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
Unfortunately, the user’s main excuse 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Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica, they all said the same thing; they never mention the term is outdated here, not even a footnote.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.Zmmz 08:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC).}
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
- 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)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
Response
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.