Case Opened on 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Aucaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Robert_McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as advocate for Zmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Semi-involved:

LukasPietsch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Robert McClenon as advocate

There is a difficult content dispute over the articles on the Persian people and Iranian people. An attempt has been made to resolve it by cabal mediation by mediator Fasten. This has not mitigated the dispute, because of the conduct of User:Aucaman, who has been consistently uncivil, and has engaged in personal attacks and revert wars, and has repeatedly been blocked for 3RR violations. Part of the problem seems to be that he considers any use of the word "Aryan" to be racist and so prohibited. There is a consensus that this word, in the context of the Iranian and Persian peoples, has a historically valid meaning. The fact that it was abused by Germans should not prevent its use in its original context. The behavior of Aucaman makes it difficult to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Aucaman

Note: My older statement is here. The one you're reading is more accurate.

I started editing Wikipedia on Oct. 24, 2005. In the first three months I was involved in editing various controversial articles, but you cannot find anyone complaining about my work.

Sometime in early February, I came across the Kurdish people article. The page was already protected.[1]. Apparently a group of users (namely, Manik666, Khoikhoi, and SouthernComfort) were pushing hard to label Kurds "Iranian" in the first line of the article and downplay any ethnic/cultural similarity with other groups.[2] The page was protected, and I used the opportunity to work out a compromise.[3] The page was already protected in their favor, so they saw no need to compromise. User:69.196.139.250's behavior seemed the most remarkable. He repeatedly copy-pasted various unsigned (usually bold-faced/capitalized) messages demonizing the other side and their "anti-Iranian agenda".[4][5] This is the same user as Manik666.

Around the same time, I got involved in the Persian people article. There was already a dispute in place, but there was very little discussion taking place.[6] I myself took issue with the use of the term "Aryan" as a marker for some unknown race of which Persians were claimed to be descended.[7] My edit was sitting there for 2 weeks until some anon reverted it.[8] This anon would later turn out to be ManiF.[9] My subsequent attempts to change the wording of the sentence were immediately reverted by ManiF.[10] Seeing how things were not working out, I let ManiF keep his version but asked for a dispute tag to be put in the section until the dispute is resolved.[11] ManiF removed the dispute tag in less than 30 minutes and started accusing me of racism, propagating false information, and others.[12][13][14] He then made some weird compromise offer, and threatened to disrupt other articles if I didn't take back my concerns.[15][16] Since I'd never been in a situation like this, following the vandalism article ("As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period."), I assumed the other side's edits to be vandalism. Probably due to some meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry campaign by ManiF, there was now an influx of various anon users constantly taking off the dispute tag, which led to the page being protected.[17] ManiF himself violated 3RR long before I did (see context); at least I believed I was reverting vandalism. This is also about when User:Kashk and User:Zmmz started joining the discussions.

Following the page's protection, there was a campaign of false warnings and harassment, mostly by ManiF and Kashk, but also by some anons.([18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] among others.) Zmmz and Kashk declared me to be illogical and went on to setup an RfC in order to "ban" me.[26] Zmmz and ManiF together spammed some 20+ users asking them to "vote" on the RfC. Zmmz also started intervening wherever he saw my name, constantly demonizing me by referring to the RfC.[27] At some point I couldn't help but to respond to one of the personal attacks.[28] Although I took off the response within minutes and apologized for it, Kashk and Zmmz continued their campaign of harassment - this time pointing to my "personal attacks" record. At some point I brought this up with the admins in which case both Kashk and Zmmz were warned. But Zmmz continued to harass me (not even sparing my personal user page [29]) until he was blocked for it.[30]

It now appears that ManiF, Zmmz, and Kashk are part of a POV-pushing team involving users Zereshk, SouthernComfort, and Khoikhoi. They persistently try to overrepresent Iranian contributions to the world at the expense of other groups. This spans across some 40+ articles and involves many other users (most of whom are probably not aware of this arbitration). A good list of articles has been provided by Zereshk himself when recuiting for users on the Farsi Wikipedia: [31]. Aside from spamming many users within Wikipedia, they have also been actively campagning outside Wikipedia.[32] I believe such actions lead to the disruption and fractionalizing of Wikipedia and directly undermine its credibility as a neutral source of information. Aucaman^Talk 00:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zmmz

First and foremost, I would like to state that it was not my intention (at least not from the beginning) under [any] circumstances to try and ban someone who I or others may not agree with, and just try to censure that person (although at some point I may have been frustrated, for which I apologise) . After all, it’s a big world out there in Wikiland, and there is room for everyone here; even those who you may strongly disagree with. However, because of its recent popularity, Wikipedia can be used as a tool for some. Unfortunately, due to malicious comments made recently by the Iranian media about the Holocaust, and because that country is currently often in the media, the articles relating to it have attracted more than the [usual] share of *vandalism, ranging from your typical nonsense vandalism to attracting some **highly inappropriate political/cultural edits/comments. *[33] **Zora (talk · contribs):[34] **[35]

At the beginning I was invited to try to join the discussion in an article called Persian people, and I was warned that a particular user, namely Aucaman, has an issue with the use of the word Aryan [36] and/or Indo-European in many articles[37][38][39][40]. Apparently this has been going on long before I joined Wiki. Although at the start I took Aucaman`s concerns seriously, and tried to be understanding of his grievances, soon it became apparent that the tone of the user’s behaviour spoke of that of an unconditionally inflexible one. Nevertheless, the turning point was when as a history buff I personally tried to intervene and submitted some archeological evidence, and in return Aucaman gave a shocking excuse as a reason for his refusal[41].

I then tried to seek a third opinion[42][43], set-up a Mediation Cabal [44] (both were requested from neutral users, Khoikhoi, then Fasten), and lastly an Rfc[45], but all have failed, which may be a testament to Aucaman`s unwillingness to compromise.

User Aucaman is an intelligent, and savvy Wikepedian, who is well-connected here, but who regrettably tries to indirectly involve other users into what seems like a never-ending-cycle: he refuses to reason in the discussion pages, reverts the articles, then if anyone tries to revert it back, he accuses them of not participating in the discussions, provokes them, and frivolously reports multiple users (often unmerited), sometimes simultaneously to admins for following him around[46], or files false 3rr reports [47][48][49] etc., etc.

In all Aucaman,

Games the system, e.g., contacts and seeks the sympathy of the admins etc.[50][51]
Refuses to accept authoritative references (the last two diffs are outright refusals by a **User:Zora who sometimes helps Aucaman).[52][53][54]
He is eminently unreasonable: too rigid, cannot work and/or compromise with others [55][56][57] (apparently his disruptiveness spills into a spectrum of articles, and may have concerned outsider editors who have no contributions to articles about Persia) [58][59][60][61][62][63]
Inserts controversial comments into articles, e.g., to this date trying to relate Persia with Nazi Germany etc.[64][65].
Is involved in Civility infractions

[66] [67] [68][69].

I do not take particular pride in having the possible banning of any user on my conscious; in fact, perhaps a final warning or an ultimatum may do the job. However, as I have stated from the start, to be fair, please look into all sides, but, do get involved and investigate the matter further. No reasonable chance: I am now convinced that the only authority who user Aucaman will actually respond to, is; ArbCom.Zmmz 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved party LukasPietsch

While I agree there may be an issue about "stubbornness" on Aucaman's part, I believe that the claimant(s) is/are to a very large part themselves to blame for the escalation. Their previous actions against Aucaman have been highly unfair. In scrutinizing Zmmz' behaviour, it will be necessary to widen the case to include at least also ManiF (talk · contribs) and Kashk (talk · contribs) (sig. "Kash"), who have acted in close concert with Zmmz throughout this dispute; and perhaps (more indirectly) also Zereshk (talk · contribs), who is central to the tradition of POV warring over Iran-related articles that forms its background.

I will show that:

Zmmz' allegations against Aucaman's personal behaviour are largely groundless.
1. There was one single instance where Aucaman lost his temper under provocation, answered an ethnic slur with another, then retracted ([70]); this was later blown out of proportion by his opponents, who flooded talk pages with complaints until days later, until they were themselves warned of blocking for disruption;
2. This incident occurred after Zmmz et al. had brought the RfC against Aucaman; the original list of alleged incivility infractions by him contained nothing substantial whatsoever.
3. It is characteristic of the low quality of Zmmz' evidence that he let Robert reproduce a blatantly false allegation of previous 3RR blocks against Aucaman here at Arbcom, even when the error had been pointed out and Zmmz had been forced to apologize over it previously.
4. Zmmz himself has a much worse record than Aucaman of 3RR blocks, vexatious complaints or baseless 3RR or "vandalism" allegations.
Zmmz' et al. are largely themselves to blame for the failure of the Cabal Mediation.
1. Aucaman was not acting against unanimous consensus; there were several editors who expressed at least partial support for his views.
2. Zmmz et al brought the RfC against Aucman while the mediation was still running.
3. Unlike Aucaman, who responded positively to suggestions by the mediator, Zmmz hardly engaged in constructive discussions of compromise proposals, but filled the mediation with personal accusations instead.
4. Zmmz et al effectively stopped communicating with the mediator shortly after he pointed out to them that he could find no value in their accusations ([71], [72]).
This case is part of a long-standing dangerous tendency among a group of Iranian editors to form an organized faction, the "Iranian Watchdog".
1. Characteristic is the functioning of their "notice board", which until recently included a daily "alerts" list and even a blacklist of anti-Iranian users "to keep a watch on". This was discussed on the RfC and WP:AN as highly problematic, and has since been partly cleaned up.
2. However, this doesn't solve the problem. There is still a deeply entrenched tendency among this group of referring to opponents as "attackers", "vandals", "haters of Iran" etc., showing that they regard the representation of views opposing theirs on Wikipedia as ipso facto illegitimate.

My own role: I was uninvolved until 13 March, and have kept out of the content dispute except for a single attempt at a compromise suggestion. I filed a critical "Outside View" to the RfC. Since then, criticism between Zmmz and me has escalated to a point where we both have accused each other of harassment and similar things. I leave it to Arbcom to decide whether they want to treat me as a party to the dispute for this reason, or as a mere "outside view". Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved party Zora

I suppose I'm involved -- though only in the last act of the drama as it relates to Aucaman. So here's my view.

Aucaman has been fighting a long lonely fight against a cadre of Iranian editors; he's stubborn, occasionally angry, and perhaps not quick-witted in thinking of compromises and workarounds. He will, however, accept compromises when a neutral party proposes them. If he were editing with another group of people, he would probably be perceived as a steady, collegial fellow.

Unfortunately, he's gone head-on against people who will not accept any compromises and will not listen to his remonstrances.

Aucaman's bête noire is the insistence of the Iranian editors on describing their supposed ancestors as "Aryans". Aucaman argues that the word is academically deprecated, both because of the Nazi connotations, and because the term, in English, is inexact. It has been used for speakers of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, and Old Persian languages. Whenever the word is used in English, it is unclear which of these groups is meant. [73]

However, the Iranian editors feel that the term Aryan is frequently used in the Persian language, it means Iranian, there is no stigma attached, and therefore there is nothing wrong with using it in English [74]. They rest their case on various dictionaries and encyclopedias.

Here [75], Zmmz argues that encyclopedias and dictionaries are the final authorities, and anyone who disagrees should be banned or warned. Citations from other encyclopedias [76] [77] and Harvard professors [78] (referring to this article [79]) saying that the word "Aryan" is deprecated fail to move the Iranian editors.

Wikipedia's usual method for dealing with intractable disagreements is to present all POVs and let the reader decide which is convincing. Neither side in this dispute is too keen on this, but Aucaman at least is willing to consider some verbal compromises.

Many of the Iranian editors, however, seem to share a belief that truth exists and that it is defined by the proper authorities, that WP's purpose is to explain the truth, and that conflicting views, which are by definition "untrue", should not be allowed in an encyclopedia. Those who resist the truth are willfuly going against consensus and "vandalizing" articles. Note this diff, [80], in which Zmmz invites an Iranian editor to join in guarding Iranian articles against "vandalism". Zmmz says that he is the spokesperson for this movement.

Zmmz believes that dictionaries and encyclopedias say that the term Aryan is legitimate, they are the authorities, and anyone who disagrees should be banned or warned [81].

Here, [82] Zora argues that newer, cutting-edge views should be allowed too; Zmmz says that dictionaries and encyclopedias are the final authority.

Zora reminds Zmmz that all notable views should be given space [83].

Zmmz argues that only the truth should be included in WP articles [84].

As of April 10, 2006, I don't see any need to change what I wrote earlier. However, I would like to add more evidence of Zmmz's misunderstanding of the NPOV policy.

[85] Zmmz denies that all POVs should be represented; Zora protests.
[86] Zmmz again stays that only the "mainstream" view should be allowed.
[87] Zmmz denies that all POVs should be represented; Zora protests.
[88] Zmmz again says that only the "mainstream" view should be allowed.

No amount of citing WP policy seems sufficient to change Zmmz's mind and unless it is changed, we are going to have intractable edit wars on Iran/Persia-related articles. We could solve the conflicts if all POVs were allowed their say. Zora 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree completely with Aucaman -- I don't think he goes far enough in questioning 19th century ideas about Aryans. He objects to the term; I object to the assumption that speaking an Indo-European language implies Indo-European descent. But as far as he goes, he's right. He's supported by all the latest publications. His opponents, who seem to feel that no non-Iranians can tell them what to call themselves, rely on dictionaries and encyclopedias (not known for being cutting edge) and disregard any encyclopedias that contradict them.

Zmmz argues that Aucaman should be punished because he is uncivil and resists "consensus". I have seen few signs of incivility (other than an angry outburst, which he soon reverted, when an anon editor told him in Persian to "shut up, Jew") and a great deal of dogged persistence in resisting bullying. This is not an arbitration about behavior, it is driven by a content dispute. The dispute could be settled if the Iranian editors would allow dissenting views to exist on "their" articles. I hope that the Arbcom will ask them to stop bullying and to give opposing views houseroom.

Note as of April 10, 2006: Having seen a great deal more of Aucaman's behavior, I must say that I wish he were more patient and more flexible. He is understandably irked by the fact that a certain group of editors reinforce each other in removing his dispute tags and reverting all his edits. However, doggedly reverting until he is blocked for 3RR violations is not the way to deal with it.

It would help if the editors who were removing dispute tags while there is a dispute (often a dispute with several editors, not just Aucaman) would refrain from removing tags. As evidence of tag removal, see:

[89] Southern Comfort removes tag
[90] Kashayar Karimi removes tag
[91] Anon removes tag
[92] Khoikhoi removes tag
[93] ManiF removes tag
[94] Southern Comfort removes tag
[95] ManiF removes tag
[96] ManiF removes tag
[97] Southern Comfort removes tag

and I could add more cites just from this one article ... as well as others.

Aucaman and Xebat are now blocked because their rage at this concerted revert war overwhelmed them.

Seems to me that this points to the ugliest part of WP, the side we try to ignore -- the fact that it comes down to revert "firepower" and recruiting the biggest gang. I don't want to say that this is all bad, either -- frex, I freely revert the guy who shows up at Kaaba periodically, claiming that it was originally a Hindu shrine. That's not a notable POV -- he's the only one who holds it -- it's not worth mentioning, and I and several others revert until he goes away. But there's one of those dang slippery slopes between reverting away the tin-foil hats and reverting to keep out notable POVs you don't like. If we compromise with everyone, we end up with a museum stuffed full of oddities; if we don't force some compromise, we're going to end up with gangs staking out turf. I really have no answer here. Zora 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept to consider both Aucaman and Zmmz. Dmcdevit·t 02:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as per Dom. James F. (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction

1) Until the conclusion of this arbitration, Aucaman is placed on standard revert parole. He may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Should he revert excessively, he may be briefly banned, up to a week for repeated violations.

Passed 4 to 0 at 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Edit warring

1) Edit wars are harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.