Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas

message: Carbonite and Xed both make comparisons to this edit of mine, in which I used the expression "Cry me a river, white boy." To give it its full context:
Deeceevoice is one of the best contributors I've worked with on Wikipedia. Definitely not the queen of mellow, but that's not what we are here for. In terms of civility, she is certainly more sinned against than sinning. Yes, occasionally she takes offense sooner than she might, but, in case you folk haven't noticed, on the whole she is doing good work in an often hostile environment. On the whole, my response to the complaints above can be summed up in the words of a certain ex-girlfriend of mine in a similar situation (I was not, by the way, the person toward whom it was directed): "Cry me a river, white boy." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "White boy"

message: :I think Anittas should apologize for his comment, at least to apologize to Jmabel or to apologize in general, since he may not want to apologize to Node. Otherwise, I see no indication that Anittas is anti-Semitic, and he may have simply not realized the implications of his statement. On its own, this comment from Anittas, especially if apologized for by him, does not deserve any actions to be taken against the User, even though as I made clear before I think the comment was way out of line (though it was provoked by User:Node ue). Alexander 007 06:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anittas should apologize, this is not a matter for restrictive action

message: Possibly inadvertantly, Annitas has twice misrepresented what I wrote on his user talk page, first in the conversation from WP:AN/I (reproduced above) and now on the RfC itself.
First an aside: Anittas, I didn't have any sinister intent in failing to mention to you that I brought this to WP:AN/I. You basically challenged me to start an RfC. They can't be started singlehandedly, one needs at least one other person to certify it, so I went to the obvious place to do so. It honestly didn't even cross my mind to inform you I was doing that. I assume that it was a similar matter that you didn't think to inform me that you were mentioning it on the Romanian Wikipedian's notice board.
Anittas writes, "When Jmabel left me the message on my talk-page, he used a hostile tone, accusing me for making an anti-Semetic comment and demanding that I apologize to Node; or else, face a RfC where, and I quote: 'my goal in doing so will be to get you banned from Wikipedia for as long a time as possible.'"
I am quoted accurately, but out of context. Here is what I actually wrote:
:In case you are not aware of it, this edit of yours reads, to me, as anti-Semitic. In fact, try as I might, I can't construe it any other way. I suggest that you strike through it, and apologize to the person at whom it was directed. And if I see you make a similar edit again, whether about Jews or any other ethnicity, regardless of whom it is addressed to, be assured that I will start an RfC, and that my goal in doing so will be to get you banned from Wikipedia for as long a time as possible.
:Almost no amount of good conduct can make up for something like this in my eyes. And if you want to consider my remarks here a personal attack, fine, we can have our RfC now. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be in the future a suspicion if you will not ask also for Node to appologize for his comments on Anittas (where he labelled him as "sperm") and on others users as well (Dpotop, me). Then you can retract your remarks. I don't like double standards you know.. -- Bonaparte  talk 13:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation 

message: This stuff may seem a bit off-topic, but I brought up the subject and I feel like clarifying. Esti jidan is literally translated as "You are Jew", while esti un jidan is literally translated as "You are a Jew". In both cases, one can say that jidan functions as a noun, but like a professor of mine said, the distinction between noun and adjective is a matter of usage. One can say that in esti jidan (or esti evreu), jidan (evreu) can also be seen as an adjective. The point of this is that I believe a native Romanian speaker is more inclined to say "You are a Jew", rather than "You are Jewish". Add to this the cultural situation in Romania even today, where Jews are very often seen by ethnic Romanians as being a separate ethnicity. I'm sure many Jewish Romanians however consider themselves Romanians, though there are always people on both sides who discriminate; the definition of ethnic group includes religion and culture; a different religion and differences in culture and even differences in ancestry can easily lead to a separate ethnic group being defined; a group within a group. 
Whatever the case, Anittas was referring specifically to Node's situation. He was not telling a Jewish Moldovan, born and raised, "You are not a Moldovan, you are a Jew", which I would consider anti-Semitic and incorrect (He would be a Moldovan: a Jewish-Moldovan). Alexander 007 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanian usage

message: I would like Jmabel and Monk to apologize to me for damaging my image by accusing me of anti-Semetic feelings. Jmabel never asked me personally what I meant by that remark, and Monk didn't try to solve the dispute. Monk posted on my talk-page when I was working, and 21-minutes later, they signed the petition against me. That's not what I call trying to work things out. These two were never interested in investigating my intent, but rather, they wanted to force me to apologize. Apologize for what? For Node not being a Moldovan, but a Jew? This is silly. Yes, my intent was to make Node understand that he is not a Moldovan. We've told him this a few times, but he won't get it. Perhaps next time, someone needs to extend the word "Jew" and write it in caps. Perhaps then, Node will understand. --Anittas 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: Four tests need to be applied here:
#is it impossible that Anittas's comment was not anti-Semitic?
#if you WP:AGF, can you accuse that comment of being anti-Semitic?
#given that Jmabel also makes race-ralated comments, isn't it a bit rich this RfC coming from him?
#given that Jmabel will not allow anti-Semitic remarks to stand (sic) isn't he violating WP:AGF because he is declaring Anittas's comment anti-Semitic without explaining why? We have to assume that it was not anti-Semitic and it's Jmabel's job to convince us that it was and ONLY if he succeeds, can it be called anti-Semitic. That's how AGF works - presuming innocence. Izehar (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AGF]] 

message: The following comments seem sufficiently on-topic that I am presenting them here rather than the talk page; if someone can suggest a better place for them, I have no problem with that. Other endorsers of the statement of the dispute should not be presumed to have "signed on" to these comments, unless they endorse them separately and explicitly.
I see from the talk page that several people have used the occasion of this RfC to attack me, which I guess happens often enough. If people think my own conduct has been a problem, please start an RfC about me rather than using this one to attack me, because I'd rather not complicate matters by presenting my defense here. Of course, I would prefer not to have such an RfC started at all, but if you are going to criticize me, I believe that would be the appropriate place to do it.
I was really hoping to keep things simple, because I considered the matter so clearcut, and all I was (and am) asking for was retraction, apology and desisting from similar behavior in the future. But apparently it is not that simple. 
It is fully possible that Anittas did not intend the remark in question as anti-Semitic. For what it's worth, the last two times that someone called me a Jew and stretched the word out like that were both when I was a teenager. About the age Node claims to be now, as a matter of fact. In one case it was while I was being chased by a crowd of other teens throwing rocks. (They also called me some other choice words that I will not reprint here.) In the other case, it was immediately followed by a punch in the face, and preceded by a remark pretty similar to Anittas's, about my not really being an American. So perhaps I am a bit sensitive on this topic, but not, I think, inappropriately so.
Looking now through the page history, Anittas was not alone in picking on Node; he was not even the worst offender; he was just the one who pushed my personal button. He also happens to have done this less than three hours after this edit of mine, referring to a discussion that Node should be banned from editing the page:
Strongly oppose. You want to start an RfC, and move toward arbitration? Fine. But, otherwise, you don't have any right to tell someone he cannot edit. I think some of his views here are misguided, but I also think he's helped strengthen our thinking about the topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, dude, I don't care what people are. No one is born guilty and I got no issues with Jews. You took it personal, relating my comment to your childhood years. If you want, we can forget about this whole issue and go back to status-quo. You took the first offensive. You even endorsed Mel's RfC, which is several months old, just to make me see what you think of me. Node is unreasonble. You can't compromise with him. When I was alone, in the Moldovan article, he kept laughing in my face by saying that no Romanian agrees with me. He has no class. Today, the situation is different. I tried to get an Arbitration on Node, only to be given empty promises. This Wiki administration is a joke. I waited a couple of weeks for a response from the dude who agreed to do the arbitration, then when he finally arrived, Mikka blocked me for 24-hours. When I told him what happened, he gave me the cold shoulder. I got no issues with Mikka, either and I got no issues with you. My issues are with Node. --Anittas 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You will have to apologise to Anittas to resolve the matter. You slurred Anittas as an anti-semite. You implied extra consonants mean violence, equivalent to throwing rocks at you. You indulged in blatant double standards. You trivialised real racism - even talking about pogroms! And you've wasted everyones time by crying wolf. - Xed 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's cool. If he agrees to go back to status-quo and forget about everything, I'm willing to do just that. I got no problems with Jmabel, but I still don't like when he says that "it is fully possible that Anittas did not intend the remark in question as anti-Semitic", when I showed that this wasn't the case. In my discussion with Jimbo, when I condemned Nazism, I mentioned about Jews being killed, etc. --Anittas 19:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments by [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]

message: ::Look who's talking about! Good joke, Ghirlandajo! What about you Ghirlandajo? They didn't start the RfC against you for nothing I suppose!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo ????
Just look at his contributions:
* Calling names, ad hominem attacks and usage of offensive language
** Calling Poles Polacks 
** When asked to apologize or stay on topic, he replied with 
** Offensive language , "zombie", revert zombie, , 
** Suggestions of being intoxicated by obscure Polish hack writers, ignorance, ad hominem arguments, calling the arguments of the opponents slurs and hysteria, offensive language, ethnic slurs... all is there, in one edit diff. Also, bizarre accusations of some sort of conspiracy 
**   if this statement is a personal opinion of Halibutt, Molobo, Rydel, and Co, you may continue gaping at your cheap Polish propaganda booklets about alleged Russian massacres, which I daresay are "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia" as well
** ad hominem attack , later even strengthened; rvv a revert maniac: can't we block him?, , 
**  racist ethnic generalizations and accuasion of incivility on behalf of the entire Polish nation
* Trying to escalate the conflict at Talk:History of Belarus by posting this comment at Portal:Russia/New article announcements. The notice was finally removed after Lysy asked him to stay cool 
*Accusations of:
** ...breaking the wiki rules: (though later removed )
** ...paranoia
** ...bad faith: , , , , , , 
** ...ignorance: , , "fantasies", rm Polish idiosyncrasies, , rv ignorant nonsense, ,  , 
** ...offensive behaviour: changing Halibutt's comment into something he finds offensive and then accusing him] of offence, , 
** ...POV-pushing, revisionism and propaganda: , , , , [
** ...trolling and sockpuppetry: Accusing User:Aegis Maelstrom to be a troll  and a sockpuppet  (though he admitted he was wrong after some time in the latter case, he kept renewing his unexpected attacks like  or suggestions ad personam like this one), , , , megalomania and trolling, 
** ...hysteria, dementia and mania: , , , , , , , 
** ...conspiracy: 
* Others
** 
**  (as well as an interesting explanation of why User:Rydel left wikipedia...
**  accusations of Russophobia, nationalism and of having said what I never did.
**  signing with other registered user's name
** 
**  accusations of hysteria
**  moving articles around to prove his point
** 
** 
** 
** 
** 
** 
** 
** 
** Removing Belarusan spelling from Belarusan articles and putting Russian spellings instead. For example,  - he removed Belarusian spelling from an article about the most famous Belarusian woman and re-instated Russian spelling of her name, with the following comment: "Belarusian spelling is as pertinent as swahili". The same happened with Usiaslau of Polatsk and Euphrosyne of Polatsk (removing the Belarusan spelling with the comment: "outlandish spelling corrected").
* Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
** covered by Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ghirlandajo
**  withdrawn as a sign of good will by Lysy after the revert war was stopped
So again look who's talking about! -- Bonaparte  talk 11:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonaparte's remark on contribution given by [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] on several occasions to Wikipedia's pages

message: Or you could interpret Anittas's comment to mean: "You're not a Moldovan. You have no business editing here because you're a ...." Given Anittas's other antagonistic behavior on Wikipedia, I would conclude that's what he meant. Anittas's belief that only people of a certain background should be allowed to edit ethnic articles is contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of openness. --malber 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could interpret it like that. But we can't prove or even reasonably demonstrate that that's what he meant. If the purpose of this RfC is to punish Anittas based primarily on that very ambiguous comment, that is quite extreme IMO. However, if this RfC is to focus on Anittas' Wiki-conduct in general, then that's another matter. Alexander 007 13:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not necessarily the content of what he said, it's his response after he was confronted about what he said. Harassment is about perception of the person the comment was directed at, not what was in the mind of the person who made the comment. The person, and several others, were offended by Anittas's comment and they confronted him on it. He refused to accept culpability for his actions, or even apologize for how what he said might be interpreted. This is contrary to WP:CIVIL and is concurrent with other in-civility on Anittas's part. Now is the perfect time to address this. --malber 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This logic is very flawed. If anyone that would claim to have been offended, would be given right, then Wiki would turn into an US-court where everyone would sort-of, sue everyone, for everything; such as getting hot coffee on your clothes, etc. What you're saying is that I should simply submit myself to the perspective of the other person who claims to have been harassed. This is not going to happen, nor does Wiki Civ say anything about this. However, vandalizing someone's user- and talk-page, over and over again, the way you did, even when you were being asked to stop, could be perceived as harassment. --Anittas 20:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Show evidence of vandalism, Anittas, or shut up. Reverting a page is not vandalism. Telling someone he can't edit Wikipedia because he's a Jew is hate-speak. --malber 02:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show me where I said that he can't edit the page. Mikka put it whole thing in context and showed what I was replying to. Jmabel should have done that, instead. We were talking about ethnics. And you are a vandal. You reverted other user's user page after they themselves reverted it back from your vandalism! You are a vandal from the dark forests of barbarous northern Europe! You hail from the woods! lol --Anittas 05:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The preceding comment by Anittas illustrates, for anyone concerned, that I was not picking out a unique incident of incivility or insulting people based on their backgrounds, and should lay to rest any claims that I must have been misinterpreting because he would never do such a thing. Perhaps he is telling the truth that in the particular case about which I brought an RFC this is not what he was doing. Perhaps I myself am the most trusting person on Wikipedia. Perhaps pigs have wings. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what you're trying to say, and I'll rather not try and interpret your sarcasm, but if you're trying to imply that I lie, then let me know and I'll know to not to waste further of my time on this. --Anittas 04:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on outside view by Alexander 007 

message: I am a Jew. I am a Jeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!! But I don't keep kosher. :-)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 05:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I only offended myself with that remark. :)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 05:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The following is silly