Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:27, 1 September 2007

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

(Anittas | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Description

Disclaimer: Although this RfC has not been resolved to my full satisfaction, I accept Anittas' assertion that his remark was not intentionally anti-Semitic, and I have no current intention of further pursuing the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anittas, with whom I have interacted in the past, to the best of my recollection not always unfavorably, has made an anti-Semitic remark directed at another user. I took umbrage at this. I left a note on his talk page, asking him to retract and apologize, which he apparently will not do. I also added "Almost no amount of good conduct can make up for something like this in my eyes. And if you want to consider my remarks here a personal attack, fine, we can have our RfC now." Apparently, he does not intend to retract or apologize, and does consider my statement a personal attack, so here we are.

I will readily state that my own response may have been excessive, and I will retract my remarks if he will. But I will not allow anti-Semitic remarks to stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

anti-Semitic remark
Offensive statements at Node ue's sexual orientation: [1] (<--read this carefully till the end) [2]
#More offensive remarks by Anittas

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Civility
- "More serious examples"
  - racial, ethnic, and religious slurs

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, what "message" is made "more clear", to use Anittas's explanation, by adding a bunch of w's and exclamation marks to the word Jew? The only sensible interpretation is that it makes more clear that the comment is intended to be insulting. --Michael Snow 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Caesarion 10:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I have Node ue's discussion page on my watchlist, and I was already very surprised that the remark about the condoms did not lead to at least a one week block. Mr. Anittas has no business here, as he seems to have a clear political agenda and very unpleasant personal arguments (if you happen to agree with Node ue, who happens to be homosexual, you are supposed to have sex with him).[reply]
malber 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC) While I haven't been the victim of Anittas's anti-semitism, I have been a victim of his in-civility on my talk page. [3], [4], [5][reply]
This dumb-ass is a vandal who harassed a user who had left Wiki for a while, and who kept reverting their user- and talk-page. I had to ask an admin to keep an eye on those pages so that this dumb-ass wouldn't revert them again. And this RfC is not about me putting dumb-asses in their place; plus that this RfC has ended. Dumb ass! LOL! --Anittas 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anittas, simply calling somebody a "dumb-ass" is a violation of policy, see Wikipedia:Civility. No matter what he may've said to you, it's against policy to call people names. --Node 08:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We all remember malber when he harrast the user's page. Bonaparte talk 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anittas's behavior in his own RfC speaks for itself against him. --malber 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusting. This should proceed to RfAr imho. Ghirlandajo 10:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is Russian. He's against all Romanians. He tried to sabotage Bogdan's RfA. --Anittas 12:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not that's the case is irrelevant -- his endorsement is still perfectly valid. If you have problems with him, start an RfC against him -- your own RfC is not the place to attack others. --Node 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ramallite ^(talk) 15:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC) While I accept what others have concurred, that his remarks were not meant to be anti-Semitic, I am disappointed that Anittas has not been willing to acknowledge that he hurt another user's feelings and has not responded to my request for him to do so here.[reply]
←Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clean cut to me --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show no tolerance for this. Grace Note 05:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I, user:Anittas, King of the Hittites, ruler of the land of Hatti, conqueror and destroyer of Hattusa, have come here to defend myself against the many false acussations made against me by Jmabel, FeloniousMonk, and all their allies. I agree to build my argument with reason and with facts; and I wish to declare that I will dismiss all kind of speculation used as means for argument, and I also request the people who hold reason to judge in the same fashion. I would also like to dismiss other acussations made against me - may they me true or false - that do not follow the original declaration of the conflict: that being the acussation of anti-Semetic comment made by me. I say this, because, Jmabel instructed me that he would start a RfC on this subject of matter, and Jmabel mentioned no other subjects that would be involved in this dispute.

Before I start with my arguments, I wish to make a few remarks on this RfC.

In the section of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", the offenders have added a third so-called attempt to solve the dispute named "Note from FeloniousMonk suggesting an apology is in order". I dismiss this evidence, because at the time when FeloniousMonk wrote me the message, I was not at home, and thus, I had no chance to reply. Now, however, it is too late to try and solve the dispute with FeloniousMonk, because the RfC has already started. I would also like to point out that FeloniousMonk wrote me the message on my talk-page at 03:09, 13 December 2005, while she signed this petition against me at 03:30, 13 December 2005, which means that they left me only 21-minutes to react to their attempt to solve the dispute - which, in my opinion, the period of time given to me was too short.
I would like to point out that Oleg Alexandrov signed the petition against me before I even made my case, and for different reasons, as stated by himself here. This, he may do, of course, but this shows that this RfC might not only be about the current accusation made against me.

My arguments

Argument 1:

The dispute is about the following comment that I made:

---

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

---

Let it be known that I stand by that comment, because, from the information that I gathered from Node's user-page (the person that the comment was directed at), he is a Jew. He is not born in Moldova, as confessed by him, thus, my comment is correct in its context, unless proven differently. I am not the first to tell this to him; others have done the same, as can be seen on the talk-page of the relevant article. I then decided to make the message more clear by extending the word "Jew" to "Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww" and adding three exclamatory signs. My effort worked, but unfortunatelly not on Node, but on Jmabel.

Argument 2:

When Jmabel left me the message on my talk-page, he used a hostile tone, accusing me for making an anti-Semetic comment and demanding that I apologize to Node; or else, face a RfC where, and I quote: "my goal in doing so will be to get you banned from Wikipedia for as long a time as possible." Jmabel never took the time to first investigate the issue and make sure the context of the message was the one that he built his suspicion on. Jmabel did not assume good-faith, as Wikipedia suggests editors to do. I then told Jmabel that he could start a RfC on me, and here we are.

Jmabel also said that "if I see you make a similar edit again, whether about Jews or any other ethnicity, regardless of whom it is addressed to, be assured that I will start an RfC". This means that if I say to someone that they are an "Americaaaaaaaaaan", or "Indiaaaaaaaaaaan", or "Marsiaaaaaaaaaaaaan", Jmabel will start a new RfC on me each time I say it. But the interesting observation about this is that according to the logic used by Jmabel, if I say "Americaaaaaaan", it will not be anti-Semetic, but if I say "Jeeeeeeeeew", it then becomes anti-Semetic.

When Jmabel posted about this on ANI, he did not notify me about his publication on ANI; I had to find it my self. Even there, Jmabel did not take the time to ask me what I meant by that comment; instead, he focused on my refusal to apologize to Node, and, by speculating on what I could have meant when making the comment. All of Jmabel's argument is based on speculation and not on evidence.

Argument 3:

Those that know me, know that I'm not a fan of Nazis. I've made this clear on several locations, including Wikipedia. I will show some samples of where I stood up against Nazi ideology and even encouraged to hurt them. Ironically, this is what could actually harm me.

The last one could be in violation Wikipedia policy. As I have showed you here, I feel no symphaty for Nazis, and my comment towards Node was not meant the way Jmabel made it to be. At the end of the day, Node is a Jew, and not Moldovan. --Anittas 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bonaparte talk 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

If I say: You are a germannnnnnnnnnnnnn! is this anti-German?

If I say: You are a romaniannnnnnnnnnnn! is this anti-Romanian?

If I say: You are a britishhhhhhhhhhhhh! is this anti-British?

Answer: Of course not.

Joe! If someone will tell you: You are a Germannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Do you start an RfC?

My first impresion is that I think Joe has overreacted. More, he reacted in a subjective way and I will explain how he did it. Instead of looking that on that page there was a person like Node who expressed his extremist feelings in an anti-romanian approach very often, just because Node is partly a jew (he has addmited:"I only have 3/8ths" ([[6]])) and Joe is also a jew, Joe thaught to protect Node in this way. This is called double standards. Anyway it is not the issue here if Node or Joe are jewish or not. My question is why didn't he start an RfC against Node who was constantly labelling others as "sperm"? Why didn't he start an RfC against Node when that guy said that there are not Romanians in Moldova? Why didn't he start an RfC when Node denied the existence of the Moldavians=Moldovans=Romanians? Why? Why didn't he stopped this Anti-Romanianism? Why didn't he start an RfC? This is called double standards. When you are subjective and not objective you react like Joe.

He did not react like that when real anti-romanian remarks were done, but for a jewish fellow he did. This means he reacted in a discriminatory approach. He was not fair. He had taken as more important the argument: adherence to an ethnicity rather than the "anti-romanian" remarks of that person (Node).

How can my statement can be prooved? Very easy: Joe didn't react when romanians were attacked by anti-romanian remarks of Node.

Joe do you accept anti-romanian remarks?

So for him was more important the fact that Node was belonging to a certain ethnic community. Not the fact that Node has made very seriously anti-romanian remarks. I didn't saw him to say to Node at least: Hey Node, stop your anti-romanian approach!

So guys, stop puting fan on flames and if I ever catch you guys with this kind of approach I will start an RfC against all of you accusing you of Anti-Romanian remarks!

-- Bonaparte talk 14:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte, please start an RfC against us!!! For too long you have accused me and others of being anti-Romanian. Now it's time to resolve this according to the established system. Ahh, and for the last time, koncenii doesn't mean sperm -- even Tag agreed with me. --Node 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you to lie again even here Mark Williamson aka Node?

Just a tag said: " it is also considered to be quite vulgar (at least here), becase "кончать" would mean in a vulgar sense (you won't find that in a dictionary) to ejaculate, guess what "конченый" (in the same vulgar sense) might be, based on that. Just a tag" ([[7]]). So nobody agreed with you! Stop saying lies you have no credibility! -- Bonaparte talk 07:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're the liar here. Mister Tag said "It is a slang, basically in russian it means "washed-up"". See? Washed-up. "Tu eshti koncenii" means "You're all washed-up", not "you're jizz" (forgive the latter expression). It has the same word-root as "konchati" but it's not the same word. "Konchati" means literally "something which has finished" (according to translate.ru), but in slang it means "guy who ejaculated". Both come from root word "konchit" (see Oxford dictionary of the Russian Language), which means "to finish". "Koncenii" though definitely doesn't mean sperm!!! --Node 09:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this RfA, but User:Node_ue is lying here. He used the term "koncenii" referring to me first, and I investigated the mattera bit. The term is indeed russian slang (just make a google search for "konchenii", the first link is obvious enough). Dpotop 00:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputed that it's Russian slang. Of course "koncenii" is Russian slang. What is disputed, is whether or not it means "sperm", which it doesn't. According to [8], the "first link" which is according to you "obvious eniough", "konchenii" means in Russian prison jargon "the one on top" (in a male-male relationship). However, that site also said that most people outside of prison don't know any prison jargon, which is certainly true here -- for people who aren't prisoners, it just means "washed-up". Now, don't accuse me of lying unless you can provide a definitive source which speaks against what I've said, which you can't because I'm telling the truth. --Node 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honbicot 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Invoking anti-semitism in this case was an over reaction and verges on intimidation. Honbicot 05:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Ronline

I think the crux of this dispute lies in the insulting nature of "Jew" or "Jewwww...". Anittas believes that, just like American or Romanian, Jew is an name for an ethnicity or religion, and inherently implies no discrimination. I would agree with this. Then, there's the issue of intent - did Anittas intend to insult Node by calling him a "Jewwww", or did he just seek to tell him that since he is a Jew, and not a Moldovan, he can not talk about Moldovan issues like a Moldovan? I think the use of the word "Jewwww", with the many Ws, indicates some sort of insult, though perhaps not enough to qualify it as a racial slur. What's important here is the opinion of Node. I think Node has some grounds to say that Anittas was acting in an uncivil manner and insulted him. I think comments like this should not be made in the future, and Anittas should make sure that the comments he makes are not insulting, either to a person's race, or to one's sexual orientation. Anittas' comments about Node's sexual orientation were insulting and repeated.

Finally, it's one thing to label someone as something, and another to discriminate/insult him for that. Saying to someone simply "You are a Jew" or "You are gay" is not inherently insulting. However, saying to someone "You have no right to talk. You are a Jew." or "The Jew Node strikes again" is insulting and shouldn't be tolerated. Ronline ✉ 06:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree in some areas with Ronline but Anittas should give a general apology for his comment. By the way, whenever you tell someone "You are a Jew", it sounds bad. The more proper way to express this is, "You are Jewish". In Romanian (I may be mistaken), the distinction is much less clear, so maybe Anittas brought that over into English. In Romanian, we have "esti jidan" (You're a Jew) and "esti un jidan" (You're a Jew). Or "esti evreu" (You're a Jew) or "esti un evreu" (You're a Jew). This could be a case of Lost in Translation. See the way the authoritative Romanian dictionary defines jidan: it directs you to evreu, and under evreu it says: "1. Persoana (de religie mozaica) facand parte din populatia originara prin traditie din Israelul si Iudea antice; izrealit. 2. Persoana care face parte din populatia de baza a actualului stat Israel." So both jidan and evreu is directly translated as Jew (a noun), not Jewish (most often an adjective). So let's keep in mind that Anittas is a native Romanian-speaker who apparently lives in Romania and may not be aware that the way he used it in English is offensive. Alexander 007 08:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is evidence that Anittas may not have realized that saying "You are a Jew" can be offensive.

I do not see evidence that Anittas is anti-Semitic. His comment was directed at Node, who may have been born outside of Moldova. So Anittas feels that Node is not Moldovan or Moldavian. Anittas states that Node is a Jew, and neither Moldovan or Moldavian. But he does not state "You are not Moldavian or Moldovan, because you are a Jew." Alexander 007 09:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have explained, without resorting to charges of anti-Semitism, why Anittas stated that Node is not Moldavian or Moldovan, but "a Jew". Alexander 007 09:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment"-The Anti-Romanian remarks of Node were insulting and repeated. Let's not forget this and tell the whole truth. Bonaparte talk 15:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Izehar

Copied from WP:ANI: Comment: That remark is not anti-Semitic. That remark, in my opinion, is not even a personal attack. Someone is trying to milk that slightly aggressive (its only flaw) remark for all it's worth and should stop, because it's disruptive. Using Anti-Semitism, a real problem in today's world, to start an RfC against someone who has not made anti-Semitic remarks is more offending in my opinion. Jews have suffered a lot due to anti-Semitism and that label should be restricted to what it is: hostile attitudes towards Jews because they are Jews; not a tool to gain an advantage in a dispute. Your accusations of Anittas making an anti-Semitic remark, in my view, are akin to accusing him of making a Nazi remark; very nice. Izehar (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this RfC, is based on that remark, then it is just a parody of anti-Semitism and is offensive to the people who have actually experienced it. I believe that the way Jmabel is using the term is disgusting. Izehar (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Izehar. He made his point very clearly. -- Bonaparte talk 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Haizum 07:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander 007

I think after reveiwing the context (the fact that the comment was directed to Node, who was born and raised in the states, not Moldova) we can see that there is no strong indication that the comment was intended to be anti-Semitic, and honestly I do not think that Anittas meant it in that manner. But these kind of comments are always a bad idea when phrased in such an insensitive way, which can easily be interpreted as anti-Semitic (though in this case, I'm sure that's wrong). Something along the lines of: "Node, you weren't even born in Moldova. You didn't even grow up in Moldova.You've never even been in Moldova. Technically, you're not Moldovan. You're a Jewish-American whose grandparents were Jewish Moldovans, and you're writing from Phoenix, Arizona, assuming an irritating, authoritative air as if you were writing from Chisinau as a born and raised Moldovan."---This would not have raised any eyebrows. Alexander 007 12:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Anittas's remark should not be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Let's remember that Node actually denied the existence of Moldavians=Moldovans=Romanians. Which is of an outrageous gravity equal to Anti-Romanian and Anti-Semitism. And still Joe didn't start an RfC against Node. Bonaparte talk 14:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Alexandrov

Looking carefully at the matter, I think Anittas's comment was not Antysemitic in that particular context. Calling somebody a Jewwwwwwwww or Romaniaaaaaaaaaaaan is wrong in either case, however, so please don't do that again.

Looking in a wider context however, Anittas, and his friend Bonaparte, seem unable to lead a civilized discussion with Node ue, who, while has some debatable opinions, at his 16 years of age looks much more grown up and attentive to people than the two who I guess are much older. Offensive remarks and personal attacks must stop. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who agree with this summary:

Now that we have several Romanian admins, it would be helpful if they moderated Bonaparte's and Anittas' uncivilized behaviour. Where are they? As a native speaker of Russian, I may testify that "konchennyi" doesn't mean sperm on any accounts, but it usually stands for a generalized threat, literally, "you are ended". Also, it's a pity that nobody commented on homophobic bullying and personal attacks as practiced by Anittas and other Romanian editors. --Ghirlandajo 11:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Outside view by Oleg Alexandrov

Don't tell us what to do, okay? And don't come here and label everyone who is mature and who isn't. No one asked you to judge or compare. You are clueless, okay, Russiannnnnnn? --Anittas 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That " his 16 years of age " labelled others as "sperm". So much to tell about "more grown up". There are other *perls as well that was not the only one. -- Bonaparte talk 16:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did I call anybody a sperm? --Node 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You labelled others users (at least 3-4) as "koncenii" russian word for "sperm". Here is the first time: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect) -- Bonaparte talk 06:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source which says this is the Russian word for "sperm". Koncenii doesn't mean sperm. That shows how much you know about Moldovans... even your friend Tag told you it doesn't mean sperm, but you won't listen... --Node 09:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susvolans

Anittas has been ethnically unpleasant to other users in the past. He attacked Oleg Alexandrov for having a Russian-sounding name recently. [9][10] Susvolans ⇔ 19:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who agree with this summary:

I believe this has gone too far. Annitas' behavior clearly demonstrates a pattern of xenophobia and racism. I'd like this to be brought to arbitration if it's not too much trouble. --Ghirlandajo 11:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Outside view by Susvolans

Look who's talking about! Good joke, Ghirlandajo! What about you Ghirlandajo? They didn't start the RfC against you for nothing I suppose!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo ???? -- Bonaparte talk 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is neither circus nor the appropriate place for personal attacks on one of Top 100 most active Wikipedians ever. Go away, troll. I told you many times that I'm not going to feed you. --Ghirlandajo 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So much to tell about your remarkable contributions...This can be seen quite well from your RfC...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo ... Bonaparte talk 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte, this is an RfC against Anittas. Attacks against other users are completely inappropriate here. --Node 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bonaparte blocked

user:Bonaparte blocked for 48 h for persistent personal attacks and spreading false and defamating claims (about the word "sperm"). This is a persistent pattern of his behavior. I am blocking him for the fourth time. One more such outburst and I will seek the decision for blocking him permanently, since he brings nothing but hatred to wikipedia.

I am thoroughy surprized that other admins tolerate such behavior at a page that is supposed to deal with observances of wikipedia policies. "Requests for comments" doesn't mean tavern brawl. mikka (t) 17:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte said that it means sperm because Mikka gave us an alternative meaning of the word, which in slang Russian, means sperm. The word is not Romanian, nor "Moldovan". It is Russian. Node is the one who lied when he said the word was Moldovan. --Anittas 18:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka never told you it meant sperm. That was Dpotop, who speaks no Russian nor Moldovan. It is a Moldovan word which means "washed-up". Your friend Mr Tag also agrees with me. --Node 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Node, don't speak for me ok ? I never said that I agree with you, I said normally in the dictionary it has this meaning but it is used as a vulgar offense as well. Just a tag

Show me this word in the Moldovan dictionary. If you can't, then you're a liar. --Anittas 13:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had Stati's cuvintelnic, I'd show you the entry. But I don't. Go find it yourself. And, is "limba" a Moldovan word? Unless you can show me the word in the Moldovan dictionary... --Node 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would go down on the one to the left any day of the week. --Anittas 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: and the one in the middle, too! --Anittas 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xed

Jmabel has withdrawn remark. Anittas is willing to forget about everything. Good faith assumed all round . Editing to be resumed. Case closed. -Xed 23:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexander 007 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Izehar (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24.224.153.40 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i can see why offense was taken, but GF should have been assumed from the start (though it is a rebuttable presumption.) Derex 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justforasecond

There's really no reason to bring up that Joe has said he is jewish. If he or any other user is not Moldovan, its simple enough to state that without adding his perceived race followed by a large number of similar sounding consonants, BUT it shouldn't matter in the context of a fully-cited encyclopedia where someone is born. It's also easy enough to remove the trailing "W"s if Joe doesn't like them. Though it may seem he is just pushing your buttons, take a deep breath, assume good faith, remove them, and get on with the article. As you hopefully recognize, there are undoubtedly at least *some* other users out there that would be offended by the "W"s; if you really can't assume good faith on Joe's part, just be courteous to those silent readers who haven't laid into you in this RfC.

Similarly, Joe, you don't need to explain to every user that you are jewish. I'm not sure how Bonaparte and Xed discovered this, but you stated it unnecesarrily in our interaction. How is it relevant to interactions that you are jewish? Wikipedia policy does not allow "original research" or writing from a point of view. Also, Joe, given your comment just a few days ago ("cry me a river, white boy") and your refusal to retract it, your indignation at a long string of "W"s seems more than a little disingenous.

In general, its best not to racialize wikipedia.

-Justforasecond 04:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkalai

While I do agree that Annitas has to cool down significantly, the particular remark is taken out of context: The actual dialog was:

After all, why would we? When your great-grandparents were busy lamenting about how bad Hungarians were, my great-grandparents didn't care because there were no Hungarians in the Russian Empire. --Node 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Moldavians and Moldovans call themselves the same (Moldovean). You are neither. You are a Jew. A Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!! --Anittas 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This actually makes perfect sense: both participants were speaking about ethnicities. And Annitas comment simply means that Node's remark is illogical, a comparison of orangs and oranges.

So, Annitas, please stop engaging in emotional wars, learn to express yourself in a civilized way, and especially don't respond to unwise remarks, if they are not related to the conttent of an article in question. mikka (t) 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but rather than "You are a Jew." and leaving it at that, he said "You are a Jew. A Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!". Certainly, it wasn't necessary to say the second sentence. --Node 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cernainly not. But in speech people are often repetitive and shout, too. The same may be in the text: they underline words, make them bold, etc. mikka (t) 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mikkalai, but if somebody said that to me in spoken language and drew out the vowel on the second "jew", I'd take it as an antisemitic comment. Such a use of any adjective can be seen as intended to be offensive. --Node 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dpotop

I believe that the current RfA has to be considered in the context of the Moldovan language conflict, which is the longest and most heated wikipedia conflict I have ever seen (been involved in it for about one month, then gave up). I believe that it is this conflict that spilled onto many other pages and directly lead to this RfA and to insulting remarks on both sides. I am not justifying Anittas, but the real goal of editors here should be to somehow put an end to this conflict. In my oppinion, anything less will (in my oppinion) result in similar behavior in the future, even if by other users.

For outside users: The Moldovan language page has mostly been blocked for the last two months or so, the rest of the time being under a heated revert war. Basicaly, Node_ue forms one side, while virtually all other editors are more or less on the other. Among the latter group, of course, there are oppinion variations, Anittas and Bonaparte being radically opposed to the positions of Node_ue. Both Node_ue and Anittas were insulting each other and other users (Node_ue to me) when these other users tried to calm them down.

Finally: I believe Anittas should cool down. I said that in the past, and I believe he should present apologies to JMabel, to Oleg, and a whole bunch of very nice guys. I also believe that Anittas and Node_ue should reciprocally present apologies for the hurting remarks they exchanged. Dpotop 01:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And who did I insult? "Koncenii" can hardly be considered an insult. --Node 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly ? I would certainly consider it as an insult. Just a tag

I'm not apologizing to the Russian, but I'm sorry if Jmabel was hurt. He was not my target, and I don't recall one single time where I insulted him. Not even now. There was no reason to. I think that he and I are content with the presence of each other. --Anittas 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you're showcasing your xenophobia. Why do you have such a problem with Russians? Yes, Russia has done some objectionable things on the national level, but that doesn't justify a generalised hatred of Russians. --Node 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, I think it's important that, in order to avoid future conflict, you try to talk to people in a more professional, constructive way. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether what you've done so far is good or bad, but remember that Wikipedia discussions aren't IM chats or discussion forums.

Ronline ✉ 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Ronline. Just a tag

Suggestion

I suggest to put hard ban for, say, one month, on any references to personal traits at article talk pages by all parties involved, since they seem don't see the boundary between a mild jest and insult. This ban must include the prases like "you are mistaken"; the phrase "the statement <...> is incorrect" must be used instead. Let them learn to speak first.

Ban implementation: each edit which doesn't conform this rule must be reversed on sight without discussion regardless merits. If one wants to discuss the non-confoming phrase by its essence, then one must onself restate it in a neutral way. This will be a good exercise for all. mikka (t) 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With some caution (see below) I support Mikka on such a ban on all edits the "Moldovan language" issue. The conditions that would make this quite acceptable (and maybe a guideline for dealing with such situations in the future) are:

The ban should be restricted to the Moldovan language page itself, the associated talk page, the talk pages of all editors involved, and to obviously-related edits on other papes.
It should concern all users.
A page must exists to report potential abuses, and decisions related to such abuses should be taken only by voting (with simple majority acceptance, to allow speedy revertion of such abuses).
The set of offending statements must be quite clearly stated and discussed (after the I-don't-know-how-many-months we spent on the issue, I don't think this is really a problem).User:Dpotop

Mwoahaha, this is uber funny =) Wikipedia just makes my day, you're trying to make a society where everyone will be mega polite, nobody will make offenses and yet should have different opinions, everything that makes a human NOT =) Let me just compare "You are a moron" with "Mr.Doe, may I politely note that in the light of your recent changes I am most unfortunately led to believe that your intentions regarding this article are not of the purest. Dear Sir, I beg you not to take this as a personal offense." Just a tag

I know quite a few such societies. But you don't have to be MEGA-polite. Most people would tolerate a certain amount of outburst (human, yes), but it must not go over board. If other people tell you "don't" then you rather don't. "Mr.Doe": ha-ha, funny, only I've already read someting like this. The main idea is that both phrases are useless for content dispute. What you are "led to believe" does not matter. Just prove that Mr Doe's statement is wrong mikka (t) 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that happend already, Node never acknowledges that he is wrong. How can you discuss with Node the meaning of the word "many" in a context, if he believes that 1 out of 100 is many ? Just a tag

I think a month is too much and I don't think that saying "you are mistaken" is an insult. I can bet you that it's not an insult. One way or another, I hope that this, if applied, should cover only the Moldovan page. --Anittas 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree to limit this to Moldova-related pages, I think you mised the main point of this form of ban. If there is a real abuse, the offender must be blocked on sight, as a violation of the existing policy against personal attacks. The form of ban suggested by me is to force the hot-hearted people to learn to express their concerns (a) primarily addressing the article content and (b) primarily addressing the virtues of suggested changes rather than virtues of persons suggesting changes. And in this respect I insist on forbidding any personal addresing for persons previously reported as engaged in verbal battles. After all, this is to be a kind of punishment, not just waving a finger. Also I suggest other editors to voluntarily join this way of discussion at these flammable pages. mikka (t) 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

I'm new on wikipedia. I thought it was an encyclopedia but this looks more like myspace without pictures. I read the first part of the complaint, i.e. "You are a Jew". I think factually it is correct but said in a very rough manner that could be interpreted as a slur. The writer should be more polite when writing. Perhaps, "you're Jewish, not Moldavian" could be more appropriate.Vokki 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More offensive remarks by Anittas

After posting offensive comments [11] and being repeatedly warned and asked for apology User talk:Anittas#Anti-gay statements relating to Node, User talk:Anittas#Statement, User talk:Anittas#Formal warning, this user keeps playing some silly games. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 07:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one should start a new RfC rather than continue with this one. As far as Anittas himself, I have more evidence of his offensive attacks against Node ue's sexuality in addition to what is listed above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some evidence is already presented in the "evidence of disputed behavour" section, but there was also interesting talk on Category:Wikipedia flamers, unfortunately deleted by now [12]... --Ghirla | talk 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a new RfC discussing Anittas' new personal attacks at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas 2.

Ronline ✉ 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 I think the crux of this dispute lies in the insulting nature of "Jew" or "Jewwww...". Anittas believes that, just like American or Romanian, Jew is an name for an ethnicity or religion, and inherently implies no discrimination. I would agree with this. Then, there's the issue of intent - did Anittas intend to insult Node by calling him a "Jewwww", or did he just seek to tell him that since he is a Jew, and not a Moldovan, he can not talk about Moldovan issues like a Moldovan? I think the use of the word "Jewwww", with the many Ws, indicates some sort of insult, though perhaps not enough to qualify it as a racial slur. What's important here is the opinion of Node. I think Node has some grounds to say that Anittas was acting in an uncivil manner and insulted him. I think comments like this should not be made in the future, and Anittas should make sure that the comments he makes are not insulting, either to a person's race, or to one's sexual orientation. Anittas' comments about Node's sexual orientation were insulting and repeated.
-Finally, it's one thing to label someone as something, and another to discriminate/insult him for that. Saying to someone simply "You are a Jew" or "You are gay" is not inherently insulting. However, saying to someone "You have no right to talk. You are a Jew." or "The Jew Node strikes again" is insulting and shouldn't be tolerated. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 06:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
+Finally, it's one thing to label someone as something, and another to discriminate/insult him for that. Saying to someone simply "You are a Jew" or "You are gay" is not inherently insulting. However, saying to someone "You have no right to talk. You are a Jew." or "The Jew Node strikes again" is insulting and shouldn't be tolerated. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 06:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 :: I'm not apologizing to the Russian, but I'm sorry if Jmabel was hurt. He was not my target, and I don't recall one single time where I insulted him. Not even now. There was no reason to. I think that he and I are content with the presence of each other. --[[User:Anittas|Anittas]] 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 ::: Yet again, you're showcasing your xenophobia. Why do you have such a problem with Russians? Yes, Russia has done some objectionable things on the national level, but that doesn't justify a generalised hatred of Russians. --[[User:Node ue|Node]] 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
-::::Anittas, I think it's important that, in order to avoid future conflict, you try to talk to people in a more professional, constructive way. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether what you've done so far is good or bad, but remember that Wikipedia discussions aren't IM chats or discussion forums. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
+::::Anittas, I think it's important that, in order to avoid future conflict, you try to talk to people in a more professional, constructive way. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether what you've done so far is good or bad, but remember that Wikipedia discussions aren't IM chats or discussion forums. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 06:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 ::::Well put, Ronline. [[Just a tag]]
@@ Line 300: / Line 300: @@
 :: I agree. Some evidence is already presented in the "evidence of disputed behavour" section, but there was also interesting talk on [[:Category:Wikipedia flamers]], unfortunately deleted by now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANode_ue&diff=31495541&oldid=30189091]... --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] | [[User talk:Ghirlandajo|talk]] 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-:::There is now a new RfC discussing Anittas' new personal attacks at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas 2]]. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
+:::There is now a new RfC discussing Anittas' new personal attacks at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas 2]]. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)