Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anittas 2

Anittas, you do not seem to understand even now that your comments were offensive. You repeatedly laughed at Node and made veiled allusions to the fact that he is gay - i.e. "He has this thing against girls". You taunted him by saying "I like females, but Node doesn't". That's a personal attack. It's also discriminatory because you're picking Node particularly and making a reference to his sexual orientation when it isn't appropriate to do so. It would be just like me saying "Hi. I'm Ronline. I'm Romanian, but Node isn't" or "Hi. I'm Ronline. I'm white, but User XYZ isn't". As far as I know, gay people have nothing against girls, and if you think that that's what being gay is all about, then you should probably read more on the issue. Node was insulted by those statements because he felt that he was being targeted because he was gay, and that you were constantly taunting him due to this fact.

As to the anti-Jewish comment - it was insulting due to its tone. By the way you wrote it, you seem to have made a big deal of the fact that Node is Jewish, as if this somehow makes him unworthy of commenting on Alex Bakharev's page! You mixed ethnicity/religion into something that shouldn't have been about that sort of stuff. As to the anti-Russian comment: it came in response to Oleg saying to you that you should stop making the anti-gay statements. Instead of explaining why you made those statements, you instead launched a personal attack against Oleg claiming that he was Russian (which he isn't). By saying "I think you want an excuse for another RfC and I see you're still a Russian. Return to your roots, first, and then we talk. Okay? ;)", it suggests that just because he is Russian you refuse to talk to him. This was not an issue about Moldova or anything that's, say, to do with a certain ethnicity. It was something nation-neutral about user conduct. For that reason, rubbing it under Oleg's nose that he's Russian (which, again, he isn't) makes it look very much like a personal attack and an insult. It's a racist remark. I hope you understand now. If, in good faith, you really have doubts about the grounds for the RfC, I would love to clarify.

Finally, despite what you said here, my intention is not to get you banned. This is not some sneaky conspiracy against you trying to find reasons to get you banned. Rather, I'm concerned most of all that people are making anti-LGBT comments and about incivility in general. My intention is to stop this sort of thing happening. Ronline ✉ 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for you to put more effort into this. You will get your way, if not by proof, then by popularity. I've made a lot of enemies and this will be their chance to get back at me, regardless of their stand on the issue. I wrote "JEW" in capital letters to underscore what he is and that was in context with him claiming Moldovan ethnicity - which is false. He is not Moldovan and he is not Moldovan Jew. I don't know what he is, but it doesn't involve Moldovan. As for why you started this; I'm sure you did it for "political purposes" or because you took something I said to Node personal. Whatever it is, I'm sure your intentions were not honourable. You came to my talkpage and interrogated me (mai tras de limba) without clarifying that you intended to start a RfC, while at the same time adding references to Oleg's page where he collected proof on me. You basically came to provoke me while adding new sources to the RfC. --Anittas 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, if your intention was to say

I don't know what he is, but it doesn't involve Moldovan

You should've said just that and leave his religious beliefs aside. If you had done that, nothing would've happened. And, by the way, I don't know how involved in Internet and emails you are, but usually writing something in all caps denotes yelling or aggresiveness. But somehow I think you already knew that. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, believe what you will, but my intention to start this RfC was definitely not political. I did not come on your talk page to interrogate you and gather proof for an RfC, but because I genuinely wanted to solve the dispute and ask why you were making such comments. It was there that I found out about Oleg's page and I added references because I felt that the comments you were making - and your responses to them - were not acceptable. I am putting effort into this because my aim is justice. If someone comes up and blocks you now, I guarantee that I will ask for a justification and explain to them why such a block is not justified. My intention is not to get this over and done with by popularity, or to take advantage of the fact that you've made enemies to get back at you. Why would I get back at you? I've never had a personal conflict with you before this. Why then do you claim that my intentions aren't honorable? My intentions are to prevent discrimination and insult on Wikipedia and to ensure that no user is treated unfairly. It is for this reason that I took a stance against your anti-gay statements, since this is what disappointed me the most. It was then that I realised that you also made anti-Jewish and anti-Russian statements, which I also felt were insulting and made users feel uncomfortable and discriminated against. That's my only reason for starting this RfC.

Ronline ✉ 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Node and Ron

Node, I heard that a steward removed you as Sysop on Mo Wiki because you abused your tools. Well, I'm sure there are other tools of yours that you abuse, but this is no good reason to take out your frustation on me.

Ron, you speak of justice. What justice? Where was this justice when Node reverted and spread propaganda about our country? Where was justice when he managed to provoke people into insanity and have other moderators block them? Wiki is not about justice. Wiki is about enforcing the policy, or, arbitration. Someone already explained that to you in your failed Arbitration Committee Election, but I see that you still don't understand; however, this is no good reason to take our your frustation on me. And do you really think that by becoming involved in Wiki arbitration, your online experience would become richer? Do you think that you would meet new, interesting people and learn new ways that would develop your horizon? This is just some role-playing bullshit, dude. It's better to mind your own business, edit articles, and from time to time, relax by talking to Node about chicks and stuff. Nice justice you have created here, though. A gathering of Russians and Jews nationalists, or whatever, who want to see me crucified. This is not about justice, because if it were, evidence would not be up to your interpretation. What you presented was not evidence. You could try to prove a pattern in my behaviour, and from there, draw some logical conclusions, but you can't call it evidence when it's not clear. You don't seem to understand that. --Anittas 05:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants you crucified, and nobody takes their frustration on you. Maybe you view the world with that kind of glasses, but most people are nice and just want to get along.

I disagree with a lot of what Node ue has to say, and recently I've been thinking that some of his information might not be accurate/up-to-date. But that is no excuse to hurl insults on a 16 year-old kid. And most of your comments were not as "nice" as saying "he just doesn't like girls".

Unlike Bonaparte, you seem to actually be a productive editor. You just need to learn to treat your opponents with respect. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that you couldn't understand Russian words. I wonder why. Is it perhaps because Moldovan, or Romanian, is not a Slavic language? If Node apologizes to us for intentionally spreading propaganda, then things would get better. --Anittas 06:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas, nobody is taking their frustration out on you. You seem to think that for some reason we're out to get you or we're making secret conspiracies that are intentionally trying to have you banned. That's definitely not the case. The point is that you still think that it's OK to talk to Node "about chicks and stuff", when you know very well that he finds that stuff insulting in the mocking way that you address it to him. The Wikipedia community is, in my opinion, about justice, because a sustainable, vibrant community can only be formed when there is a sense of justice and fairness. That one person (User:Avriette) who voted against me on my ArbCom candidature said Wikipedia is about arbitration is his/her point of view. It's not absolute truth. Secondly, you keep on accusing me of role-playing, or somehow trying to do this to show that I'm fit for ArbCom. That's definitely not the case, again. I'm trying to bring about justice, to make sure that no user is taunted or attacked by others. Most importantly, however, you allege that there has been some double standards applied, and I will explain to you now why this is not the case. You and a lot of other Romanian contributors kept screaming throughout "block Node, block Node, he called us sperm". You don't seem to understand that that was never the case. No matter how much other people told you that. While Node may have made anti-Romanian edits, and while he has a very very alternative point of view on some controversial issues, he never engaged in ad hominem attacks against any Romanian contributor. And what propaganda in particular did Node spread about Romania? If you find me a good-faith example of Node doing any of that in a malicious or insulting way, I guarantee that I will pursue it. If I find that Node comes up to you and says "Stay out of our Moldovan matters, you're not Moldovan, you're a ROMANIAN! A ROMANIAN!!", I will definitely apply the same treatment to him - I will investigate and then start an RfC if the situation escalates. Remember, just because you hate Node does not give you the right to insult him based on his sexual orientation or ethnicity.

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

It is not just to have people vote against you simply because of past disagreements. It would have been just if each case would have been judged separately. What we have here is a mob-gathering where every all members of my fanclub wait to see me drink the hemlock. --Anittas 06:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But none of your so-called enemies have even come here to express their comments! Most comments have been by neutral people like Oleg and Sebastian Kessel and Chris S and Humus sapiens. As to drinking the hemlock, it's not as if this RfC will result in a block for you or anything. It's simply a way to communicate with each other and try to solve the conflict.

Ronline ✉ 07:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people you mentioned are neutral. Oleg was the one to collect the so-called evidence on me and Chris is a pal of Node. Sebastian is also a Jew and he warned me on my talkpage. He can't be objective in this. Humus is also a Jew, probably a pal of Node, and probably a homo-sexual, too. If you call that neutral...

A RfC can result in consequences taken by the role-playing Arb Committee. --Anittas 07:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's only if someone is not satisfied with the results of the RfC and wants to start an RfArbCom against you. I think everyone so far has acted neutrally and in good faith. I don't know why you imagine everyone as biased and out-to-get-you but that's definitely not the case. People are genuinely concerned about your comments. Instead of just dismissing all of them as biased, unfair, without evidence, not neutral, you should actually consider some of their comments.

Ronline ✉ 08:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me one single person who so-far, is satisfied with this RfC. They will all ask for my ban. Even Alexander, whom I defended in the past, implied that I should get a short ban - tho not a long one - and you agreed. Perhaps you are pleased with this attention-seeking RfC. Let them ban me. It won't change a thing. Node will still not be a Moldovan. --Anittas 08:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply that you should get a short ban, just that a short ban is not out of the question/and that your latest controversial edits are so controversial that it would seem as if I am brushing them aside if I did not leave the suggestion of a short ban there. I paid off whatever debt I had to you in RfC1, by the way, but I'm still trying to cool down people here who may be out for a witch-hunt. Alexander 007 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about repaying a debt. It's about Node not being a Moldovan, but a Jew, and my right to say it. Another thing that I've noticed about you is that whenever you go crazy on your talkpage, and I go there and get crazy, too, you restore yourself to normality and take the role of Big Brother. But, if someone does the opposite, then you take the role of a rebel. WTF! --Anittas 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see this edit as me trying to play Big Brother, well... I see it as damage control, and my honest opinion on this RfC2. Alexander 007 08:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, but on your talkpage. --Anittas 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I apologize if I ever acted like that, but it may not be a case of Big-Brotherism, but a case of your brand of rowdy-ness causing me to recall the virtues of calmness ;) ... and 007 has to regain his coolness, at least after the bullets are fired if not while shooting. This page is about your RfC2 by the way.Alexander 007 08:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Ron

In your RfA, I asked you some questions that many housewives disproved of. You were calm and in controlling, which impressed many and gave you several votes that specifically referred to your handling of the situation. Now, you start a RfC on me to show your skills, again, and look! You've already gotten new votes in your support from people who read your comments here. Sure, you go ahead and play the wise sage. --Anittas 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla and his Flamers

Ghirlandajo either misinterpreted what went on on Category talk:Wikipedia flamers, or he is deliberately totally skewing the discourse now that the page has been deleted. However, Izehar was a witness and he may remember the actual substance of the conversation, as I do: Anittas created Category:Wikipedia flamers and added himself to it. I had his page on watch at the time, and shortly after he did that I went to the Category talk and explained that "flamers" is also a common slang for "flamming faggot", after which Anittas removed himself from the category. He then told me, "You won't tell anyone about this [adding himself to the Wikipedia flamers category] and I won't tell people that you like to wear women's underwear", to which I responded "Excellent.". Anittas then added User:Node ue to the category. The only participants on that talk page were me, Anittas, Izehar, and Ghirlandajo. Alexander 007 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOLOLOL! --Anittas 09:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]