Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas 2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

(Anittas | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

User:Anittas has, in the past few days, made a number of insulting comments against LGBT people, mainly addressed towards User:Node ue. These comments were first made in a joking manner, and followed on from multiple insulting anti-gay statements made previously. However, after being asked to apologise and told that the comments he was making were insulting, Anittas refused to do so and continued making further personal attacks. He also made a personal attack against User:Node ue due to the fact that he is Jewish and against User:Oleg Alexandrov because he is Russian. I've talked to him multiple times in the past few days both on his talk page and via e-mail. Other users have also tried to calm down the dispute, and Node ue has said that he is personally insulted by these remarks. While I've collaborated amiably with Anittas previously, I think any form of discrimination and insult against things like people's sexual orientation and ethnicity/religion should not be tolerated. Ronline ✉ 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Initial instance of harassment based on Node's sexual orientation
Anittas' talk page, permalink, showing attempts my multiple users to solve the conflict and Anittas' quite inflammatory remarks - please see the "Anti-gay statements relating to Node", "Statement", "Personal attacks against Node ue" and "Formal warning" sections. In particular, see 1, 2, 3
a comment by Anittas on his own User Page, which is apparently harassing Node and his sexual orientation.
Insulting remark made to Node ue on Alex Bakharev's RfA page
Racist statement to Oleg Alexandrov
Personal attacks against editors who Anittas didn't agree with, where Anittas seems to be equating the editors with members of the Taliban.

Offensive jokes against Node ue's sexuality

1
2
3

Other offensive statements

[1]
[2]

Addendum by User:Ghirlandajo[edit]

I didn't follow Anittas's bullying of Node that closely, but may recall an episode when Anittas added Node to the self-initiated Category:Wikipedia Flamers. There was a nasty talk going on the cat talk (now deleted) between Anittas and Alexander007 explaining a rationale for this category to the effect that "flamer is a shortened form of flaming faggot", etc.

Not to mention his other unsolicited interventions on Node's page in order to intimidate him.

Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to Anittas's deep-rooted prejudice towards Russians: "Change your name to a Romanian one, then we talk" and "he could take any name that doesn't sound Russian!".

Applicable policies[edit]

WP:CIVIL - Civility
WP:NPA - No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Ronline ✉ 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar ^(שיחה) He ought to have learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas.
Node 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with Izehar.[reply]
←Humus sapiens ←ну? 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chris S. 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mihai -^talk 07:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cecropia 08:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla | talk 08:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David | Talk 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC). Anittas' defence is unconvincing and I would like him to acknowledge that he understands No Personal Attacks.[reply]
Vlad 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) although I do not consider the cited remarks against Node to be terribly strong in themselves, and they may not (initially) have been malicious in intent, after Node stated he found them offensive it is clearly unacceptable to continue. Also this [3] is beyond the pale, and it's that diff in particular which leads me to endorse the judgment of others that Anittas is being deliberately provocative. There is no call for that kind of thing.[reply]
mikka (t) 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC). See also my OutView.[reply]
Irpen 02:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Olessi 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathunder 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dalf | Talk 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show no tolerance for this behaviour. Gaybashing cannot be permitted. If Anittas needs convincing of that, give him 24 hours to think about it every time he even mentions gayness. Grace Note 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Anittas[edit]

Is this April 1 or January 12? I see no evidence, whatsoever, from Ron about his accusations towards me. Here are Ron's accusations:

Ron's argument: Initial anti-gay statement made to Node ue

What I had said: "He has this thing against girls"

My argument: where is the anti-gay statement? That could mean anything. That comment doesn't mention his sexual preference or anything of the sort.

Ron's argument: Anittas' talk page, permalink, showing attempts my multiple users to solve the conflict and Anittas' quite inflammatory remarks

My argument: I don't see anyone attempting to solve the conflict. What I see is several users warning and ordering me to apologize, without explaining what it is that I should apologize for. For instance, user:Humus sapiens gave me a so-called "Formal warning" with the ultimatum that I apologize to Node, but they did not explain what a "Formal warning" is; they did not clarify whether he had the authority to issue such a warning; and they did not explain the consequences - if any - on my refusal to apologize to Node.

I then asked Humus why I should apologize, and Humus answered, and I quote: "The way you used the word "Jew" is offensive". I then asked Humus how I could use the word "Jew" without making it offensive. Humus did not answer my question, but someone else said that I should use it without making it a "pejorative". I deny the implication that I used the word "Jew" as a pejorative.

Ronline followed-up by saying, and I quote: "The problem, however, is the way you capitalised Jew and then said "You do not speak Moldovan, JEW!". This indicates an offensive tone."

There are two things to consider here; firstly, Ronline implies that writing the word "Jew" in capital letters is a problem; and secondly, Ron says that it indicates an offensive tone, which to me, means that Ron perceived it that way (it indicates). An indication is usually based on speculation or perception of an act. A speculation or a perception of an act is not evidence and cannot be counted as evidence. I also will like to say that so far, I am not aware of any Wiki policy that says we cannot use capital letters.

The only users that might be in the right, in that discussion, was Sebastian Kessel and Zoe who warned me not to make slurs. They were not very specific in their warning, but I suspect that they had a problem with me telling the people involved to "fuck off from my talk page."

Ron also claims that the following comments by me are personal attacks against Node:

"You know that photo of yours? I think it's time for that? ;)"

My comment: What is the description of this so-called attack? How do we know it is an attack? I asked Node a question about a photo of his and said that it's time "for that". In what way does this make a personal attack? I think it's Ron's responsibility to make his argument clear for the viewers so that no-one is left out in the dark.

Ron also claimed that this is a personal attack. In what way is it a personal attack, if I may ask? Did a photo of a girl offend Node? I'm sorry, but it's not enough to say that a certain thing is a personal attack, unless you argue what MAKES it a personal attack.

Ron then says that this, too, is a personal attack, where I said:

"Don't lecture me on my talkpage or anywhere. I'm glad you're admin and all that, and I understand you need to show a balanced judgement after you blocked Mikka, but please leave me me be."

My comment: What makes this a personal attack? In fact, what makes this anything that is supposed to be bad? The comment shows that I ask Ron to leave me alone on my talkpage - a request that he would not honour - and my comment also shows that he had no credibility to me.

Ron then argues that I made an "Anti-gay message against Node. Here is this so-called anti-gay message:

"I am Anittas. I'm Romanian. I took this nickname after the second king of the Hittites. I'm male - not female. I like females, but Node doesn't. The best article started by me is Battle of Vaslui."

What makes this anti-gay? The fact that I wrote that Node doesn't like females? Is this anti-gay? If that comment is supposed to be anti-gay, may I ask how it is anti-gay? I mean, logically, if Node is a homo-sexual, and women does not appease him, and I say this, it is anti-gay? I don't quite understand the logic, and since Ron will not argue his reasoning, I am forced to speculate and predict the way he tried to reason.

Ron then argues that I insulted Node on another user's talkpage. Here is the so-called insult:

"Can someone please tell this JEW - not Moldovan, but JEW - that he doesn't know Moldovan, but is only protending to speak the language? You do not speak Moldovan, JEW!"

My comment: as it was argued by Ron in previous accusations, he believes that writing "Jew" in capital letters makes it a problem. I don't agree, but if someone can direct me to a Wiki policy where it says that writing in capital letters is an offence, then I might have to admit that Ron is correct - tho I'm not aware of such a rule. As for the rest of what was said, I stand by of what I said: Node is not Moldovan and he doesn't speak the language. This is what I think and I base these opinions on my personal observations. I claim the right to have personal opinions.

Ron then argues that I made a racist comment to Oleg A. when 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? ;)"

My comment: I fail to see the racism in the message. Can Ron show us what he deems as a racist comment? It's clear that in the message, I ask the user to return to their roots, first. Is that the racist part of the message, or is it where I say that he's still a Russian?

Ron then gives us a list of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". In this list of evidence, we see Ron, Oleg, and others, asking me repeatedly to stop making anti-gay statements, but as I have showed here, so far, they don't seem to specify what they mean by anti-gay statements. I just don't agree that they are anti-gay statements. When I say that Node doesn't like girls, then I don't see that as an anti-gay statement. [Why does Ron and Oleg then ask me to stop making such comments]? Node followed-up with a request that I apologize to him for making homophobic messages and he claimed to be offended, but because I don't agree that my messages were neither homophobic, nor personal attacks, I did not apologize.

Oleg asks me, again, that what I do is wrong and against Wiki policy, but without explaining why it is wrong and against Wiki policy.

I then deny all accusations that I discriminate Node and say:

"I'm not discriminating him. I don't tell him to stop being gay or that he should have less rights than others. I'm just laughing at him, that's all. Is there an anti-laugh policy on Wiki?"

Ron then says:

"Yes, there is. Because laughing at anyone because they're LGBT - or because they're of a different race, gender, appearance, etc - is discrimination under the vast majority of definitions. This makes you appear as homophobic. The point here, however, isn't discrimination per se. Rather, it's about insult and personal attacks, and you comments are considered that - see WP:NPA - where it says: Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. Thanks"

My comment: first of all, all I said is that I like to laugh at Node, but I did not say that I like to laugh at Node because he's homo-sexual. This is another of Ron's speculations. For the record, I also like to laugh at Ron, and I also like to laugh at Homer Simpson and George W. Bush, for reasons of my own. That doesn't mean that I discriminate them.

I am sorry if my argument is poor, but I did not know how to respond to Ron's arguments, because he doesn't seem to have any arguments. He only posted references to various messages where I conversed with people. In fact, someone who knows me from another forum tried to explain to Ron that I was not anti-gay, because I defended the gay rights in that other forum. However, it seems that Ron, Oleg, and others, continued with their bold assumptions that I discriminated Node, that I made anti-gay statements, racist remarks, etc., but the only thing I see where I might have violated Wiki policy is, as I have mentioned earlier, where I asked the people involved to "fuck off from my talk page". I was, however, warned by two admins and have yet not repeated the offense. I used a harsh language because when I was being civil, I was not listened to. I asked Ron to stop posting on my talkpage. I asked Oleg to never post on my talkpage months back. It doesn't seem to have helped, so I kindly asked them to "fuck off", which i think was polite enough, because I used the word "kindly".

If Ron will present new arguments for his case, I will promptly reply to them. Thank you.

I've replied to the issues you raised at the talk page of this page.

Ronline ✉ 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're sarcasm is disgusting. There is no way of politely telling somebody to "f**k off". Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Comments to Addendum by Ghirlandajo[edit]

I think you're supposed to post that in "Outside views", below the main case. And yeah, Angelina is hot. I don't understand why she was removed from his userpage. Ir fitted right in.--Anittas 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because she is pregnant with Brad Pitt's baby... --TintoRetto 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie, a mere publicity stunt. She's pregnant with my baby. Alexander 007 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine how beautiful their children will be? Damn! --Anittas 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens[edit]

I was not aware of the previous RFC or even the existence of Anittas. After seeing a comment I thought is alarming, I assumed good faith and tried to resolve the issue on his talk page because violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA are detrimental to our community. Frankly, I've rarely seen anyone given so many opportunities to correct offensive behavior and to save face. At this point, I simply do not believe that Anittas is as naive as he tries to convince us, while at the same time being sarcastic and inviting others to "enjoy a good Wiki drama". The Eastern European history (that evidently he knows well) is intertwined with the Jewish history. Also, I do not believe that after the earlier "Wiki drama" he was genuine in saying "I don't know what the LGBT community is." ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I really didn't know what the LGBT was. How would I know? Do you think I check on that stuff? I like lesbians, but I go to pornsites for that. --Anittas 09:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia, if you didn't know what it was, just should've gone to [[4] or click here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should not tolerate that sort of behaviour.Grace Note 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.}

Outside view by Chris S.[edit]

I'd just like to add that Anittas's comments towards Node started two months ago as evidenced by this comment. I interpreted the comment as a sort of loaded question with the assumption that Node is gay because he's a misogynist. Node contacted me privately on this first occurence and on a handful of subsequent occasions expressing that he was offended over what Anittas had said. I advised him to either ignore the comments or to address them calmly, which he has been doing as far as I know. --Chris S. 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Node 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 06:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Cecropia[edit]

I beame aware of this user as part of my regular patrolling of WP:RFA as bureaucrat actively involved in watching nominations. My duties include considering the nature of Support and Oppose votes, especially in cases where a nomination falls into a gray area (i.e., a bureaucrat will have to decide whether a user will become an administrator or not). I came upon this comment from Anittas:

"Can someone please tell this JEW - not Moldovan, but JEW - that he doesn't know Moldovan, but is only protending to speak the language? You do not speak Moldovan, JEW!"

Frankly, I can't recall such a bald and charged personal ethnic attack on RfA in my year and a half as a bureaucrat. In his response above on this RfC, Anittas says:

"My comment: as it was argued by Ron in previous accusations, he believes that writing "Jew" in capital letters makes it a problem. I don't agree, but if someone can direct me to a Wiki policy where it says that writing in capital letters is an offence, then I might have to admit that Ron is correct - tho I'm not aware of such a rule. As for the rest of what was said, I stand by of what I said: Node is not Moldovan and he doesn't speak the language. This is what I think and I base these opinions on my personal observations. I claim the right to have personal opinions."

To call this ingenuous is the mildest comment I can make. Does anyone believe that the offense is capitalization of "Jew"? Although the capitalization does emphasize the aspect of "shouting" and driving home the point that he is talking to a "JEW," as though it were an accusation instead of an observation. He does not capitalize "Moldovan."

In his first RfC, he answers the charge made by an editor that he said this:

"Moldavians and Moldovans call themselves the same (Moldovean). You are neither. You are a Jew. A Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!! --Anittas 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)"

And defends himself by saying:

"This means that if I say to someone that they are an "Americaaaaaaaaaan", or "Indiaaaaaaaaaaan", or "Marsiaaaaaaaaaaaaan", Jmabel will start a new RfC on me each time I say it. But the interesting observation about this is that according to the logic used by Jmabel, if I say "Americaaaaaaan", it will not be anti-Semetic, but if I say "Jeeeeeeeeew", it then becomes anti-Semetic."

I am surprised to see this reasoning from someone who feels competent to edit an encyclopedia. Leaving out the extra letters, what separates out the difference between an American, an Indian, a "Marsan" and a "Jew." The first three identify citizens of a country. OK, a "Marsan" would be from a planet, but the point is the same: a citizen of a locality. There is no country of "Jewland" (I know someone may make a reference to Israel, but this is inappropriate, because the country name does not contain any variant of "Jew," non-Jews are Israeli citizens also, and most Jews are neither citizens of, nor live in, Israel.

So he piles specious argument on specious argument. Would he tell a multi-lingual German that he "does not speak Moldavan because he is GERMAN"? And I am a little familiar with where Moldavia is as my maternal grandmother was from Iasi, Romania, right next door. I believe that historically there are (or were before Hitler) quite a few Jews in the entire region. Did Jews in Moldavia not speak Moldovan? Does Anittas have some kind of novel anthropological theory that Jews CANNOT speak Moldavan?

He makes this worse by attacking his fellow editors and then by claiming he is broadly tolerant (doesn't dislike Jews, or Gays, etc.) but just keenly observant. So he embarasses us by thinking that we are bound to not trust our own knowledge and instinct. If this user can't be sanctioned under Wikipedia policies of Civility, who can? -- Cecropia 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad speculation from this "bureaucrat". To speculate is not the same as to offer evidence. --Anittas 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews of Bessarabia before WWII spoke Romanian, since what is now the Rep of Moldova was part of Romania back then (the Moldovan language didn't exist as a broad, official term until the annexation of Bessarabia by the USSR and the creation of the Moldavian SSR). But, yes, nearly all Jews spoke Romanian, and spoke it quite well. Node does not speak Romanian/Moldovan quite well, that's true, but that doesn't make Anittas' ethic attacks any more justified.

Ronline ✉ 08:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about in Romania, but I know that in Bessarabia, the lingua franca for the Jewish community changed to Russian very early in the 20th century -- the Jewish community (mostly in Chisinau) quickly and eagerly absorbed Jews from Russia and the Ukraine, and Moldovan quickly lost currency among them. My father though is not Jewish, and my mother's grandmother was also a gentile so in those ways I was exposed to Moldovan in my upbringing. But that's mainly an addendum to Ronline's statement about Jews in Moldavia speaking Moldavian, not questions about my personal history. --Node 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ronline ✉ 08:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla | talk 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David | Talk 16:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Node 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) as stated above.[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Alexander 007 16:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Cecropia apparently doesn't have a clue why Anittas said that Node is not Moldovan and doesn't speak Moldovan. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas 2#Some background to that comment from Anittas. Cecropia's summary is vastly incomplete, I'm sorry. Take things in context.[reply]
Hello? This RfC does not state that the issue is why Anittas said that Node is not Moldovan and doesn't speak Moldovan. My summary deals with what I found on RfA, and Anittas' taunting use of the word "Jew," bolstered by the non-sequitar that being a Jew somehow proves that one cannot not speak Maldovan. Add to that that after there was already an RfC on the subject, he still persists in the behavior despite having it pointed out to him. -- Cecropia 20:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said no such thing. There are plenty of Jews who speak Romanian and other languages. Anyone can learn any language. I was talking about Node in specific. --Anittas 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you assert that you were giving no hint thst his being a Jew haa anything to do with being his speaking Moldovan or not. Fine, that clears that up. Therefore, what we have left is your addressing him as "JEW ... JEW ... JEW" is one place, and taunting him with " You are a Jew. A Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!' Therefore you aren't demonstrating a novel anthropological theory, you are showing that you are a garden variety religious bigot. -- Cecropia 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about you ask me directly what I meant, instead of acting like a housewife? --Anittas 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, you endorsed my OutView. How about applying it right away? mikka (t) 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia, once again I emphasize: present things in context, it makes all the difference in this case. See the links I presented. If this was a court case, your presentation would be worthy of a mistrial. Alexander 007 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alexander_007[edit]

I've interacted with Anittas here in Wikipedia since soon after he created his User:Anittas account. He likes to speak his mind, a trait that is not completely foreign to me. However, the things he has been "speaking" lately are in risk of going off the deep end. I tried to get through to him a number of times, but I don't like playing the role of higher-than-thou, and he ignored much of my advice. See also:[5]. What I would like in this RfC2 is not a long ban against Anittas, but for Anittas to get a clue and change some of his ways here in Wiki. Alexander 007 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ronline ✉ 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad 12:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anittas, as I told you before, please learn that some things are wrong. If this continues though, I would go for a request for arbitration with the intent of banning Anittas from Wikipedia. I truly hope it does not come to that, I truly hope Anittas learns this lesson. But the moral is that editors who don't know how to check their tongue are a liability to Wikipedia, annoy other well-behaved users, and make it for an unpleasant working atmosphere. So I am all for Anittas staying with us, as long as he learns to use some civilized norms of behavior. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Olessi 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Anclation[edit]

Personally, I think the problem people have with Anittas's behavior stems from the fact that he is very much familiar and comfortable with another online standard of rules for the general behavior, which is allowing a far more person-oriented discussion than is the case on Wikipedia. In such an enviroment, you do not only "score points" in a discussions by citing facts and history, but also by writing in a way that is both personal and entertaining, often achieved by mildly mocking the opponents arguements, and even poking fun at various aspects of the opposite user himself. This is a common tactic on the Romania forum both he and I are active on, and due to its frequency, most members are not offended when they find themselves at the receiving end, as they know it's really not personal.

Of course, there are different rules on Wikipedia and that should be respected, but I feel that Anittas with his behavior is rather testing than breaking those rules, seeing if they can be stretched a bit, and with that opening for a (from his point of view) more enjoyable and open way to discuss matters. I have seen many of his remarks to Node about that user's sexual prefference, and based upon my experiences with Anittas on the Romania forum, it seems that that he is just having a bit of fun with Node, in no way intending the remarks as personal attacks, or more broadly, bashing homosexuals. Based on his experiences from the Romania forum on how people experience such remarks, Anittas most likely assumes that Node doesn't particularily object to this.

Now, Node is saying that he is offended by those remarks, but I find it curious that he has seemingly reached this conclusion so recently, when those jokes have gone on for months. I have personally not ever seen him stating that he was offended by Anittas's remarks, until Anittas a couple of days ago got into trouble for them. And not only did Node remain silent about how he reacted to the remarks before Roline's lecture of Anittas, he even seemed to be playing along. For instance, Anittas (knowing by then that Node was gay) once posted some pictures of various pretty girls on Node's talkpage, asking which one Node found the most attractive. Instead of acting offended or indicating that he felt discriminated against, Node answered in kind, posting a link to a picture of the US male olympic swimming team on Anittas's talkpage, asking which of the athletes Anittas found particularily good-looking. If Node had been offended in any way by Anittas, his reaction would have made it very difficult for Anittas to understand this.

About the Jew-related remarks, I can agree that the way Anittas expresses himself here can strike people as tasteless. But in the wider context, the likely purpose is to get his point across, namely that Node, being born and raised in the US, and of Jewish origin, can't truthfully call himself a Moldovan. Wether we agree with Anittas's analysis or not is not the point, the point is that Anittas with these remarks doesn't degrade the jewish people or state that Node is less worth because he is jewish, just points out that Node (from his perspective) is neither by nationality nor ethnicity a Moldovan.

Look, I'm not blindly supporting Anittas's behavior here, in fact, I think there are indeed several cases where he has gone too far by Wikipdia standards (which the introduction was meant to partially explain, not justify),I just don't think it warrants a second RfC and a possible block. Anittas is an intelligent and active user that has the potential to be a great asset to Wiki, and while he would be well adviced to alter his behavior slightly, this is unlikely to be achieved by humiliating him (demanding of him to apologize for relatively innocent comments) or assuming the worst instead of assuming good faith.

Anclation 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Alexander 007 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Anittas 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Many of us come from confrontational and aggressive cultures. But see, here at WP we have a minimal set of WP:RULES for all to abide by. Also, this would be more convincing if Anittas showed a sign of understanding/abiding by the policies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla | talk 13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Humus sapiens. Olessi 17:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether Node ue found the comments funny in the past or not. He may have gritted his teeth and did not react. But he has now said he does not like it, and has asked Anittas to stop. Anittas doesn't find anything he's done wrong. The egregious Jew-baiting in the RfA was completely over the top, and his refusal to apologize, or even to say he won't do it any more, is not acceptable behavior for a member of the Wikipedia community. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Vasile[edit]

(N. B.: What is the meaning of "outside view"?)

Answer: "Outside view is an independent perspective of someone not directly involved with the RfC. -- Cecropia 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is a factual consequence of the activity developed at mo.wikipedia.org, a so-called project sustained by Ronline, one of the initiators of this action against Anittas, in order to accomodate User:Node ue's original offending opinions about Moldovan language. I see no Wikipedia or more generally USA and international civilty rules and conventions gaving an user the privilege to profoundly hurt Moldovan/Romanian users on Wikipedia. A reasonable and impartial user could see that the "Moldovan project" succeded just to produce a huge amount of venom in the minds of those Moldovan/Romanian users unable to ignore the project.

The offending nature of Anittas personal remarks cannot be established in abstracto, having no careful research of User:Node ue orientation sexual and of his level of Jewishnes. No adminship techniques can be used in order to obtain an objective and irrefutable description of the actual sexual orientation or of the level of Jewishnes for a particular USA user. I seriously doubt User:Node ue's good faith, and no user testified in support of his declared sexual orientation and of his Jewishnes.

Meanwhile is technically provable that Anittas is Moldovan, as User:Node ue is located in USA. It is reasonably provable also that Anittas knows Moldovan/Romanian language while User:Node ue has no idea what is talking, in the case that one still presumes naive his actions on Moldovan wikipedia. Particularly for the users located in Moldova it is damaging some foreign person vexing intervention in a profound and intime matter like maternal language.

In these conditions of the case, I would reject the accusations brought by Ronline in account of User:Node ue. --Vasile 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Anittas 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

The current RfC is getting transformed into a circus, as Anittas' buddies who share in his escapades present "outside opinions" on the subject. Alexander 007 and Vasile deserve separate RfCs to discuss their own transgressions, therefore "outside" status of their opinions is more than suspect. --Ghirla | talk 19:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it, I beg you. That could increase my popularity against my will. Wiki is consuming me too much time already. --Vasile 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a load of bull. Any discriminatory or offensive statement regarding sexual orientation or religion is not allowed, regardless of whether or not it's accurate. If Anittas had told me I was a "dirty Muslim", that would also not be allowed, or if he called me a "dirty Catholic", even though I don't belong to any of those religions. --Node 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The laws, made to prevent or repress the wickedness of men, must display a certain frankness, a certain candour. If one starts from the notion that it is necessary to ward off every evil and abuse of which a few people are capable, then all is lost. The conventions will be multiplied to infinity, the protection granted citizens will be ruinous, and the remedy will become worse than the ill. Some men are so wicked that, in order to govern the masses with moderation, one must imagine the wickedest of men to be better than they are. --Vasile 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact that I found it hard to understand the meaning of your comment, I think it's doesn't relate to the grounds for the RfC but instead tries to somehow put the blame on Node. The point here is why Anittas made those anti-gay statements and also the anti-Jewish and anti-Russian one, and the way in which ad hominem attacks should not be used when there is an ideological, content-driven dispute between users. Ronline ✉ 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't present completely the conflict. --Vasile 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality does not matter. Attacks and incivility are wrong in any language and any country. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No WP-rule does state your premise. --Vasile 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is something particular to look after? --Vasile 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mikkalai[edit]

I say all seven sides are wrong in this conflict. Let me start from the last 6 ones. It is true that in certain environments to call a person a Pole, an Arab, a Jew, a gay, a straight is a premeditated insult. At the same time it is a very dangerous encroachment onto human rights to expand this interpretation to all usages. Saying that writing a JEW is an unquestional double insult is doubly outrageous. Typographical emphasis is just it: an emphasis, for whatever purpose. If you claim it is used for insult, you better prove it, or you may well find youself sued for defamation. Not to say it is against wikipedia's policy assume good faith. I perceive here a flurry of counterarguments; forget it. This is my personal opinion.

Let's go back to to the root of the problem. Please forget all this free speech vs. racism speculations, which may take ages of deliberation to prove or disprove. In terms of wikipedia, the case is plain and simple:

wikipedia:civility. An offense is primarily in the eyes of the offended. Anittas: if someone says "I am offended", STOP IT. You don't want to apologize, that's your right, and don't be surprized with some opinions about you. But if you continue in the same vein, you are deliberately provoking/prolonging a conflict.
wikipedia:Talk pages. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss article content, not sexual preferences of editors. Of course, a joke or two is OK; we are people not robots after all. But an excessive amount of idle chat seriously degrades the usability of talk pages. I don't want to waste my time and my poor old eyes to scroll thru tons of garbage in search for a line or two related to article content.

Proposal, repeated from the previous RfC. I suggest to put hard ban for, say, one month, on any references to personal traits in article talk pages by all parties involved, since they seem don't see the boundary between a mild jest and insult. This ban must include the prases like "you are mistaken"; the phrase "the statement <...> is incorrect" must be used instead. Let them learn to speak in terms of article content, rather than editor's qualities. mikka (t) 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who partially agree with this summary (sign with ~~ ~~):

--Anittas 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla | talk
--Mikka's right, I only have to partially endorse this. I still think there is an undercurrent of malice beneath Anittas' evident childishness, but Mikka's solution works for me: a probationary period during which, what? any infraction is an immediate block? Sort of a suspended sentence, or bound over to keep the peace? If both parties agree, and if we can define what consititues infraction so any passing admin can anforce a breach, I'd say we can all get on with that encyclopaedia we're supposed to be working on. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 00:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC) - Partially, since I don't fully agree with the ban.[reply]
Alexander 007 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) A short ban is not out of the question.[reply]
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC), I am eager to say in all honesty that despite several displeasures I had with Anittas, this user does write articles and brings info to WP unlike now banned Bonaparte whose contributions were mere disruptions in several inventive ways.[reply]
Support Mikka's "In terms of wikipedia, the case is plain and simple". Olessi 17:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

-- Excessive adminship is bad adminship. A user who has dealings with another user must be watchful and wise. A life under the vigilance of laws, would be but a long and shameful infancy, and this vigilance would itself degenerate into inquisition. Vasile 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

According to WP:AGF:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring.

The question is, after what we've seen; do we still have to assume good faith? Comments please... Izehar 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we have seen? A liberal (justified or not is not an issue) interpretation of the term "personal attack". Different people have different skin thickness. You again are trying to wade into murky waters, when I stated it plain and simple: The person in question (a) fails to see the boundary between a jest and a personal attack, (b) fails to see that this boundary is an individual perception, and (c) finally, that the priority is the interpretation by the attacked side. And my proposed remedy matches the problem: make the person practice an impartial tone.
Also, yours is called a loaded question, a kind inadmissible in deliberations like this one. mikka (t) 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just trying to fit this case into the marked slots of the Wikipedia bureaucracy (ie prove that your proposal is compatible with policy). You proposed to do away with WP:AGF, the presumption in my "loaded question" is that your proposal can still be implemented without doing away with AGF. Izehar 20:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the policies I qouted? They are of direct and immediate relevance. Our goal is not to punish a person, but to resolve a conflict. I would also suggest to leave bureaucracy to bureaucrats. RfC is one of the earlier stages of wikipedia's conflict resolution, intended to resolve the conflict amicably, not to hit someone with bricks. mikka (t) 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry the choice is binary - I'd say you are pretty much right except for the minor fact that I think this has gone beyond WP:AGF; Anittas is name-calling, plain and simple. Regardless of whether "JEW" is or is not racist, it's clearly intended as insult and provocation. Your proposal of probation is sound, since this is in essence an inter-user squabble. And one of these days we will agree without reservation on something :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen myriads of times in talk pages written "stupid comment", etc. It is a provocation, but most people usually ignore it. So you are missing my point : a provocation is only either it is explicitely defined in Law or is perceived as such by the target person, so there is no question here. What I am suggesting here is not to waste time in "proving" anittas intentions. I am suggesting a very simple thing: to tell him to cease (he seems to agree) whatever his intentions were, go back to normal work, and see what will happen. mikka (t) 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your proposed remedy, I only disagree on the degree of malice expressed. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you endorse it then? You have to only partially agree to do so. mikka (t) 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not assuming good faith or bad faith with Anittas here, rather "gray faith", somewhere in-between. The JEW comment that Anittas made to Node in Alex Bakharev's RfA has a background to it, and taken in context I see that it was directly provoked by Node's atrocious rendering of a Moldovan sentence. To repeat: Anittas is of the opinion, after viewing such comments from Node and what he knows of Node (he was born in the U.S., never been to Moldova, doesn't speak Moldovan, etc.), that Node is not a Moldovan by nationality or ethnicity, and he doesn't speak Moldovan as spoken in the Republic of Moldova. While Cecropia is emphasizing that being Jewish indicates only religious affiliation, I have to say that some Jewish groups, Hasidic for example, are ethnic groups in the full sense of the term. No one is speaking of a "Jewish race", but there are such things as Jewish ethnic groups, IMO. Anittas is of the opinion, again, knowing what he knows of Node, that Node is not a Moldovan national or an ethnic Moldovan; Anittas is not apparently (Anittas makes this clear himself in a comment above) saying that a Jewish person cannot be an ethnic Moldovan. The subject here is User:Node ue, and the major points are: not born in Moldova; never been to Moldova; doesn't speak Moldovan; and there is the question whether his forebearers were ethnic Moldovans or members of their own ethnic group. This background to Anittas' comments makes me assume neither good nor bad faith, but it gives us an insight into what's going on, and I disagree with Cecropia (apparently he implies this by his "religious bigot" remark?) that it should be viewed as anti-Semitism; it is rather rudeness and incivility on Anittas' part, but provoked by Node's fabricated Moldovan sentence. By the way, Anittas' comments referring to Node's gayness are probably tongue-in-cheek, meant more to piss off Node rather than representing an intolerance of gays (I agree with Anclation here). Not that I'm defending such harassment; it should indeed stop. Alexander 007 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, The Hassidic Jews aren't an ethnic group any more than Orthodox Greeks or Roman Christians are. Also, don't blame the victim. User:Node ue can be as obnoxious as you want but saying "you're not Moldovan, you're a Jew", a) is not quite proper response and b) implies that by being X you can't be Y. It's Logic 101. His religion and/or sexual orientation have nothing to do with the fact that he was born (or was ethnically related to) a particular country. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no agreement on what is and what is not an ethnic group. There are good arguments for Orthodox Greeks and Roman Christians also being an ethnic group. You might recall that mass conversion to Islam is really what led to Bosniaks becoming a separate ethnic group (see also Torbesh). People of a given denomination often tend to intermarry, socialize primarily or in a great deal with other members of their denomination, often developing a common vocabulary or dialect in time, along with their own traditions. That is an ethnic group. Ethnic groups are not marked off by genetics, but rather by a set of things in common, delineating a group---an ethnic group or subgroup within a broader ethnic group. Alexander 007 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as already explained, I would not accuse Anittas of believing that a Jewish person cannot be a Moldovan unless Anittas explicitly states this. He was probably referring to Node's situation in toto. Node is not of Moldovan nationality. That is a fact. Whether he is an ethnic Moldovan is a matter of debate: not because he's Jewish, but because I'm not too clear on his background. Alexander 007 06:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been explained, but these people try their hardest to find fault where there is none. It's time to stop justifying. If they don't like what I have to say, then too bad. It's their problem. Node is not Moldovan. He's an American-Russian-Jew. --Anittas 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Sebastian, read this:Ethnic Jew. It states that Hasidic Jews sometimes seek to convert ethnic Jews (quote) who have abandoned the religion back to Judaism: if being Jewish, in all cases, is only a matter of religion, how can that person still be a "Jew" if he's not a practitioner of Judaism? I'm not sure what an ethnic Jew is just as you probably are not sure, but I cannot say that Jewish groups such as Hasidic Jews cannot be ethnic groups. Alexander 007 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, according to Jewish Law, if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. That's how you can "be Jewish" without believing (and that is who Hassidic Jews are trying to "bring back"). They are called "ethnic" for lack of a better world but I've seen Hassidic Jews from Germany and Hassidic Jews from Iran (both Chabadniks) and, believe me, they look so different that their only commonality is their religion. That's why I see the notion of "ethnic Hassidic Jews" ("ethnic" in the pure meaning of the word) senseless. Now, if you DO consider "orthodox greeks" an ethnic group, then calling "hassidic jews" an ethnic group makes sense within that paradigm. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the matrilineal Jewish thing. And I consider Bosniaks an ethnic group, as well Torbesh. How people "look" does not make an ethnic group, and you have only revealed your own misconception, which explains your paradigm. Alexander 007 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I wouldn't call it a "misconception", it implies that I'm wrong and you're right. You yourself say that there is controversy, so at this point I'll agree to disagree on that point. Asides from that, I'd leave this line of conversation here since we have significantly digressed from the original topic of this RfC. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but consider this: Romanians are an ethnic group: do all Romanians look similar? No. Do all Bulgarians look similar? Bosniaks? Serbs? No. etc. etc. Ethnic group does not mean "Black-looking people" vs. "White-looking people" vs. "Asiatic-looking people" etc. Alexander 007 19:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider it. Good topic for a lively conversation, maybe off-line. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think you're both entering a weird area. The question of who is and who isn't a Jew is debated in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) every few months, I highly doubt that you two will be able to find the answer. The view of the Orthodox Israeli Rabbinate (most conservative views) is that a Jew is whoever is born to a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism is Jewish. The Israeli Government (most liberal views) are expressed in the Law of Return and that confers the right of immigration to Israel on those who the Israeli Government view as Jews, namely: includes all those who the rabbis view as Jewish, but is extended to include those who have at least one Jewish grandparent or a Jewish father. Many Progressive Jews are broadly of the opinion that Jews are a religious only group. Therefore, under their definition, I am an Englishman of "Mosaic persuasion". The Haredim, view Jews as part of ha-am, the people. Whether that means a religious group, an ethnic group, a nationality, all or none is still being debated. Anittas's comment that if Node is a Jew then he cannot be a Moldovan may or may not be right, depending on the approach. Izehar 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never, ever, said that if you're Jewish, you can't be Moldovan. You can, but in Node's case, he's not Moldovan at all. He is an American-Russian-Jew. --Anittas 19:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jmabel[edit]

Anittas does some good work in Wikipedia, more than a little. On the other hand, he repeatedly addresses other users in ways that I find unacceptable.

On this very page, Anittas expresses the view that saying that "kindly fuck off" is polite. Were I to presume that he says this in good faith, I would have to conclude that he is incapable of being civil. Instead, I am inclined to give him the benefit of presuming bad faith, and that he is actually aware of to address others in a civil manner, and simply chooses not to.

One or another way, Anittas' incivility in Wikipedia needs to stop. If he actually doesn't understand why "kindly fuck off" is impolite, or why his remarks to Node cited above are inappropriate, then he should seek a mentor in this respect. In the more likely scenario that he understands perfectly well, then he should shape up or ship out. I'd prefer shape up, but I'd settle for ship out. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) The following is not part of my outside view and, in my opinion, does not belong in this section. Since when does the subject of an RFC get to respond in the "outside view" sections rather than his/her own section or the talk page? I believe this is totally inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 14:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to point out that I wanted to say "fuck-off" in a more polite matter, so I then added the word "kindly" to it. Without adding "kindly" to the sentence, it would've looked a bit harsh. Anyway, I view my talkpage as a more private area. People are not forced to come to my talkpage. --Anittas 05:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no PRIVATE in Wikipedia. All pages are public. Private is email. And let me play professor for a second, just in case you aren't a native english speaker and maybe don't quite fully understand. If you use the word "fuck", you can put a dictionary full of nice words in front of it, and it would still be offensive and impolite. (Example: "Would you be so kind, dear sir/madam, with all due respect, if you don't mind, get the fuck off my page", would still be impolite). Sorry for the sarcasm, just trying to clarify my explanation, Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop screaming like a housewife. And you're not a native speaker, either. Sometimes, you make little sense. You're not even involved in this matter. I don't even know who you are. --Anittas 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. This is what I call a personal attack. --Ghirla | talk 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a vegetal world, maybe. --Vasile 12:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) I involed myself

b) Who cares I'm not a native speaker? Who cares you're not a native speaker? I only explained it for your convenience, you can choose to ignore the explanation if you think you already know the subject matter.

c) In what sense I make little sense? Where's my faulty logic?

d) Who cares you don't know me? Only people you know can express an opinion here?

I blocked you for 1 hour for the "housewife" remark, I felt offended that you had to be aggressive. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, it'll help.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The workplace (yours too) contains a certain level of ownership and privacy. You can't reasonably assuming that every user has a similar profile with yours and your friends. If you are a programmer, Anittas might be not; may be he is not even a intelectual but a pointers ignoring regular working class guy. --Vasile 12:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Vasile 04:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) in condition that it will be no formal vote or hm verdict. It not necessarily to presume (or hope) Anittas' good faith, but his wisdom and maturity.[reply]
I endorse Jmabel's summary, but I really don't want to see Anittas ship out. Alexander 007 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Jmabel and duly noting that Anittas' flouting the WP:RULES continues. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Anittas' approach hasn't changed in the least. --Ghirla | talk 11:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn - you'd think he could take the hint. Izehar 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such language is not conducive for a productive working environment. Olessi 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by gtabary[edit]

Hello. I am following silently this RFC just for a few days. I am not involved in any mentionned arguments. I notice :

Anclation 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) wrote :

(...) Personally, I think the problem people have with Anittas's behavior stems from the fact that he is very much familiar and comfortable with another online standard of rules for the general behavior, which is allowing a far more person-oriented discussion than is the case on Wikipedia. In such an enviroment, you do not only "score points" in a discussions by citing facts and history, but also by writing in a way that is both personal and entertaining, often achieved by mildly mocking the opponents arguements, and even poking fun at various aspects of the opposite user himself. This is a common tactic on the Romania forum both he and I are active on, and due to its frequency, most members are not offended when they find themselves at the receiving end, as they know it's really not personal. (...)

Anittas endorsed this statement 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Later Anittas explains I was trying to point out that I wanted to say "fuck-off" in a more polite matter, so I then added the word "kindly" to it. Without adding "kindly" to the sentence, it would've looked a bit harsh. --Anittas 05:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So, as far as I understand, user Anittas is having fun with other users, by poking them and playing smart ass around how to define gently the term fuck off and <add here all the terms Anittas fiddle with>.

Am I dreaming ? Is that for real ? This RFC is still going on ? Good faith is still alive ? I mean WP really wants to deliberate lengthly about THAT ? That surprises me. I suggest maybe Anittas should go back to mentionned forum Romania wishing him/her all the fun he/she can have. My most up to date understanding is that WP is not a personal/private board for tchating, neither a circus. I am now thinking as user Jmabel: I'd prefer shape up, but I'd settle for ship out.. Now, I don't believe anymore in Anittas wanting or beeing able to shape up.

Just my opinion. Bye. --Gtabary 14:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Agree absolutely. --Ghirla | talk 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Vlad 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

It appears that the best summaries are by the users who do not endorse Anclation's summary. It appears, as Anclation says, that Anittas is illustrating the behavior of a different electronic culture, characterized by taunting that is mostly but not entirely light-hearted. Wikipedia is not that sort of electronic culture. Anittas appears to be assuming that it is all right, in Wikipedia, to taunt editors, including Node ue, whom he knows from another taunting culture. I disagree. That is not considered civil behavior in Wikipedia. Also, it does not matter whether the taunting is acceptable to Node ue, who may return it, or not, or whether it originally was acceptable and has gone too far now. It is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I agree with the recommendations that Anittas needs to adapt a different style in Wikipedia.

I don't think that what is necessary is for Anittas to apologize. I think that what is necessary is for him to recognize that his taunting is not considered civil in Wikipedia, and to work to change his style.

I haven't said anything to Node for days, but they recently blocked me for refusing to remove his photo from my userpage - a photo that he released on Wiki and which is allowed to be used anywhere on Wiki. Is this normal? --Candide, or Optimism 18:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Robert McClenon 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel | Talk 14:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ghirla | talk 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.