't know anything about Central Asian history, since there were no Turks in Khorasan until 1000 years later. Um, on pages 14 and following of Frye's The Golden Age of Persia (1999 version), there are references to the late Sassanids building walls to keep out Turks, and on page 39 Frye speaks of Turks in 557 CE living on the borders of the Sassanids to the east and becoming "iranized". If Al-Khwarizmi was from Khwarizm/Chorasmia, there is some possibility that he had Turkish ancestors. No proof of it either, just as there's no proof of any theories re his "ethnicity". As for the 1000 years claim -- the Seljuk Turks conquered much of what is now Iran in the 11th century, some three centuries later. I do make mistakes (see above) but I don't think that this was one of them. Zora 07:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Zmmz is quoting the same snippet brought up by ManiF, which I traced to Google groups. [24]. The cat is out of the bag. Everyone knows my email address. So far as I can tell, the only purpose of concealing it is to remove the context. Zmmz also adds the adjective "disgusting", which isn't in my original Usenet posting. Which was a year ago. Which was a request for info and not a call to meat-puppetry. As for nationalism and archaeology: staking a claim on the past for current glory or territorial claims is a common tactic. There are several books on the subject; a good one is Archaeology under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, ed. Lynn Meskell, Routledge, 1998. There's also an article by Kamyar Abdi, "Nationalism, Politics, and the Development of Archaeology in Iran", American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 105, No. 1, January 2001, which addresses the question of nationalism and Iranian archaeology more fully. As for the claims to the oldest ziggurat in the world -- they're all from Iranian news agencies or online magazines, published here on Wikipedia by one of our Iranian editors, and thence mirrored in various places. No confirmation at all from standard archaeogical sources or publications. Zora 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"clearly displaying some sort of subtle agenda" Folks - that seems fairly weasel-word to me - please define this subtle conspiracy/agenda which is so subtle many of us don't see it and you can't seem to define it. In terms of a well-crafted 'j'accuse' User Zmmz's letter is interesting. It does however tend to pick on unrelated facts & demonstrates some bad habits like name-dropping & self aggrandizement - to assess Zora's work you must look at all of it - not just out-of-context phrases. Zora is argumentative in that she criticizes (academically) , demands proof, and does not accept politicization. In 'my' academic circles that is considered a 'good' thing. In terms of driving content which is encyclopedic rather that perceived or actual propoganda and 'political agenda', Zora does an admirable job here. I don't like a lot of what she says eitehr - but it makes me think in order to counter her arguments, and that is, for WP a good thing.Bridesmill 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Zora's involvement in this case has been somewhat confusing. Although I do assume good faith that she is trying to help with the articles, I think she has (just like Lukas - although his involvement is much more confusing!) taken a special standing on the matter without reviewing the other point of view. This has been repeated by her actions through out her involvement by her joining with Aucaman et. al and doing what may look like group-behaviour to disrupt the articles. She may look like she has asked for sources, but we had provided tonnes of sources almost continuously for articles such as Persian people and Iranian peoples for almost two months, which Aucaman has repeatedly rejected. Zora also insisted that our sources such as Encyclopedias and other books are not good quality or whatnot (I am sure evidence is provided somewhere on the evidence page).Zora, instead of trying to resolve the disputes, has supported the disruption of updating these articles by protesting on behalf of Aucaman et. al (while he and Xebat\Diyako had been blocked for 3RR, personal attacks, etc. at one point or another), to put up POV tags on Iran-related articles.
This has been her main involvement in this case which she has herself addressed in her statement - that she was bothered by that some Iranian contributers had removed the POV or other tags, yet she did not seem to care about resolving the matter. It was only recently the Iranian peoples article was finally updated and there was a progress. Only after Aucaman had apparently left Wikipedia for a few days (and ofcourse Xebat has been on ban for a month for personal attacks against an admin), giving everyone a break. -- - K a s h Talk | email 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Khash, I haven't been more active on the articles and the talk pages on some articles because: I have 1,113 pages on my watchlist, of which the majority are articles. Much of the time I spend on Wikipedia (way too much) is spent reverting vandalism. I am chronically short on time. I am not putting a great deal of effort these days into the articles dominated by "the group to which you belong" (to which I cannot give any name lest I be accused of racism) because my comments are shouted down and my edits are reverted. I have reverted the removal of dispute tags because it's quick and because removal of tags when a dispute is ongoing is just plain wrong. If I'm short on time, I put it where I can be of some use.
As to sources: you and others seem to think that what you "know" as Iranians (common beliefs, what was taught in school), as confirmed by general purpose encyclopedias, is all there is to knowledge. Not so. Popular belief can be wrong. Ordinary encyclopedias are merely popularized summaries of the REAL research, which is done by scientists, academicians, independent scholars, etc., and published in peer-reviewed journals, books, and the like. Real research is always to be preferred to out-of-date, simplified summaries. If all we did was parrot Britannia, there would be no reason for WP's existence. We're trying to be better than Britannia. One way we do that is by including the popular beliefs, because it helps readers understand the world out there. We also include all the academic theories, as there's usually no consensus in the academic world. WP's purpose is not to proclaim, ex cathedra, on the true nature of X, but to give the reader a rundown of the various notable beliefs and theories held about X. I'm a failure as an academic, but I was trained as one, and I bring that to WP. That means research, not just looking things up in Britannica. I have about two feet of books stacked up around my computer desk and more stacks around the apartment, not to mention my Questia account. Which means that it can sometimes take me some time to come up with responses, because I feel obligated to do research. Sometimes that research overturns what I think I know -- which is great! Forever striving towards the unreachable asymptote of truth. Zora 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When someone posts a 'letter', could they kindly post the letter and address comments with sequentially, rather than re-editing the letter whenever someone comments on it? This puts most comments out of context, leaves the reader wondering what the comment relates to until/unless they do a diff; and IMHO serves no purpose other than to attempt to make the commenter look silly. It is both disingenuous and indicative of twisting the facts to suit the hypothesis, rather than the other way 'round.Bridesmill 14:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xebat

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)

[edit] Copied from User talk:Dmcdevit

"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)

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: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Is it possible for an ArbCom member to leave the case becuase of this? —Khoikhoi 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to second both comments above -- - K a s h Talk | email 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inappropriate involvement of arbitrator User talk:Jayjg

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)

[edit] User:Jayjg should recuse himself

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.[32][33][34][35][36][37] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Zmmz's latest -- Zora replies

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)


“As for being a gullible fool recruited by a sinister conspiracy to dismember Iran”, and others are a distortion of what I have said. The criss-crossing, cut-and-pasting of words are a very good indication of User:Zora`s behaviour through out the numerous article disputes that points to her refusal to accept references, which I find to be too rigid, and frivolous. As the letter/evidence here, shows her anti-nationalistic POV pushing, and her sympathy for separatists, minority groups, many times has superseded her concern for pure academic accuracy, which in today’s political climate, it should be of some concerned in an encyclopedia? What is interesting is even though diffs show otherwise; she had clearly asked for help in a very secretive manner, yet, of course still discovered in sites outside Wiki. Our dear editor`s inflammatory remarks made a year ago to users like Southerncomfort, which continue to date, vociferously spread racism and hate by labeling others as “Nationalists chauvinists ”, "Iranian gang", and reused the "Iranian Watchdog" group title in a vilified way. She has also selectively chosen not to mention a good number of times she had in fact, introduced academic inaccuracies in articles, in the name “Presenting all sides’’”. However, the diffs are self explanatory, and show her words; they are not garbled or misrepresented.Zmmz 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Iranian Watchdog" is not a label created by Zora. siafu 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other comments were her creation. The "Iranian Watchdog" comment, however, is not; yet, it is deliberately represented now in a way to illicit hateful images. By the way, were “Nationalists chauvinists”, “Persian chauvinists” her words? The answer is YES. User:Zora was the first one who started unjustly labeling others as such a year ago, which does nothing but to spread hate towards others. You forgot to mention those.Zmmz 03:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am puzzled of the fact that people spread hate, then say it is your fault. You have also once again failed to confirm if it was User:Zora who said, “Nationalists chauvinists”, and “Persian chauvinists”?Zmmz 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

For the third time; it is the way it is being put forth, confirmed by other vulgarities the other user you defend had stated. As far as my acquaintance with you; I had a very limited interaction with you four months when I new to Wiki; for about three-four days. So, I did not say you were the one who spread hate, rather those who say such things are. If you interject yourself in a case, then as an involved party I have the obligation to respond to you. Incidently, upon your request/demand in the discussion page of the Evidence page, I did go ahead and apologised to you for things said rather strongly by me 4 months ago, which frankly I did not even remember, since at the time it was my first week in Wiki. I am disappointed you are still here bashing, or at best trying to deny certain racist remarks made by User:Zora. Just be aware of that please, that it goes against all of the Wikipedia`s etiquette policies.Zmmz 04:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

You conveniently leave out other racist comments made by the user. "Iranian watchdog" was not created by me, or as User:Zora created yet another title, the "gang", in fact, I had nothing to do with the Iranian watchdog article, and I do not know half of the involved parties here. So, it is yet another indication how labels can be recycled to be used in a racist way. But, just to point-out though, I would beg to differ that the U.S "Consumer Watchdog Group" has any negative stigma attach to it. Although, you won`t say it, but by you approving of the way the term is re-used, and go further by implying, You have yourself to blame is just another way of endorsing it, and is just as abrasive. You can flood the discussion page as you wish, but it is pretty clear where you stand.Zmmz 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I may have asked you for support comments in regards to this case, since I figured you knew me when I was new, during my first week here, and after a few days, when I got familiar with the policies, we compromised in an article. Apparently, many other editors, however, did in fact rush to my aid and left positive comments on my behalf, for which I am grateful. As for your persistence; I am astonished in an ArbCom case, you continue to label others as this or that, instead, of having the presence of mind to promote a less hostile atmosphere here. Let me make it very clear, because it is important; do you endorse in anyway, labels such as "gang", "Iranian gang", a recycled/vilified usage of the title "Iranian watchdog", “Nationalists chauvinists”, or “Persian chauvinists”? Are they acceptable? I think a yes or no will do it.Zmmz 04:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

No, "gang", and "Iranian gang" are among User:Zora`s creations. And bait? The question of racial attacks/labels is exceedingly clear. Either you agree with their use or not? The "Iranian watchdog" statement was not created by Zora, but she used it, twisted/fused it, to be portrayed in a vilified way, i.e. weasel wording. You defended her usage of the term, by stating You have yourself to blame. I think at this point I’ll stop at that. Just so you know though, by defending such remarks as well as not denouncing them outright, in a masked way, you are promoting a hostile environment, and are endorsing such behaviour.Zmmz 05:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora`s Incivilities Proposition

It is alarming that user Zora`s behaviour continue to go unnoticed, and frankly due to an arbitrator defending her in proposal section against her, she is now emboldened, in that as evidence show she recently, in the Workshop page, is complaining why there even is a proposal against her that cautions her. I do believe that the wording should be changed in that it would address her rudeness, and continuing incivilities towards others. She has been part of three ArbCom cases in the past, a recent incident report against her, and subject to numerous complaints.

As early as today (complain about rudness here, complain about blanking entire sections/revert warring)three seperate editors having nothing to do with this case, or Iran articles are complaining against her for boisterous incivilities. 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. The Evidence page shows some bullet-proof diffs that clearly show her behaviour is very offensive and uncalled for in this site.


I urge the committee to propose a Civilities Infractions remedy in regards to Zora which would not ban her, rather it would put her on probation, that would in turn keep her activities in check. Thank youZmmz 20:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, the fact that someone is angry at me is not indisputable evidence that I'm wrong, or a bad person. Mystic is angry at me because he wants to put his photoshopped image on the Islam template and I wouldn't agree. Here's the interaction that he feels is inexcusably rude [38]. I fail to see what's incivil about it. He is pushing his image. We had a huge dustup over it a month or so ago, when he put it on the template without consulting anyone. A lot of editors were upset, as you can see from the talk page. Now he's trying again to insert the image; he's asking first, but he's not happy at being refused.
I asked him if he'd be willing to do other graphics work because I find that sometimes if you show that you value another editor's work and say, "What you can do doesn't fit here, but we sure need you here," it can defuse some angry responses. I guess that didn't work with Mystic, but I wasn't trying to be incivil. I was trying to sugarcoat what I was saying -- and keep a volunteer working, rather than going off in a huff. If that isn't a good strategy, or it was badly executed, tell me. I know I tend to be blunt rather than diplomatic, and I'm willing to learn this "diplomacy" biz. But I do mind being "stalked" and having everything I say or do online being dragged here as proof that I'm a bad person and deserve to be punished. The Arbcom is supposed to be a last resort if you've tried every other method of dispute resolution and the other editor is unreachable. Zmmz, you aren't trying any dispute resolution at all. Zora 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally disgaree with what Zora has said above. She is trying to mislead people here, one should look at the total conversation not only what she has said. I have clearly stated in my response that There is no obligation to use my image here, if anyone has a better image of the Shahada it could be used. see here [39]. This only shows that she has failed to assume good faith and she is twisting the story here. I want the ArbCom to consider what herself said above I know I tend to be blunt rather than diplomatic, and I'm willing to learn this "diplomacy" biz. She herself agree that she is not diplomatic in other words not tactful or sensitive or nice to people. This will do lot of harm to the community and draw away new comers.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  (T) 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora`s selective remarks that imply “she may be a semi-involved party” is incomprehensible. She not only has been very much part of this case and article disputes that has been expanded to include others, but she actually is the perpetrator that instigated these disputes back in May/05 (over a year ago), when she tried to introduce academic inaccuracies into the Ahvaz article, which is erroneous, but the important thing is that right from the get go, she started to vituperate malicious labels mentioned above that spread racism and hatred, and sponsor a hostile environment. She has had ample opportunity to participate in mediation set-up in regards to Iranian articles in which she is a part of, then the Rfc, the incident report and now this ArbCom case.Zmmz 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add myself to the list of victims of Zora. She blanked out whole paragraphs in Ajith and Vijay (actor) articles citing cleanup. She has begun a revert war unnecessarily. Even the links were not spared. She refused to pinpoint clearly her problems with the current versions in the talk page except in terms of vague wholesale catchphrases like POV, hagiographic, unencyclopaedic,... She has threatened to block me for violating 3RR whenever I reverted her vandalism. She has absolutely no qualifications, skills or experiences whatsoever to comment or edit articles about Kollywood actors and their way of lives. I demand to know why she is not restrained yet and what action will be taken to deter her. Anwar saadat 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
All this comes from a user who has no support of the community, does not heed to established policies, has been blocked for incivility, has numerous warnings on his talk and is on the verge of being blocked again. Whew! =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still relatively new and have no idea what rights I have to add my comment here. But seeing as Anwar did above I need to make it absolutely clear that User:Anwar saadat is fighting a one-man war against a number of other respected users to maintain his POV on Ajith. All that he is doing above is complaining because Zora took some more initiative than the rest of us. I'm sure the rest of those who are involved in this article know that this is not a case in which Zora is at fault. To make an article conform with Wikipedia policy is not vandalism, to revert other users edits in the name of cleanup (as Anwar did) is vandalism. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please ask Zmmz to stop stalking me?

It looks like Zmmz is reviewing all my edits and whenever anyone objects to them, bringing this up as proof that I should be punished. Not only that, he's asking the users involved to come here and accuse me [40], [41].

If Zmmz wants to accuse me, he's also going to have to accuse the entire Wikiproject Cinema of India. We have forty-six cooperating editors (from all over India and beyond) and we are trying to make the film articles encyclopedic, rather than fansites. This has meant howls of outrage from fans who have turned actor/actress articles into carefully tended shrines for their beloveds. See [42]. I went to the Ajith, Rajnikanth, and Vijay articles because other editors were complaining, and asking for help. So far as I know, WP does not approve of fancruft. If I'm to be punished because I tried to revise articles towards neutrality, then we're in deep trouble.

Could someone please stop Zmmz from reviewing all my edits, on ANY subject, and looking for "proof" that I'm a bad person? It makes editing extraordinarily unpleasant, knowing that if I do what any editor is allowed and encouraged to do (edit and argue) that this is going be brought up as proof that I should be punished. Apparently I'm safe only if I work on articles on which no controversy is possible. I thought this arbitration was about Aucaman and the Iran-related articles, not about me and any articles I happen to edit. Zora 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are part of the arbitration, and as such your edits are subject to review. Gathering evidence is an important part of that process. If you have any issues with the edits he's making, the proper thing to do is discuss them in a civil manner on the article talk page. --InShaneee 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User:zmmz is gathering evidence and asked two users in a civil way, to share their input and concerns regarding the case. I don't see any merit to Zora's complaint, specially since she's been doing the exact same thing. [43] [44] --ManiF 05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 05:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not at all the same thing, Mani. I asked Anonymous Editor and Pepsidrinka to give evidence regarding a specific accusation, for which I might be cautioned, about which they have first-hand knowledge. Furthermore, I didn't ask people who might be regarded as my good buds -- these are admins with whom I have argued bitterly in the past. I just trust them to be fair in this instance. I didn't ask them to attack someone else; I just asked them to judge whether or not I was an "edit-warrior."
I limited myself to defending myself against an accusation leveled against me. I did not expand the case. Zmmz's motto seems to be "the best defense is a good offense." He is expanding this case to everything I have said or done online in the past year. Whether it relates to this particular case (Aucaman and Iran-related articles) or not.
If this sort of thing is considered OK, who in his or her right mind will be willing to give evidence in an Arbcom case? Is this the sort of behavior that encourages civility? Zora 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring your retorical question, I'll simply state that as the proposed findings of fact make clear, this case has been expanded to examine the behavior of those involved in this situation as a whole, and your sarcasticly dismissive attitude towords other editors is certainly relevant in that light. --InShaneee 18:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zmmz`s response to the recent block

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[45]. 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 [46].Zmmz 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by this project

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Zora's behaviour

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)

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)
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)
Guys, this case is closed. No use going on arguing here. Lukas (T.|@) 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)