Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
:::[I thought that it is possible to have such a discussion with you as a Romanian, even thought he [you] would be from Oltenia or Wallachia, and even though he [you] would have mentality of fanatic Serbian-Orthodox. However, now I see that you have put the she-dog on me and she already started to bark at me. If she continues to bark, I think she will wake up the whole village. Could you be nice and call her back?] |
:::[I thought that it is possible to have such a discussion with you as a Romanian, even thought he [you] would be from Oltenia or Wallachia, and even though he [you] would have mentality of fanatic Serbian-Orthodox. However, now I see that you have put the she-dog on me and she already started to bark at me. If she continues to bark, I think she will wake up the whole village. Could you be nice and call her back?] |
||
The only thing that saved this user from RfC was that such language he used mostly in talk pages, in super-long discussions that few people read, not in articles or commentaries to edits. Therefore, please be aware of this when you read a comment by Anittas. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
The only thing that saved this user from RfC was that such language he used mostly in talk pages, in super-long discussions that few people read, not in articles or commentaries to edits. Therefore, please be aware of this when you read a comment by Anittas. :[[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::This just strenghtens my argument that Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals. First of all, this RfC is not about me; and making this about me is a bit disrespectul to those involved here; secondly, what you posted there, I have said millions of times, in English:--and I don't find it to be incivil in language. Perhaps incivil in behaviour, but not so much in language. However, how can I alter my behaviour if that's what I genuily think? Thirdly, that chat I had there was with Biruitorul and I reserve the right to be honest with people and say exactly what I think. And I think that the majority of you Muntenians have a bad culture and poor traditions. Luckly, Biruitorul is a Moldavian-Transylvanian, which is also the reason why he managed to rebuff my arguments in a decent way. As for the latter part of that post, it's pretty harmless. Lastly, I could be the biggest jerk on this planet and have a bigger award put on my head than the one on Bin Laden--and I could still make a good argument which, if you would decide to counter, you would have to address the argument and not irrelevant things, like you did here. So you trying to discredit my message here by bringing up things that I have posted on a talkpage makes you a Muntenian. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K._Lastochka&diff=162962043&oldid=162960683 Here] is a (helpful?) translation of the term, right from [[The Horse's Mouth|the horse's mouth]]. [[User:Turgidson|Turgidson]] 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K._Lastochka&diff=162962043&oldid=162960683 Here] is a (helpful?) translation of the term, right from [[The Horse's Mouth|the horse's mouth]]. [[User:Turgidson|Turgidson]] 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Muntenian number two. --[[User:Anittas|Thus Spake Anittas]] 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion== |
==Discussion== |
Revision as of 18:07, 29 October 2007
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This dispute centers around Anonimu’s behaviour on a dozen Bessarabia-related pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Anonimu persistently and abusively reverts users who use the word “occupation” in those articles, despite the existence of an article called Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and a rationale explained in full here.
The problem is Anonimu’s recent and chronic acts of incivility, edit warring, pushing of his Communist POV, and other intolerable behavior.
Desired outcome
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
Anonimu needs to treat others with respect, even if he disagrees with them. He needs to assume that other editors are acting in good faith per WP policy and engage them in discussion to understand where they're coming from if he has concerns about their edits. He needs to discuss changes and edits that he dislikes on the appropriate talk pages first, before reverting. He needs to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for things he's in favor of, and to denigrate those things he disfavors.
If Anonimu (blocked seven times for 3RR violations) rejects these requirements, he should leave Wikipedia since he cannot abide by its policies. If he refuses to leave, he should be banned. If, however, he accepts these requirements, he should be on a strict civility and revert parole for enough time to demonstrate that he is willing and capable of changing his ways.
When considering the request, editors should remain mindful of this recent ArbCom decision.
Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Anonimu is a recent and chronic violator of core Wikipedia policies. He is routinely uncivil, assumes bad faith, instigates and participates in edit wars, disrupts Wikipedia to make a point, and in general treats those he disagrees with with contempt, aggression, and retaliation. He rejects good-faith attempts to reason with him and to encourage him to edit constructively.
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.)
Anonimu initiated an edit war at Bessarabia-related articles which has now turned into disruption to make a point, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.
- Edit war at History of Romania:
Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.
- Edit war at Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic:
[7], [8], [9] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.
- Edit war at Bessarabia:
[13], [14], [15] [16] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and five different editors.
- Edit war at History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953):
Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.
- Edit war at Khotyn:
[22], [23] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.
- Edit war at Budjak:
[27], [28] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.
- Edit war at History of Moldova:
[32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and four different editors.
- Edit war at History of the Romanians in Ukraine:
[42] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.
- Edit war at Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic:
Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.
- Edit war at Chernivtsi Oblast:
Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.
- Edit war at Moldavian SSR:
[51], [52], [53], [54] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.
- Edit war at Romanian Armies in the Battle of Stalingrad:
[58] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.
Past incivility
- Here, Anonimu called Biruitorul an “ultra-nationalist”
- Here, Anonimu called Biruitorul an “ultra-nationalist holodeni”, which can only mean “Holocaust denier”, despite his repeated and impassioned declarations that he is in fact not a Holocaust denier. He also did this here and here. (If Biruitorul once made statements Anonimu interpreted as Holocaust denial, it’s not his business to level such a charge, especially when Biruitorul fully and repeatedly endorsed the standard history of the Holocaust on several subsequent occasions.)
- Talk:Delia Grigore – here, Anonimu displays habitual abrasiveness and lack of courtesy in yet another discussion.
- Talk:Soviet occupations/Archive 1#Important statement – highly incivil remarks there.
- Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre – this page is loaded with incivility by Anonimu, directed at users who disagree with him. In this discussion, Anonimu repeatedly defends the killing of 200 unarmed civilians. It was also here that Anonimu began insinuating that Biruitorul controls the actions of User:K. Lastochka, an absurd and offensive allegation. See [59], [60], and [61], where he says Biruitorul is her “idol” and she his “groupie”. This pattern continues to the present, with him calling Biruitorul her “capo”: [62]. See also [63].
- Anonimu continued to defend this massacre here. On that page, he also lamented the failure of the Red Army to exterminate Poles.
- Omar Hayssam - several times ([64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]), Anonimu removed sourced content and called those whom he reverted "racists" and "fascists".
- Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina – [70], [[71] personal attacks.
- Here, Anonimu accuses Biruitorul of paranoia.
- Here, Anonimu sardonically accuses Biruitorul of canvassing, a baseless charge.
- Here, to Biruitorul's announcement of the RfC, Anonimu uses an abusive edit summary.
- Anonimu has been blocked for 1 week for calling WPediands "ultra-nationalist" and for putting on his page an image suggesting other users are members of fascist organizations [72]
- Anonimu swares very graphically [73], or not so graphically [74]
- Anonimu calls fellow WP's "reactionary clique" [75].
Past edit warring
- Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania – an article on which Anonimu spearheaded revert-warring for about six months before causing it to be protected (this case made it all the way to the ArbCom). Also replete with incivility; see for instance [76], [77], [78] and [79], where he implies his opponents are fascists. (An explanation of the last two diffs: the official colour of the Iron Guard was green.)
- Romanian Communist Party – protected since July 19 due to Anonimu’s edit-warring. Here, he also posits the existence of a cabal: [80].
- Just part of a revert war on Nicolae Ceauşescu: [81], [82], [83].
- Almost the entire edit history of Gheorghe Flondor consists of revert-warring by Anonimu over a trivial point, and the discussion is filled with his incivility.
- The edit history on Ceauşescu family is dominated by Anonimu’s revert-warring, centered around the question of whether Andruţă Ceauşescu was an alcoholic or not, despite the existence of reliable sources that say yes.
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
Many of the above edit wars, and others, verge on and indeed violate WP:POINT. Among the more obvious are the Gheorghe Flondor and Ceauşescu family revert wars.
He is also trying to promote to WP readers the impression that:
- claims that Soviet Union has occupied foreign territory in 1940 are false, invetions, or nationalism-motivated [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]
- Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had no importance, by erasing referrences of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact from WP [93], [94]
- pre-WWII historic literature by respected authors (e.g. Ion Nistor, the pre-WWII rector of Czernowitz University) that were persecuted by the communist regime are mere nationalists [95], [96], ditto qualifications for post-communist literature [97]
- NKVD did not attempt ethnical cleansing [98]
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
1) Most recently, both K. Lastochka and I attempted to steer Anonimu away from his latest bout of incivil edit-warring, but he simply erased out messages using abusive edit summaries. Note too that his talk page is a no-go area, in violation of Wikipedia norms.
K. Lastochka’s message: [99], removed, restored, removed, restored, removed by her.
Biruitorul message: [100], removed in three minutes with an abusive edit summary.
2) The talk pages linked above show ample evidence of endless but fruitless attempts to reach compromise.
3) Anonimu repudiates attempts to find compromizes. When he started the last no-"occupation" war on 12 articles, on a number of them, I suggested to use the word "annexed", and to tacitly avoid "occupation" or "ceeded". (The Soviet literature used "was ceeded and annexed". The international literature uses "was occupied an annexed".) But he continued his reverts without comments [101].
4) Anonimu automatically erases any attempts to contact him to start a dialog [102], [103], [104], [105].
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- Biruitorul 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- With general incivility, yes, via several posts and ANI threads. Will (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- K. Lásztocska 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Turgidson 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dc76\talk 12:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I added 3 items at section "Past incivility", 4 items at "Trying to make a point", 2 items at "Attempt and failure to dialog"
Other users who endorse this summary
- AdrianTM 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I don't want to comment about other stuff, but I just noticed this comment of his: "stop editing articles you're ignorant about just because the capo did it" [106] which I think is way beyond the limit of decency.
- --MariusM 00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- István 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Biophys 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC). I think this user is in constant struggle with others because he is trying to promote his strong political and moral views in WP. He honestly believes that terror (murder of innocent civilians) is a good thing if it serves to defend some "bright ideals" [107].
Statement by K. Lásztocska
I do not want to bring Anonimu's political opinions into debate here; the fact that I find them utterly reprehensible is immaterial, as he is entitled to hold whatever beliefs he likes without fear of retribution or harassment. However, one point I must make relates to Anonimu's frequent comment that his accusations of Biruitorul being a fascist are "no different" from Biruitorul's pointing out that Anonimu is a Communist. There is a rather large and obvious difference: Anonimu is a Communist, previously advertised that fact on his userpage, and has made it quite clear that he considers it no shame to be a Communist. On the other hand Biruitorul is no fascist, indeed (as he has repeatedly explained to me and others) he is quite opposed to the brutality and inhumanity of fascism and finds it very offensive to be called a fascist. Calling Anonimu a Communist is a statement of fact, calling Biruitorul a fascist is borderline slander.
But away from politics and onto user conduct, the real subject of this RfC. I first met Anonimu last March (during the naming debate over the Fantana Alba massacre) and have never known him since to be anything but rude, disruptive, abrasive, crude, and belligerent. From what I have seen, the vast majority of his contributions to the Wiki seem to be edit-warring over contentious political points and various insults, insinuations and outright name-calling against his fellow editors. My own interactions with him have been dominated by his constant attempts to paint me as the puppet of Biruitorul, or to use Anonimu's preferred term, his "groupie." These accusations are completely untrue and very tiresome. Biruitorul has never pressured me one way or the other to contribute or vote in a discussion; he has informed me of several debates but whenever I have joined them it has been entirely of my own free will. The fact that I often agree with him in certain matters is also immaterial: we just happen to hold similar opinions on some topics. (You want to see us fight, bring up the issue of Székely autonomy.) Also for the record, I have never communicated with Biruitorul via email, instant messaging, the telephone, or real-life conversation; aside from one brief period (about a week) of some communication on my talk page on HuWiki (which we used only for clearing up some misunderstandings between the two of us, we never discussed other editors or anything controversial), all our interactions are right out in the open on EnWiki for all to see. If anyone feels so compelled, they may look through our conversations--they will find no evidence that I am in any way controlled, manipulated, unduly influenced or ordered around by him. Anonimu's accusations are baseless, irritating, and cruel, not to mention a violation of WP:AGF. Every time I so much as poke my head in on a Romania-related discussion I immediately get hit with labels like "lackey", "groupie", "servant" and even "bitch," and I've had enough of it.
Incidentally, I don't pretend to be completely innocent in these matters. I freely admit that I have made my share of uncivil comments and snide remarks during our debates, I take full responsibility for them and I hereby formally apologize for them. However, what have been isolated (and almost always provoked) outbursts on my part are habitual patterns of behavior for Anonimu; I suggest he cease such childish behavior immediately.
One last thing: Anonimu's talk page. At present it is entirely composed of a large red disclaimer indicating Anonimu's intention to delete everything posted to that page, probably without even reading it. This applies to warning templates, cautions, comments from admins, and ordinary messages from ordinary users. Essentially, he has no functioning talk page. Personally, I find such a stunt to be an outright slap in the face to the wider Wikipedia community, a clear statement that he has no intention of engaging with his fellow editors, no intention of being held accountable for his actions (good or bad), no intent to be a part of the community and by extension, no intent to necessarily comply with our rules and guidelines. Such behavior is incompatible with the kind of community we must foster here on the Wiki if the project is to continue successfully, and to that end I respectfully but most firmly suggest he reconsider the status of his talk page. K. Lásztocska 06:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the record: Anonimu was not the one who called you bitch. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're right: now that I think of it, that was you. K. Lásztocska 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
Statement by Sceptre
Anonimu has been a persistent problem on Wikipedia. A quick google search for "Anonimu site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Administrators' noticeboard" gives 83 results.
Such threads on ANI that prove the user's disruption or disregard for policy, in the first thirty results, are:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274#Anonimu constantly calling "ultra-nationalist" people with whom he disagrees
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Personal Attack and Uncivility of user Anonimu
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive277#Inappropriate protection of User talk:Anonimu
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive276#User: and User talk:Anonimu
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279#User:Anonimu, thread ∞
Most of this was back at the beginning of August. But the fact that we're having an RfC about him at the end of October shows that the problem is persistent, even with several blocks. While it's true at some points he has been goaded at times, he should know better to rise above such taunts, but it seems he is not doing so. I think that the only thing that will stop him, by attitude change or long block, would be placing him under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, which covers general incivility and edit warring in Eastern European topics, exactly what Anonimu is doing Will (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
- Turgidson 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- AdrianTM 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- István 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- K. Lásztocska 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Biruitorul 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dc76\talk 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Statement by AdrianTM
I am not for banning people from Wikipedia, however Anonimu has to be civilized in interactions with other editors, from the history I can see that his only purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Soviet talking points (and is supported by his own declaration that he is a Communist) this in itself is not necessarily a bad thing if it's supported with rational arguments and references, the problem is that he is not civil with other editors who have other positions, his edits summaries are abusive, he calls people with whom he doesn't agree names (nationalists, ultra-nationalists, Holocaust deniers, suffering of paranoia, etc) he accuses editors of forming cliques and instigating other editors, his talk page seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia (if not against the rules -- I'm not sure) which doesn't encourage dialog and problem solving. Most importantly and worrying, which prompted me to write this comment, is that most of these issues are present even in the text that he is using to defend himself, he violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA multiple times in this very page. Again, I'm not for banning people, but I think that admitting fault + apologies and changing of behavior are in order here. -- AdrianTM 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP can not impose users to appologize, even when humanly it is 100% the case. "Changing behavior" is subjective assessment, unless framed by very precise definitions, like the rulings 8 and 11 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies. So, AdrianTM, although I completely agree with the basis of your statement, I disagree with your proposed remedies: noone can impose Anonimu to appologize, and a solution to the problem Anonimu created (rv wars to make a point, calling names, sworing) must be specific. The fact that he is a communist can not be the basis of a measure against him, no matter how grave were the crimes of communism, and how ardently he supports this idiology. He is not the first and not the last communist, but somehow other communist manage not to start rv wars again and again, not to call names, not to swore; they support the theoretical idiology or some general policy, not specific crimes, e.g Fantana Alba, NKVD persecutions against Poles, etc, as in the case of Anonimu. :Dc76\talk 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well... I understand all that, I just wanted to give him a chance to say: "Well maybe I supported my ideas in a wrong way, and didn't know that this was going to be taken so seriously by fellow editors, therefore I decided that from now on to be measured and follow WP:PA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF more closely" and then he should consider himself under probation... I don't know how realistic is this, but I like to give people second chances. Of course, there's the possibility that he's never going to admit he did anything wrong, so the result might be the same anyway. -- AdrianTM 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anonimu could and can say something like that at any moment. However, he is convinced that rv warring is ok, that calling people fascist and nationalist is ok, that swaring is ok. Nothing prevented him from saying in the "Response" section "Sorry, I won't swore again, won't call you nationalist or fascist again." But no, he simply explained us there why he believes calling other WPedians fascist and nationalist is justified. He sincerely believes he did nothing wrong. What more can I say? :Dc76\talk 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well... I understand all that, I just wanted to give him a chance to say: "Well maybe I supported my ideas in a wrong way, and didn't know that this was going to be taken so seriously by fellow editors, therefore I decided that from now on to be measured and follow WP:PA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF more closely" and then he should consider himself under probation... I don't know how realistic is this, but I like to give people second chances. Of course, there's the possibility that he's never going to admit he did anything wrong, so the result might be the same anyway. -- AdrianTM 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
- K. Lásztocska 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Turgidson 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC), with the caveat expressed by Dc76
- Biruitorul 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC), with the proviso that a ban should be realistically considered especially if Anonimu's long-held pattern of not showing regret or remorse for his actions and words continues. Contrition is a mitigating factor, but I can never recall seeing it come from him.
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{This would be pretty point by point rebuttal, so hope you're smart enough to follow it.
1.The word occupation in that context is not factual and against WP:NPOV
2.The article B mentions is a total piece of crap controled by asmall clique. My sourced contribution to that article were deleted because they didn't fit that clique's view. The non-compliancy tags I added were removed too. So that article proves nothing.
3.That "rationale" is nothing more than an instigation to revert war against me. (The weird thing is that he accuses me of instigating revert wars, but he brings no proofs for it)
3'.When B encourages some of his friends and "like-minded" contributors to revert me, I can't possibly AGF.
4. Even if some of my edits are putting some communist-wannabe states under a good light, I never tried to impose a personal opinion or POV, my edits being factual.
5.If those people would want to discuss with me, they wouldn't blind revert me.
6.I was blocked only 6 times for 3RR, one of these six being overturned.
7.I reject, and moreover, i consider a grave personal attack all the text in the "description" section
8.All my revert changed a politicized opinion with a factual description. The only disruption was Biruitorul instigation to revert war against me.
9.All the reverts of my edits can be similarly described as "X-user changes wording to make Soviet actions look more bad than they were."
10.Biruitorul tendentiously presents all casses as Anonimu vs others, when this was not the case in most of the instances. It's important to note that main other edit warriors were the one directly instigated by Biruitorul: User:Dc76 and User:AdrianTM.
11.By calling Biruitorul an ultra-nationalist, I was being as uncivil as he is when he calls me a Communist. Even if I would have called him a Holocaust denier, which I didn't, I would have been supported by the definition of the concept by an International Comission.
12.Is nice to see that Biruitorul brings diffs from the begining of June, but fails to mention that since he described himself killing and then canibalizing me (diff) and he defined me as not "sane" and my opinions as "demented" diff. Nice, isn't it? (And just so you know, i got these diffs using google)
13.If my prefference of not using capital letters (mainly due to the fact that i am to lazy to press the shift) is considered lack of courtesy, then wiki contributors have a problem.
14.Sorry, there's nothing uncivil in debunking your lies. Your exageration of the number of victims of a contruction project (10 times x the maximum number given by researchers) just shows how neutral youa are.
15.I didn't the defend the killing of 200 people, i just wanted the facts to be known: that those people were trying to illegaly cross the border and that they were warned to stop, but they refused to comply.
16.my opinion is that Biruitorul uses K.L. like a tool... he calls on her whenever he has a problem and wants more votes supporting him or to elude 3RR (i still have to see the two voting differently on something) They exchanged e-mails and even Biruitorul's relatives considered their relation un-collegial (according to Biruitoru's confession on the hungarian wiki - unfortunately, google brought no results, but if i look harder maybe i'll find smth.)
17.I defended no massacre.
18.My lamentation for the failure of Soviets to exterminate Poles is one of the most revolting accusation brought. My comment was clearly in the context of Russian civil war and "eliminated" was nothing but just another word for conquered. This accusation is clearly tendentious, considering that the Red army actually comprised Polish regiments during the civil and soviet-polish wars.
19."Nationalists" was factual in that context.
20.Biruitorul gets strange ideas, like the one that i'm after him. For me, this qualifies as paranoia, and that diff was not the only time when i expressed this opinion.
21.Biruitorul is noted for canvassing users from other wikipedias (users with almost no edits on the english one) to vote here in his favour. So it was factual.
22.I can't edit war by myself. And if i would have been the only one responsible, surely i would have been the one blocked, not the article. Also, the interpretation of the colours of the liberal international as reference to fascism is tendentious. As a note: I was punished (even if blocks should be preventive) for noting the fascist-inclination of those users (even if it was partially true).
23. The version i was supporting had been agreed on the talk page. Ans as above, I can't edit war by myself.
24. As you can see, the revert war on nick's article was based on my revert of the removal of RSs. As a matter of fact, a version of what i had supported then was actually accepted, and it's there nowadays, without my intervention.
25. I was just removing unsourced statements and attributed opinions. The only not normal thing in that discussion was the fact that some users began to attack the editor (me), and not the edits.
26. On the article about the Ceausescu, Biruitorul tendentiously gathered references of 3 instances when a guy was seen drunk, and forcibly introduced his personal opinion to state the guy was an alcoholic, in violation of WP:SYNTH.
27. The talk page assigned to my username respects all the wikipedia policies.
28. As for the dispute resolution "attempt", K's message was clearly uncivil, as well as her intention to "annoy" me.
29. And a last note: i needed an admin to intervene to get User Sceptre ("Will") off my tail, but otherwise he's a good guy.}
I'm actually relaxed about this. If something will happen after this, it isn't my fault, and i'll fall like a martyr of anti-nationalism.
-1. The "proofs" presented by Dc76 are simply ludicrous, and they don't deserve any reply.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Anonimu 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Reaction to response
- Can you please clarify what you mean by this: "stop editing articles you're ignorant about just because the capo did it", I'm especially interested what you mean by "capo", is it supposed to mean kapo? If this is the case I find this highly offensive. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- He meant "capo" in the Italian underground sense, that is, "mob boss" (referring to Biruitorul.) Still obnoxious but at least not utterly reprehensible. K. Lásztocska 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, thanks for providing this info, still not a civil way to talk about editors even if he doesn't like their actions. -- AdrianTM 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- He meant "capo" in the Italian underground sense, that is, "mob boss" (referring to Biruitorul.) Still obnoxious but at least not utterly reprehensible. K. Lásztocska 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify what you mean by this: "stop editing articles you're ignorant about just because the capo did it", I'm especially interested what you mean by "capo", is it supposed to mean kapo? If this is the case I find this highly offensive. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Much of this response speaks for itself in its incivility and unconvincing nature, but I must issue a few very important refutations:
1. The word "occupation" is perfectly acceptable per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Anonimu's aversion to this word doesn't give him the right to revert it out of the lexicon.
2. The article is quite legitimate, and there is no clique.
3'. I can't recall any specific instructions to revert Anonimu. I have informed people of edit wars he's begun, but they're free to make their own decisions.
10. I never "instigated" anyone; I informed one of them of the situation, but he was free to ignore my message.
11. Until three months ago, Anonimu's talk page clearly indicated he is a Communist, and he never denied that. I provided clear and convincing evidence that Anonimu called me a Holocaust denier. I have repeatedly and unequivocally stated I am not one, and have also made it clear I don't give a fig what the "International Comission" defines as Holocaust denial. The point is it's not Anonimu's business going around levelling such a grave and baseless charge against me.
12. Anonimu's distortion of those two events is staggering.
The first incident occurred when K. Lastochka and I were writing a story for each other - a story that was very clearly fiction and had extremely exaggerated situations and characters in it. As soon as a complaint was raised about that chapter, I issued ([108] [109] [110]) profuse apologies and regrets; I stand by these. At the time, Anonimu failed to accept my apology ([111], [112]) and his failure to still move on indicates a massive WP:AGF breach.
The second incident was blown way out of proportion by Anonimu, and I stand by my original statement.
For the record, incident #1 resulted in a warning for me, which I have heeded; #2 was blanked by an admin who got tired of the discussion.
14. For those unfamiliar with the context, Anonimu is refering to the Danube-Black Sea Canal, one of Stalinism's worst crimes in Romania, as a "construction project". Well, perhaps 200,000 died there and I cited an incorrect figure. Mistakes happen. That doesn't give Anonimu license to repeatedly call me a "liar" (see WP:NPA) or blithely dismiss such crimes of Communism.
15. This wasn't so much a policy violation per se as moral turpitude, but Anonimu's repeated failure to show any sympathy for the victims and automatic adherence to the Soviet line - in a situation where 200 peasants were shot dead for crossing a border - is shocking nonetheless.
16. I do not know K. Lastochka's e-mail. Allegations that I "control" or "manipulate" her in any way are baseless and crass.
20. It is not Anonimu's business to diagnose me with paranoia. Moreover, that qualifies as a personal attack.
21. I am not "noted" for "canvassing" anyone. Yes, in a few (<5) discussions I have asked a few (<3) people I previously knew from ro.wiki to join discussions that might interest them. That's not canvassing, it's informing.
26. The sources clearly indicate the man was a habitual drunk. End of story. (Moreover, and I do know this isn't a RS, but it is common knowledge in Romania.) Biruitorul 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"2.The article B mentions is a total piece of crap controled by asmall clique. " -- I see he continues to be uncivil and go against WP:AGF even when he tries to defend himself.
10. Nobody instigated me and I definitely make my own decision, everyone can check that I was reverting Anonimu edits that were trying to make some certain political points before Biruitorul posted on my talk page, I don't think that discussing with other editors should be called "forming a clique" or "instigation" that's again the objective of this RfC: accusations of fellow editors, going against WP:AGF, and calling people names.
20."this qualifies as paranoia" -- this is a WP:PA that's not pardonable to be used in own defence when the RfC is exactly about personal attacks.
26. "Biruitorul tendentiously gathered references" -- I hope it is noticed that even in his defence he goes against WP:AGF, if an editor provides references that shouldn't be qualified under any circumstances as "tendentious", he needed either to refute the references or provide his references that go against the ones gathered by Biruitorul, but not qualify Biruitorul's acctions as "tendentious" -- AdrianTM 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Anittas speaks
I've dealt with Anonimu for more than three years now, before he came to Wikipedia, and indeed, he can be a difficult person to deal with. That said, I don't think that Biruitorul should give him such an ultimatum and I hope that Biruitorul will find other means for reconciliation; and I hope that he will do this by his own effort. Other things that should be mentioned: while Anonimu has been uncivil on many ocassions, he has also been provoked on many ocassions. Certain people that he doesn't care for have used his talkpage and reverted back their messages when he removed them, even though he put on a disclaimer on his talkpage against posting there. One such example is here where the person in question even says that they reverted back in order to "annoy." I believe this old conflict is a personal one where both parties have been emotionally involved in several disputes. As for Biruitoru's argument, it doesn't always hold ground. Yes, Anonimu did call Biruitorul for an ultra-nationalist and I think he's half-right. I don't see why that is such a bad thing, though. At times, I am being a nationalist, too; but mostly this is manifested when I feel provoked. If this is Anonimu's personal observation, then I don't think we should count that as an insult, but rather as a judgement of his. When it comes to Bessarabia, this is a matter of dispute and not personal attacks. Anonimu is not the only one involved in that dispute; User:Irpen is also involved and he's in agreement with Anonimu when it comes to the disputed content. It would be wrong to count this dispute as anything else but a dispute. About the allegations that Anonimu "repeatedly defends the killing of 200 unarmed civilians" is a bit manipulative. Many of the so-called personal attacks are rather mild, if one must call them for personal attacks. If one feels that Anonimu is problematic to some of the articles, then perhaps he should be forbidden from editing a few of those articles until he feels he's more stable in mind; but the content dispute should not be held against him; nor should the allegations of calling Biruitorul a nationalist or any other variants of the word, count as insultive. Many of the links lead to those kind of verbal polemics. Anonimu should not be forced to leave Wikipedia. He has contributed with many things, most notably with his maps, which others have been used in videos when covering the subject at hand. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Reaction to outside view
I would like to bring to the attention of the reader that Anittas has been very incivil in his language, maybe even more graphically that Anonimu, e.g. [113], which is only one in a long suit of such cases of graphic language:
- Credeam ca este posibil sa port o discutie din asta cu un roman, chiar daca o fi el din Oltenia sau Muntenia, si chiar daca o fi avand el mentalitate de sarb-ortodox fanatic. Acuma vad insa ca ai dat cateaua pe mine si deja a inceput sa ma latre. Daca mai continue sa latre, cred ca o sa treazeasca tot satul. Poti tu sa fi dragut si sa o chemi inapoi?
- [I thought that it is possible to have such a discussion with you as a Romanian, even thought he [you] would be from Oltenia or Wallachia, and even though he [you] would have mentality of fanatic Serbian-Orthodox. However, now I see that you have put the she-dog on me and she already started to bark at me. If she continues to bark, I think she will wake up the whole village. Could you be nice and call her back?]
The only thing that saved this user from RfC was that such language he used mostly in talk pages, in super-long discussions that few people read, not in articles or commentaries to edits. Therefore, please be aware of this when you read a comment by Anittas. :Dc76\talk 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- This just strenghtens my argument that Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals. First of all, this RfC is not about me; and making this about me is a bit disrespectul to those involved here; secondly, what you posted there, I have said millions of times, in English:--and I don't find it to be incivil in language. Perhaps incivil in behaviour, but not so much in language. However, how can I alter my behaviour if that's what I genuily think? Thirdly, that chat I had there was with Biruitorul and I reserve the right to be honest with people and say exactly what I think. And I think that the majority of you Muntenians have a bad culture and poor traditions. Luckly, Biruitorul is a Moldavian-Transylvanian, which is also the reason why he managed to rebuff my arguments in a decent way. As for the latter part of that post, it's pretty harmless. Lastly, I could be the biggest jerk on this planet and have a bigger award put on my head than the one on Bin Laden--and I could still make a good argument which, if you would decide to counter, you would have to address the argument and not irrelevant things, like you did here. So you trying to discredit my message here by bringing up things that I have posted on a talkpage makes you a Muntenian. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a (helpful?) translation of the term, right from the horse's mouth. Turgidson 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Muntenian number two. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.