Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anittas, you do not seem to understand even now that your comments were offensive. You repeatedly laughed at Node and made veiled allusions to the fact that he is gay - i.e. "He has this thing against girls". You taunted him by saying "I like females, but Node doesn't". That's a personal attack. It's also discriminatory because you're picking Node particularly and making a reference to his sexual orientation when it isn't appropriate to do so. It would be just like me saying "Hi. I'm Ronline. I'm Romanian, but Node isn't" or "Hi. I'm Ronline. I'm white, but User XYZ isn't". As far as I know, gay people have nothing against girls, and if you think that that's what being gay is all about, then you should probably read more on the issue. Node was insulted by those statements because he felt that he was being targeted because he was gay, and that you were constantly taunting him due to this fact.

As to the anti-Jewish comment - it was insulting due to its tone. By the way you wrote it, you seem to have made a big deal of the fact that Node is Jewish, as if this somehow makes him unworthy of commenting on Alex Bakharev's page! You mixed ethnicity/religion into something that shouldn't have been about that sort of stuff. As to the anti-Russian comment: it came in response to Oleg saying to you that you should stop making the anti-gay statements. Instead of explaining why you made those statements, you instead launched a personal attack against Oleg claiming that he was Russian (which he isn't). By saying "I think you want an excuse for another RfC and I see you're still a Russian. Return to your roots, first, and then we talk. Okay? ;)", it suggests that just because he is Russian you refuse to talk to him. This was not an issue about Moldova or anything that's, say, to do with a certain ethnicity. It was something nation-neutral about user conduct. For that reason, rubbing it under Oleg's nose that he's Russian (which, again, he isn't) makes it look very much like a personal attack and an insult. It's a racist remark. I hope you understand now. If, in good faith, you really have doubts about the grounds for the RfC, I would love to clarify.

Finally, despite what you said here, my intention is not to get you banned. This is not some sneaky conspiracy against you trying to find reasons to get you banned. Rather, I'm concerned most of all that people are making anti-LGBT comments and about incivility in general. My intention is to stop this sort of thing happening. Ronline ✉ 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for you to put more effort into this. You will get your way, if not by proof, then by popularity. I've made a lot of enemies and this will be their chance to get back at me, regardless of their stand on the issue. I wrote "JEW" in capital letters to underscore what he is and that was in context with him claiming Moldovan ethnicity - which is false. He is not Moldovan and he is not Moldovan Jew. I don't know what he is, but it doesn't involve Moldovan. As for why you started this; I'm sure you did it for "political purposes" or because you took something I said to Node personal. Whatever it is, I'm sure your intentions were not honourable. You came to my talkpage and interrogated me (mai tras de limba) without clarifying that you intended to start a RfC, while at the same time adding references to Oleg's page where he collected proof on me. You basically came to provoke me while adding new sources to the RfC. --Anittas 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, if your intention was to say

I don't know what he is, but it doesn't involve Moldovan

You should've said just that and leave his religious beliefs aside. If you had done that, nothing would've happened. And, by the way, I don't know how involved in Internet and emails you are, but usually writing something in all caps denotes yelling or aggresiveness. But somehow I think you already knew that. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, believe what you will, but my intention to start this RfC was definitely not political. I did not come on your talk page to interrogate you and gather proof for an RfC, but because I genuinely wanted to solve the dispute and ask why you were making such comments. It was there that I found out about Oleg's page and I added references because I felt that the comments you were making - and your responses to them - were not acceptable. I am putting effort into this because my aim is justice. If someone comes up and blocks you now, I guarantee that I will ask for a justification and explain to them why such a block is not justified. My intention is not to get this over and done with by popularity, or to take advantage of the fact that you've made enemies to get back at you. Why would I get back at you? I've never had a personal conflict with you before this. Why then do you claim that my intentions aren't honorable? My intentions are to prevent discrimination and insult on Wikipedia and to ensure that no user is treated unfairly. It is for this reason that I took a stance against your anti-gay statements, since this is what disappointed me the most. It was then that I realised that you also made anti-Jewish and anti-Russian statements, which I also felt were insulting and made users feel uncomfortable and discriminated against. That's my only reason for starting this RfC. Ronline ✉ 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Node and Ron

Node, I heard that a steward removed you as Sysop on Mo Wiki because you abused your tools. Well, I'm sure there are other tools of yours that you abuse, but this is no good reason to take out your frustation on me.

Ron, you speak of justice. What justice? Where was this justice when Node reverted and spread propaganda about our country? Where was justice when he managed to provoke people into insanity and have other moderators block them? Wiki is not about justice. Wiki is about enforcing the policy, or, arbitration. Someone already explained that to you in your failed Arbitration Committee Election, but I see that you still don't understand; however, this is no good reason to take our your frustation on me. And do you really think that by becoming involved in Wiki arbitration, your online experience would become richer? Do you think that you would meet new, interesting people and learn new ways that would develop your horizon? This is just some role-playing bullshit, dude. It's better to mind your own business, edit articles, and from time to time, relax by talking to Node about chicks and stuff. Nice justice you have created here, though. A gathering of Russians and Jews nationalists, or whatever, who want to see me crucified. This is not about justice, because if it were, evidence would not be up to your interpretation. What you presented was not evidence. You could try to prove a pattern in my behaviour, and from there, draw some logical conclusions, but you can't call it evidence when it's not clear. You don't seem to understand that. --Anittas 05:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants you crucified, and nobody takes their frustration on you. Maybe you view the world with that kind of glasses, but most people are nice and just want to get along.
I disagree with a lot of what Node ue has to say, and recently I've been thinking that some of his information might not be accurate/up-to-date. But that is no excuse to hurl insults on a 16 year-old kid. And most of your comments were not as "nice" as saying "he just doesn't like girls".
Unlike Bonaparte, you seem to actually be a productive editor. You just need to learn to treat your opponents with respect. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that you couldn't understand Russian words. I wonder why. Is it perhaps because Moldovan, or Romanian, is not a Slavic language? If Node apologizes to us for intentionally spreading propaganda, then things would get better. --Anittas 06:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, nobody is taking their frustration out on you. You seem to think that for some reason we're out to get you or we're making secret conspiracies that are intentionally trying to have you banned. That's definitely not the case. The point is that you still think that it's OK to talk to Node "about chicks and stuff", when you know very well that he finds that stuff insulting in the mocking way that you address it to him. The Wikipedia community is, in my opinion, about justice, because a sustainable, vibrant community can only be formed when there is a sense of justice and fairness. That one person (User:Avriette) who voted against me on my ArbCom candidature said Wikipedia is about arbitration is his/her point of view. It's not absolute truth. Secondly, you keep on accusing me of role-playing, or somehow trying to do this to show that I'm fit for ArbCom. That's definitely not the case, again. I'm trying to bring about justice, to make sure that no user is taunted or attacked by others. Most importantly, however, you allege that there has been some double standards applied, and I will explain to you now why this is not the case. You and a lot of other Romanian contributors kept screaming throughout "block Node, block Node, he called us sperm". You don't seem to understand that that was never the case. No matter how much other people told you that. While Node may have made anti-Romanian edits, and while he has a very very alternative point of view on some controversial issues, he never engaged in ad hominem attacks against any Romanian contributor. And what propaganda in particular did Node spread about Romania? If you find me a good-faith example of Node doing any of that in a malicious or insulting way, I guarantee that I will pursue it. If I find that Node comes up to you and says "Stay out of our Moldovan matters, you're not Moldovan, you're a ROMANIAN! A ROMANIAN!!", I will definitely apply the same treatment to him - I will investigate and then start an RfC if the situation escalates. Remember, just because you hate Node does not give you the right to insult him based on his sexual orientation or ethnicity. Ronline ✉ 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not just to have people vote against you simply because of past disagreements. It would have been just if each case would have been judged separately. What we have here is a mob-gathering where every all members of my fanclub wait to see me drink the hemlock. --Anittas 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
But none of your so-called enemies have even come here to express their comments! Most comments have been by neutral people like Oleg and Sebastian Kessel and Chris S and Humus sapiens. As to drinking the hemlock, it's not as if this RfC will result in a block for you or anything. It's simply a way to communicate with each other and try to solve the conflict. Ronline ✉ 07:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the people you mentioned are neutral. Oleg was the one to collect the so-called evidence on me and Chris is a pal of Node. Sebastian is also a Jew and he warned me on my talkpage. He can't be objective in this. Humus is also a Jew, probably a pal of Node, and probably a homo-sexual, too. If you call that neutral...

A RfC can result in consequences taken by the role-playing Arb Committee. --Anittas 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's only if someone is not satisfied with the results of the RfC and wants to start an RfArbCom against you. I think everyone so far has acted neutrally and in good faith. I don't know why you imagine everyone as biased and out-to-get-you but that's definitely not the case. People are genuinely concerned about your comments. Instead of just dismissing all of them as biased, unfair, without evidence, not neutral, you should actually consider some of their comments. Ronline ✉ 08:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell me one single person who so-far, is satisfied with this RfC. They will all ask for my ban. Even Alexander, whom I defended in the past, implied that I should get a short ban - tho not a long one - and you agreed. Perhaps you are pleased with this attention-seeking RfC. Let them ban me. It won't change a thing. Node will still not be a Moldovan. --Anittas 08:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't imply that you should get a short ban, just that a short ban is not out of the question/and that your latest controversial edits are so controversial that it would seem as if I am brushing them aside if I did not leave the suggestion of a short ban there. I paid off whatever debt I had to you in RfC1, by the way, but I'm still trying to cool down people here who may be out for a witch-hunt. Alexander 007 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not about repaying a debt. It's about Node not being a Moldovan, but a Jew, and my right to say it. Another thing that I've noticed about you is that whenever you go crazy on your talkpage, and I go there and get crazy, too, you restore yourself to normality and take the role of Big Brother. But, if someone does the opposite, then you take the role of a rebel. WTF! --Anittas 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If you see this edit as me trying to play Big Brother, well... I see it as damage control, and my honest opinion on this RfC2. Alexander 007 08:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not here, but on your talkpage. --Anittas 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I apologize if I ever acted like that, but it may not be a case of Big-Brotherism, but a case of your brand of rowdy-ness causing me to recall the virtues of calmness ;) ... and 007 has to regain his coolness, at least after the bullets are fired if not while shooting. This page is about your RfC2 by the way.Alexander 007 08:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done, Ron

In your RfA, I asked you some questions that many housewives disproved of. You were calm and in controlling, which impressed many and gave you several votes that specifically referred to your handling of the situation. Now, you start a RfC on me to show your skills, again, and look! You've already gotten new votes in your support from people who read your comments here. Sure, you go ahead and play the wise sage. --Anittas 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghirla and his Flamers

Ghirlandajo either misinterpreted what went on on Category talk:Wikipedia flamers, or he is deliberately totally skewing the discourse now that the page has been deleted. However, Izehar was a witness and he may remember the actual substance of the conversation, as I do: Anittas created Category:Wikipedia flamers and added himself to it. I had his page on watch at the time, and shortly after he did that I went to the Category talk and explained that "flamers" is also a common slang for "flaming faggot", after which Anittas removed himself from the category. He then told me, "You won't tell anyone about this [adding himself to the Wikipedia flamers category] and I won't tell people that you like to wear womens' underwear", to which I responded "Excellent.". Anittas then added User:Node ue to the category. The only participants on that talk page were me, Anittas, Izehar, and Ghirlandajo. Alexander 007 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

LOLOLOL! --Anittas 09:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you no longer have my userpage watched? --Anittas 09:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do, but I had it off-watch for about a week recently. Alexander 007 09:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? --Anittas 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it was a busy page and I had a busy watchlist and I did a severe trimming of my watchlist recently, afterwards restoring some. Are we dating? Why did you ask me "Why?" Alexander 007 09:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to know why. Just don't remove it again. --Anittas 09:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
For me, the flamers thing is a non-issue. If Ghirlandajo wants to raise it, he can, but since there's no real evidence on that, and it's too far back anyway, I don't think it should be brought into this RfC, other than as a contextual element. Ronline ✉ 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have the solution

If Node stops spreading false propaganda about Moldovan language not being identical to Romanian and admits that Moldovans are also northern Vlachs, then everything will be settled. --Anittas 09:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

But there is a big difference between that and what you've done. Node's conflict with you is an ideological one - it's based on different interpretations of facts. Your conflict with Node is a personal one - it's based on personal characteristics such as sexual orientation and religion. Node's POV is that Moldovan is a separate language (even though he admits that Romanian = Moldovan) and that Moldovans are a separate ethnicity. He does have some quite alternative, to say the least, points of view in this regard. However, I think bullying him into changing that point of view by making anti-gay statements is quite unacceptable, as I have said before. You're sort of trying, from the statement above, to force Node to accept your point of view or otherwise you will continue insulting him on a totally different issue. For you, the only way to settle the issue (i.e. to stop acting the way you have) is for Node to apologise and say that his point of view is wrong. Well, the only way that can ever be done is if you adequately convince Node that his point of view is wrong. In any case, that topic is outside the scope of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, unless it escalates to edit warring or personal attacks. The best thing to do would be to talk to Node about these points of view, rather than clouding the issue with ad hominem statements. Additionally, the reason why an RfC was never made against Node is because he hasn't made any significant personal attacks. The things he said were based on ideologies and points of views on certain issues. No-one can start an RfC against you when you say "Moldovan is different from Romanian" or "Seto is not a dialect of Estonian". Ronline ✉ 10:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some background to that comment from Anittas

This edit from Anittas, execrable as it definitely is, was surely provoked by this edit from Node ue, which is execrable in its misrepresentation of the Moldovan language. For the problems with Node's fictional version of Moldovan, see User_talk:Node ue#Question about moldovan words, where User:Node ue is corrected by a Moldovan with partly Russian background, Oleg Alexandrov. It is quite understandable when Anittas states that Node_ue is not a Moldovan and he does not speak Moldovan, after Anittas reads something like that; as for Anittas and his "JEW" fixation, that's an issue of his that I can't approve of, but a long ban is extreme here, considering Node's Moldovan language skills compared to his Moldovan language claims (see Node's campaign in Moldovan language). Node is definitely provoking things when he makes such claims (evidently false, as shown by Oleg) and makes them with such an irritating air of assumed "intimate knowledge" of Moldovan, which he does not have, as we see. Alexander 007 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, why are we even talking of bans here? This is not ArbCom! This is the first step in dispute resolution and it's mainly an attempt at trying to solve the dispute peacefully and with community consultation. Secondly, I totally agree that Node's theories are sometimes annoying, particularly as you say, because they are said with a conviction that they're 100% true. I don't know, perhaps this sort of thing shows us how to open our minds. Until now, Node's statements are not enough to warrant an RfC, since they haven't really been personal attacks, but it's true that Node should be more careful about what he says. Ronline ✉ 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree strongly. Mikka's idea has merit: both bound over to keep the peace, as it were. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence no. 6

Evidence no. 6 is added after the vote of the statement. Please review. --Vasile 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence number 6 was also presented in an improper manner, as evidence of "racist" behavior. Even if all the editors whom the comment was addressed at were Islamic, the most that can be inferred from that comment alone is anti-Islamic sentiment; Islam is not a race, however. On the other hand, if Anittas had referred to a person or people of middle-eastern background as "Taliban" for no good reason, that would indicate a racist remark. The dispute on that page however indicates at most anti-Islamic sentiment from Anittas; at the least, only a statement against Islamic extremism. Alexander 007 05:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a bunch of stuff

Who the hell added the Taleban evidence there? What a rook! The Talebans can burn in hell! There, add that to your retarded evidence, you noob (whoever you are)! What a bunch of n00bs! You are all so 0wned. I used to take this RfC in a half-serious matter, but now I see that this RfC is ran by a bunch of housewives who lack logic and who can't present their case in a credible matter. --Anittas 05:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You 0wned n00blets, read:
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.
This is not Judgement Day, you hopeless n00b! --Anittas 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Anittas has raised a good point here. This RfC should not be broadened to include all of the wrongs Anittas has done, because it really makes everything very confusing. This RfC is only about those things that Anittas said and which he was informed about and which we tried to come to resolution to: the anti-gay statements, the anti-Jewish statement on Alex's RfA and the anti-Russian statement to Oleg. To start an RfC against the other statements, you first have to show evidence of trying to resolve the dispute. So far, Anittas was only attentioned regarding the above, and not the Taliban statement. I don't mind it's inclusion, but this should definitely not become some sort of group attack against Anittas where everyone can take out their frustration. That was never the point. Ronline ✉ 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 ::: There was no anti-Jewish statement, ever. You guys must be smoking something fancy if you still think my statement was against Jews. If Jmabel and others want a pound of my flesh, it's their problem - not mine. I don't owe you anything. It's just that Node is not a Moldovan. He is an American-Russian-Jew. And what I said about the Talebans is right one - they are filth. I'm not going to hide and anyone can quote me on that - even if taken from out-of-context. Now, what n00b added that to the evidence? I don't mind. I just want to laugh in his face, that's all. --Anittas 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ronline, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that in the above two or 3 paragraphs, Anittas just called people names again. Look all over this RfC and the talkpage, and you will see Anittas continuing his ad hominem attacks. Even though this is the second RfC against him, he's still not taking it seriously. He seems to think that he has a right to harass me. Maybe in the real world, it's not illegal for him to spew such hatespeech. But on Wikipedia, it's not allowed. How surreal is it that he's actually continuing the very behaviour for which this RfC was started, on the RfC itself and on its talkpage? Seriously? Can we add that to the evidence section or something? --Node 05:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Where are these ad hominem attacks? --Anittas 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you called people "n00bs". The fact that you talked about "retarded evidence", and "but now I see that this RfC is ran by a bunch of housewives who lack logic and who can't present their case in a credible matter". Ronline ✉ 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that. Well, okay, but whoever added that to the list of evidence had it coming. The argument of this RfC is rather weak. Anyway, who added my Taleban comments to the evidence? We know that the Taleban hated women: they stoned them, burned them, and allowed others to punish them for so-called "sexual offences" by throwing acid in their face. Now, who else hates women? Hmmm...let me think. --Anittas 06:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The subject of this RFC is Anittas' violation WP policies: WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Whatever is relevant to this subject should be brought to attention. If someone sees continuous caustic remarks and namecalling of fellow WPians justified by a noble cause, such as defense of women, please [re]read those policies. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct: allegations of anti-Semitism, anti-gayness (or however this is termed), racism, or even religious bigotry are not the actual subjects of this RfC, though people seek to throw these in the pot. Let's focus on the concrete subjects of this RfC: violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and what course of action should be pursued. Alexander 007 07:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Anittas, watch your language please. One can be very expressive and yet use good language. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The person who added the Taliban evidence was User:Anonymous editor. Secondly, you made another veiled attack against Node just now, by saying "Now, who else hates women? Hmmm...let me think." Anittas - please refrain from making these sorts of comments. Firstly, because they're untrue and secondly because they're insulting. I said it above and I'll say it again - if you think being gay is about "hating women" then please read more on this subject. Ronline ✉ 07:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Node continues to be passive-aggresive, as well as aggresive

See, this User:Node ue likes to piss people off:User talk:Jim62sch#Bonaparte. Stating that a good, sound editor such as AdiJapan may be a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte? Yikes! That's a personal attack if I ever saw one! Atrocious defamation. No wonder Node becomes the subject of personal attacks in turn. Action, reaction. I'm not joking here: I'm serious that this Node fella needs to change his act as well, if he really wants a lovey-dovey work atmosphere in Wikipedia---but does he want that?....interesting question. Alexander 007 13:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, are you implying that Node_ue is a Wikipedia:Troll who is trying to cause trouble? Never! I'm sure that Node_ue, like everyone else (including Bonaparte) is striving for Wikipedia's neutrality, accuracy and friendship amongst editors. Izehar 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic, Izehar? --Anittas 14:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Moi, jamais! I am just having some trouble distinguishing troll from troll. Izehar 14:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If we are all trolls to you, why did you then pick his side? Is it because he is a better troll? --Anittas 14:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not about Node here, is about Anittas actions against him. Node can do whatever he pleases, you can have an RfC against him regarding his actions. Don't try to play "blame the victim" here. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Node's remark relates to this RfC because it shows how he likes to provoke me. --Anittas 15:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian dearest, my brilliant friend, I am not "blaming the victim", rather showing that this is a two-way street. Alexander 007 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling me dearest or friend. I am neither to you. I consider it patronizing. Thanks. And, by the way, this is not a two-way street, this RfC is against Anittas. Start one against Node if you want to argue that case. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This RfC is not a two-way street, but editing in Wikipedia is. I blame User:Node ue as well as User:Anittas for the way things unfolded. If a man punches you in the face---hard---then you gather yourself and punch him in the face---harder---and you end up unintentionally killing the man with that one punch (he would then be your victim), I wonder what you will say about "blaming the victim (sic)". Alexander 007 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This RfC IS a two-way street, as is anything else. If you bring up the reaction, bring also up the action. In any court room or any other kind of judgemental process, people always look at the motive of the disagreement or crime. This is no exception. And again, no-one said anything about religion. --Candide, or Optimism 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"You're not Moldovan, you're a JEW". That's religion. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
NO, it's not. If it were about religion, I would've said, "You're not Christian, you're Jew". Don't put words in my mouth, please. If you don't know what's going on, don't say anything. --Candide, or Optimism 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't put words in your mouth, you do. like you did here. The word "Jew" denotes a person of Jewish religion. Please, don't try to be cute, there is no need to. Lastly, you should try to avoid put-downs such as this "If you don't know what's going on, don't say anything.", they are offensive, aggresive and they won't accomplish absolutely anything. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Jew can either refer to the religion of Judaism or the ethnicity. I meant the latter. End of discussion. --Candide, or Optimism 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ethnic Jew. Obviously, Anittas was referring to the Ethnic Jew concept, regardless of what Sebastian may believe about that concept. Alexander 007 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I meant it's not a two-way street in the sense that Node is not liable to be regulated for his wrongs here, in this RfC. I implied no more, and Sebastian should not imply more. Node's wrongs, however, must be brought up and detailed, because they are the background---the action vis-a-vis your reaction. Alexander 007 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"This RfC is not a two-way street". That's all I care about. The "punch in the street" analogy doesn't apply here. Wikipedia Policy does. When you bring an RfC against Node, I'll comment on HIS actions. In any event, the religious commentary was off the line anyway, saying "You can't talk, you're not Moldovan" wouldn't have brought an RfC and it was a perfectly plausible response. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not about to defend Anittas' response. Yet, though this RfC indeed is not a two-way street---because in this RfC we are not looking to consider taking action or what not against Node ue (which is for his RfC)---if Anittas is to be regulated by Wikipedia policies for those comments of his which are under discussion, we should consider the background, the context, etc. Alexander 007 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
(reset tabs) You are indeed correct in the context, but Node is being villified and attacked. That goes beyond the "contexting the situation". Thanks for explaining and clarifying what you meant but your sentence "I'm serious that this Node fella needs to change his act as well, if he really wants a lovey-dovey work atmosphere in Wikipedia---but does he want that?....interesting question." did more than contexting, it even recommended a remedy for him. I should've assumed good faith, but maybe you can see why I got confused. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Node is sixteen - if you are older, you can't really expect him to be the mature one. Anyway, IMO everything that can be said in this RfC has been said, so I think it's about time it were closed. Izehar 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly - I think what Node did in regards to User talk:Jim62sch#Bonaparte is quite inappropriate. I think there is absolutely nothing pointing to the fact that people like AdiJapan may be sockpuppets of Bonaparte. For that reason, a detailed checkuser into that should never be conducted (well, now that a cursory check is done and there is no evidence to support Node's claims, I suppose it's become a non-issue). It's quite unfortunate that people can just go and request checkusers on other users without having a good grounding as to why they are doing so. In this way, IPs of innocent users are revealed - privacy is breached, if you like - without any real grounding as to why this should be done. This is just a personal opinion, but like the changing in the interface at mo.wiki just so it can be different from Romanian, these seem to examples of an attempt to try and get some revenge. Node - this RfC is testament to the fact that action is being taken regarding the personal attacks against you. If you're not satisfied, you can start an RfArbCom. If you ever feel wronged on Wikipedia, there are a wide range of dispute resolution mechanisms. But to me, things like going and asking for checkuser queries to investigate users like Anittas and AdiJapan - that you know as well are not Bonaparte - seem inappropriate. At the Moldovan Wikipedia vote, it's a different matter, but here, I don't even know what dispute they're alleged to have contributed in together, in a fishy way, that led you to believe they were sockpuppets. Again, I'm not taking sides here in regards to Anittas' RfC. I disagree with what Node did in regards to the sockpuppet check, but that doesn't really make Anittas' statements any better, which came before Node's recent actions. Secondly - the fact that Node is sixteen shouldn't make a difference. It shouldn't be the cause of discrimination (so far it has to an extent, with people calling him "kid", etc) but neither should it be the source of protection. The fact that he is 16 doesn't mean we "can't really expect him to be the mature one". Wikipedia has no discrimination based on age, and never should. A very large part of the community is under 18. Thirdly, I agree that this RfC should be closed. Ronline ✉ 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ronline, I think you misunderstood the nature of my request to Jim62sch. It was not a checkuser request, rather, it was a request for a forensic linguistic analysis to determine authorship (more specifically, if any of that stuff was written by "Bonaparte"). With users like Bonaparte who use many different proxies and have sockpuppet farms, a checkuser is of little or no use.
Also, please read my message to him again. It notes that I don't really believe AdiJapan could be a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, but that he might be checked anyhow just in case. It was only Anittas, Just a Tag, and Constanteanu who I wondered much about. --Node 16:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Node, can't you really tell the difference between AdiJapan & Bonaparte?!? FYI, AdiJapan is a sysop on Romanian wiki, do you really think he would need sockpuppets that would do the oposite of what he is. I say: go ahead with the check, it will only prove what we're all saying from some time now: AdiJapan is one person & Bonaparte is another person. --Vlad 17:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Node - I'm sorry about mistaking that for a checkuser query. I just didn't get what you were saying by forensic lingustic analysis (i.e. I didn't take it literally!). I still think a forensic analysis is quite controversial. I understand that you didn't really believe AdiJapan was a sockpuppet, but then what's the point of analysing his language? But anyway, that case has been solved now, so it's no use arguing over it. I'm just sorry about the misunderstanding; my comment above was a bit too rashly written. Ronline ✉ 07:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of treason

Elsewhere, recently, since the start of this RFC, Anittas has accused Ronline an Orioane of treason. -- Jmabel | Talk 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Seeing that a couple of the participants on this talk page don't speak Romanian, I'm taking the liberty to translate this article. Those here with better mastery of Romanian than me (like Ronline and Jmabel) are free to correct or improve on the translation:


Translated Declaration:

I declare Node the enemy of Romania and of the Romanian people, north and south of the Danube, while I declare all those who support him traitors of Romania and of the Romanian people, south and north of the Danube. These traitors, so far, are Ronline and Orioane. Look what Node wrote not long ago:

"here follows a post by Node in English"

I don't want to have anything to do with these traitors of the country. Only Vasile and Alex fought for what is right. The rest of you were doing nothing.


Again, feel free to improve on the text or correct whatever mistakes I might have made. Anclation 13:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interleaved comments

The insertion of comments between paragraphs of a statement in an RfC is inappropriate. The ArbCom has been known to find making interleaved comments in an RfC to be a form of bad faith. A user conduct RfC is used when other, less formal methods of communication have failed. The parties to it need to be very careful to leave the statements by other parties alone. Robert McClenon 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)