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, pushing his POV, ignoring the majority consensus and authoritative sources, trying to establish new 'facts" based on his own personal assumptions, political beliefs, and racist interpretations. [1] He also repeatedly engages in racially-motivated personal attacks and vandalizes Iran-related articles such Persian people which has resulted in the protection of that page. Furthermore, he is a chronic 3RR violator, but also violates other wikipedia rules by vandalizing and then removing warnings from his talk. [2]. Appropriate action should be considered against Aucaman. We would appreciate it if the Admins took a closer look at his sneaky activities. --ManiF 12:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this request and everything mentioned here so far. This user simply does not accept all the sources provided. Recently he has inspired the other Kurdish nationalists to start a similar dispute on Iranian people article.. its ridiculous

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 [one] major source like a major encyclopedia, and then refuse to compromise on the issue that the over-whelming consensus agrees with. The user simultaneously revert articles, put numerous banners on articles, and engage in 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. Unfortunately, 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 Persia, Iran, India, Persian people, and Iranian people articles. The last two articles mentioned are the ones that the user has a problem with. However, I searched under [Iran], and 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 outdated here, not even a footnote. By the way Iran means `Land of Aryans`. Should they change that too, because you are sensitive to the word Aryan? Under Aryan, Encyclopedia Britannica says, “(from Sanskrit arya, “noble”), a people who, in prehistoric times, settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now used in linguistics only in the…...”[3]. Finally, please know that the user has demonstrated that he [will] use his editing privileges excessively, without any room for compromise. The user Aucaman uses malicious non-stop comments, attacks others, and sing-handedly hijacks the pages. Although, I hate to say this, but I sincerely believe that at this point just because as his comments show his motives seem to be politically motivated, it is obvious that there is no remedy for this user, he has to be banned. In conclusion, please know that the user sees no common ground for the past [year]. On the contrary, he seems to be driven by a political ideology, and the user refuses to agree on anything, and simply requests help from a few of his countrymen or friends perhaps to fill the discussion pages with excessive amounts of writing, repetitively, and puts banners on all such articles. After, apparently a year of discussion, all other options have now been exhausted. Please know that, we sincerely believe that this user abuses his or her editing privileges. And, 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 misuses of editing privileges here is to block him or her. Please be aware we know from experience that users who try so hard to push a POV, cannot work with others, and perhaps may be blinded by their passions, and this regrettably 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

Ex: “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?”, Line 906:[4]

Line 793:http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persian_people&diff=42628069&oldid=41862241 “OK let's forget about the school thing. You brought it up. The new regime has kept the word in the texts because it supports its anti-Israeli agenda”.

• Not assuming good faith; accusing others of vandalism

[5], accusing user Woohookitty [6]

Accusing user with IP address 69.196.139.250 of vandalism, and threatning the user[7]

Accusing another user of “Anit-semetic behaviour”, while complaining to user Irishpunktom [8]

Accusing another multiple users who do not agree with him of vandalism[9]

Accusing a fifth user of vandalism, and other policy violations, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed him the user never did such a thing, [10]

Accusing a sixth th user of vandalism, and other policy violations, because that user agree with Aucaman, even though many admins and other users repeatedly informed Aucaman the user never did such a thingCleared as filed http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aucaman&diff=42363770&oldid=37462965

Being repetatively warned about violating the 3rr policy by admin ESkog to no avail [11]

• Personal attacks, mostly due to political activism

Repeatedly attacking others, despite warnings, using harsh language such as,“Hideous nonsense. Jews have been living in Iran longer than a lot of other Iranians. Armenians have only been living in (proper) Iran for the last 100-200 years. Not even comparable. Most Jews have been persecuted and discriminated against simply for political reasons that have very little to do with Iran or Persian Jews. The ones left in Iran (not that many) are kept in such horrible conditions that they can't even network against the country even if they wanted you. You're just giving into Islamic Republic's propaganda”[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21],

Line 883:[22],

Line 906:[23]

More quote examples: “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”[24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

• Abuses of editing privlages by constently inserting banners, writting excessive amounts of texts in discussion pages, Disruptiveness etc., examples:

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

• Breaking the 3rr policy close to 12 reverts in one day,

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Breaking the 3rr policy [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Breaking the 3rr policy [48] [49] [50] [51]

• Refusing to Compromise even after a third opninion first attempted by user Amir, and then after upon request from the neutral user Khoikhoi who tried to mediate the Persian people article and the one who set-up Mediation Cabal,

[52] [53]

Other examples: Line 883:[54], Line 906:[55], Line 777:[56], Line 701:[57]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks - was broken by some users. --Khoikhoi 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Civility infractions
3. Not assuming good faith
4. Disruptiveness, and abuses of editing privliages
5. Refusing to Compromise

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. See Talk:Persian people#Compromise? - 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.The user refused to compromise even after a third opninion was first sought quite a while ago, and attempted by User:Amir85 for the Persian people article [58] and [59]

3.Other examples of the user refusing to compromise: Line 883:[60], Line 906:[61], Line 777:[62], Line 701:[63]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Iranian Patriot 01:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Shervink 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
3. Kash 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Khoikhoi 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Houshyar 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
2. (Aytakin) | Talk 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Kash 19:43, 5 March 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.

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