Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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: 16:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.)

[edit] Edit war, incivility, WP:POINT at Bessarabia-related articles

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 ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

[7], [8], [9] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

  • Edit war at Bessarabia:
    • [10] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
    • [11], [12],

[13], [14], [15] [16] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and five different editors.

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

  • Edit war at Khotyn:
    • [19] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
    • [20], [21],

[22], [23] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

  • Edit war at Budjak:
    • [24] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
    • [25], [26],

[27], [28] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

[32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and four different editors.

[42] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

[51], [52], [53], [54] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

[58] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

[edit] Past incivility

  • 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].
  • On this RfC's talk page, Anonimu's incivility continued when he implied that editors commenting here are "anglo-american imperialists". Biruitorul 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On this RfC's talk page, Anonimu's incivility continued unabated, when he implied that anyone supporting the position that Soviet troops occupied Romania after WWII is "a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets". Turgidson 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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]
  • During this RfC, User:Vecrumba (by all accounts an editor of unimpeachable integrity) contacted the author of a reference Anonimu had produced in support of his view that Romania was not occupied by the USSR and confirmed the source was in error. Anonimu, in a clear breach of good faith and a WP:POINT violation (not to mention WP:STICK), repeatedly refused to trust Vecrumba (indeed rather abusively so) and move on.
    • See discussion of this point here.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:AGF
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:NPOV
  6. WP:POINT

[edit] 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].

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Biruitorul 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. With general incivility, yes, via several posts and ANI threads. Will (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. K. Lásztocska 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Turgidson 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. 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"
  6. Eurocopter tigre 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Dpotop 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. 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.
  2. --MariusM 00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. István 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. 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].
  5. --NikoSilver 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Colchicum 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. --   Avg    15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. PētersV 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Statement of the dispute"

Moved to talk as per "discussion" section below István 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Biruitorul 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. AdrianTM 12:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Turgidson 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. István 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Dc76\talk 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. NikoSilver 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. PētersV 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Dpotop 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274#Anonimu constantly calling "ultra-nationalist" people with whom he disagrees
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Personal Attack and Uncivility of user Anonimu
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive277#Inappropriate protection of User talk:Anonimu
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive276#User: and User talk:Anonimu
  5. 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)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Turgidson 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. AdrianTM 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. István 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. K. Lásztocska 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Biruitorul 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Dc76\talk 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Eurocopter tigre 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Dpotop 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. PētersV 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. K. Lásztocska 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Turgidson 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC), with the caveat expressed by Dc76
  3. 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.
  4. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. István 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum, clarification of position: Since I see the guy is incapable of changing and still spurts personal attacks even in the talk page of this RfC I will clarify my position and ask outright for him to be banned from WP. -- AdrianTM 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    I too now support outright banning. I previously would have suggested probation so as not to be overly draconian, but I'm at wits' end. K. Lásztocska 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Dc76\talk 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) My caveat is expressed Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Anonimu#Discussion_of_AdrianTM.27s_statement here (now moved to the talk page). I support a probational and/or a thematic ban. I am not familiar with what qualifies for a complete ban, so rather than risking abuse, I'll say neither "yes", nor "no" to that.
  7. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Statement by AdrianTM"

Found on "discussion" page (as per "Discussion" section below)István 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dc76

In view of the above findings and statments, I'd like to add that in my (humble) oppinion, 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, 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.

I suggest to apply the rulings 8 and 11 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies or other similar things, and to refer very-very specifically to "calling names, sworing, rv wars in relation to specific communist crimes (not to communism in general)". If the user finds it possible to accept a probation, the ban can be probational, i.e. no de facto ban until the next name calling, sworing, or rv war specifically to some specific crime. The duration of the probation can be indefinite, but the ban (if the probation is broken) can start from 1 week, and increase by 1 week for repetitions. That way, if there will be no name callings, the user would be totally free.:Dc76\talk 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies are applied, then the first 5 bans would be 1-week long, all the next 1-mouth long. If there will be a 7th ban, one can start a new RfC to demand stronger action. I do understand that the evidence above could suggest stronger action. However, if the problem persists, such can be asked at a new RfC. Let us hope that the permanent probation would be sufficient for the problem of name calling, etc. to cease.:Dc76\talk 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Turgidson 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC) With the specification that it's not "just" a question of name-calling and swearing (both bad enough in and of themselves), but very specific, grossly inflammatory personal attacks, such as this latest one.
  2. PētersV 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC) It's clear that for Anonimu it's about denigrating and insulting editors of other editorial opinions, and very pointedly (per deleting any attempts to contact on user talk) about cutting off all discourse. I have been at opposite ends of the opinion spectrum from even now banned editors, e.g., User:William Mauco (paid pro-Transnistria regime propaganda pusher from all objective external-to-Wikipedia accounts), but still managed to maintain a civilized discourse. That Anonimu makes a point of cutting off discourse rather says it all.
  3. AdrianTM 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I agree too, in my initial statement I wasn't envisioning somebody forcing Anonimu to apologise, I only thought about giving him an opportunity to rethink his behaviour therefore I support a probation until the next incivility.
  4. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Statement by DC76"

Found on "discussion" page.

[edit] 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.

-3. I must note that i regard Vecrumba's failure to recant the accusations he issued in his statement (which he dubiously dubs an "external view"), despite being informed of the repositioning of my stance towards the matter in discussion, as bad faith and his current statement as a deliberate distortion of facts to influence neutral users into believing I'm "evil". Moreover I find hypocritical his accusation that I've called historians "liars", considering that in his comment he calls a historian, who states a fact that doesn't fit his POV, a "liar" (NB: these are not exact quotes, just paraphrases that i believe are fundamentaly right)

-5. The bad faith involved in starting this process is proved by the insistence of AdrianTM and Istvan to keep an endorsement by a banned sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte

-∞. As for Biruitorul's latest claim of my incivility, I find it hillarious. Please read that diff. I find it strange that he claims i said AAI are "going after me". This shows that Mr. B has no real proofs and has to resort to calumny to attain his goal, whatever that may be.

sqrt(-1). It's nice to see how my contesters multiply every time i revert puppetmaster User:Bonaparte.Anonimu 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

cos1+isin1. People really seem desperate to find smthing against me, even by clearly breaking logic.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Anonimu 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Response"

Moved to "discussion" page (as per "Discussion" section below)István 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

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.}

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Illythr 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Addentum (October 31) — I would like to point out three things. First, there was no attempt to receive mediation in this conflict; two, many people here have showed that they are not debating only Anonimu's behaviour, but also his opinions—which they hold against him; and thirdly, not only do they debate his opinion, but they also make this a personal quest because they don't like him. Some of the things they have mentioned here were taken out-of-context. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "outside view by Anittas speaks"

Moved to "discussion" page (see "discussion" section below) István 15:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by István

IMHO, user:Anonimu should not edit the Wikipedia. His actions are precisely those which the wiki community has explicitly identified as requiring termination. Please understand what this opinion is and is not based upon:

(+)Anonimu is perhaps the quickest to resort to ad-hominem and disruption for its own sake, that I've met in 2+ years here (I believe I just missed the Bonny era). Never mind that his POV often supports such "controversial" actions such as genocide, its rather his disrupting the wiki to push it far beyond any type of reason that begs a ban. Please note the very thorough basis for this RfC which does not even include most instances I can recall from memory. e.g. Anonimu is the only user ever to accuse this editor of being a vandal, (maybe I haven't been editing long enough...) and is the only one I've ever (and I'm not proud of this lapse of temper) called a "complete troll". However, now that we're on the subject, this is what I truly believe. His actions bear this out clearly - read the record.

(-)Anonimu's brand of POV may be odious to many (self included) but is not the basis for this opinion; nor is his nationality - (don't let my Hungarian username mislead you, I've never sought to stoke up HU-RO animocities, and work well with Romanian editors). Moreover, I think it's the Romanian editors who are most upset with A. anyway - and I can't blame them.

On the basis of his actions alone, I urge a permanent ban. But there is more...

To those who think it is perhaps "not fair" to ban disruptive POV trolling if the troll pushes an increasingly rare type of POV - A reality-check is perhaps in order. Anonimu is not providing needed balance. Indeed, even if nobody ever reverted his edits and the Wiki were to turn as red as blood, it still can't compare with the decades of misery that failed POV caused to real people in the real world. Allowing A. to continue to apologize for shooting down unarmed civilian human beings with automatic weapons, etc. adds insult to injury (death actually) to people who (still) have just as much human dignity as you or I and cannot speak now to defend their own honour is one thing, to allow A. to continue to hound other editors who insist such actions are inhuman is quite intolerable. (To put it another way - letting A. evade a ban is very very bad feng shui - you might loose all your karma and come back as a tapeworm.) Finally, look through the record for instance of apology or mea culpa from Anonimu. Scant. Look at his demeanor here: flippant, dismissive. On the other hand, those who brought this RfC have often apologized for their mistakes and take very seriously (too seriously actually) the counter-barbs thrown at them. Anonimu knows he can manipulate this sensitivity to muddle this process. Let's keep on point and take care of the business at hand. István 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. K. Lásztocska 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Turgidson 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC) — very well put, István!
  4. Biruitorul 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC), with applause.
  5. AdrianTM 05:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I agree now that he should be banned.
  6. Dc76\talk 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. NikoSilver 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (and not because of fear of becoming a tapeworm)
  8. Dpotop 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "outside view by István"

Moved to "discussion" page (as per "Discussion" section below)István 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Vecrumba

There are two issues here. The one of conduct: incivility, edit warring, trolling, et al. I think has been pretty much dealt with.

There is, however, the more important issue, the one revolving around why editors participate, particularly in the realm of the Baltics and Eastern Europe, which were behind a Soviet shroud for half a century. That is to take their interest in, love of, and their knowledge of their heritage and to share it with a wider community. And how do reputable editors do that? By:

  • sourcing what they write from reputable scholarly sources, and
  • representing those sources fairly (even I have gone back in my own edits to replace "official Soviet sources" for "propaganda" when the source I was representing actually said "Pravda").

The contention that occupation did not occur or is only a "political" term or a "judgemental" term is--particularly when not backed by any reputable source whatsoever--nothing but baseless contentiousness. If reputable sources say "occupation", then that is what we, as editors, write in the fair and accurate representation of those reputable sources.

Anonimu in fact freely admits that there are no reputable sources extant indicating the Soviet Union did not occupy Romania. Moreover, in the ultimate syllogistic leap, he contends that this is the very proof that there was no occupation:

You want me to show you a source saying: "Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958"? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen.

Anonimu's "contributions", and reactions thereto, are the fruits of Anonimu's stated position: all sources about occupation lie and he will never produce any sources to back his position because those sources don't exist because there's no need for them to exist. There is no need to produce "proof" that Anonimu is here only to push his POV in the total and complete absence of any sources supporting his position, he says so himself.

Only with God can one (theologically) contend that the very absence of evidence of God is the proof He exists. Everything else requires a reputable source. Editors who insist that their very inability to produce sources is all they need to prove they are correct do not belong in Wikipedia. That a primary topic Anonimu deals in is occupation or not of a particular territory by the Soviet Union is immaterial. The issue is the complete lack of--and indeed the prideful absence of--all editorial integrity. I can see no argument for continuing Anonimu's privilege to contribute to Wikipedia. PētersV 15:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post scriptum, edit warring

(Added after Springeragh, Sceptre, Istavan, and Turgidson responded)
For edit warring look under details (expand section) here. PētersV 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(+) edit warring example, no longer on main page, view here in diff PētersV 20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Bravo. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Will (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. István 16:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)apropos of theological (dis)proofs - it all makes sense now...
  4. Turgidson 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — very strongly
  5. AdrianTM 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) -- This makes perfect sense to me.
  6. Biruitorul 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  7.  :Dc76\talk 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Dpotop 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved User:ScienceApologist

If the conflict really stems from the inclusion or exclusion of a single word ("occupation") then sources which use the term, refer to it as per the appropriate definitions, or dispute the use of the term should be found. Plain characterization of an "occupation" may be the preferred terminology by some groups and not by others. WP:NPOV demands that we look at the notability of the sources which use the term or argue against using the term and weight Wikipedia's use of the term accordingly. Proper attribution and sourcing is vital to resolving this conflict. User conduct issues are secondary to resolving this content dispute amicably. ScienceApologist 17:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  • --Thus Spake Anittas 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • --AdrianTM 23:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with the points made about notability of sources and weight. However, I don't agree that user conduct is secondary to solve this issue, the conduct is key part of this RfC, if user respected WP policies regarding civil behaviour the POV issues would have been solved by now -- this is the very issue, you can't discuss things when you are attacked as "Anglo-American imperialist" or as "ultra-nationalist", or...

[edit] 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.