Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anonimu

message: Can you please clarify what you mean by this: "stop editing articles you're ignorant about just because the capo did it", I'm especially interested what you mean by "capo", is it supposed to mean  kapo? If this is the case I find this highly offensive. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 01:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant "capo" in the Italian underground sense, that is, "mob boss" (referring to Biruitorul.) Still obnoxious but at least not utterly reprehensible. K. Lásztocska 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that makes sense, thanks for providing this info, still not a civil way to talk about editors even if he doesn't like their actions. -- AdrianTM 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I still stand by my original response.Anonimu 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked User:Space_Appolo page and didn't see any block and mention that the user is blocked. Please stop accusing people of bad faith. -- AdrianTM 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I find this typical for user:Anonimu instead of directing our attention to the ban log (since User:Space_Appolo doesn't have a block tag -- at least he didn't have at the time we reverted as it can be easily checked) he prefers to revert and then accuse us of bad faith. I find this highly irritating and of course totally against WP:AGF, it's funny how this user wants to defend himself against infringing WP:AGF by acting against WP:AGF in the very page where he tries to defend himself.  -- AdrianTM 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree -- I've seen this pattern of behaviour many times from User:Anonimu.  In this instance, I can certify that there was no apparent ban or block at User:Space Appolo at the time this occured -- I also checked to see what was going on, and could not find any mention on the user's page, or the talk page (though by looking at the edit history, it seemed like a plausible conjecture).  Turgidson 17:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You assumed bad faith by reverting me even if I had told you that the respective username is a banned sock. You could have brought the matter to this talk page and ask for a clarification, but you just assumed i was lying and you reverted me. That surely isn't AGF.Anonimu 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't assume anything, I checked -- as I knew to check, went to the page of the user and didn't see "blocked for sock-puppeteering" tag and said that I add that endorsement back till it's confirmed, I also clearly said that "if it becomes so [banned] remove endorsement". And please explain what do you think we tried to do by keeping a banned users' signature on, since that would not count anyways? So, beside the fact that you accused us of bad faith you probably imply that we are stupid too -- we have no interest to have banned users supporting ou toor case, that would not be a valid endorsement, nor a desired one. -- AdrianTM 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with AdrianTM, there was no tag at the time. (and still isn't as of a few minutes ago) BTW, I now agree the endorsement should be removed. István 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have asked me why i said he's a banned sockpuppet, but you didn't and, moreover, you reverted me. It's really that simple.Anonimu 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We both said that we don't see the ban, that was an invitation for clarification, what other question did you expect? Why didn't you just revert back with the ban log in the revert edit to make things clear, without accusing us of bad faith? -- AdrianTM 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One like :"why are you saying he is banned?" put on this talkpage. Edit summaries are not the good place to request clarifications. And what prevented you from asking here after my first revert? Maybe I was being "evil", and you could have used it against me.Anonimu 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think puting info in edit summary is a valid way to communicate. Even if you don't agree you shouldn't accuse people of bad faith. Period. -- AdrianTM 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a trifle.  If you do, please contrast it against the Anglo-American imperialists' maintaining AGF that Space Appolo is indeed a bonny sock. István 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying I had something to do with Bonnie's endorsement? That would be not only bad faith, but outright harassment.Anonimu 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and, as you describe it, highly implausible.  No, I wouldn't believe for a moment that you and Bonny would have much influence over each other.  BTW, I'm also not implying that Bonny had anything to do with that endorsement either. István 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contesting one admin's decision with no proofs it's not a nice thing to do either.Anonimu 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: for the record, Bogdan is a great Wikipedian, and I do not contest anything.  And I assume good faith in your actions too... absent compelling evidence to the contrary. István 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of "response"

message: "5. The bad faith involved in starting this process is proved by the insistence of AdrianTM and Istvan to keep an endorsement by a banned sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte"
:I checked User:Space_Appolo page and didn't see any block and mention that the user is blocked. Please stop accusing people of bad faith. -- AdrianTM 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I find this typical for user:Anonimu instead of directing our attention to the ban log (since User:Space_Appolo doesn't have a block tag -- at least he didn't have at the time we reverted as it can be easily checked) he prefers to revert and then accuse us of bad faith. I find this highly irritating and of course totally against WP:AGF, it's funny how this user wants to defend himself against infringing WP:AGF by acting against WP:AGF in the very page where he tries to defend himself.  -- AdrianTM 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree -- I've seen this pattern of behaviour many times from User:Anonimu.  In this instance, I can certify that there was no apparent ban or block at User:Space Appolo at the time this occured -- I also checked to see what was going on, and could not find any mention on the user's page, or the talk page (though by looking at the edit history, it seemed like a plausible conjecture).  Turgidson 17:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You assumed bad faith by reverting me even if I had told you that the respective username is a banned sock. You could have brought the matter to this talk page and ask for a clarification, but you just assumed i was lying and you reverted me. That surely isn't AGF.Anonimu 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't assume anything, I checked -- as I knew to check, went to the page of the user and didn't see "blocked for sock-puppeteering" tag and said that I add that endorsement back till it's confirmed, I also clearly said that "if it becomes so [banned] remove endorsement". And please explain what do you think we tried to do by keeping a banned users' signature on, since that would not count anyways? So, beside the fact that you accused us of bad faith you probably imply that we are stupid too -- we have no interest to have banned users supporting ou toor case, that would not be a valid endorsement, nor a desired one. -- AdrianTM 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with AdrianTM, there was no tag at the time. (and still isn't as of a few minutes ago) BTW, I now agree the endorsement should be removed. István 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have asked me why i said he's a banned sockpuppet, but you didn't and, moreover, you reverted me. It's really that simple.Anonimu 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We both said that we don't see the ban, that was an invitation for clarification, what other question did you expect? Why didn't you just revert back with the ban log in the revert edit to make things clear, without accusing us of bad faith? -- AdrianTM 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One like :"why are you saying he is banned?" put on this talkpage. Edit summaries are not the good place to request clarifications. And what prevented you from asking here after my first revert? Maybe I was being "evil", and you could have used it against me.Anonimu 20:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think puting info in edit summary is a valid way to communicate. Even if you don't agree you shouldn't accuse people of bad faith. Period. -- AdrianTM 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a trifle.  If you do, please contrast it against the Anglo-American imperialists' maintaining AGF that Space Appolo is indeed a bonny sock. István 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying I had something to do with Bonnie's endorsement? That would be not only bad faith, but outright harassment.Anonimu 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and, as you describe it, highly implausible.  No, I wouldn't believe for a moment that you and Bonny would have much influence over each other.  BTW, I'm also not implying that Bonny had anything to do with that endorsement either. István 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contesting one admin's decision with no proofs it's not a nice thing to do either.Anonimu 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: for the record, Bogdan is a great Wikipedian, and I do not contest anything.  And I assume good faith in your actions too... absent compelling evidence to the contrary. István 20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another unfounded accusation of "bad faith" from [[User:Anonimu]]

message: WP can not impose users to appologize, even when humanly it is 100% the case. "Changing behavior" is subjective assessment, unless framed by very precise definitions, like the rulings 8 and 11 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies. So, AdrianTM, although I completely agree with the basis of your statement, I disagree with your proposed remedies: noone can impose Anonimu to appologize, and a solution to the problem Anonimu created (rv wars to make a point, calling names, sworing) must be specific. The fact that he is a communist can not be the basis of a measure against him, no matter how grave were the crimes of communism, and how ardently he supports this idiology. He is not the first and not the last communist, but somehow other communist manage not to start rv wars again and again, not to call names, not to swore; they support the theoretical idiology or some general policy, not specific crimes, e.g Fantana Alba, NKVD persecutions against Poles, etc, as in the case of Anonimu. :Dc76\talk 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I understand all that, I just wanted to give him a chance to say: "Well maybe I supported my ideas in a wrong way, and didn't know that this was going to be taken so seriously by fellow editors, therefore I decided that from now on to be measured and follow WP:PA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF more closely" and then he should consider himself under probation... I don't know how realistic is this, but I like to give people second chances. Of course, there's the possibility that he's never going to admit he did anything wrong, so the result might be the same anyway. -- AdrianTM 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonimu could and can say something like that at any moment. However, he is convinced that rv warring is ok, that calling people fascist and nationalist is ok, that swaring is ok. Nothing prevented him from saying in the "Response" section "Sorry, I won't swore again, won't call you nationalist or fascist again." But no, he simply explained us there why he believes calling other WPedians fascist and nationalist is justified. He sincerely believes he did nothing wrong. What more can I say? :Dc76\talk 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What more could you say, you ask? Probably nothing, so let's keep it at that. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of AdrianTM's statement

message: I would like to bring to the attention of the reader that Anittas has been very incivil in his language, maybe even more graphically than Anonimu, e.g. , which is only one in a long suit of such cases of graphic language: 
:::Credeam ca este posibil sa port o discutie din asta cu un roman, chiar daca o fi el din Oltenia sau Muntenia, si chiar daca o fi avand el mentalitate de sarb-ortodox fanatic. Acuma vad insa ca ai dat cateaua pe mine si deja a inceput sa ma latre. Daca mai continue sa latre, cred ca o sa treazeasca tot satul. Poti tu sa fi dragut si sa o chemi inapoi? 
:::[I thought that it is possible to have such a discussion with you as a Romanian, even thought he [you] would be from Oltenia or Wallachia, and even though he [you] would have mentality of fanatic Serbian-Orthodox. However, now I see that you have put the she-dog on me and she already started to bark at me. If she continues to bark, I think she will wake up the whole village. Could you be nice and call her back?] 
The only thing that saved this user from RfC was that such language he used mostly in talk pages, in super-long discussions that few people read, not in articles or commentaries to edits. Therefore, please be aware of this when you read a comment by Anittas. :Dc76\talk 14:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just strenghtens my argument that Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals. First of all, this RfC is not about me; and making this about me is a bit disrespectul to those involved here; secondly, what you posted there, I have said millions of times, in English:--and I don't find it to be uncivil in language. Perhaps uncivil in behaviour, but not so much in language. However, how can I alter my behaviour if that's what I genuily think? Thirdly, that chat I had there was with Biruitorul and I reserve the right to be honest with people and say exactly what I think. And I think that the majority of you Muntenians have a bad culture and poor traditions. Luckly, Biruitorul is a Moldavian-Transylvanian, which is also the reason why he managed to rebuff my arguments in a decent way. As for the latter part of that post, it's pretty harmless. Lastly, I could be the biggest jerk on this planet and have a bigger award put on my head than the one on Bin Laden--and I could still make a good argument which, if you would decide to counter, you would have to address the argument and not irrelevant things, like you did here. So you trying to discredit my message here by bringing up things that I have posted on a talkpage makes you a Muntenian. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anittas: you make me sick. Also, you aren't doing much for my opinion of Moldavians. K. Lásztocska 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a (helpful?) translation of the term, right from the horse's mouth. Turgidson 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muntenian number two. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at this point I hope this case will be solved in such a way that will show that this kind of behavior is not acceptable, and if this means that some other (present) persons should mind the lesson, so much better. I already find this joking about "different race of mammals" mildly offensive. It would be nice to keep this discussion out of "race" and "nationalities" issues and people restrain from name-calling. -- AdrianTM 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion should have never been started here. I tried to be moderate and ask the involved parties to communicate in order to find a common solution, and this Muntenian brings up that old garbage in here in order to provoke me. Is that a normal thing to do? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "this Muntenian" -- I find abusive to call people by nationalities or region where they come from, please restrain from doing this since this is irrelevant into this discussion (and any discussion actually, unless we talk about nationalities, which we weren't here). Please call people by their name (also, please don't use derisive formulas like "this [...]" even if you use their name, just the name should suffice) -- AdrianTM 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you barely escape a RfC for anti-Semitism, I think this should require a RfC for plain racism (and I don't care what is your nationality or race or against which nationality/race you spoke against, this kind of jokes are disgusting, if somebody starts an RfC for Anittas please inform me, you have my full support). -- AdrianTM 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are the same people. My beef with you is your culture. We are good, you are not. And I think you should re-read the initial post in this discussion, which brings up just the thing you said to be irrelevant. And I agree, it is irrelevant. That is, afterall, what I'm trying to say here, isn't it? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of "different race from the rest of the mammals" was refering to culture? And who exactly is "you"? You don't know who I am, my nationality, my education,or my culture. Do you think you can get away with this by redirecting your racist attack on the "culture"? -- AdrianTM 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You(&friends) did worst to escape injunctions in an equally clear case on ANI. So don't be hypocrite.Anonimu 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that even when I've taken Anonimu's side (Talk:Delia Grigore), I was met with the same rank hostility and incivility. This trait speaks very ill of him and his ability to function as a normal member of the community. Biruitorul 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothign new, considering you called me "not sane".Anonimu 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further distortion and failure to assume good faith. I made a general, throwaway remark pertaining to all Communists, and I repeatedly explained that my motivation was not to target you. Let readers of this page note Anonimu's persistent holding of grudges and inability to move past a "dispute" of his own manufacturing. Biruitorul 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nop, just presenting the facts as they were. Your failure to acknowledge them is a proof that this RfC is just an attack against me. Remember, you're the one who brought diffs from june to prove whatever you wanted to prove.Anonimu 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. And by the way, you accused me and me alone of being "paranoid", ie a form of insanity. That's a much graver personal attack, since you have no call diagnosing me with anything here. Biruitorul 22:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is going to buy that argument, Bir. Saying that someone is paranoid is not viewed the same as when calling someone paranoiac. The word is often used in daily speeches when describing people who are overly suspicious of something.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anittas (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not. The point is, it's bad form going around calling people paranoid, especially when they don't deserve it. Biruitorul 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's good for moraletendentious reference to only that part of the article that supports my statement; learned from some of the people who want me banned... Anonimu 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wasn't it even CommunISM you made that remark about, not CommunISTS per se? K. Lásztocska 13:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And if I'd say your mother's the greatest infringer of the 7th on the East Coast, I suppose you wouldn't consider it an attack... after all, it's about your mother, not you...Anonimu 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that comparison gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "A loyal son of the Communist Party"... K. Lásztocska 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a clear distinction between saying in general "I think all people who [...] are morons" and saying directly "You are a moron", although if you use formal logic those sentences are equivalent in the case of the specific person, I think one is just an opinion and the other one is personal attack, for example if I say that all Communists are morons, that's a personal opinion of mine about Communists, if I say "Anonimu is a moron" then that's a personal attack -- why the difference? Because, it's not me who includes Anonimu in the Communist group, that's his personal choice. It's also because that's a figure of speech, most of the Communists might be morons, but some might be misled, some might be very bright but not have enough information, etc, in common speech I can't detail all the exceptions and make differences for all the situations. As for his example with the Biruitorul's mother, that's a clear personal attack, if he would say "I think that all mothers on East Coast are infringing the 7th" that would be at most laughable... and for the record, all the people who edit Wikipedia are morons (that's a joke!) -- AdrianTM 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you try to start a crusade against Anittas? After all, he just said that Wallachian are this and that. Am I the only non hypocritical Romanian left ?Anonimu 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people can choose to be Communists or not, but they can't choose their race or nationality, making bad remarks about race is called racism, making comments about Communism, Capitalism, etc are just opinions about politics and good or bad decisions that people make. Basically I can make a comment about what poor decision you made when you bought your car (hey I know that [...] model is much better for lower  price), but commenting about your colour, nationality, sex should be out of discussion in any civilized setting, do you have other opinion about this issue? Do you think we should start to talk about which race and nationality are better here on Wikipedia? Why do you call people hypocritical, isn't that another personal attack? I see that you are not capable to learn the lesson from this RfC, I will modify my opinion accordingly. -- AdrianTM 05:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck proving that a Romanian is racist against his own nationality. As for your race, I don't know what it is. Btw, stop being such a crybaby. To call someone a hypocrite is hardly a PA; and even if it was, big deal. Stop crying already! --Thus Spake Anittas 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can check the discusion and see that you said that "Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals", you didn't talk about Romanians in general. And BTW is nothing new in being racist against your own race, simple example: Jewish person who says that Jewish people are inferiors is anti-semitic. A black person who believes and acts on the premise that blacks are inferior is racist. Why would that be different in case or Romanians? "Stop crying" -- sorry but I didn't notice where I was crying, I think I was discusing in a civilized manner about your uncivilized behaviour, telling me "stop crying" is just a small addition to your uncivilized behaviour. -- AdrianTM 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If a black person views his kind as inferior to others, it may be so due to having inferioty complexes and not because he's racist. This often mirrors the society the subject is in contact with. As for being of a different race from the rest of the mammals...who said that must be a bad thing? LOL! --Thus Spake Anittas 12:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That of course if such activities: "abuse women, children and animals" that you claim are characteristics for the different race of mammals called Muntenians are good things. So, do you honestly think that you are not racist? I think I gathered enough material to open an RfC about you, I will wait though to see how this RfC is solved to see if my trust in the system is well founded or not, of course if RfCs are useless then I will just let this issue be... -- AdrianTM 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any fool can open a RfC. Check this cool RfC. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for encouragement, this means that even I can open one... great news! -- AdrianTM 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because people can choose their ethnicity too (unless some nazi comes and says: your mother was jew/negro/slav/etc, thus you are also does this mean I called those people who deny the national selfidentifications of moldovans a nazi? who cares). Moreover, since one choses his political opinions by himself, insulting that political beliefs is much more a personla attack. Nop, but I think we shouldn't start about which ideology is better (even if I took part in some civilized capitalism vs communism debates here), since we should be a bunch of nonpartisan people who write a neutral wikipedia. Of course nazism is clearly far from being a good ideology (it's antisemitism and racism being imprinted in its founding documents; this can't be said about the deeds of Stalin and the founding documents of communism). If in a particular situation you take a point, and in another that's essentially just like the first you take the opposite stand, you're an hypocrite (unless you hit your head between the two moments and got some strange mental condition). You can modify all you want, but facts are facts. I won't pretend you're right when you aren't, just to gain your sympathy. I have a code d'honneur, and i'll keep to that.Anonimu 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People can choose their identity, not their origins. I guess there is more than one definition for the word. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, at first I didn't look at the sig and didn't know who responded, Anonimu or Anittas. I find this discussion amazing because of the arguments brought forth by you two. Sorry guys, but I'm out of this discussion on the account that I said what I had to say. -- AdrianTM 12:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was Ronline that brought up this debate once, mentioning the German and French argument. If I remember it correctly, the Germans based their idea on nationality on ethnicity, whereas the French based it on citizenship. Of course, even ethnicity is a debated issue, so the controversary doesn't stop there. I understand your point, though, but I think that Muntenians do have a choice. They can denounce Bucharest, orientalism, and abuse against women, children and animals. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... do all Muntenians abuse women, children and animals? Or you define "Muntenians" as the people who abuse women, children and animals, so people who don't do that are not Muntenians? So, by calling "Muntenian" couple of people on this page you actually called them abusers of women, children and animals? BTW, thanks for detailing your racist views, it's fascinating. -- AdrianTM 13:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Wheren't you two the bravest defenders of that wiki principle "discuss content, not editors"? How i'm supposed to enter in a mediation process with you two when you clearly have something personally with me(as the uncalled-for personal attack on this page proves). If defending truth means defending stalinism, i'll do it. And i don't remember blindly adhering to a dogma. All my opinions are supported by logical arguments (BTW, i'll unwatch this article, so if you want to further attack me, use my talk page)" does, indeed, sound like an interesting response to an at least established, as well as a respected editor's comment on taking his side. I hope Anonimu is proud of himself; he (admittedly with Anittas) has given me a negative opinion about Romanians—please tell me all Romanians aren't this way? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanians don't have a good image. At least not in the west. I'm guessing your English, so you know what I'm talking about. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not proud, since that would be a sin. However I know (I'm convinced, for the non-believers) my reply was the only right one. I'm not a whore, to accept insults just to promote my version. Sorry, but no matter what pre 20th century pseudoscientists may have said (and fascists of the 20th century), ethnicities don't have different moral traits. If you judge an ethnicity only by 2 persons (me and Anittas), or even 2 & 1/2(Dahn, Turgidson, Biruitorul), you're the one having problems.Anonimu 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, you have brought the average back up to zero, as I did not know that Biruitorul was Romanian, neither Dahn, and I do not know Turgidson. Interesting that you say being proud is a sin—the Ninth Commandment says (paraphrased) "thou shalt not lie", which is interesting because you have repeatedly called Lastochka, if not me, "nationalist" (not a negative term in my book as I am proudly nationalistic of both America and Ireland), "groupie", etc. etc. I understand though—sometimes it's easy to conveniently forget things. After all, I have done the same myself. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always ready to help. I don't remember calling K. "nationalist", but if I did (did I?), I surely has serious reasons. The groupie thing has nothing to do with the 9th...Anonimu 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While I would agree with this in general, in this case this is good to stay here to show the character of people involved. I do hope admins will take into consideration all parties involved, as it says in the RfC info page. -- AdrianTM 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Count me as another vote for moving it to talk--it's getting really out of hand and if we must engage in our favorite pastime of mud-slinging on here, let's at least try not to gum up the official proceedings too much. K. Lásztocska 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, the mob references were just metaphoric (did someone believe otherwise?), and maybe I used the word "vandal" too laxly sometimes (but then I realized that only bonnie can be considered a vandal), but, as far as my actions are concerned, there's no infringement of the 9th... Anonimu 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of "outside view by Anittas speaks"

message: =====Request for clarification=====
Since the author of this RfC considered it a 'User conduct" one, and you've acknowledged that we have exchanged compliments before, I fail to understand why did you put your comment as an "Outside view". And you should probably focus on how bad am I, and not on subjective things like the definition of massacre and genocide, or mores Anonimu 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he listed it as an "outside view" because he was not originally named as one of the involved parties in this case...but why does it matter? K. Lásztocska 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "users who are concerned by this user's conduct" should comment in the first category, not here. I don't like wolves dressed in sheeps.Anonimu 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wolves in sheep's clothing"...now why does that concept sound so familiar? Oh, and don't you dare insult István ever again.K. Lásztocska 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is because he's very familiar with the mindset behind the slogan… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: and BTW, all please note again the very next ("discussion") section; any other editor moving this subsection to talk has my full support. István 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As requested, please find the subsections renamed as "discussion of..." rather than "reaction to...". (I believe it's more correct). István 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What would you prefer, "Glorious Revolutionary and Proletarian Demand for Information regarding the Outside View by István"? K. Lásztocska 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a nice one (except the "Glorious" part... too imperialistic), however the title I used will suffice.Anonimu 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, like communism was never imperialist...K. Lásztocska 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, by definition communism is anti-imperialistic. 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then get your head out of the Communist Manifesto and look at the real world for once...the "anti-imperialist" Soviet Union enslaved half of Europe and a good bit of Central Asia. Anti-imperialist...yeah, right. K. Lásztocska 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet Union was never a communist society, and even had problems with respecting the ideology in some periods. And it didn't enslave anybody.Anonimu 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh yeah?  See :Category:Gulag, :Category:Victims of Soviet repressions, :Category:Soviet occupation just for starters. And check out this book review. Turgidson 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this is not the University of Bucharest. People here are not that stupid. Obviously, he was referring to the true ideology of Communist, which does not condone the practices taken by Stalin and his Soviet. Karl Marx was very dissapointed in how his ideology was abused to form the system in which Soviet developed. Much like Christianity developed into a terror religion during its early days of establishment. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx died 20 years before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split and 34 years before the October Revolution. The only approximate attempt at implementing communist revolution during his lifetime was the Paris Commune, with which he was quite pleased. He was also sympathetic toward evolutionary Marxist parties like the SPD. How he would have reacted to Leninism is pure speculation. Biruitorul 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking of his stand on Bessarabia, which Adrian already posted here. I confused that period with the Communist period. As I've said, to the great dissapointment of Adrian, I'm not very knowledgeable of this era and would rather read what others have to say, than share my own thoughts on the matter. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Commune was cool indeed.. unfortunately it was put down by the Reaction.Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also funny in this context in which Anonimu declares himself a Communist and defends Soviet interests against Romania that Marx had a clear pro-Romanian position in case of Bessarabia (so much so that Communists had to hide his writings for a while). Sorry, not really relevant to this discussion, I only find it funny (and a little bit ironic) Karl Marx,correspondence for the New York Tribune: “The Russian showed their real nature. The annexation through abuse, the savage devastations, and the total robbery of Bessarabia, threw a sad hope for this unlucky Romanian province. There were horrific excesses. The population was ripped of all of their belongings, forced labor, theft and murders were common things. More than that, over thirty thousand men and women were put to ploughs, under the brutal hits of the Cossacks knuts (whips), as to be used as cattle to till and to heavy transports. Never has been such an atrocious killing of lives, of thefts and barbarisms, like the one of the Russian officers and the troops of this invasion.” -- so I guess Anonimu is not Marxist. -- AdrianTM 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To equate Imperial Russia with the Soviet Union is the typical nationalist stand. Even Biru is trying not to do that extremely puerile identification.Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't equate anything, I said pro-Romanian not anti-Russian or anti-Sovietic. -- AdrianTM 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you're incoherent: You said that I'm not marxist because i "defend Soviets interests", while Marx criticized Russia. If Russia != Soviet, your statement has no logic.Anonimu 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this. While Marx criticized Russia and not Soviet Union, Soviets never agreed with Marx comments because they would have had to admit implicitly that Bessarabia was Romanian land, therefore Soviets hushed Marx comment. So if you defend Soviet talking points you implicitly, at least in this case, are against Marx (not because Marx was against Soviets, but because Soviets were against Marx in this instance) -- which makes it a little bit ironic for a Romanian Communist to be both against Romanians and against Marx thinking that by his position he defends Communism. -- AdrianTM 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since Soviets never said Marx was wrong in that matter, your position is incomprehensible. Also, Bessarabia had a vlachophone majority in 1812 (the moment  Marx refers to), but the things were quite different by WWI.Anonimu 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, "vlachophones" were the predominant inhabitants of Bessarabia and along the left bank of the Dniester (pretty much in line with today's PMR-controlled territory) into the 20th century. PētersV 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Would my position be comprehensible if Soviets said that Marx was wrong in that respect? Also, I already explained to you why "vlachophone" doesn't make any sense in the context, but feel free to use the incorrect term.... and as PētersV says they were the predominant inhabitants even after being sent to Siberia and after illegal settling of Russians and others (since, using Marx reference Russian occupation was illegitimate and criminal) -- AdrianTM 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please define Communism -- I will prove it to you that no matter how you define it, it would be against some basic freedoms of people including the right to dispose of their time and the products of their time and effort. Frankly I have no problem if you and Anonimu any other communist  would set up a communist society among yourselves, what bothers me is that this kind of people want to impose it to the rest of the society, that's what Marx wanted too, which of course is unlawful, oppressive, and plain criminal from inceptions there's no such thing as "beautiful ideals of Communism applied in a wrong way" the ideals themselves are harmful. -- AdrianTM 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead of our article about communism is pretty correct. (Not the rest of the article, based sometimes on the evasive conclusions of some right-wingers). Also the our series about the "left wing" of communism (in a wider sense) should give you an idea of what was really ment. About the last part of your comment, that's just the result of indoctrination of the post-coup rightist formations abusively calling themselves "representants of the civic society".Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's any indoctrination, I always thought that, even before "post" and I can challenge anyone to show me how "original" communist ideals don't go against personal liberties. -- AdrianTM 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Commie and I don't believe in that system. If you force people to share, things will get messy. I'm a Libertarian and please don't try to prove anything to us. If we're interested in political science, we'll read a book or two. I won't try to define Communism because I'm not qualified to do so. I just know the basics behind the ideology, like most people do. Anonimu is thinking of the Communism that does not use extensive violence against people and which is not overly corrupted. That is, the Communism that never happened, unless you count Pythagora's Communism. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you knew more, you know being so dismissive about other people convinced me that you are a head above them. -- AdrianTM 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of "Outside View by István"

message: Since the author of this RfC considered it a 'User conduct" one, and you've acknowledged that we have exchanged compliments before, I fail to understand why did you put your comment as an "Outside view". And you should probably focus on how bad am I, and not on subjective things like the definition of massacre and genocide, or mores Anonimu 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he listed it as an "outside view" because he was not originally named as one of the involved parties in this case...but why does it matter? K. Lásztocska 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "users who are concerned by this user's conduct" should comment in the first category, not here. I don't like wolves dressed in sheeps.Anonimu 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wolves in sheep's clothing"...now why does that concept sound so familiar? Oh, and don't you dare insult István ever again.K. Lásztocska 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is because he's very familiar with the mindset behind the slogan… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: and BTW, all please note again the very next ("discussion") section; any other editor moving this subsection to talk has my full support. István 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As requested, please find the subsections renamed as "discussion of..." rather than "reaction to...". (I believe it's more correct). István 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What would you prefer, "Glorious Revolutionary and Proletarian Demand for Information regarding the Outside View by István"? K. Lásztocska 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a nice one (except the "Glorious" part... too imperialistic), however the title I used will suffice.Anonimu 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, like communism was never imperialist...K. Lásztocska 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, by definition communism is anti-imperialistic. 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then get your head out of the Communist Manifesto and look at the real world for once...the "anti-imperialist" Soviet Union enslaved half of Europe and a good bit of Central Asia. Anti-imperialist...yeah, right. K. Lásztocska 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet Union was never a communist society, and even had problems with respecting the ideology in some periods. And it didn't enslave anybody.Anonimu 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh yeah?  See :Category:Gulag, :Category:Victims of Soviet repressions, :Category:Soviet occupation just for starters. And check out this book review. Turgidson 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, this is not the University of Bucharest. People here are not that stupid. Obviously, he was referring to the true ideology of Communist, which does not condone the practices taken by Stalin and his Soviet. Karl Marx was very dissapointed in how his ideology was abused to form the system in which Soviet developed. Much like Christianity developed into a terror religion during its early days of establishment. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx died 20 years before the Bolshevik-Menshevik split and 34 years before the October Revolution. The only approximate attempt at implementing communist revolution during his lifetime was the Paris Commune, with which he was quite pleased. He was also sympathetic toward evolutionary Marxist parties like the SPD. How he would have reacted to Leninism is pure speculation. Biruitorul 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking of his stand on Bessarabia, which Adrian already posted here. I confused that period with the Communist period. As I've said, to the great dissapointment of Adrian, I'm not very knowledgeable of this era and would rather read what others have to say, than share my own thoughts on the matter. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Commune was cool indeed.. unfortunately it was put down by the Reaction.Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also funny in this context in which Anonimu declares himself a Communist and defends Soviet interests against Romania that Marx had a clear pro-Romanian position in case of Bessarabia (so much so that Communists had to hide his writings for a while). Sorry, not really relevant to this discussion, I only find it funny (and a little bit ironic) Karl Marx,correspondence for the New York Tribune: “The Russian showed their real nature. The annexation through abuse, the savage devastations, and the total robbery of Bessarabia, threw a sad hope for this unlucky Romanian province. There were horrific excesses. The population was ripped of all of their belongings, forced labor, theft and murders were common things. More than that, over thirty thousand men and women were put to ploughs, under the brutal hits of the Cossacks knuts (whips), as to be used as cattle to till and to heavy transports. Never has been such an atrocious killing of lives, of thefts and barbarisms, like the one of the Russian officers and the troops of this invasion.” -- so I guess Anonimu is not Marxist. -- AdrianTM 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To equate Imperial Russia with the Soviet Union is the typical nationalist stand. Even Biru is trying not to do that extremely puerile identification.Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't equate anything, I said pro-Romanian not anti-Russian or anti-Sovietic. -- AdrianTM 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you're incoherent: You said that I'm not marxist because i "defend Soviets interests", while Marx criticized Russia. If Russia != Soviet, your statement has no logic.Anonimu 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this. While Marx criticized Russia and not Soviet Union, Soviets never agreed with Marx comments because they would have had to admit implicitly that Bessarabia was Romanian land, therefore Soviets hushed Marx comment. So if you defend Soviet talking points you implicitly, at least in this case, are against Marx (not because Marx was against Soviets, but because Soviets were against Marx in this instance) -- which makes it a little bit ironic for a Romanian Communist to be both against Romanians and against Marx thinking that by his position he defends Communism. -- AdrianTM 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since Soviets never said Marx was wrong in that matter, your position is incomprehensible. Also, Bessarabia had a vlachophone majority in 1812 (the moment  Marx refers to), but the things were quite different by WWI.Anonimu 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, "vlachophones" were the predominant inhabitants of Bessarabia and along the left bank of the Dniester (pretty much in line with today's PMR-controlled territory) into the 20th century. PētersV 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Would my position be comprehensible if Soviets said that Marx was wrong in that respect? Also, I already explained to you why "vlachophone" doesn't make any sense in the context, but feel free to use the incorrect term.... and as PētersV says they were the predominant inhabitants even after being sent to Siberia and after illegal settling of Russians and others (since, using Marx reference Russian occupation was illegitimate and criminal) -- AdrianTM 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please define Communism -- I will prove it to you that no matter how you define it, it would be against some basic freedoms of people including the right to dispose of their time and the products of their time and effort. Frankly I have no problem if you and Anonimu any other communist  would set up a communist society among yourselves, what bothers me is that this kind of people want to impose it to the rest of the society, that's what Marx wanted too, which of course is unlawful, oppressive, and plain criminal from inceptions there's no such thing as "beautiful ideals of Communism applied in a wrong way" the ideals themselves are harmful. -- AdrianTM 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead of our article about communism is pretty correct. (Not the rest of the article, based sometimes on the evasive conclusions of some right-wingers). Also the our series about the "left wing" of communism (in a wider sense) should give you an idea of what was really ment. About the last part of your comment, that's just the result of indoctrination of the post-coup rightist formations abusively calling themselves "representants of the civic society".Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's any indoctrination, I always thought that, even before "post" and I can challenge anyone to show me how "original" communist ideals don't go against personal liberties. -- AdrianTM 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Commie and I don't believe in that system. If you force people to share, things will get messy. I'm a Libertarian and please don't try to prove anything to us. If we're interested in political science, we'll read a book or two. I won't try to define Communism because I'm not qualified to do so. I just know the basics behind the ideology, like most people do. Anonimu is thinking of the Communism that does not use extensive violence against people and which is not overly corrupted. That is, the Communism that never happened, unless you count Pythagora's Communism. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought you knew more, you know being so dismissive about other people convinced me that you are a head above them. -- AdrianTM 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification

message: Illythr, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree, about: ""no sources = the truth" that's the root of your error in interpretation. No sources stating it didn't happen, because sources will either say it did happen or say nothing about it." And why will sources say it did happen (write that occupation occurred) or say nothing about it (not bother to write that occupation did not occur)? Because no one writes about what is obviously true (that occupation did not occur). So, [both sides "know"] Anonimu cannot produce a source to support his POV because no one writes about what is obviously true (his POV). If you wish to persuade me there's some half-way jump-off areas-of-gray (subject to interpretation by "open minds" per Anonimu) point between Anonimu's statement and what I have drawn as the inevitable conclusion, there isn't one. If you wish to persuade me I have erred in my conclusion, I have not. I have witnessed all sorts of debates on Wikipedia, and this is the first and only instance where someone has defended their editorial position by explaining why it's perfectly logical and to be expected that they have no sources to back their position. PētersV 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peters, you're getting there. Your premise is merely incomplete. A full one would look like "someone has defended their editorial position by explaining why it's perfectly logical and to be expected that they have no sources that explicitly disprove a specific statement by stating that it is false." It is certainly not meant as proof of the occupation not happening nor a claim that no sources are required to prove it (as you conjecture in your statement). Rather, it looks like a petulant complaint that you guys won't accept any of his sources because none will say anything contrary to "Romania was occupied between 1944 and 1958". Some (like Britannica) will only say that Romania was occupied in 1944. Some won't say anything about it at all. --Illythr 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment simply screams "straw man".Anonimu 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Illythr, in defense of User:Vecrumba, the logic of Anonimu's statements and of his edits is so twisted, that it's hard to fathom (believe me, I've had the same problem many times with his edits).  So I think PētersV (and you, too) have made a valiant effort at deconstructing the logic behind those statements.  But this is a bit like arguing about How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?.  What I'm saying -- and I repeat it -- in the end, all these edit wars by Anonimu, involving the Soviet occupation page we are discussing now, and about a dozen or twenty related pages, are, by and large, not based on reliable sources, just on his personal opinions and Pov, which, almost invariably, he cannot back up with any reliable sources.  In this case, it has nothing to do with whether the "Soviets were evil" or not -- it boils down to two simple questions: (1) did they have large numbers of troops in Romania during the period in question (1944--1958)? and (2) do most reliable sources characterize that presence as "occupation"?  These two questions have been answered in the affirmative by the vast majority of editors who have been involved in this (and related) discussions. No matter how tortuous the logic behind Anonimu's statements is, the fact remains that he keeps refusing this consensus, resorting to revert wars, repeatedly slapping Pov tags, accusing good-faith editors of all sorts of things -- the works -- without actually adding content to Wikipedia (well, almost no content), or providing reliable sources.  That's the core issue here, and that's what this Rfc is largely about, yes? Turgidson 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incivil? Impose a penalty of progressive blocks (up to one week) for each further incivility, then. Revert warring? Put him on 1RR in targeted articles with progressive blocks up to one month for breaking the rule (note that it take more than one guy to wage a revert war, though). Just don't ban him because he's an evil commie (as the last paragraph of Istvan's statement, well, states). --Illythr 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Illythr: Sorry for the confusion about interchanging signatures -- I don't know how that happened. I have real difficulties with editing such long blobs of text with this not-so-great editing tool, not to say all the edit conflicts that occur (I just had one with you a few seconds ago).  I think it would be better to break such discussions in smaller, more manageable chunks. Turgidson 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Its ridiculous - "no source = proof" ?  Postulate: Clapton is God.  There are no sources stating this, therefore Clapton IS God.  That's silly.  Anonimu's contention that "of course there are no sources for something obviously true" is equal to "of course there are no sources for something obviously false".  No sources is not a proof of truth, but rather an *indication* of obviousness one way or the other, indetermined, c.p. - either obviously true or obviously false.  But none of these is proof. István 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Istvan, you should take care with that. Vecrumba's quotes are only imaginary, so don't try to built something on them.Anonimu 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Istvan, you are correct about everything in your second paragraph except for attributing that contention to Anonimu, who said "of course there are no sources stating that something didn't happen". --Illythr 22:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of response continued (2)

message: *During this very RfC, User:Vecrumba (by all accounts an editor of unimpeachable integrity) contacted the author of a reference Anonimu had trotted out to support a fringe theory and confirmed the source was in error. Anonimu, in a blatant breach of good faith and a WP:POINT violation (not to mention WP:STICK), repeatedly refused to trust Vecrumba and move on.
::I'm sorry, but Anonimu did the right thing. The user in question was asked to confirm the validity of his claim by sending an email to Wikipedia. Anonimu did the right thing for not taking the comment for granted and it has nothing to do with all the things mentioned by you above. --Thus Spake Anittas 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do review WP:AGF, and I also suggest moving this and your comment to talk. Biruitorul 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF has nothing to do with source validity. I bet the guy couldn't upload a photo and tell others to assume AFG, because he doesn't feel like emailing Wikipedia to confirm its status. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which "guy" are you talking about, and which photo?  Are you referring to the professor who wrote an email to User:Vecrumba about the error in the book?  Why keep beating on this particular dead horse?  As they say, "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Turgidson 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look above to see who started the beating. I just can't believe that you people have become so desperate in finding faults on Anonimu, that you even try to use this against him when he clearly did nothing wrong. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I wasn't "finding fault" with anyone in the above comment — just giving some friendly advice to stop flogging a dead horse, and not dig any deeper into that particular hole.  It's a dry hole, believe me.  Turgidson 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your analogy that it's a dry hole. There's no water to be found, so I suggest closing this RfC and try to move on. As for this particular hole, I just replied to Bir's statement a few hours ago. I'm ready to let it go and I hope Bir and others involved will feel the same way. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hole I was referring to is the one about the book saying that the Soviet Union did not occupy Romania at the end of WWII (!).  Why waste any more time and energy on such a patently absurd claim?  As for this RfC, I think it's alive and well, so let's keep on truckin'.  But, yeah, it would also be good to come to a conclusion in finite time.  Turgidson 15:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute could've been resolved in 5 minutes, if they were reasonble people. Some of them are quick to point out to the Wiki policy, even when not fully understanding it; but in this case, the Wiki policy would've helped. If the Romanian side viewed things in a certain way, mention it. If the allies viewed things in a certain way, mention it. If the Soviets viewed things in their own way, mention it. If neutral scholars viewed things in a different way, mention that, also. Instead of covering all point of views, they started to refuse each other's sources and a couple of months later, we are here, with one faction trying to get this guy banned. At the top of the RfC, I read two things: keep the RfC at one dispute only and start it only when you've tried all the other resolutions. None of these things have been tried. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a RfC reviewed by admins? Do we need to submit it for arbitration? How does this work? I think that only 2 people jumped to defend ill-manners of Anonimu and at least one of them is equally ill-mannered (see racists comments above in this page). -- AdrianTM 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you focus on the RfC and not on analysing other editors. Your two blocks don't make you a rolemodel and I'm not even familiar with a single article contribution by you, so drop the cockiness and start writing, instead. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't comment on your other external contributions, I commented on what I've seen in this very page, which I think is only fair. Yes, I had two blocks for 3RR, but at least I didn't have a RfC for antisemitism and still continue to spurt racist remarks without remorse like you do. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been anti-semitic and never will be. The comment was misunderstood and Joe was told the real reason behind it a year later; altough it's not very difficult to understand the reason behind it. Joe redrew his allegations against me. Stop trying to look for trouble. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  "so drop the cockiness and start writing, instead." -- please control your tone, I manage my time and my voluntary contributions to Wikipedia as well as I please, you are not my boss to ask me to write, or to evaluate my contribution to Wikipedia, nor you should be allowed to give people advice about "cockiness", which sounds pretty much like an uncalled personal attack -- AdrianTM 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you should stop looking for trouble, make off-topic remarks, as you keep doing in this RfC; and make false allegations against other members. That is equally, if not more serious, than PA. We don't even know who you are. If you want to make your name known in this community, picking on other people without having any basis for it, will not earn you anything good. And if you're not here to earn anything, then stop doing whatever it is that you are doing. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My name is already well known to the anglo-american imperialists. (BTW, isn't it interesting that I have only one contester from inside Romania?)Anonimu 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's clear there's no real external view on the matter, so don't jump to conclusions.Anonimu 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (if I understand right this was addressed to me, even though it looks like it's addressed to Anonimu) My remarks are not off-topic, and I don't make false allegations as the proof is in this very page. For the last time please stop telling me (and actually to anybody) what to do. -- AdrianTM 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not here to work on article content, then why are you here? Just because you can? I don't quite understand what you're looking for. The role of political correctness and intellectual objectivity is already taken by Dahn. You know, the guy who was not blocked for 3RR, while you were. Yes, you are making off-topic remarks, since you're not supposed to discuss other editors, their credibility, how many people chose to support Anonimu, and you are supposed to stick yourself to one dispute, not everything that you don't fancy. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like I have to explain to you my contributions and motivations for editing Wikipedia, I feel personally attacked by your discussing my motivations, your insinuations, and especially you orders. If this is a rule not to discuss what other editors comment in this page so be it (please show me where that rule is and I will stop, but then, I think you should abide by the same rule, right?), but I thought it was relevant for this discussion to point out to your racist comments: "Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals" in this very page. -- AdrianTM 21:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, you don't have to explain yourself to me or anyone else; and in retrospect, the same applies to us; but it seemed to me that you wanted to discuss things, since you keep making references to me, so I wanted to be nice and grant you some attention. I don't think you can reason very well, though. You go to my talkpage and ask me to not call you for an "unknown dude" because you find that insultive. That's laughable. Look, if you just want to provoke me in order to gather material on me, then I suggest you change tactics pretty fast because so far, you've only made yourself look...unknown. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can agree with that, it looks like everyone who contributed to the discussion has known you for some time, BTW can you find more than 2 people to defend you? (and btw, none of these 2 people agreed with your statement) -- AdrianTM 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Singur impotriva tuturor, as a proud FC Rapid fan ;)Anonimu 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of "Statement of the dispute"

message: I take exception at the following rhetorical comment by Anonimu:  "My name is already well known to the anglo-american imperialists. (BTW, isn't it interesting that I have only one contester from inside Romania?)"  What exactly is meant by that?  Is this a personal attack on fellow editors, or am I missing something?  And what does it have to do with anything if the other editors involved in the Rfc are "from inside Romania", or not?   Turgidson 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lately, you people have seen only personal attacks made against you. You now play Italian football, where every body contact gives the player a yellow or red card. But okay, let's play ball: where do you see the personal attack? Could it be the reference to anglo-american imperialists? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For starters.  This kind of terminology (which I take as meant to be insulting -- how do you take it?) is par-for-the-course for Anonimu (I've seen him use such terms before), but I would have thought he'd refrain from such language in this setting. Turgidson 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find that insulting, then I wonder how you can survive when going outside. My suggestion is to learn to live with it, because I doubt people will support your nitpicks on every single, little, tiny insults that hurt your feelings. If Anonimu can go to bed after being called a Communist supporting Soviet propaganda by you, then I'm sure that with some effort, you will be able to do the same. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple difference is that Anonimu admits freely that he's Communist, what Turgisdson, as far as I know doesn't proclaim that he is an Anglo-American imperialist. -- AdrianTM 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Anonimu doesn't state that he's in support of Soviet propaganda, does he? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He wouldn't call it propaganda probably, but I don't think he's ashamed of Soviet POV. -- AdrianTM 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also find "anglo-american imperialists" insulting. -- AdrianTM 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wish. You're neither Anglo, nor American. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your definition of what is insulting very twisted, for example you don't need to be black to find bad words against blacks insulting, or to be Jew to find anti-Semitic expression insulting, the same about Anglo-Americans. And since you don't know much about me, what makes you declare, dripping with confidence, that I am not either Anglo or American? But even if you knew me, it would be irrelevant since as I've already explained you don't have to be part of a specific group to find this kind of attacks insulting.  -- AdrianTM 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, pretty much everything can be taken as an insult; sometimes, even the truth. I'm not saying this is the case here. I'm just trying to point out that the receptive party can find a lot of things insultive, but we can't--and we shouldn't--accomodate ourselves after each person's sensibility. To give you an example, whenever I wrote in poor English, Dahn made it clear to me that my English sucked. I felt insulted, but I didn't cry to some admin. I went back in there and I started to pick on his faults in English. Did he go and cry to some admin or open a RfC on me? No. He took it as a man. Did Anonimu go and cry to some admin whenever people insulted him and accused him on false basis? Nope. He took it as a Tatar. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That your (and my) English sucks is a fact, we can't deny that, going on with name calling is a different thing. While I find this offensive, I didn't die of offense, but as this RfC shows to us, this pattern of offensive behavior is not a non-issue with fellow editors -- it's also against WP policies. -- AdrianTM 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a fact, but it also has to do with how you use the fact and for what purpose. You can use a fact for malicious purposes and as such, you reach a far stronger effect than by simply calling someone names. Yet most people don't seem to react on that. They get stuck on namecalling, because that's the easiest thing to identify as being insultive; but they are also the most harmless insults. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Guys, you're funny... this is the best laugh i had this year on wiki. Aren't the majority of my contesters anglo-americans? they are. Isn't my name known to them? I suppose it is, since otherwise, how could they have found this RfC? Have they imperialist dreams? I bet they have, even if only Biruitorul has openly acknowledged it (even through the map on his user page). How many of you live in Romania? Are you more than 1? Surely you ain't. So I don't see any problem with my comment. I could  accuse you all of bad faith, but hey... you don't get to laugh reading wiki everydayAnonimu 10:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I fail to see what is so funny here or how geographical location of editors can be hold against them. I've seen in this page an attack against race, now I see what it seems to be an attack against geographical location of editors, please do yourself a favor and read WP:PA especially the first two bullet points -- editors' personal characteristics: nationality, ethnicity, and location are not to be discussed, if you want to discuss something, discuss what we say and our arguments, not our persons. Again, this is not a mortal offense, but it's clearly part of the continuing pattern of Anonimu's behavior of provoking people. This comes to show that this RfC is not working to make him straight up his behaviour. -- AdrianTM 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe anyone ever called Greater Romania an "empire", so referring to my aspirations as "imperialist" is incorrect. Irredentist and expansionist, yes, but not imperialist. Biruitorul 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment by [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]]

message: I take very strong exception to this new comment by Anonimu, in which he declares: "Presence of Soviet troops? of course. control of Romania by Soviet troops? nop. Occupation? I you're a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets, maybe." Now, what is this supposed to mean?   If this isn't a personal attack, grossly impugning the motives of a fellow WP editor, I don't know what is.  Turgidson 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I was just talking about Raceanu, Volodea and other authors of the cherry picked sources... You're not that important to be hired as spies or paid for editing wiki... P.S. I didn't know that RfCs are so funny.. should i do it more often?Anonimu 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if even Raceanu and Volodea are not acceptable to you, I don't know what is, short of The Glorious Soviet Encyclopedia. :) Man, Raceanu and Volodea were Communists, sons of Communists. The fact that they finished by criticising the system was done against their formation. It was trial and error. I also suspect the actions of Volodea involved a fair dose of opportunism (to say that his ideas might not have changed since). Dpotop 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raceanu did it for money, while Volo did it in revenge..., and then for money.Anonimu 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, exactly my point: The ones that are not exactly following the Party line are not reliable sources. In good old Soviet times they would have even got a show trial and be shot. Dpotop 10:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, according to the current democratic POV, which is the basis of NPOV, these guys are reliable sources. Very reliable, even if I don't like it (Volodea is too much a Politruk to my taste). So, you are way off the line (line=NPOV) here. Dpotop 10:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  We were not talking about Mircea Răceanu or Vladimir Tismăneanu when you made your accusations; rather, about editing the article on Soviet occupation of Romania here at WP.  And you used the word "you" (referring to the comments just above, made my me), not "they" or "them", when you said, and I quote again, "you're a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets".  I find this statement really offensive.    Turgidson 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey man, i thought you were good at english.. but maybe you should read a bit more.Anonimu 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another comment by [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]]

message: ...if I officially request a third opinion or other such outside view on this case (such as the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal)? I mean, we can keep bickering and mudslinging and bringing up the same tired arguments over and over and over again 'till kingdom come, but I can't help but think that's a waste of everyone's time... K. Lásztocska 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, K. Lásztocska.  As far as I am concerned, I am done with this discussion, at least for now.  After being called "anglo-american imperialist",  and "a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets" by User:Anonimu, I've just about had it.  If there is no one willing to intervene and put a stop to such grotesque personal attacks, I'd rather go do something else.  Turgidson 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax, he made it clear that you are not valuable enough to be a spy. -- AdrianTM 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think we need to move this forward, I wanted to ask how are things advanced to RfA because I saw RfCs from August still listed on that board, this seems like a very slow process. -- AdrianTM 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would anyone mind... 

message: Since RfC is "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines", is there anything we can agree to? I would suggest the following.
# Everyone's personal opinion is what it is: personal. Personal choices are the prerogative of the individual. Wikipedia is not the place to judge or opine upon personal choices.
# Wikipedia is not a venue for debates over personal choices.
# Everyone's editorial opinion and expression should be what it should be: a conclusion based on reputable verifiable sources which, when expressed in an article, fairly, faithfully, and accurately represents the original sources.
# Fair, faithful, and accurate representation of sources requires using terminology in the same fashion in the article as in the source. Personal and editorial opinions applied to changing the representation of a source to where representation in an article no longer uses original sources' terminology is "POV."
# In the (rare) instance that errors are confirmed in sources, that event should be dealt with in an atmosphere of editorial good faith. In the (usually more likely) event a source has been misinterpreted or misrepresented, the ensuing editorial debate should be conducted in an atmosphere of editorial good faith. (See following.)
# Debates on differing editorial opinions and expressions have as their goal the most accurate representation of available reputable sources. Not the most accurate representation of any single editor's editorial opinion. And under no circumstances the most accurate representation of any single editor's personal opinion.
# Labels such as POV and NPOV are grossly overused and are regularly abused to denounce opposing opinions, whether personal or editorial in nature. Editorial focus should be on fairly, faithfully, and accurately representing the original sources (per #4). Accusations regarding personal POV do not belong in Wikipedia. Accusations of editorial POV should provide as their basis, and be limited to, specifically how a reputable source has not been fairly, faithfully, and accurately represented.
Just some thoughts. If anyone has comments, please do so below, do not break up the list itself above. PētersV 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * My theory is that the personal biases are the very reason this project has so grown. It wouldn't be fun, and I can't think of a more productive motive than the push of one's personal POV. (yes, I can think of other modest motives such as the ideals for free information blah blah, but, hey, who are we kidding here.) It shouldn't be, but it very well is, and anyone who doesn't admit it is simply lying to himself. With small exceptions like me, of course. NikoSilver 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Other than that, yeah, nice put. NikoSilver 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The majority participate here (Baltic/Eastern/Central European sphere) because of their love of their heritage and history and desire to share it with others. Such personal biases are our inspirations. Everything else still needs reputable sources. :-) PētersV 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bias" may be semantically misleading, though the point is good.  "Truth, well told" is perhaps a better description of the ideal.  We are gratified to advocate our own perspectives, but "truth, well told" must still be "truth": the way things "are" and not "should (have) be(en)".  This community has explicitly agreed to adhere to a standard of *truth* as defined by evaluating "published reference from reliable sources" and when that speaks against our own perspectives then we must climb down.  Yes, Wikiworld would be more boring without the likes of Anonimu but remember, wikipedia is a collaboration, and this requires that we "collaborate".  Someone disrupting this collaboration should become a news junkie and get a blog instead of editing the wikipedia.  To allow someone to willfully, chronically obstruct with impunity, despite the failure of prior remedies, is massively demoralizing to all who play fair, thus damages this project. István 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely agreed. I would hope we can all say that we have learned something new in the experience of editing. And in cases where a majority of reputable sources run counter to our personal opinion, it's not a contest about proving or disproving opinion versus sources, it's about putting opinion aside ("climb down" per István) and taking that discrepancy between opinion and reputable sources as an opportunity to better inform ourselves. In discussing and editing WP, I have confirmed much that is good; confirmed some that is (from my perspective) bad, or worse, than I thought; and in many cases it has simply been a "Did You Know?" journey of discovery--which I freely admit has sometimes run contrary to long-held beliefs. PētersV 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree with  User:NikoSilver, but up to a point: after all, one may choose to add content to WP that has got nothing to do with history, or anything really controversial -- eg, geographical landmarks, or math, physics, etc (though I've instances where revert wars errupt even there!)  Be that as it may, I 100% agree with what User:Istvan says, to wit, "To allow someone to willfully, chronically obstruct with impunity, despite the failure of prior remedies, is massively demoralizing to all who play fair, thus damages this project."  Amen to that.  If we can make even a tiny step in that direction, I think it would be worthwhile.  Turgidson 16:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, I forgot to say, I very much agree with all that PētersV said, especially with point #7, which I think is very important, especially for this specific debate, but also more generally.  Turgidson 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good behavior? 

message: has been indefinitely blocked (again), this time for continued racism and hate speech.  See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_Anittas.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 for context. I don't know what bearing, if any, this would have on his comments within this case, but I thought you all should probably be notified. Neil ☎ 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anittas 

message: It seems to me that Anonimu challenges here the article Soviet occupation of Romania by comparing that occupation  with the Allied occupation of Germany. So:
# The US, France, the UK, and Russia did occupy Germany, and that article exists. Now, in Romania there were only Soviet forces, hence "Soviet occupation".
# Occupation it was, like in Germany, at least until the armistice was signed. Romanian prisoners were taken by the tens of thousands, as if Romania was still enemy. Thus, the title of the article is justified in reality, and by any standard.
# Reputable sources (the basis of Wikipedia) do use the term "occupation" for the entire period where Soviet forces were in Romania. You can't report here otherwise. It would be WP:OR.
Of course, Anonimu knows it. But the RfC must state it clearly. But he choosed to ignore it to push his extreme pro-Soviet POV. Dpotop 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?Anonimu 08:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet another dismissive remark. Hopefully, reviewers of this RfC will not be fooled. Dpotop 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About [[Soviet occupation of Romania]]

message: I actually never understood the point of RfCs. The ones interested in the subject (Romania and the Soviets) already edited the article. And there is nobody else giving "comments". In all the threads here we are just copy-pasting the discussions we already had with Anonimu ages ago. Should we post this on ANI? -- Dpotop (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually the Rest of the World +some "unknown" guy vs Romania. Also, calling me "Soviet" is pretty NPA.-- Anonimu (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No NPA. You are effectively following Soviet-time propaganda and rejecting Western sources by claiming they are "imperialist". Dpotop (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep pouring NPAs... you're actually making my case.Anonimu (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "It's actually the Rest of the World vs Romania" -- can you please detail what you mean by this? -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, this has to be submitted to ANI or somewhere, here it will just gather more endless discussions. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. The chutzpah of this guy has no bounds.  I mean, after he calls various people involved in this RfC "anglo-american imperialists", "a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets", and then totally disingenuously denies this was in any way a personal attack, he turns around and claims that saying "The ones interested in the subject (Romania and the Soviets)" is a personal attack!!  I mean, c'mon, get a grip — do words have any meaning left, or is all just a matter of obfuscation?  Turgidson (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just constantly amused by the tendency of this proud and avowed communist to get offended when somebody calls him...a communist. K. Lásztocska 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't offended by "communist", but by "soviet" (i.e.: supporter of a degenerated workers' state). However "communist" too falls under NPA, per policy.Anonimu (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this RfC? 

message: Unless something miraculous happens and we actually begin to make some progress on this RfC, I intend to list it on WP:RFAR. If anyone has particularly strenuous objections to that possibility, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. K. Lásztocska 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh lord no. I respect you, K, but we don't want more needless drama. Just drag an admin in and get him to ban/sanction Anonimu. Will (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what's the best solution, and I still don't know what's going on with this RfC. Does anyone besides those participating pay attention?  Are they supposed to, or is it all like crying in the desert?   Turgidson (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely why I want to take this to a "higher court"--right now it's just the same group of us as ever throwing around the same insults and accusations. We need outside intervention and I don't know a better way than arbitration--but if anyone has a better idea I'd love to hear it. Oh, and Will, we still need to respect due process. K. Lásztocska 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but let's not get into the moral equivalence trap, whereby the insults and wild accusations of someone like Anonimu are equated with the very ponderate and measured (at least in my opinions) opinions expressed by basically everyone else in this discussion.  (The only exception I can think of was by a user who has since been banned.)  Turgidson (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can repeat that to youself so you can sleep well during the night, buy you know very well you ain't right.Anonimu (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a whopping 18 endorsements of the summary, 11 for a sanction and 9 for a ban. Seems like enough consensus. Will (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the only true outside view considered all the "evidence" piffle.Anonimu (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and there's that admin who thinks most of the participants should be banned.Anonimu (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think Jeske would block me. Will (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I was supposed to be the guy with "near immunity" here... ю самфин бла KGB too? ;)Anonimu (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given Anonimu's comments, I've opened an RfAr (against my wishes). RfC is failing, lets get some binding solutions put on. Will (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to ask, but what (if anything) can others do to join in this RfAr?  I'm not familiar with the process, so any help (for instance, a pointer to the relevant policy page), or a quick guide to what the process involves (roughly, not in all gory detail!) would help.  Thanks. Turgidson (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, excellent. Biruitorul (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: I see that the RfAr has started.  In the meantime, the edit warring and signature personal attacks of Anonimu continue unabated -- after all, this seems to be his raison d'être here at WP.  In this edit, he calls any editor who disagrees with his  POV, a "fascist".  This clearly refers to the editor who had just made those previous edits -- that's me.  In the recent past, Anonimu has called me and some fellow editors ""anglo-american imperialists" and "a spy or a guy paid to accuse Soviets", but tried to weasel out of those personal attacks by saying, in effect, that they are not personal, which I find to be a grotesque explanation.  
At any rate, my question to the other contributors to this RfC (in case anyone still monitors this page) is: how does one proceed to  report this kind of behavior from Anonimu to the ArbCom?  Turgidson (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You get smarter and smarter.. Are you denying Caraza was a legioneer or that legioneers were fascists?Anonimu (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Cut out that mocking, sneering tone: in and of itself, that's a violation of WP:CIVIL.  I don't know that author's background -- perhaps you want to enlighten us all with a reliable source saying that he was a "legioneer" (sic) or a "fascist".  Until then, I take this like your previous assertions that basically everyone who disagrees with your POV is an "anglo-american imperialist", "spy", "guy paid to accuse Soviets", blah, blah, blah.  All that stays from that random name-calling are the personal attacks, and the underlying uncivility.  Turgidson (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued personal attacks by [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]]