Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ronline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Waiting to hear from Ronline on this

I figure that I will withhold my vote until Ronline indicates an interest in this himself and answers the three standard questions for admins. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• (support) -- Jmabel | Talk 09:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

4. I read that you want to make Bucharest a featured article? Why? That city sucks. You could work on the Iasi article, instead. --Anittas 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

But Bucharest is a lovely city! I'm not from there, but it's pretty amazing place. And it's the capital of Romania. That's why I'm trying to make it a featured article. I've never to been to Iaşi, by the way. Ronline 10:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that you're not a Romanian-Moldova unionist? Are you against a possible union? And how can you be Romanian and not have been to Iasi? What did Iorga say about Iasi? --Anittas 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a possible union, but I don't endorse one at the moment. If Moldova becomes Romanianised enough, a union will be OK. However, I wouldn't support a union with a country that is significantly poorer than Romania and doesn't feel particularly Romanian either (due to Russification). And, a federation-type state union similar to Serbia and Montenegro I wouldn't support even in the future. And, yes, I've never been to Iaşi. I've been to many places both in Romania and abroad, but never to Romanian Moldova. I heard that Iaşi is a very nice place and I will go there once. But I just haven't had the need to go so far. And yes, I would be willing to work on the Iaşi article. Ronline 11:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

5. You supported Node on the Moldovan Wiki. Are you ashamed of that, now? And I don't see him supporting you here. How does that make you feel? --Anittas 09:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't support people, but concepts. At the mo.wiki dispute, I put forward my own proposal, a compromise proposal, that was agreed upon by a majority. All that I did was support Node's intention of creating a Wikipedia in Moldovan Cyrillic. And if you really want to know why, it was because not letting Cyrillic content at mo.wiki would've put pressure on the Romanian Wikipedia to accept Cyrillic content from Moldova, which is totally inappropriate. The fact that I don't support his views on the Moldovan language page doesn't mean a change of concept or rebirth. It just means that on this particular dispute I'm not supporting his point of view. So, no, I don't feel ashamed at all. I'm not a Romania-Moldova unionist. I'm a Romanian. Who is Transylvanian and has never been to Moldova. Ronline 10:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no more pressure on the Romanian Wiki to have Cyrillic content than it is on the English Wiki to have Cyrillic content. That argument is not valid. --Anittas 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the Moldovan Wikipedia were to be closed down, it would be because Romanian = Moldovan. In that case, people who write Moldovan in Cyrillic will say "you consider us to be Romanian speakers. Hence, we write Romanian in Cyrillic". Since Wikipedia doesn't make new Wikipedias based on script, only on language, these "Romanian-Cyrillic" contributors would say that they should host their content at ro.wiki. Ronline 11:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

These two questions seem inappropriate to me. How do they relate to Ronline's adminship abilities? Raven4x4x 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

And you are? --Anittas 10:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a user who doesn't see how those two questions are relevent to this RFA.Raven4x4x 11:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

They are relevant to me, because I like to make by judgement based on what values people hold. If he, for example, would be a born-again Christian, he would not get my vote, regardless of his skills in communicating with people and arbitrating. --Anittas 11:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not Christian at all for that matter. I'm atheist. Anittas - I don't mind you asking. It would probably be better to do so on my talk page though. Ask anything about me you want, especially stuff like political views, etc. Ronline 11:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, an RFA is meant to decide if a candidate is suitable for the job. It is not a popularity contest, or votes to bring down candidates just because he has personal beliefs contradictory to yours. Please note, an oppose vote on this count may not be considered by a bureaucrat in the final tally. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, strongly. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, I'm rather disappointed at your comment. What does the candidate's religion have to do whatsoever with their ability to do the job? --Martin Osterman 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't matter, really. I've answered them. (Ask anything you want!) Ronline 10:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

6. As an admin, I'm assuming that you wouldn't use admin privileges in disputes you were actively involved in. It's correct, right? Node 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is to see on a case-by-case basis. If, for example, the situation at Moldovan language descends into edit-wars again, then the page should be protected. I won't edit while it is protected, though. If any users violate the 3RR, they should get banned. So, while I won't use my admin powers to favour a certain side (i.e. blocking innocent users, protecting pages when there is no good reason), when admin action is needed in dispute I am involved in, I don't see why it shouldn't be used. Ronline 23:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Further comment: I see my answer above has provoked dispute. I said "the page should be protected" not "I will protect the page". Additionally, if users violate 3RR, they should be blocked. There's no black and white on that, it doesn't matter what "side" they're on. I don't see how that is administrator abuse. As I said above, I won't use my admin powers to favour a certain side. However, in pages that I have edited, when there is vandalism, action must be taken. But, and I think users at ro.wiki will confirm this, I am generally very anti-blocking since I believe it is most undemocratic to block users at Wikipedia for anything else but simple vandalism. As to page protection, it is sometimes necessary, but I won't do it for pages that I am involved in disputes with. Ronline 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, to make a complex thing short - the answer is "No, except for simple vandalism." I'd also like to let everyone know that I'm in general quite anti-blocking and very pro-dialogue. I've been involved in communication with an anonymous user who was adding misleading information to the Romania article and who people were nearly ready to block, but I managed to talk to him a few times and constructively encourage him not to add that information anymore. So I would only ever block a user, in any case, after I have talked to him. I wouldn't give a "warning", rather I would explain to him a more comfortable way about his actions. (Of course, all of this with the exception of blatantly bad-faith simple vandalism). Ronline 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

7. And also... would you agree with the statement "it's usually better to talk things out than to fight a battle over them"? --Node 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. That's one of my main principles as a user. Ronline 23:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you asking him these things? You already opposed him. As an admin, I hope he'll ban your sorry ass! :) --Anittas 22:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, a lot of things you wrote in here are inapprorpate. You give Romanians a bad fame in the world. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad famle or bad image? The latter is not my department. I don't kick kids out to live in the streets. I pay my taxes and I help those who I can. That's my philanthropic nature. Change your name to a Romanian one, then we talk. --Anittas 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, you of all people should know that there are historical reasons for some purely Romanian people in Moldova to have Russian names. Oleg's native language is Romanian. I'm assuming all or the majority of his ancestors are Romanians/Moldovans (might be wrong here). This doesn't nessecarily mean he'll have a "Romanian name". Since he was born during the Soviet era, it's quite possible his parents gave him a Russian given name hoping it would mean a brighter future for him (similarly, some Taiwanese parents in the period of Japanese occupation gave their kids Japanese names because they thought their kids would be discriminated against less). --Node 03:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that and I symphatize with him, but nothing stops him now from setting it right. He could take the name of Alexandru, after his father. Or any name that doesn't sound Russian! --Anittas 06:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, have you ever had to change your name? A name change can be very difficult. If he has been known as "Oleg Alexandrov" his entire life, it's very hard to just instantly change what people call him. I don't think my own name is perfect, and at times I have considered changing it (legally or informally), but I have always decided against it for a single reason: The name I already have is the only name I've ever known, and to go by anything else would be a strange and alien experience. --Node 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have considered to change parts of my names; and one day I might do so. The name Oleg is too much. He could change his name to Alecu Alexandru. I don't think that changing your name is difficult - legally speaking. --Anittas 08:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's legally just a matter of filing for a name change at your district office or whichever office is responsible; but it might be rather tedious and expensive to get all of your identity cards and licenses changed to your new name. I, too, have considered changing my name at times (it's a rather trivial matter, though; just exchanging a C for a K), but the amount of work and money that's required has put me off up to now. Maybe once I've got my university degrees, since then I'll have to change my licenses and cards, anyway... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing here about Oleg's name is ridiculous. Are you saying that if you are born in a country, has lived there all your life, and pledge allegiance to that country, if your name has foreign sounding connotations that all your opinions are instantly disbarred from the conversation? In your eyes only pure-bloods with the right name would have a say in your country? Then again, what do I know, I'm a westerner who listens to Celine Dion. - Hahnchen 17:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying that he keeps a name of those people who occupied his country and who killed over 2 million of his people. I wouldn't care if his name was Clint Eastwood, but to keep the name which your enemy forced upon you is crazy. If I understood him right, his parents were forced to give him that name. --Anittas 01:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

About the inappropriate questions

I see people whinning about me asking so-called "inappropriate questions". Look, I thought this was going to be a private gathering of Romanians, and possibly, and a Russian Jew. If I knew that Westerners would read this, I wouldn't have asked the man those questions. I'm not going to explain things you Westerners would refuse to understand, but rest assured that I'm cool with Ron, and he seems to be cool with me. We've never been unfriendly to each other and as you can probably see, I was the first to sign my support for his adminship, after Bonaparte. Dry your tears and listen to some Celine Dion, or whatever you crybabies like to listen to. :) --Anittas 12:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What, Romanians aren't Westerners? I see myself as a Westerner, I listen to Coldplay and I sure know that here in Oradea no-one gives a damn about what your name is ;-) I think it's important that people from our part of the world lose this "us and them" Cold War-era mentality. Nowadays, we're all in it together, we're all European and we're all part of the West, at least in terms of values and political systems/freedoms. And, no, Anittas' questions didn't upset me, I don't mind if people ask that sort of stuff. But, Anittas is often too quick to judge people. Ronline 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I also listen to Coldplay. Many in Japan listen to Marilyn Manson. Music and art are universal. Don't tell a Britt that you think you're a Westerner. He'll laugh in your face. You might have some luck with the Italians and the French, but don't think that they all accept us to be a part of their "club". ;) --Anittas 08:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. Is this notion of "Western" based on cultural, ideological or economic grounds? Because culturally, Romania is very much Western, and ideologically, we share values with the countries of the EU. Economically, also, Romanians are starting to have an increasingly Western lifestyle. Would you consider Slovenia or Czechia to be Western? I just think in the post-Cold War period, the divide between the so-called West and East is shrinking and the "West" has grown to encompass most of Europe. I think it's really strange how some Romanians refer to "them the Westerners" and "their petty little problems", and have a generalised inferiority complex. That's really not how it's like - or how it should be - anymore. Ronline 09:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Japan is a democratic country, sharing similar values as other Western countries. Are they a part of the Western world? Perhaps. Are they a western country? I think not. It's hard to determine the definitions and set the lines for what is what. I mean, why say we are Westerners? Because they decide the standards and we adopted them? Is that enough? Our country still has a bad image, and the Western media helped built that bad image. It would be ironic for us to say that we are Westerners. The true westerners would laugh in our face. I'm happy, for the moment, with definitions for Western Europe, Central Europe, South-Eastern Europe, etc. --Anittas 17:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd see the distinction between West and East is not notable anymore; what's more important is whether countries are considered to meet the democratic and human rights standard of "the West", and I think Moldova is getting there. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the term Western hasn't got anything to do with Western Europe. Is Germany not Western, just because it's Central European ;) As to Moldova - I don't know, I'm not Moldovan, and I've never been there. But I know that my part of Romania (western Transylvania) is pretty much Western. Ronline 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What does Western mean to you? Germany is not in Central Europe. Man, I love to hear the Transylvanian Romanians making themselves superior to the rest of the Romanians, saying they're more civilized. I'm not saying that you're saying this, but ye know... ;)

In less than a century ago, you cried for our help. Now you're all cocky. Moldova took the best initiative to create Romania and now we're viewed as a backward people. We're probably more civilized than the rest of the Romanians. I just need to mention the Targu Mures incident...

Oh, the irony! --Anittas 06:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, geographically Germany is in Central Europe. The old definition of "capitalist" Western Europe no longer exists - nowadays, we have Western Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, etc. Just because Romania is in Southeastern Europe doesn't mean it's not part of the Western world of Western values and culture. And this has nothing to do with Transylvanian superiority, which I've never hinted at. Nightstallion said that "Moldova is getting there" so I said I'm not Moldovan (as in Republic of Moldova), but that in Romania, at least my part of Romania, people are Western. I've been to Bucharest, and I can say people there have an even more Western lifestyle than Transylvanians (i.e. more cosmopolitan, etc). I didn't comment about Romanian Moldova because I've never been there. The only reason why (Romanian) Moldovans are viewed as backward is because of the income gap - it's just like in Belgium the Walloons are poorer, and in Germany, East Germany is poorer, and in Italy, the southern regions are poorer. In Romania, Moldova and Oltenia are poorer, and hence may be viewed as backward. Ronline 07:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Germany is in Central Europe, as are Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, and Slovenia. Heck, according to the old definition of Western Europe,  Turkey was in Western Europe... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Outside from a very narrow economic and political-history context, the East-West divide is over (or, as some argue - it's only shifted east, with countries such as Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Albania, etc, on the other side of the divide). Ronline 08:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, with the amount of money that the  European Union puts into  Albania currently (and the amount it will spend in the future) to make it a functional state and a future member state, I think Albania's pretty much made it to the "West". ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well Albania was the one I mentioned with a little bit more reservation. The EU doesn't spend that much money on them yet, though. And there's all of the cultural differences as well (the Albanians were basically isolated until 1990, and their culture has significant Oriental influences. Ronline 10:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mh, the SAA agreement is basically as good as finished, so it won't be long until more money comes. ;) 'sides, I'd be surprised if they aren't EU citizens by 2015 at the latest... But maybe we should take this to your or my talk page? ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the debate was started between me and Ron, and I want it to remain here. ;)

Sorry. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that Germany is indeed counted as being in Central Europe, but I'm not sure why. Parts of it is in Central Europe, but other parts are in Western Europe. Or? I've been to Rostock and Berlin a couple of times. Isn't that Western Europe? Oh, and so what if Albania has some Oriental culture? Does it mean that they can't be viewed as Westerners? Japan is not in the 'Christian club', yet they're viewed as Westerners. --Anittas 10:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really see Japan as a Western country in terms of culture, even though it's part of the Western world in the broader definition of values and liberties. As to Germany - Berlin is Central European, so is Rostock. Here in Romania, we see it as occident, but I think that's wrong, since it establishes an "us and them" divide that shouldn't be there. As to Albania - it's not about their being Muslim, but about their national culture. Albania hasn't become involved in the Western world after the fall of Communism in the same way that Romania has - i.e. it is not part of NATO, it is not an EU candidate, and culturally it's not really that European. Of course, that doesn't make it non-Western, it perhaps makes it less Western, just how Romania (or Greece, or Portugal) is less Western than, say, France. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 11:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Berlin and Rostock most certainly are in Central Europe. You might even consider Rostock Northern Europe. ::shrugs:: Regarding Albania: Will most likely join NATO in 2008, EU a few years later. They're definitely not worse off than the Bosnians, I'd say; at least Albania has her SAA agreement all finished... ;) Regarding Japan, it's part of the "Western alliance", but not part of the "West"... though the more we discuss this, the more certain I am that the "West" is really not a very sensible word any longer. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the sense that people usually mean by "east and west" when referring to cultural values and social ideals, I would say that which places are part of the "east" and which are part of the "west" is changing over time. 30 years ago, Romania could easily be considered part of the East, same with Poland, the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. But since then, Romania has slowly drifted towards the West. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania moved west much quicker as they sought to ally themselves with Western European democracies and distance themselves from CIS member states. Poland has rushed west at a break pace since independence, frantically trying to put as much distance as possible between itself and the "East". Ukraine has had a slow drift, and the election of Iuştenco over Ianucovici has been a major step west for Ukraine. Right now, I think the "East" is shrinking rapidly. Who is part of the East today? Russia is definite. Belarus too, probably. The eastern part of the Ukraine is still unmistakably Eastern European in sentiment and ideology, but the Western portion is now decidedly Western. Moldova is a difficult one. In Moldova, the ruling party is PCRM which drives it eastward significantly. But, what about Central Europe and the former Yugoslav republics?? --Node 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

... are you sure about Moldova? I'd had the impression that the party that won the last elections was said to be a driving force towards the West and EU membership, if possible... Central Europe is now decidely Western, as are the Balkan states. If you're an EU member state, a candidate or even a prospective candidate country, you're most definitely Western. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think what Node is saying is quite accurate. The PCRM is an interesting party... it's officially Communist but in reality it is quite pro-Western and pro-EU. However, it won the elections by saying "we've done all these social welfare things for you and, oh - we're pro-EU too [but so are the other parties]". If another party would've won, Moldova would've been much more Westernised, as the PCRM was a significant force in the isolation of Moldova during the 1990s. The Baltic states are definitely Western. Poland is interesting... it's Western (and has a solid Western tradition) but it's politics (particularly the highly-dislikeable Lech Kaczinsky) are quite un-democratic/conservative recently. Not all of the Balkans can be seen as decidedly Western. Central Europe definitely is, as are the more advanced SE European states (Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, perhaps Serbia and Montenegro). I think Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia still have a bit to go, though (Even though I was pleasantly surprised by Sarajevo when I visited there last year. It's quite cosmopolitan and lovely.) Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 10:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. ::nods:: Yeah,  Poland is an interesting case... I personally hope the politics moderate a bit. The situation regarding abortion and the discussion about the reintroduction of the death penalty is rather horrible in my personal opinion. Ah well.

I partially agree with your classification of the Western Balkans, though I'd exchange  Macedonia and  Serbia and Montenegro - Macedonia is, as far as I can say, about as Western as Bulgaria, while Serbia-Montenegro still has some way to go (and I'm not only talking about whether it'll remain one state or become up to three); the recent news about some (I think about six) members of parliament declaring they still only follow Milosevic's orders somehow... well, upset public opinion a bit, if you catch my drift. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably right.  Macedonia is indeed quite developed, though I wouldn't really say it's comparable with Bulgaria. It's sort of like Bulgaria's little sister - it's slightly poorer, smaller and politically, there's still quite a lot to go. Though after Slovenia and Croatia, it's currently the most well-off of the Western Balkans.  Serbia and Montenegro is, despite its relative poverty and political uncertainty, still quite Western in terms of root values. In the 1980s, it was the most Western of the Communist countries of Europe, and some of that tradition has still been maintained somewhat, particularly in the northern regions, which are comparable to Croatia to an extent. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 11:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Voronin is bluffing. He is pro-Western because he lost the support of Russia and because the people want to have good ties with the West. That man is a snake. A Russian put in power to rule over Romanians. --Anittas 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ron, can you tell these weirdos that you were not bothered by my questions? I know you've said it a couple of hundred times, but you must understand that these housewives have a hard time comprehending things. They think that everyone must be stiff, dry, and formal as they are. I talked to you as I talk to my pals and you didn't seem to mind. In fact, it would be nice if you could make a statement at the beginning of the page, saying that you will not count the support-vote from those who do not retract their statement about my questions being innapropriate. My questions were the best questions on this page! You can also mention that, if you want. :) --Anittas 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I personally don't mind doesn't mean that I have any right to make them retract their comments. Many people felt they were inappropriate, and hence appreciated that I dealt with them in an honest and diplomatic way. That's good, not bad. Many of them considered your questions inappropriate because they dealt with attributes such as personal beliefs and religion, which shouldn't come into question during adminiship. I don't see why the comments of many people, who aren't at all wierdos, on the support votes are insulting. But yes, I personally did not consider the questions insulting or anything - I enjoyed having these discussions on this page, and I like having discussions with people about personal viewpoints and all the like. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 07:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I made you look good, Ron. I put you in a good light with those questions, but I didn't ask about your religion. I was just using that as an example. --Anittas 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for that! I never said I didn't enjoy talking to you, on this page and on other pages :) But many people (such as Sunray below) felt that those questions would better have been asked on a talk page. Personally, I don't think that's the case - it's good to know about people, and asking me those sorts of questions on this candidacy page is perfectly fine. Ronline: National Day of Romania 1 December 16 years of freedom and loving it! 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, where do you guys think you are??? This is the Requests for adminship page not the Debate how many angst-ridden former members of the Soviet empire can sit on the head of a pin page. Would you be able to take this debate somewhere else? If not, just put a cork in it. Sunray 08:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We like it this way. --Anittas 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)