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)
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)
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:
and
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 you
Zmmz
02:04, 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 you Zmmz 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Evidence page. Zmmz 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Evidence page. Zmmz 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
moved here from main page by Lukas (T.| @) 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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* [7]. Zmmz 23:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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 Cat Talk| @ 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 you Zmmz 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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 [8]. Thank you Zmmz 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This is in response to Zmmz's allegations here: [ [9]]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
and
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 you
Zmmz
02:04, 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 you Zmmz 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Evidence page. Zmmz 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Evidence page. Zmmz 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
moved here from main page by Lukas (T.| @) 11:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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* [7]. Zmmz 23:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
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 Cat Talk| @ 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 you Zmmz 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
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 [8]. Thank you Zmmz 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This is in response to Zmmz's allegations here: [ [9]]
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)
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)