Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

message: : These statements are excluded from the main case page because they are by editors who have not joined themselves to the case.
===Comment by SouthernComfort===
This dispute began sometime in February when Aucaman began deleting any reference to the term "Aryan" (which is only used in relation to the ancient Aryan tribes) in articles such as Persian people   and Iranian peoples   - other editors opposed these deletions. There is a consensus against him and his opinion of the term as regards Iran-related articles, and yet he has continued edit warring over this issue, even when sources had been provided to provide context and justification, as well as involving other articles in addition to "Persian people."  I believe that this behavior is unacceptable and against the spirit of WP. SouthernComfort 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the above comment.--Zereshk 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by non-parties

message: This dispute began sometime in February when Aucaman began deleting any reference to the term "Aryan" (which is only used in relation to the ancient Aryan tribes) in articles such as Persian people   and Iranian peoples   - other editors opposed these deletions. There is a consensus against him and his opinion of the term as regards Iran-related articles, and yet he has continued edit warring over this issue, even when sources had been provided to provide context and justification, as well as involving other articles in addition to "Persian people."  I believe that this behavior is unacceptable and against the spirit of WP. SouthernComfort 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:SouthernComfort|SouthernComfort]]

message: There's been a lot of venom in this entire debate, and I hope that, if the ArbCom takes this case on, they take a broad view of the situation. While I do believe that Aucaman's behavior does merit a detailed investigation, the fact is that this discussion has brought on a lot of personal attacks that have led to a systematic campaign to have Aucaman and (to a lesser extent) User:Diyako banned. I believe the only way to get a full view of this dispute and, in fact, to bring the bitterness of it to a close, would be to expand this to also look at the conduct of some of the others involved in this, namely the aforementioned User:Diyako, User:Kashk, User:69.196.139.250, and User:Manik666, and also look at what has transpired on such articles as Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, and others. Just a cursory look at recent activity should show that this problem is bigger than just one user. --InShaneee 22:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]]

message: This whole ordeal started when Aucaman got into a revert war with an anon. Aucaman wanted to add a dispute tag to the Origins section of the Persian people page. This eventually escalated to an extremely large amount of debate on the talk page, mainly over the word Aryan and its use in the article. I entered the dispute by attempting to resolve the conflict between Aucaman and the other Iranian users, but after awhile it was clear that Aucaman was unwilling to compromise. To this day he has attempted to remove the paragraph that he disputes, for example on March 19. An "abundant amount of sources" (all of them academic) have been presented to him many times, but he simply dismisses them as "irrelevant". I don't have a problem with his opinions, what I do have a problem with is he sees the use of the word Aryan in Iran-related articles as Anti-Semitism.  . As a Jew, I understand that the word has two meanings, and simply because the Nazis messed up its meaning in the West does not mean that's how it is worldwide. Edits such as these are unnecessary, and people will only continue to get mad at him if he continues. --Khoikhoi 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the above comment.--Zereshk 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]]

message: Many parties are involved. I had no quarel with any of the parties inivolved including Aucaman. I however observed the exchange of incivilties between Aucaman, Diyako, as well as others on many occasions. My observation indicates that Aucaman tends to dominate or attemt to dominate the topic by dismissing anything he feels irrelevant. 
I also am bugged by the article he created, Turkish Kurdistan which at least one other wikipedia editor, Gruntness, agrees with me that its a pov title.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by [[user:Cool Cat]]

message: I have also observed that Aucaman, refuses to accept sources when provided, and insists on interpretation of selective sources. I find that highly problematic and a certain recipe for recurring edit wars. Furthermore, if you follow Aucaman's edit trails, youll start to see a distinct ideological pattern. He engages in edit wars on multiple pages, and desperately tries to flush out other editors. Just look at the number of people he is reporting for 3RR here   . Notice how he calls their edits "reverts".--Zereshk 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by [[User:Zereshk]]

message: As stated by SouthernComfort, Khoikhoi and others, the problem started when Aucaman wanted to push his POV on to the Iranian articles. I found this out as soon as I had joined Wikipedia, so the first thing I did was to contact him directly, using a rather friendly message which I posted on his talk page here notice "Dear Aucaman..." and my explanations to why he may feel that the information is not correct, e.g. because of 20th century nationalism. This was my first effort to solve the dispute. He quickly responded with this comment. Telling me in a rather harsh manner that apparently the books we have in school in Iran, are considered as "original research".
He kept on removing the reference to the word "Aryan" on Iran-related articles, while adding the POV tag, while there was no consensus on the talk page, see comment by ManiF on his talk page here, on 28th of February. 
Second effort (March 1st 2006)
I quickly found out that I can report this group behaviour by Aucaman, Xebat and back then Heja helweda (who later stoped his support for them), at .
However that did not seem to get anything done, and Aucaman et. al not only was not satisfied by the word "Aryan" being used, but they had decided to:
"..{Persians}...are among the most racist people...The modern Farsis are a semitic-Turkic people. We should prove this to the world"
See 
This was fueling the problems, so we decided to go for a mediation. 
Third effort (March 2nd 2006)
This time at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02_Persian_people. A mediation that consisted of many supports against Aucaman, which did not end in any result. 
Fourth major effort (March 3rd 2006)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman
With over 17 people endorsing our summary of Aucaman's behaviour, he simply replied that his actions weren't really that bad (only 1 user "BlueGoose" endorsed his response)
Other efforts (March 4th 2006)
The talk people of Iranian peoples and Persian people was getting full of different disputes started by Aucaman and Diako, so I decided to archive the talk page but leave the disputes at , however I was unaware that apparently this was called "blanking the talk page", and I was blocked for this, without a warning. 
This was our major efforts before the dispute was pushed and pushed to edit wars. Aucaman has since tried his best to get me blocked by reports to InShaneee (an administrator who has been watching the case and has banned both Aucaman and Xebat) as well as provoking others to do the same (See here).
My last effort to get in a dialogue with him was at here where he called my posts as "harassments".
As well as his non-stop efforts to get the word "Aryan" removed, he has provoked me even further with comments such as:
"Hundreds of times" eh? Then one more time would not hurt. Let's hear your answer to my question now"
His disruption to the article and the discussion page has been over-whelming with his "questions", many times unrelevant which he has been warned about here.
Overall, by this comment I just wanted to show the amount of stress this user has caused by creating these disputes which I myself and others have tried many times to resolve using every possible tool on Wikipedia, however incivil comments made by me and others have came as there was no "justice" untill perhaps this ArbCom case can make it happen.  -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 11:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Kashk]] 

message: First let me use this chance to make sure I was brought here for the right reasons. 
If this is going to be an investigation of my conduct and my conduct alone, it's not going to get us anywhere:
:#Some of the statements just made by User:Robert McClenon are blatantly false and show his unfamiliarity with this case. I've only been blocked once for violating 3RR and that was because I wasn't aware that I was reverting to an older version by just inserting a single word. I've also only made personal attacks once and only once and that was due to extreme provocation and under unusual circumstances. (I've provided a full explanation of it here and the case is now closed.) 
:#A quick look at my block log would reveal that my general conduct has been far less desruptive that the conduct of those who have so joyfully brought me here. 
Based on the above two points, I would not accept any investigation of my conduct and my conduct alone.
But if this is going to be an honest forum for the discussion of some of the problems surrounding Iran-related articles, I will cautiously welcome it. 
I'm also not sure why my name (and my name alone) is associated with this RfAR. As I explained, my conduct has not been as disruptive as some people want you to believe. Also, unlike what is sometimes claimed, I'm not the only person involved in this dispute. Many users have supported my position at one time or another (too many to list here, but I can provide a list if asked). So, to reiterate, I don't think labelling this case with my name (and my name alone) is in any way fair and only reflects the bias of those who have set this up.
I would also like to mention that the dispute at Persian people has mainly failed because the other side refuses to even acknowledge that there's a dispute in place. They have repeatedly (on average, probably around once a day) removed any dispute tag placed in the article without ANY comment after the mediator asked for an explanation (I'm talking about the section titled "Please explain the demand to remove [...]"). My specific concerns in talk page have also been either repeatedly ignored or brushed aside with statements that directly violate WP:V and WP:NOR.
I would also like to point out that since I've been threatened to be brought here early into this dispute (even when I had a perfectly clean record), if the case is accepted, I expect some serious rulings. I come to Wikipedia to contribute to the articles, but for the last few weeks I've been doing nothing but reporting various personal attacks to admins, responding to various misunderstandings about me (some of which have been the result of User:Zmmz going around telling new users I have a Zionist agenda), and repeating my arguments in talk pages (because they were constantly ignored or trolled with nonsense). I view all of this (even this RfAR set-up against me) as yet another excercise in censorship by those who play childish games and constantly refuse to accept any changes I make to any articles (even the trivial edits that I'm sure they wouldn't have opposed if someone other than me was making them). If this is not stopped I'd have no choice but to stop contributing. AucamanTalk 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Aucaman]]'s old statement 

message: Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.
I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on  be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions. 
*Support. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khoikhoi's probation rescinded