Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman

Statement of the dispute

 * User:Aucaman has been engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation, maliciously editing/disputing several Iran-related articles such Persian people and Iranian peoples, having a POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions and political beliefs. (Please see Evidence section) The user also repeatedly engages in personal attacks and vandalizes Iran-related articles such Persian people which has resulted in the protection of that page. Furthermore, the user is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk. (Please see Evidence section). Appropriate action should be considered against Aucaman. We would appreciate it if the Admins took a closer look at his activities. --ManiF 12:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Description
On behalf of all editors who support this action, I would like to say, unfortunately we now strongly agree that after months of discussions and assuming good faith, User:Aucaman should go before the Arbitration Committee. With all due respect, a user cannot use Wikipedia as a political platform, nor hide under the notion of a neutral users, when this user tries to insert some enormously controversial political issues, or some hypothesis that is not universally backed by a major source like an encyclopedia, and then to this day refuses to compromise on an issue that the consensus agrees with. The user simultaneously reverts articles, puts numerous banners on articles, and starts edit wars, while flooding the discussion pages of these articles with an excessive amount of texts, sucking-in all the other editors, forcing them to defend their writings which are always backed with multiple references. Regrettably, the user’s main excuse, now, is that he does not want anyone using the word Aryan, or Arya anywhere in [any] of the articles about Parsi, Parsi people, Persia, Iran, India, Persian people, and Iranian people articles. The last two articles mentioned are the ones that the user has the most problem with. However, we searched under [Iran], and we invite everyone to check out the links. The results are; in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outright outdated, racist (as it pertains to the country of Iran), or more importantly that it [should] not be used anymore (most times not even a mention of these in the footnote). By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because some users object to the word Aryan? Under Aryan, Columbia Encyclopedia for example says, “Some of the world’s most ancient settlements have been excavated in the Caspian region and on the Iranian plateau; village life began there c.4000 B.C. The Aryans came about 2000 B.C. and split into two main groups, the Medes and the Persians.”.

However, it is essential to note that it is not [just] one particular problem, there always seems to be some new dispute being initiated by the user. As such, regrettably at this point, the user has demonstrated that he or she, if allowed to continue to edit--[will]--use the editing privileges as a tool to promote POVs. User Aucaman often uses malicious comments, attacks others, sing-handedly hijacks the articles that he or she does not agree with, asks for help from others to come and flood discussion pages with an excessive amount of writing; repeating the same arguments, and absolutely refuses to compromise.

In conclusion, while we do not want to have the banning of any user on our conscious, we can now honestly say the only remedy for these abuses is to bring this matter to the attention of the Arbitration Committee: all other options have now been exhausted. Please be aware we know from experience that users who try so hard to push a political or religious agenda, cannot work with others, and perhaps may be blinded by their passions: This is not an ideal environment to write an encyclopedia in. Such users like User:Aucaman just end-up driving away editors who have something legitimate to contribute to these articles .Zmmz 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC).}

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Civility infractions, and Personal attacks.

00:47, 13 March 2006: "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but an illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary". Aucaman was warned by a third party, Chick Bowen about an extremely vulgar personal attack that is written in another languages (in Farsi, but with English alphabet). This attack that can be easily translated is here.

''“What are you guys even talking about? Instead of discussing obvious stuff why don't come down to the Persian people article where a lot of users are trying to add racist, sometimes anti-Semitic propaganda into the article.”'' AucamanTalk 07:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

''“Just because you read something in your 2nd grade history book in some other language it doesn't mean you can put it in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR”''. AucamanTalk 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

''“You don't know what you're talking about. Persian Jews are more than just Persian-speaking.”''

Reporting someone unjustly for the 3rr, because he disagree with him, ''The last one is also a revert - you're reverting back to an older version.here. But it's not up to me to decide so stop bugging me about this....AucamanTalk 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC).'' 

''“For more examples of Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated.”'' AucamanTalk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)]

''“Regarding your edit here. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism”''.

''“Yes, I don't like racist, inaccurate POV. Is there anything wrong with that?”'' AucamanTalk 09:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

''“You don't know what you're talking about Kash. Aryan now means "Indo-European"? Is that really what you want to say? Or do you mean "Indo-Iranian"? Do you even know the difference?”'' AucamanTalk 14:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“The problem is that the use of the word meaning "Indo-Iranian" is no longer in technical use and I've given enough evidence to support this. Your sources are outdated and not significant. You're just wasting my time”'' AucamanTalk 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“And what are my views? You don't even listen.”'' AucamanTalk 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"You asked for it. I tried to remove the false and racialist information, but you.....Some people here don't seem to understand the difference between a linguistic group and a racial group...."

''“There........(such as myself) who don't blindly follow nationalistic race origin theories. I've been accused of being "anti-Iranian" here, but I think those self-appointed representatives of Iranians who are misrepresenting them are as anti-Iranian as one can be. Bad news for the real anti-Iranians: most Iranians today don't subscribe to racist theories imposed on them by outsiders. (Most of these theories about the origins the origins of Iranians were brought to Iran by Iranian scholars studying in Germany or German scholars visiting Iran.”'' AucamanTalk 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“#Oppose. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits”''. AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 February 2006

''“You're trying to point to valid interpretations of the word "Aryan" to somehow justify its racist interpretation. Not going to work”''. AucamanTalk 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“There are a lot of stuff taught in the books in Iran that are not true. (They say that Iran is a true democracy and that United States is a dictatorship ran by Zionists.... You wanna go ahead and add these information into the respective articles?). A lot of stuff were written during the Pahlavi regime to create a sense of nationalism to counterbalance the Mullah's religious beliefs. Some of them still remain today. It doesn't mean they're true”''.AucamanTalk 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''“Hi. A number of users have tried to re-introduce the (racist interpretation of the) term "Aryan" into Iran-related articles such as Demographics of Iran, Persian people, and Iranian peoples.”''

General incivil tone ]

Removing others` writting and pushing his or her POV in a subtle but an important way,


 * Not assuming good faith

“Since you guys are so "pro-Iranian" I don't see why you're opposing substituting the word "Iranian" for "Aryan"”. AucamanTalk 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More exs:


 * Abuses of editing privileges, and disruptive behaviour; violating the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy.

Putting multiple tags on numerous articles sometimes simultanously; converesly taking-off tags, or constently moving and redirecting pages that he or she does not agree with without discussing it anyone first  []      


 * Breaking the 3rr policy (many times not blocked for it)

Breaking the 3rr, [March/10/06] [blocked by admin]Three revert rule 1st revert: 2st revert: 3nd revert: 4rd revert:

Breaking the 3rr, [March/01/06]          

Breaking the 3rr policy, [02/06]     

Breaking the 3rr policy, [02/06]    


 * Violating the Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, and push a POV.

Displaying biasness for articles relating to Iran, or Mizrahi Jews to such an extent that in these cases, refusing to even bold face the title `Irane Bozorg`, tranlating to `Greater Iran`, in an article called---the `Greater Iran`, or bold-face the word`Arab Jews`

Displaying subtle biasness for articles relating to Persia, or Iran, in varying ways including using “weasle words” 

Removing words, sentences, or sections that came with refrences, while pushing one`s POV, and without discussing it anyone first

Using a very personal biased pint of view as reason


 * Other

Removing warnings (about being close to violating the 3rr, and other violations) from his or her talk page made in good faith 

02/08/06: Moved Parsi to Parsi People without dicussing it with any other user 

Removing others` contributions from a discussion page of the Persian people article, and leaving only his or her own responses in there, while archiving

Removing others` entire writtings

Deleting others`s comments --Kash 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Zmmz 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to accept references and listen to third opinions, or a mediator, incorrectly saying repetitively talk. This is not sourced. 

Archived talk page, while discussions were still going to resolve dispute. First at:, action reverted, so he did it again at: , and then after it was reverted this time by User:SouthernComfort here: , he archived it AGAIN at:. Dispute is still on going. --Kash 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at deleting Iranian articles, without discussing it first in the talk page: Articles for deletion/Iranian nations --Kash 10:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * No personal attacks - was broken by some users. --Khoikhoi 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Civility infractions
 * Not assuming good faith
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: Disruptiveness, and abuses of editing privliages
 * Wikipedia etiquette
 * Not possesing Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Violating the Verifiability policy

--Kash 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * See Talk:Persian people - that's my effort to come to a compromise. After a lot discussion, Aucaman still was unwilling to compromise. --Khoikhoi 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Line 84: Revision as of 02:58, 26 February 2006, an attempt to solve the dispute by by Jayjg

3. Revision as of 16:01, 26 February 2006, an attempt to solve the dispute by by 194.170.175.5

4. Attempt by User:Paul Barlow,

5. Attempt by, Amir86

6. Attempt by User:ESkog

7. Attempt by Khoikhoi for the Persian people article on 03/1606, but failed

8. Attempt by User:Jeff3000 on 00:02, 15 March 2006

8. Attempt by User:Ashmoo on 14 March 2006

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )


 * Shervink 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * Kash 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Khoikhoi 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Amir85 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Paul B 18:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gorbeh15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sina Kardar17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Houshyar 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ( Aytakin ) | Talk 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Kash 19:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SouthernComfort 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * --TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gol 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Shervink 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * Bidabadi 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gorbeh15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alireza Hashemi 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ali doostzadeh 16:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sina Kardar17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Qoqnous 19:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Iranian Patriot 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Longshot14 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Manik666 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 69.196.139.250 05:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Most of these allegations are either factually inaccurate or oversimplified in an attempt to present a negative picture of me and prevent me from contributing to Wikipedia. Some of the Iran-related articles have a racialist-POV to them and some are factually inaccurate. Most of my edits regarding these matters have been indiscriminantly reverted without much explanation.

I've never been warned of violating any of specific Wikipedia policies (some of these users have accused me of vandalism without providing any evidence whatsoever). Unlike me, both User:Kashk and User:ManiF have received their last warning for personally attacking other users (with User:Kashk having been blocked once already). I've been accused of doing "sneaky edits" (even on this page) and some have accused me of being "anti-Iranian" even though I'm Iranian myself. They go around telling new users that I have a Zionist agenda and ask them to sign (otherwise irrelevant) propositions against me. Some of these users also have the bad habit of using my signature to sign comments not necessarily approved by me (evidence can be found on this page and here). Misrepresentation should be taken seriously.

And unlike what is claimed, I've never been blocked for violating the 3RR. I've violated the 3RR once, and that was because I thought I was reverting vandalism done by an anon user. I received my first warning for that and I haven't engaged in revert wars ever since.

I ask the responsible administrators to investigate the situation, ask me for explanations if necessary, and declare me free of any wrong-doing. I have disputed some of these articles' contents and this is exactly why some people want me blocked. The only wrong-doing I admit to are my occasional feeding of trolls, and my unintended violation of 3RR mentioned above. AucamanTalk 05:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) BlueGoose 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by McClenon
This RfC is properly "certified" by two editors and endorsed by two more, but is not properly drawn up. It contains only one diff, does not list the specific policies violated, and does not show evidence of any attempt to reason with the editor. I am not sure based on what I have seen whether there is or is not a problem. I am moving this RfC back to candidate pages to allow its originator to clean it up.


 * Robert McClenon 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Zora
My impression is that Aucaman has been occasionally uncivil, but that his incivility is far outweighed by that directed at him. He is "guilty" of wanting Iranian ethnic minorities to have a voice in Iran-related articles.

I do not agree with all of his positions or actions, but I do not think that he should be censured or silenced. Zora 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

''Note: Comments made to this section have been moved to discussion page. Lukas (T. 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)''

Comment by SouthernComfort
The primary issue at hand here is Aucaman's objection to the term Aryan (and Arya) as it relates to Iran, though there is a consensus against his interpretation of the term. I also strongly object to any accusation of anti-Semitism because of Aryan. I think he is simply misguided and I hope he can come to an understanding that the term Aryan as it used in Iranian articles has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Nazi hijacking of the term or the racist and xenophobic (and absurdly false) theories of the Comte de Gobineau. The Aryan article goes to great lengths to explain these differences. Also, as has been stated by others, he has not been willing to compromise - he wants complete removal of the term from all Iranian articles. This is unacceptable. SouthernComfort 12:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Paul B
He should not be silenced, but as Southern Comfort says, the central issue here is his attempt to suppress the use of the word Aryan. Other points are marginal, and some are unfair (I don't accept that using the word "vandalism" of someone who added "Pimp NIGGA shit foo yea uhhhh huh" to an article constitutes a "personal attack"). The RfC should concentrate on the central issue. Paul B 18:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Kashk
Certainly we (the editors) do not wish anyone who has something to say to be silenced, yet unfortunately, it seems there is a non-ending pattern of incivilty, and pushing a political POV by this user, all while hidding under the banner of a neutral user, which he is surely not. It hasn`t been one case, here or there, in particular; everytime there is something new. By the way, some reports of vandalism is definitely encouraged and necessary in Wikipedia, however, our point illustrates the fact that the user [a lot of times] uses this tool as a threat to silence others, specially, newcomers. Thus, regrettably the user has been relentless for the past few months, and the issues in regards to civility, attacking others etc. [should] be a major concern of ours; otherwise, any user with a political platform who single-handedly tries to monopolize, and disrupt so many articles simultanously, simply ends up driving away other editors who have something legitimate to contribute to Wikipedia. At this point there [has] to be something done by the admins. Thanks for your attention. -- Kashk 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Gorbeh
Unfortunately user Aucaman has been a chronic violator of most of the policies in Wikipedia. That's very unfortunate that such wikipedians act against what they themselves believe is right. I remember the time that these users were killing themselves to prove that Mazandarani people are not native speakers of Persian language! I am myself Mazandarani and I am sure that my relatives and friends are native speaker of Persian language! These users were trying to find some sources that clearly lack expertise on the issue to prove that Mazandarani should not be counted as native persian speakers. The pain is that many of them know that we are native speaker of this language (the standard dialect). However they pretend that this is not the case, just to reduce the weight of Persian language. They mainly refer to ethnologue for their claim in a smart way to reject what they themselves know that it is true. I remember some of them were using anymeans to somehow reduce the ranking of Persian language among world languages. I also agree with User:Zereshk and User:ManiF. We need help from admins to resolve this issue. --Gorbeh15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Sina Kardar
I have also encountered very similar problems especially with User:Mesopotamia, who is well-known for continued vandalism! One point I would like to raise here: I do think these wikipedians are quite familiar with Persian language and they know that the word Farsi is an arabized version of Persian and its usage in English has been banned by Academy of Persian language. However they constantly use Farsi instead of Persian or replace the word Persian with Farsi in wikipedia. I have seen many people explaining this issue to them. However they continue their act. Well, I see that by this, they can take revenge from Persians. However I expect them to put aside personal political intentions while writing wikipedia articles. By this comment I do not intend to call for censoring Aucaman. I just want to respectfully ask him to revise his view and respect other cultures if he/she expects other's respect for his/her culture. I hope the problem will be resolved soon. --Sina Kardar16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've never dealt with this user before. It seems like he's mistaking me for someone else? It's another desperate attempt by some users to misrepresent me by calling me "anti-Iranian" and "Zionist" even though I'm Iranian myself. I don't think I've ever used the word "Farsi" anywhere in this Wikipedia, so I don't even know what he's talking about. AucamanTalk 05:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by 69.196.139.250

 * Acuman is a very underhanded counter-productive editor

He tries to manipulate and has threatened me. He plays games and waits people out. Look at how many editors have asked for changes but have been fooled by him. It is all in the discussions. 69.196.139.250 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by Dariush4444
I am a new user here and I agree with the above actions. Aucaman is obviously on some sort of "anti-Iranian" campaign. Wikipedia should definitely not be used as his own political platform. He is trying to pass on his personal opinions as fact and that is unacceptable as this is an encyclopedia. I fell that the user Aucaman's IP should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) --Fasten 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again another user calling me "anti-Iranian" without knowing anything about me. AucamanTalk 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by LukasPietsch
Sorry, but I have the feeling that this whole RfC is an excercise in mud-slinging according to the principle of "quantity, not quality". Looking at the evidence above of alleged "personal attacks" by Aucaman, I cannot see anything that I would classify as such. A bit terse, perhaps, but hardly approaching even incivility. And the comments on the discussion page about that one Persian-language insult show that it was under extreme provocation. The alleged evidence of multiple blockings for 3RR are clearly wrong; a look at the block lock confirms that Aucaman was blocked only once for 24 hours, and that block was lifted after one hour by the same admin.

What I can see, however, is a concerted attack by several editors to shout this contributor down by sheer weight of quantity. This is what has apparently been happening at Talk:Persian people (see e.g. the section Talk:Persian_people/Archive_2, and it has also happened here on this RfC, with multiple critical comments posted out of process under the defending Outside View by Zora (which I've moved to the discussion page.) - In short, I find the accusations against Aucaman extremely exaggerated, and in parts not truthful, and I have difficulties believing that this RfC was made in entirely good faith. Lukas (T. 12:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. I have only seen a little of this conflict, but I have not seen either side behave better the other. If there is an RFC it should cover all particpants&mdash;not just one. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you need us to do, please let us know so we can finally get this Rfc started. We need Wiipedia to make a decision at this point, whoever side is the case is made against or for nevertheless, [a] decision, period. There is no compromise with user like Aucaman who injects so much politics into an encyclopedia. See an example hereZmmz 05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A request for comment does not lead directly to action - it is more a forum for constructive criticism towards an editor and a development of consensus about that editor's actions. If the situation is not resolved, arbitration would usually be the next step. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by Lukas Pietsch (II)

 * Starting a new section because the previous one has been commented on by others already. Please respect the RfC rules that only endorsements should be added to "Outside views", and discussions should go to the talk page.

This RfC is a symptom of an ongoing, orchestrated campaign to factionalize Wikipedia membership and turn Wikipedia into a nationalist battleground. I am shocked to find how some Iranian editors, most notably User:ManiF, User:Zereshk and User:Kashk, have systematized this effort, turning the Iranian Wikipedians' notice board into its headquarters. There, they are keeping a daily updated alerts list of Iranian POV issues, systematically advertise related discussion pages and polls for purposes of votestacking, and even keep an explicit blacklist of suspicious, allegedly anti-Iranian editors. All this was planned and orchestrated by Zereshk, ManiF and Kash on Zereshk's talk page in late February (User talk:Zereshk).

User:Zmmz also spams other editors' (often newcomers) talkpages with factionalizing welcome messages advertising the notice board, and requesting them to take part in coordinated POV pushing on WP:AN or WP:RFC and similar fora. . Note especially the part where he advertises an AN/I discussion containing complaints against the alleged Anti-Iranians, presenting it as an opportunity to "vote for limiting the editing privileges of these users". (The sheer incompetence of all this is just as amazing as their blind determination on POV warring). Similar talkpage spam here:, , , , ,. The upsurge of obviously clueless contributions from inexperienced users on this RfC and other similar discussions is quite probably due to this advertisement campaign.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. In my view this factionalizing behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. As Jimbo said recently in a different context : it is bad to "suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions, [...] We don't organize ourselves into group campaigns to influence the content of articles by sheer force of numbers". I knew some of this was going on among editors of certain nationalities, but the extent and systematicity of it in this case exceeds what I've seen so far.


 * Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Lukas (T. 11:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (ESkog)(Talk) 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Voice -of-  All T 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zora 21:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heja Helweda 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AucamanTalk 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * —Ruud 12:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * --Ahwaz 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  D iyako Talk + 18:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * InShaneee 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Inahet 08:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to "Outside View by Lukas Pietsch (II)"

 * Writing a Response to User:LukasPietsch on grounds that RfC format and rules were ignored by User:LukasPietsch when he submitted a second "Outside view". It's therefore necessary that our response is stated here or that the second "Outside view" and our response are both moved to the discussion page altogether.


 * Iranian Wikipedians' notice board is meant to inform users who are knowledgeable on the various Iranian subjects to participate in the maintenance of Iran-related articles and improve their encyclopedic quality and reliability. Accordingly, User:LukasPietsch's accusations are based on bogus assumptions. Indeed, User:LukasPietsch, based on his prejugmental views, is making borderline personal attacks against many courteous and hard-working Wikipedians, labeling us as "whiners". "ramblers", and "nationalists". . In dismissing our grievances, User:LukasPietsch is also in breach of Assume_good_faith not addressing the users' concerns but rather pre-judging them based on their ethnic affiliation, which, by the way, is a false assumption as the majority of the signatures of this RFC are not Persian, and many of them are not even Iranian. --ManiF 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, User:Aucaman is being very disruptive, and it seems we are not the only ones who set-up an Rfc for him, I actually found one set up by another user. Secondly, User_talk:LukasPietsch from now on please do not remove anybody’s comments on this page unless you let me know first, since this Rfc was set up by me; it was very inappropriate for you to do that.  Moreover, I’m personally offended when User_talk:LukasPietsch insists that either I, or others spam newcomers, or calling and saying numerous editors who were simultaneously outraged by User:Aucaman`s constant POV and attacking on many articles, are "whining", "nationalists" and "rambling"....  That actually is a form of border-line attacking, and I don’t appreciate that characterization:  Every single user who endorsed this Rfc is intelligent enough to make his or her decision.  For the past few months we have had to endure User:Aucaman`s numerous adding, and removing dispute tags, erasing of entire sections that come with citations, reverting and objecting to the word Aryan being used in articles such as Iranian people, Persia, Persian people, Iran, Parsi, Khuzestan, Persian Empire, and others.  Any reasonable editor will confirm such behaviour displayed by Aucaman, that continues to this date, can be be labeled as a "abusive".  Keep in mind we have attempted to compromise with him, presented him with multiple authoritative references, got a third opinion, set-up a Mediation Cabal,  and now this Rfc, yet so far, nothing has worked.  In fact, any educated editor can resolve this problem by opening a dictionary and looking up the words Aryan, or Indo-European.  After him trying to bully other newcomers and threatening many that they’ll be blocked if they revert, and continue to insert offensive comments in both the articles and discussion pages, even though most all editors who oppose him have presented him with citations from dictionaries, encyclopedias, we saw no choice but to try and have our voices heard. I personally contacted many editors and asked them to review this Rfc, and if they agree with it to kindly endorse it.  Calling User:Aucaman a politically motivated user is no understatement, and his edits that for example try to constantly equate the country of Iran to Nazism are self explanatory.

It seems User:Aucaman, and users like User:Zora, User:Ahwaz (he was recently temporarily banned for a profanity laced personal attack after I reported him) and others seem to have some sort of weird alliance, in which they spam the admins talk pages, while asking each other for help, even though the user being asked for help may know nothing of the disputed article, but certainly they know their favour will be repaid if and when they need help with an article; you can see some examples here. These users write repetitive texts in the discussion pages of the articles they disagree with, and refuse to acknowledge the references provided to them, rather they rely on some original, highly controversial research results, or quotes from politically controversial authors.

So, let there be double standards, we realized these users have a history of attacking and spamming articles, and as a result we asked help from other editors who agree with us. However, the main difference is, the users mentioned seem to write some politically, or racially motivated comments, even some extremely offensive ones in articles specifically relating to Iran, while we simply defend the [factual] integrity of the contents of these articles. Unlike editors like User:Aucaman, or User:Zora ( her history links show has a 98 percent contribution rate to articles are exclusively about some sort of pro-Arab edits ) none of these so called, “Iranian Editors” has ever reverted any articles [other] than ones relating to Persia. Even so, User:Aucaman, and User:Zora contantly attack and question anything that Persian editors say and they justify it by claiming that all Persians are, brainwashed, racists and nationalists ! By the way just to make it clear, as alleged, not all of “Iranian Editors” are Iranians; some of us actually are in academia and hold degrees in Ancient History; hence, the reason why we  believe some of these arguments  sprung by the users in question have no basis, and honestly do not belong in an encyclopedia.

Bottom-line we are new to Wikipedia`s policies, but it seems nothing is being done about these problem users, and if left to their own merits, they will continue to abuse their privileges. However, we will concentrate on this Rfc page more, rather than due to inexperience, ask help from individual admins. We strongly suggest admins and others to investigate these claims brought on by us, and User:Aucaman, [and] User:Zora, so both sides are heard; but, please [do] get involved. Thank you again Zmmz 02:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course - Wikipedia is not a battleground, however a few contributers especially the one mentioned in here (Aucaman), has been pushing his POV on many articles and has created huge amount of work for the other contributers because he simply does not act in a helpful manner to resolve disputes which he starts on different Iranian articles because of his personal/political/other beliefs.

Now for you to criticise the way the Iranian and a few non-Iranian and neutral contributers have tried to come up with to stop these actions is fair enough, but to actually make it look like our (bad?) 'defence system' tactic justifies his and the other 'anti-Iranian' contributers, is a mistake which should not affect the outcome of this request. Most of the contributers here are far too new on Wikipedia to know how exactly stop such 'attacks', however we have done our best, we have provided hundreds of sources, we have invited many neutral admins and trusted members to take a look and comment, many of them have tried to help the Iranians and tried to solve disputes however they have failed - some of them have signed the request under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" and "Other users who endorse this summary".

To conclude: Perhaps our way to respond has not been the greatest but Aucaman and the others (some of them have signed under your comment), are still going around and disputing every Iranian article, and for neutral contributers who are new to the issue to simply take their point of view is just ridiculous. If there is no way to stop these contributers then I guess it is time to lose hope for Wikipedia and its future. --Kash 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by Longshot14
http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/A0449900.html

The argument of "Aryan" vs. "Indo-European" would, in an otherwise reasonable person, be settled by checking a dictionary - a Google search on aryan indo-european pulls up several dictionary hits, much like the link above, that show the two terms to be interchangeable. While resorting to a dictionary definition may or may not be accepted by the person disputing that the two terms are interchangeable, one would think that the vehemence involved in the disputation may have been better left at a low simmer rather than full boil, or at least directing the vehemence toward a discussion of whether the definition in question was valid by going further back to show how the definition is incorrect. Longshot14 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I have to say about this, and here's his response. AucamanTalk 20:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Acuman's threats and manipulation and twisting of rules?
Acuman threatened and tried to scare me it is on my discussion page. He is obviosuly on a crusade. He is trying to tie Iran's name to NAzism of some sort go to the Iran discussion! 69.196.139.250 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also obvious from your talk page and block log that you've been blocked several times for violations or 3RR and for edit warring. You also appear to be guilty of blanking pages, being uncivil and personal attacks. The only thing on your talk page that I can see that casts down on Aucaman is that he was "warning" you for not signing posts- which shows a misunderstanding of policy, not malice. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It was malice becuase he was trying to have me blocked. Misunderstanding of policy? SO if that is 'theoritically true' then that means he should have many other misconceptions too about articles and consensus! The apple does not fall far from the tree. Also go read how he openly lies in one of the discussions. 69.196.139.250 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying the user in question has done things wrong... it would certainly seem that way from the links provided above... but I feel you're being slightly hypocritical in some respects. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Second outside view by McClenon
This RfC is out of control. It was originally formatted incorrectly, then there were too many threaded comments. Then there was an attempt to refactor it to bring it into format, but the refactoring was seen by some posters as further bad faith. Now this RfC has become nothing but a battleground. Can some admin please archive it, so that the certifiers can start over, and we can have a properly formatted RfC? I have not had time to research the allegations on both sides, but it is clear that there has been incivility and failure to assume good faith on both sides. Can we try again? Robert McClenon 12:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Lukas (T. 14:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Zain
I've had little experience with this user but from what I've seen so far he attempts to make drastic edits for what are apparently illogical reasons, even though the consensus of other users is against him. Zain 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zain. Unfortunately we had to set up this Rfc because nothing else worked, nevertheless, as I was just starting to give up, now I`m encouraged to see there are outside users such as yourself who can shed the light on this (they have labeled some of us as, Iranian nationalist editors), and perhaps now the admins realize this problem is deeper than it looks at the surface. However, just to be clear, are you endorsing this Rfc or simply leaving a comment? Thank you so muchZmmz 05:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what the purpose of an Rfc is, so for now I'm just leaving a comment. Zain 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note from William M. Connolley
Way up above, Kash has asserted that I blocked Aucaman for 3RR. This isn't true, as a glance at A's block log will show. I've asked Kash to correct his statement but he has not done so; so I feel I'm obliged to. William M. Connolley 15:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * WMC, your note to Aucaman stated you had blocked, but I`m sorry for any confusions. Do you want me to write, blocked then ublocked, or just warned by WMC? Zmmz 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you answering for Kash? As the log shows, A was *never* blocked by me - what is this block-unblock stuff? William M. Connolley 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I submitted the evidence page, not Kash. OK, if it s fine with you, I`ll write he was warned by you. Or, do want me to erase the whole thing?Zmmz 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Zmmz, you seem to be confusing William with either User:Chick Bowen, who once warned Aucaman about the provoked personal-attack incident mentioned somewhere above, or with User:Voice of All, who did block Aucaman for a 3RR but then unblocked him on a no-reverts parole after an hour. Maybe you are further confused because the incident with Chick Bowen and Aucaman resembled that involving William and Ahwaz the other day? The link in the evidence page above points to yet another unrelated incident where William blocked some anonymous IP user. --Lukas (T. 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WMC, I`m sorry that was a mistake from my part, you had blocked an anon user with IP address 69.... . At any rate I erased; I did some rather sloppy work here presenting the case, which is regrettable, since it detered attention from a problem user, namely Aucaman, i.e., our case here.Zmmz 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Note from Manik666
I have a question, why is it just user:Acuman that is the subject of complaint when user:Diyako and user:Haja Helwede are just as bad. Everything user:Diyako does is in one interest. Israeli national interest. That is my $0.02. God Bless all of Everyone......and no user 69...bla bla is not me. Now I'm off Wilipedia is for nerds! He made me sign the list too. But I mmust say I agree with him. Manik666 06:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Note from Sasanjan 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If ethnic minorities want to have voices in Iran-related articles, it's better to not to misuse anything, Aucaman, Hej Helwede, and Diyako can prepare articles, edit other articles but without violating wikipedia rules. I check their activities, they sounds harsh, uncredible, vulgar and sometimes absolutely baseless. I think Aucaman and his\her friends are from Iranian secessionists. And we have to block such users because of that wikipedia needs pure facts not the personal political, social, racial opinions.

Outside view from JoshuaZ
I'm highly concerned by the summary on the main RfC page that includes calling Aucaman "possibly part of a Zionist [political] movement." This borders if not crosses the line into being a standard claim about "Zionist conspiracy" or something similar, particularly given that none of Aucaman's edits have been at all relevant to Zionism. JoshuaZ 13:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.