Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aucaman

Evidence page cleaned-up
We removed the links to vandalism reports that showed Aucaman uses it as a tool to threatened newcomers. It seems the evidence page was a bit messy, because we were confused as to how to report evidence. Nevertheless, we cleaned-it-up, and took-off, not only the link that showed the [only] vandalism reporting by the user that was legitimate (7 out of 10 links showed the user used vandalism as a tool to threaten those who did not agree with him or her), but we also erased the section about vandalism reporting altogether. In all though, the evidence page has now been updated with relevant diffs, rather than the previous links, which were history links.Zmmz 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Aucaman`s comments
In response to user Aucaman`s comments indicating that I, ManiF, and user Kash, may have lost our cool at one point, I would like to say; with all due respect, that still does not justify user Aucaman being a chronic violator of most of the policies in Wikipedia. (See evidence section); yet, this matter has frustrated us, and to this day consumes the over-whelming amount of our time and energy. Nevertheless, due to my respect for other Wikipedians, I apologize for attacking back out of frustration. However, I sincerely hope this will not take-away from the admins' efforts to look into the central issuse(s). --ManiF 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfair to censure Aucaman without looking at the provocation
Zmmz removed this from the evidence section, so I'm adding it here:

Aucaman was wrong to respond to profanity with profanity, but he was responding to:
 * Dorood bar Iran sarzamin Parsian. Koroush Kabir dar ghabr khud khahad larzid agar befahamad ke yahoodi ke aan bozorgvaar az zanjir azad kard o panah daad, ingoneh namak mikhorad vaa namaak-dan mishakanad. Amaa bedaan ey mozdoor ke koroush asoodeh khahad khabid, ziraa ke farzandanash bidaarand vaa as miras vey paasdari khahand kard! Payandeh Iran! User:201.252.133.159 12 March 2006, ,.

and
 * Khamoosh ey yahoodi. Agar Koroush adamkosh bood ke tou alan injaa naboodi ke? Tou injaei chon ke koroush be ajdadet rahm kard. Boro tarikh melatet ro bekhun bani-israel!,.

I can make out some of the last comment by the anon -- it starts with "Shut up, Jew" and ends with something about the tribe of Israel. It's grotesquely misleading to point fingers at Aucaman for losing his temper while ignoring the gross provocation. Zora 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I`m sorry I had to remove it, but as I stated in the edit box, outsider users cannot edit the evidence page, and I asked you to move it to this page instead.Zmmz 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the comments above by Zora, with all due respect none of the above comments made [to] Aucaman contain any profanity, although, they mostly state be thankful to Cyrus the Great, I believe, for freeing the captive Jews in Babylon. It does not start with the word "Shut up, Jew", rather it states "Be silent the one who is from the Jewish faith". Nevertheless, these comments that were submitted by the anon user are still malicious, offensive, and unacceptable. But, let`s concentrate on Aucaman for now please, who has a history of this type behaviour, provoked or unprovoked. There is no excuse for his [Aucaman`s] retaliation, in which he says, "Now, go and get lost. Death praiser. You illiterate mental. Your Cyrus the Great was nothing but a illiterate and murderer. But still he is long gone and forgoten. What is your excuse for being one.....? Your dad is a mercenary". He instigates a lot of these racially motivated attacks himself. Aucaman should definitely not have responded to this comments in such a profanity laced manner. Wikipedia is mostly an academic based environment made-up of editors with good intentions; it really shouldn’t` have room for this type of abuses. Thank youZmmz 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think that calling names is bad, why don't you remonstrate with those of your supporters who engage in it? You're telling us NOW that you find the behavior offensive. But in the tussle over the article Al-Khwarizmi, there is one anon user who's insisting that I'm an Arab, a liar, and calling me "Al-Zora" and "habibi" (dear). Have any of the Persian editors censured him? No. Your shock at Aucaman's behavior would have more weight if it were clear that you held everyone, even Persians, to the same standard. Zora 06:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We the editors who assumed good faith about user Aucaman before, and having our efforts on compromising exhausted, have never engaged in any attacks, nor do we support it. In two instances, two users were provoked after Aucaman made repeated malicious racist comments to them, but they soon apologized for it. We cannot be responsible for the your actions, or that of any anon users, but we do hope, much like Aucaman they should be blocked as well. However, please do not divert the attention to yourself or any anon users, since this Rfc page is set up to report a specific problem user, namely Aucaman. Your conversations with the anon, or other users are irrelevant to this page. Thank youZmmz 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources of me making "repeated malicious racist comments". This is a personal attack. I was only harsh on an anon once, and I already withdrew the statement and gave an explanation. AucamanTalk 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Evidence page.Zmmz 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought you were making new claims. About the old stuff...there's nothing racist about anything I've said. The mere fact that you keep calling me "racist" without much evidence is a personal attack on its own. AucamanTalk 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Evidence page.Zmmz 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Outside View by Zora
moved here from main page by Lukas (T. 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: He is guilty of breaking possibly every Wikipedia policy. Don't try to justify this. --Kash 00:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I dont agree with Zora. "Wanting Iranian ethnic minorities to have a voice" doesnt justify the misinforming attacks on one ethnic group in favor of another. I come from an Azeri background. And I have seen how pan-Kurdish editors have tried to subdue the Azeri minority in favor of the Kurds before.--Zereshk 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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)
 * Comment. 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: 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. --Kash 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 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)
 * Comment 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)

POV
As a new user here I would just like to say that in my opinion Aucaman obviously has something against Persian people and he should not be allowed to continue his anti-Iranian campaign. I beleive his IP should be banned for his many infractions and countless other violations. Wikipedia is not a political platform and his actions are inappropriate. He is removing factual information from various Iran related articles and is inserting lies and propoganda. Opinion is not FACT...this is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not allow their credibility to be destroyed because of an individuals Personal beleifs.Dariush4444 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have accused me of spreading "lies and propoganda" here:, although I based what I said on the US State Department's statistics. You accuse anyone of lying when you disagree with them. It appears to be the intention of a certain ultra-nationalist clique to run a campaign to run off anyone deemed "anti-Iran" - ie anyone who does not follow their particular agenda. Aucaman is a target and it is their intention to do what they can to run him off the Wikipedia. They write disgusting insults in Farsi - usually anti-Jewish, anti-Arab and racist - that no English language editor can read and then complain when they are given a taste of their own medicine. If I had not also been a target of this vendetta campaign, I would never have come into contact with Aucaman and would not be writing this. I urge people to recognise this hate campaign for what it is: an organised attack by those who are exchanging emails off-site. As such, no-one should be banned by these known individuals or at the behest of these individuals until the full facts are known in each individual case.--Ahwaz 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No Ahwaz that is very unfair to call anyone who protects the factual contents of the articles they and care about as nationalists. Actually, it is the other way around where you and Aucaman have been relentless in submitting some extremely controversial political views into some articles, and a handful few treat this encyclopedia like some type of battle ground, personally attacking others. As I understand, only yesterday you were banned for a racially motivated, profanitry laces attack on someone. So let`s be fair here please.Zmmz 21:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Zmmz, one person's "fact" is another person's "nationalist propaganda". WP policy is to give all views, not choose one as "correct" and exterminate all the others as "controversial". As for the banning -- Ahwaz responded TO a racist attack by an anon, thought better of it and erased it, and then YOU found an admin who didn't understand the context, or read Persian, and asked him to punish Ahwaz -- for an erased comment. I don't think Ahwaz was right in losing his temper, but I don't find your actions any more defensible. Zora 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no longer a surprise that Zora would justify and defend these racist comments toward Persians. --ManiF 23:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, with all due respect, facts are just that, facts. No politically controversial views, no alternative views, no change of wording to make an article pro or against anything should be allowed in Wiki.Zmmz 23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV and get back to us, mmmkay? Zora 23:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states sounding neutral is key to writting an encyclopedia, and first and foremost facts are allowed Zora. It doesn`t mean you can go and try to erase the Persian ethinicity of the famous poet Rumi, then say he was Muslim, he belonged to all of us, let`s just mention he was Muslim. Or, it does not mean you *erasing an entire historical translation from the Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun who praised Persian scientists for their contributions to Islam, and humanity, just because you don`t like the quote*. Zmmz 23:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not taking sides here, and it may sound like I am, but please take my word for it. Everyone, keep in mind that there is a sub-seciton on the NPOV page, WP:NPOV. It says "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Aucaman's view that the word Aryan should be removed from every Iranian-related article is a minority view. I don't think just because we have an editor with this view that everyone should remove the word Aryan from these articles. The Undue weight policy also applies to other users as well. --Khoikhoi 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How are you gentlemen
I invite all parties to civility. On wikipedia we do not tolerate threats or personal attaks. We occasionaly look the other way for violations by newbies however no party part on an RfC discussion qualify as a newbie. Please behave yourselves or else this will get ugly and when things get ugly it hurts all parties involved. -- Cool CatTalk 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good advice, I agree with it; let`s be more civil please. Coolcat, I wish you luck on [your] Rfc page that you set-up for Aucaman (I still can`t believe an outside user who is not part of the so called, Iranian Editors Posse, has set up another Rfc for Aucaman), but perhaps the admins can now realize that the problem may be deeper than it looks. Thank youZmmz 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Compromise
Here is a very good example that clearly shows unlike user Aucaman, users like I, and others who edit ancient history articles, do in fact get along very well, and we do compromise with each other in a civil, and above all reasonable manner. Thank youZmmz 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Zmmz allegations
This is in response to Zmmz's allegations here: []

Firstly, I have never written to an admin page, so you cannot accuse me of spamming anyone. This is in part because I am confused about how Wikipedia works as well as disliking banning or gagging people. I fight my own ground by myself and respect others who do the same, without calling authorities.

Secondly, I am not in a "weird alliance" - I am not in private correspondence with anyone and I have stuck to contributing to a small number of pages over the past year. I have been accused of having hot temper, but I have never been deceitful, hypocritical or cowardly nor do I encourage others into my dispute. Hypothetically speaking, I don't post racist abuse in Farsi as an anonymous user on someone else's talk page to provoke an angry response and then run off to complain about the incivility of that response to have someone banned. If there is any congregation of like minds, it has been as a result of the vendetta campaign run by a group of people who have gone after anyone they personally dislike for political reasons. For instance, I did not know of User:Aucaman until this war of attrition began.

Thirdly, I would remind you that User:Zora is highly respected by Iranian editors - even those she has had big disagreements with, such as User:Zereshk - who have been involved with Wikipedia long before you or I got involved. If a personal campaign is launched against her, you will quickly lose any sympathy you may have had among these editors and many others, who ultimately have respect for the amount of work they have put in. You will alienate yourself. Anyone can make out the distinction between your little clan and the more established Iranian editors and that is that the latter have actually done some constructive work and have done some real writing here. Whatever the argument over the use of the term "Aryan" (which I am personally disinterested in), heightening it up into this campaign just turns a dispute into a battle and from there to a war.--AHWAZ 10:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't speak on my behalf. I don't share that opinion (regarding the third paragraph). SouthernComfort 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ballot stuffing?
I suspect that ballot-stuffing on this and related issues is going on. I have not the time to investingate, but this diff looks rather suspicious. If someone could investigate this, please, that could be useful. --Ashenai 22:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)