Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas 2

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: Well done, Ron

message: 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)
replies: text: LOLOLOL! --Anittas 09:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, you no longer have my userpage watched? --Anittas 09:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do, but I had it off-watch for about a week recently. Alexander 007 09:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? --Anittas 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I wanted to know why. Just don't remove it again. --Anittas 09:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] and his Flamers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I have the solution 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some background to that comment from Anittas

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Interleaved comments