Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion of "response" 1.1 Another unfounded accusation of "bad faith" from User:Anonimu 2 Discussion of AdrianTM's statement 3 Discussion of "outside view by Anittas speaks" 4 Discussion of "Outside View by István" 4.1 Request for clarification 5 Discussion of "Statement by Vecrumba" 6 Discussion of response 6.1 Discussion of response continued (1) 6.2 Discussion of response continued (2) 7 Discussion of "Statement of the dispute" 8 A comment by Anonimu 9 Yet another comment by Anonimu 10 would anyone mind... 11 Good behavior? 12 Anittas 13 No action = no change 13.1 About Soviet occupation of Romania 13.2 About Romanian Armies in the Battle of Stalingrad 13.3 The view from the State Department 14 What's the point of this RfC? 15 Arbitration 16 Continued personal attacks by Anonimu

[edit] Discussion of "response"

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)

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)

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)

Much of this response speaks for itself in its incivility and unconvincing nature, but I must issue a few very important refutations:

1. The word "occupation" is perfectly acceptable per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Anonimu's aversion to this word doesn't give him the right to revert it out of the lexicon.

2. The article is quite legitimate, and there is no clique.

3'. I can't recall any specific instructions to revert Anonimu. I have informed people of edit wars he's begun, but they're free to make their own decisions.

10. I never "instigated" anyone; I informed one of them of the situation, but he was free to ignore my message.

11. Until three months ago, Anonimu's talk page clearly indicated he is a Communist, and he never denied that. I provided clear and convincing evidence that Anonimu called me a Holocaust denier. I have repeatedly and unequivocally stated I am not one, and have also made it clear I don't give a fig what the "International Comission" defines as Holocaust denial. The point is it's not Anonimu's business going around levelling such a grave and baseless charge against me.

12. Anonimu's distortion of those two events is staggering.
The first incident occurred when K. Lastochka and I were writing a story for each other - a story that was very clearly fiction and had extremely exaggerated situations and characters in it. As soon as a complaint was raised about that chapter, I issued ([1] [2] [3]) profuse apologies and regrets; I stand by these. At the time, Anonimu failed to accept my apology ([4], [5]) and his failure to still move on indicates a massive WP:AGF breach.
The second incident was blown way out of proportion by Anonimu, and I stand by my original statement.
For the record, incident #1 resulted in a warning for me, which I have heeded; #2 was blanked by an admin who got tired of the discussion.

14. For those unfamiliar with the context, Anonimu is refering to the Danube-Black Sea Canal, one of Stalinism's worst crimes in Romania, as a "construction project". Well, perhaps 200,000 died there and I cited an incorrect figure. Mistakes happen. That doesn't give Anonimu license to repeatedly call me a "liar" (see WP:NPA) or blithely dismiss such crimes of Communism.

15. This wasn't so much a policy violation per se as moral turpitude, but Anonimu's repeated failure to show any sympathy for the victims and automatic adherence to the Soviet line - in a situation where 200 peasants were shot dead for crossing a border - is shocking nonetheless.

16. I do not know K. Lastochka's e-mail. Allegations that I "control" or "manipulate" her in any way are baseless and crass.

20. It is not Anonimu's business to diagnose me with paranoia. Moreover, that qualifies as a personal attack.

21. I am not "noted" for "canvassing" anyone. Yes, in a few (<5) discussions I have asked a few (<3) people I previously knew from ro.wiki to join discussions that might interest them. That's not canvassing, it's informing.

26. The sources clearly indicate the man was a habitual drunk. End of story. (Moreover, and I do know this isn't a RS, but it is common knowledge in Romania.) Biruitorul 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"2.The article B mentions is a total piece of crap controled by asmall clique. " -- I see he continues to be uncivil and go against WP:AGF even when he tries to defend himself.

10. Nobody instigated me and I definitely make my own decision, everyone can check that I was reverting Anonimu edits that were trying to make some certain political points before Biruitorul posted on my talk page, I don't think that discussing with other editors should be called "forming a clique" or "instigation" that's again the objective of this RfC: accusations of fellow editors, going against WP:AGF, and calling people names.

20."this qualifies as paranoia" -- this is a WP:PA that's not pardonable to be used in own defence when the RfC is exactly about personal attacks.

26. "Biruitorul tendentiously gathered references" -- I hope it is noticed that even in his defence he goes against WP:AGF, if an editor provides references that shouldn't be qualified under any circumstances as "tendentious", he needed either to refute the references or provide his references that go against the ones gathered by Biruitorul, but not qualify Biruitorul's actions as "tendentious" -- AdrianTM 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Another unfounded accusation of "bad faith" from User:Anonimu

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BTW, does anybody know, can we introduce this accusation of bad faith as further proof of his disruptive behaviour? -- AdrianTM 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

...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[6] either. István 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Contesting one admin's decision with no proofs it's not a nice thing to do either.Anonimu 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Discussion of AdrianTM's statement

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Discussion of "outside view by Anittas speaks"

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. [7], 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)

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)

Anittas: you make me sick. Also, you aren't doing much for my opinion of Moldavians. K. Lásztocska 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a (helpful?) translation of the term, right from the horse's mouth. Turgidson 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntenian number two. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Without commenting on the merits of this discussion, let's keep in mind the subject of this RfC and the fact that a new RfC should be opened to discuss the separate case of Anittas, should someone wish to take that step. I only make this request because a mass of extraneous verbiage threatens to jerk the spotlight off Anonimu and allow the still-sharp case against him to dissipate into various tangential recriminations, heightening the possibility of an inconclusive result that will be to no one's benefit. Biruitorul 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Nothign new, considering you called me "not sane".Anonimu 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, it's good for morale^[1]... Anonimu 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any fool can open a RfC. Check this cool RfC. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for encouragement, this means that even I can open one... great news! -- AdrianTM 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I recommend moving this entire subsection to talk, so as not to muddle the discussion at hand. Maybe then we can determine whether Muntenians can get into Marxist heaven, and if so what image they might have amongst Daily Mail Guardian readers. Anyone making such move has my support. István 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

…and what about the other things (labeled etc. etc.), Anonimu? Surely they aren't all true? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not in any particular sequence with regards to the above, but regarding "not debating only Anonimu's behaviour, but also his opinions", there is a difference between reputably sourced "opinions" and simply "opinions." Let's not confused the two: the former is an editorial discussion, the latter is polemic. One has a place in Wikipedia, one does not. PētersV 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Outside View by István"

[edit] 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)

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)

"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)

"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)

My guess is because he's very familiar with the mindset behind the slogan… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a fair question - I debated whether to make a "statement" or "outside view" and decided based on the endorsement section - i.e. those who either did or did not try to "resolve the dispute(s)". As my involvement was not chronic (as with B, KL, etc.) but rather focused firstly on content dispute, I decided to post here and not above. As for evidence I am clearly indicating that posted by Biru above and adding a bit from my own memory. And yes, WP:NPA and WP:POINT are certainly "user conduct"-related, but since I never lost sleep over chronic talk-page bickering then I cant claim to be as involved as the others. István 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Istvan, couldn't you find a better word for my request? "Reaction" sounds so... reactionary.Anonimu 15:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Right, like communism was never imperialist...K. Lásztocska 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, by definition communism is anti-imperialistic. 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And the Commune was cool indeed.. unfortunately it was put down by the Reaction.Anonimu 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I didn't equate anything, I said pro-Romanian not anti-Russian or anti-Sovietic. -- AdrianTM 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Discussion of "Statement by Vecrumba"

My apologies for not immediately thinking to link to my recent Digwuren-related inquiry. That said, the fundamental issue is, again, not the topic (occupation). The issue is Anonimu's stated intention to ignore all reputable sources ("they lie") and--as noted by Lásztocsk--stated intention to ignore all communications ("I will delete everything you send my way"). There's no need for "proof" that Anonimu is here only to disrupt, he says so himself--that's all that's left that he could possibly do by his own declarations. PētersV 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Quotes are my paraphrases, not direct quotes. I believe they are fair and accurate.

Eh, Vecrumba, there is nothing logically wrong with that particular statement from Anonimu, whereas your interpretation of it does suffer from a logical fallacy: a whole lot of (infinite, actually) things DIDN'T happen. For example, a huge chunk of green cheese didn't drop down on Earth at any recorded period of time. However, if you read serious history books you won't find any explicit mention of that NOT HAPPENING. So, if someone does write that, in his opinion, an increase of cheese availability in a certain area at a specific period of time amounts to a piece of cheese falling from the sky, the absence of sources stating otherwise will not automagically mean that there are no dissenting opinions or that this one opinion is the only true one. Basically, what Anonimu said there (IMO), is that he can't provide a reliable source that explicitly disproves the occupation, because such a source would not mention an occupation at all (he actually did find one later, though).

I am somewhat disappointed that those two underlined statements are not links to actual statements by Anonimu. Would you provide them, so that an outside reader will not have to rely on your belief that you are fair and accurate? --Illythr 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see I have a couple of things to deal with. First, to Anonimu.

Anonimu has requested I reconsider my statement, else he will consider non-retraction "bad faith and block-shopping".

1. Anonimu is correct, I did not see the section in question in article talk. I do not, however, see any change in Anonimu's attitude or contentions: 'The negationists here are the ones who call it occupation, thus denying the legality of the presence of Soviet troops.' The Soviet presence after the war was/started as a legal occupation, by treaty.
2. Now that I am aware of it, I will be contacting the publisher to determine whether this (general) source is in error.

I don't respond well to threats (coming from an editor who has declared they don't need sources) which urge me to a retraction which, if I do not comply, shall be taken as a demonstration of my lack of integrity. I find it ironic that an editor who in big red letters proclaims on his talk page that "any message posted here will probably be deleted without being read" chooses to use another editor's talk page.

   I don't consider Anonimu's act which he cited an "apology". He "apologized" that he was wrong that there were no sources, that he did, in fact, find one (notwithstanding obvious flaws). But he did not retract anything he said about the absence of sources indicating truth, that scholars who write of occupation are writing fiction, et al. Nor do I believe that he has subsequently engaged in constructive discourse on his one source (which, as I indicated, I believe is flawed). Nor has his user talk page changed its threats of deletion, contributions unread.

   Nothing in my statement (which I made clear was not about the topic of occupation) appears to have changed since I made it, therefore I cannot, in good faith, simply retract it.

To Illythr's points:

About not writing that something did not happen. I'm rather fond of cheese arguments myself (usually with reference to the moon). In the more general case of the Soviet Union's acts in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, no one has yet, for example, sourced the Russian Duma proclamation that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. You would think that with as many years that have passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, there would be some reputable analysis for the basis in fact for Russia's various and continued proclamations, as they run counter to the rest of the planet. That no such analysis has apparently been produced does not prove the Duma is correct in its declaration (and everyone else is wrong). To the links:

1. Historians who write fiction intentionally? I take that as meaning they lie. I believe my paraphrasing of the original statement, while perhaps blunt, is nevertheless accurate (see my statement for original and link)
2. See above for an extract from Anonimu's big red letter talk page, and I'm particularly fond of this delete professing "polite refusal" here to constructively engage the editorial community.

I frankly (secretly) admire Anonimu's statement that he would make this into an issue of lack of integrity on my part should I not retract my statement, having received fair warning from him regarding his "apology" regarding his discovery of a source. He mistakes my intentions and motivations, however. I am not here to play the Baltic/Eastern European behavioral issues game (i.e., one side, that would be the one with usually no sources, provokes until the other side responds, then provoking side denounces/reports "behavioral" issues of the responding side). PētersV 18:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you digress. The idea of my post was to highlight a logical fallacy in your statement, nothing more.

1. "only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen" = "stated intention to ignore all reputable sources"? I don't think so. Misunderstanding? Perhaps...
2. Actually, I think the guy has a point there. After all, we're here to write and discuss articles, not for general ranting and bickering, that tends to fill most user talk pages. Additionally, posts with phrases like "Your stupid accusations..." or "Stop spreading Soviet propaganda" look more like provocation than "attempts to resolve the dispute" to me. --Illythr 20:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Anonimu says everyone who writes of occupation is a fiction-writer and (at the same time) Anonimu says we all know there are no sources (not occupation) because no one writes about what's true, then that can only be taken as ignoring all reputable sources since, at the time, he stated himself that there were no reputable sources for his position. There's no room for misunderstanding here.

1. I never said what you claim in our first sentence
2. I actually stated there's no source using that wording (i.e. "not occupied").Anonimu 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

   As for the ranting, bickering, and accusations you mention, there are plenty to go around when people don't have sources. And as I say below, the jury is still out on Anonimu's one source, recently provided, for the editorial (not POV) reasons I mention. PētersV 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Peters, let's try this one more time. Replace the word something with Soviet occupation of Romania in the fragment above. Hell, I'll do that for you: only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that Soviet occupation of Romania didn't happen. Read it out loud, slowly. Now do you see? --Illythr 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Quoting half-a-contention is quoting out of context. Anonimu contended there are no sources because it's obviously true that the Soviets did not occupy Romania, no upright historian would feel the need to write about something (non-occupation) that is obviously true. Nice try, though.

   Unless your half-a-contention is meant to state, conversely, only non-fiction writers would find the need to emphasize that the Soviet occupation of Romania did happen. PētersV 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu contended there are no sources explicitly stating that "Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958", because no credible historian would feel the need to emphasize that something, whatever, didn't happen.

Conversely, that would mean that some non-fiction writers, yada-yada. That's certainly not what you claim Anonimu had said. --Illythr 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just sneaking in, in front of Anittas' response... since Anonimu contends obvious truth (no one writes what is true = no sources = no one writes what is true, commutative) then anyone who does write that Romania was occupied ( = all "other" sources = all sources less Anonimu's no sources = all sources) is writing a lie. The absence of all sources (for) proves his truth; the existence of all sources (against) proves their falsehood, those historians writing those (against Anonimu's position) sources are therefore writers of fiction/liars. Slice or dice it or spin it any way you want, Anonimu's contention (bolded, underlined) remains. PētersV 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Anonimu's logic is then as follows: historians don't write about something not happening => they either write about that thing happening (if it happened), or don't write about it at all (if it didn't happen). Whether that event did happen or not is not defined within that particular post. Additionally, the whole thing refers to specific wording and is not as general as you portray it in your statement. --Illythr 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The level of baid faith exppressed by Vecrumba is outrageous. His lack of any points against me makes him tendentiously overexpand the meaning of a poor two-line sentence. The difference between Illythr and Vecrumba is that the first put a dictionary definition, while the second wrote a full novel, imaginary quotes and "psychological analysis" included. Vecrumba's case is so thin that he has to use bolding and underlining, knowing that in such a long discussion people are inclined to read them first. And then he talks about "editorial integrity".... Anonimu 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu--"Bad faith" would be your original statement (I know, an old saw by your account), which starts as: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find." which indicates that parties on both sides of the issue are completely aware there are no sources for your position and why (obvious truth), thereby accusing your opposition who continuously request you to produce sources of doing so in bad faith. I have not "tenditiously" expanded your statement, I have only boiled it down to its essence, which is: both sides know the obvious (your) truth, there are no sources for obvious truths (including yours), you are right and, of necessity, all sources contrary to the obvious (your) truth are a lie. Your responses here have been to threaten and deride editors, to insist you meant something else, that "open minds" would see that,... and now that my conclusions regarding your statement are "outrageous." I'm only the messenger holding up the mirror. Don't blame me for your outrage. PētersV 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As for my "lack of any points", you would turn this into nothing but a contest of which side can rack up the most bad faith allegations against the other side, making this out to be nothing but a huge personality clash/anti-Anonimu conspiracy, woe is you. PētersV 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'd buy a mirror so distorted, I'd certainly ask my money back.Anonimu 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put, PētersV. This sounds like a classic case of WP:TRUTH. Turgidson 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Anonimu is wrong, because the topic would have been brought up by those who may not believe that Romania was occupied, in order to make a counterargument against those who say that Romania was occupied. For example, there are books that argues against Bigfoot, aliens visiting Earth, etc. The arguments used in those books are not based on the un-existence of those objects, but on the the arguments provided by those who believe in those things. My analogy is not so good, but think of the different theories in history, where one party will provide a controversial argument and the other party will try to refute it. Now, there are sources that state that the Soviet presence in Romania should be counted as an occupation. If the Soviet, and later the Russian academia disproved with that acknowledgment, then they must have made a counterargument to it, so the source must be out there, somewhere. In addition to this, I will say that I remember watching a WW2-aftermath documentary where Soviet negotiated with the Allies that the Soviet domination in Romania will be up to 95-percent. I don't remember the name, as it was some 10 years ago (or less), but if the documentary holds any truth, then I don't know how we should count the Soviet presence in Romania, if not as an occupation. My only question is: if it wasn't an occupation, then what were some 600,000 Soviet soldiers doing in Romania during one of its peak years of activity in the country? --Thus Spake Anittas 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As you can easily note, the cherry picked sources that use the term are written after the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe(with 1 exception). 40 years only one guy used thought that, but you know.. "dupa razboi multi viteji s'arata"... they just began accusing someone dead of doing something, and the deadman of course couldn't reply. (Note that the founding documents of Soviet presence in Romania had been available all the time, but only one guy thought they meant occupation). Post-coup Romanian authorities didn't really care about the matter, moreover, the nationalist segments of it even thought that spreading such a lie would get Romania some Western support in its negotiations with Moldova and Russia. Russia hasn't still replied to the allegations because the term has only limited use and nobody claimed anything based on that allegation. So it doesn't care about waht a handfull of authors think.Anonimu 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If any source mentions the Soviet presence in Ro as an occupation, then those sources should be allowed to remain; they should, of course, speak for themselves and not for the entire article. Even if the Soviets felt that they didn't have to react to the notion of occupying Ro, their presence there still had a status. What was that status, according to the Soviet perspective? You said in another post that they remained in Romania in order to repell any capitalistic aggression. Do you have a source for that or is that your personal opinion? Because if we're here to discuss personal opinions, then the dispute will never be solved. Still, 600,000 soldiers is a lot. I wonder, what is the status that USA had in the aftermath of the American-Japannese war? USA remained in the country and influenced its politics. Does anyone call that for a occupation? If yes, then the chance is great that the academia worldwide views political pressure done by military power present in a country as a sort of occupation; if the answer is no, then I'm guessing that they don't count America's presence in Japan as an occupation because the Americans supported democracy. I have two questions for you that I want you to answer to: why was there a need for some 600,000 soldiers in Romania and why did the Soviets take so much of our resources for so many years? --Thus Spake Anittas 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas: Yes, yes there are many, many sources that mention the Soviet presence in Romania (between 1944 and 1958) as as occupation -- some books have that in their very title. It's all in the article on Soviet occupation of Romania. As for the Occupation of Japan (1945-1952) -- yes, it did occur, and it's called just that, and there is a whole WP article about it. Turgidson 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the problem then? You are allowed to use those sources. If he has sources that claim otherwise, he may use them as well. I don't understand this conflict. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is WP:WEIGHT#Undue_weight and pushing a specific POV, see here a list of references: [8] are those not enough? We can find more, no problem, but that will still not satisfy somebody who wants to push a specific POV. Not to mention that in the process we will be called names (Anglo-Americans imperialists or spies) and will be accused of bad faith. -- AdrianTM 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Soviet academia ever felt the need to disprove those statements. Also, I understand, the dispute was not about whether there was an occupation, but about its duration (1944-1947 or 1944-1956). But that's all beside the point of my original comment, which was to determine how Vecrumba managed to see stated intent to ignore all reputable sources and push a POV in this post.

BTW, I'm kinda curious now, what's that sentence on page 148 of that book? --Illythr 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing spectacular that I can see. Romanian authorities took certain security measures (not publicized) to preserve the communist power structure--including instituting pretty much the arbitrary ability to impose the death penalty--upon the departure of Soviet troops in 1958. (I know, I keep underlining and bolding, it must be a character flaw.) PētersV 15:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• BTW, if no sources = the truth, then all sources = a lie = ignore all sources, which would include all reputable sources. I even managed not to bold and underline. PētersV 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"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. (Try italicizing - it can still stress the necessary part without looking like the "Don't mind the fine print..." tactic) --Illythr 18:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, it's a bit hard to follow and contribute to this discussion, since the comments tend to be added seemingly randomly on this longer and longer page. But let's try to stick to objective facts, and not get lost into some kind of fantasy, alternate universe where the Red Army simply was not in force in Romania from 1944 to 1958 -- I mean, let's get real. I refer you to this table (with data carefully taken from a very reliable source (published by Duke University Press), showing that the level of Soviet troops in Romania was in the hundreds of thousands in the mid-to-late 40s, and then (once a Communist system was imposed) dropped to about 30,000, at which level it stayed till close to the time the troops left (with a big surge during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, about which, by the way, more needs to be said). So all this semantics about whether the Soviet occupation occured or not sounds surreal to me. Can we get back to reality, and to what essentially 'all (here, I'm using bold!) reputable sources say? In more colloquial English, Who Ya Gonna Trust, Me or Your Lyin’ Eyes? Turgidson 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Romania had much more than 30,000 troops after 1947, so no, they weren't "in force". Dahn presented us with a not quite impartial article about the 1946 elections. No^{t ev}en that mentions any direct intervention of Soviet troops in the electoral process. They were there just to scare any capitalist invasion, since they never took part in actions against any Romanian after 1947 (not even against kulaks or terrorists). The extra troops in 1956 where just in passing (did they intervene against student movements? nope). And in 1957 the number of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe were dramatically reduced. 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. But enough with off-topic,Anonimu 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments are strictly about Vecrumba's uh, unusual deduction methods. I'm not here to discuss how evil the Soviets were, what they did or didn't. Replace "Soviet occupation" with any random noun, or an X, or something... --Illythr 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reindent a bit) Illythr: Sorry, I am kind of lost as to how the logic is supposed to work here. Are we talking about (A => B) being equivalent to ((not B) => (not A))? Well, of course, but what's A, and what's B in all this? User:Anittas: The percentage negotiated at the Yalta Conference was 90% Soviet "predominance" (in the words of Winston Churchill), not 95%, see here, for example. Of course, Stalin interpreted that as "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable", i.e., as 100%. Turgidson 01:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. Has anyone pointed this out to Anonimu? --Thus Spake Anittas 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, looks like the issue is slightly different from what I thought before, see my reply to Vecrumba above. A formal logical notation would have something to do with an unbound variable, I think... --Illythr 07:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of response

As I expected, it did not take long for Anonimu to accuse me of bad faith:

3. I must note that i regard Vecrumba's failure to recant the accusations he issued in his statement (which he dubiously dubs an "external view"), despite being informed of the repositioning of my stance towards the matter in discussion, as bad faith and his current statement as a deliberate distortion of facts to influence neutral users into believing I'm "evil". Moreover I find hypocritical his accusation that I've called historians "liars", considering that in his comment he calls a historian, who states a fact that doesn't fit his POV, a "liar" (NB: these are not exact quotes, just paraphrases that i believe are fundamentaly right)

At least I warned you this will happen. My "accusation" is in direct response to your unwillingness to allign your statement with the latest developments.Anonimu 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You apologized only for being wrong about absolutely no sources, not for anything else. Conduct, not content, is the issue. PētersV 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Anonimu has expressed his desire to play the bad faith game--and I am only responding because the one thing I value above all else is my integrity, I'm not responding as a participant in his game:

• I fail to understand the dubious nature of my "external view" — Because of my general interest in the geopolitics of eastern central Europe, I have have participated in a number of articles re: Transnistria, Moldova, Romania. While periodically active on the topic of Romania, I am not a regular core contributing editor nor have Anonimu and I had any vituperative exchanges (a key item in scope). I believed that qualified me as "external" with reference to this specific RfC.

I consider an "external view" the view of an user uninvolved in content disputes with me, that wouldn't have any personal motivation to oppose me (that is, there's no chance i have offended his pride by reverting his edits or supporting an opposite POV).Anonimu 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My involvement here has nothing to do with your "opposite POV", ergo, no hurt feelings of nationalistic pride, etc. It has only to do with your method of pursuit of your POV. If you were contending Romania was occupied and didn't have any sources, the same would apply. PētersV 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Generally on failure to recant my accusations — Anonimu mixes the proverbial apples and oranges. He points to his "apology" (for being wrong about no sources, there is, it turns out, one). That is content. I point to his having insisted that sources are not required, that reliable sources are nothing but fiction, that the absence of sources supporting his contention is proof his position is correct. That is editorial disruptiveness regardless of content. (By Anonimu's logic, now that he has found a source that supports his position, that would prove that he is now incorrect.) So, dismiss all sources when they don't agree with his POV, but find one (represented as) agreeing, and it is like coming upon the Holy Grail.

Doesn't my continual searching for sources (that after several weeks brought the said result) prove that I didn't consider sources "not required"? I only said that is highly improbable (~ no chance, as I thought then) to find such unusual wording in a history book (i.e. the emphasis on the fact a thing generally known that didn't exist didn't happen). My statement actually implied that the source that I eventually found saying it is a fairy tale, and not the other sources. (i stated the reason for not accepting the POV of those cherry picked sources as the general consensus several times). When over reliable sources as Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia don't mention a fact as important as a 15 years "occupation", then that's a proof there's no consensus. Anonimu 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From the Concise Britannica: "Romania was occupied by Soviet troops in 1944 and became a satellite of the U.S.S.R. in 1948." Turgidson 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• On deliberate distortion of facts to influence neutral users into believing Anonimu is "evil." — I could respond to specific examples of alleged distortion. As it stands, it is merely a baseless contention. If Anonimu believes (completely my inference based on Anonimu's subsequent comment) that I have distorted his statement regarding historians writing fiction in paraphrasing that as to "lie", that is not a distortion, that is a clarification.

No, it's a distortion based on a voluntary or involuntary misunderstanding/misreading.Anonimu 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have postulated has been quite clear. I regret that you do not like your contentions put into plain words. PētersV 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find hypocritical his accusation that I've called historians "liars", considering that in his comment he calls a historian, who states a fact that doesn't fit his POV, a "liar". — As I indicated, the Soviet Union legally occupied Romania both in the course of WWII and continuing afterwards. This has been discussed thoroughly, and these are discussions Anonimu has participated in. (In his "apology", Anonimu contends "no occupation" according to his source, it's only "occupation" if it's illegal.) Since Anonimu accuses me of dismissing his source as lying ("his" paraphrase) because it does not fit my POV, let me (re)explain my position regarding Anonimu's source more clearly:
   
  The Soviet Union occupied Romania legally by treaty during and after WWII. Anonimu quotes his source: ""However, the Soviets, who had not occupied Romania at the end of the war, also apparently threatened direct intervention on several occasions", page 218 in Antony Best &Co 's International History of the Twentieth Century". This is not a clash of interpretive POVs, this is a clear clash of facts. I indicated I would be following up with the editor, now that Anonimu had brought this source to my attention. As I see it, the editorial possibilities are the following:

1. the source is incorrect (that is not the same as a lie, "lie" means a deliberate attempt to falsify) -- if the source refers to post-war WWII (as in the next day) Romania, then the source is in error
2. the source has been misinterpreted (unintentional) ...
3. or misrepresented (intentional) -- it may be the source's context is Eastern Europe generally after the war, referring to actions such as those in Hungary, in which case the authors could have meant "occupy" in a context which was not referring to the legal wartime/post-war Soviet occupation--and which continued after the Soviets no longer needed access to Austria, which was the basis for their original post-war occupation of Romania
4. one of the above must be true; it is not possible, based on historical fact (no room for interpretation here, and none being made), that there was no Soviet occupying presence in Romania following WWII

Therefore, additional investigation is required to resolve this discrepancy. That is the appropriate editorial next step in this particular case.

Are you investigating in a similar manner the sources that support your POV?Anonimu 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any topic I have intended to participate in I have read a number of complete sources. I have sought out the best most respected references--that is impeccable, "seminal work",... reputation--bought them, and read them cover to cover. I never ever, I repeat, never ever, go hunting for sources to support my POV, only the best source available that cover the topic of interest as its primary subject. So, not a paragraph on something mentioned in some book, but a whole book on a subject--or at least a dedicated chapter.

   You see, that is the difference. In the end, my personal goal is to learn and understand. Yours is to push your POV, see your comment of hunting for weeks for a source to support your POV. It's never taken more than a day or two of research to determine what the most reputable and detailed source is on any topic. I should mention I will be checking your source to examine the context of the statement and to check, more generally, in what depth it covers the topic of Romania and the Soviet Union.

   You mistake me for someone bent on pushing their POV, hunting for and cherry picking through sources which support their POV, and dismissing sources which don't support their POV. My editorial "POV" is based only on sources and has nothing to do with my personal opinions. PētersV 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are very few who do it that way. Even the ones who started this "block anonimu" campaign use quite often results from google book search & google scholar (i.e. they just use a fragment to support their POV, without knowing what the rest of the book says). In my first months I also used to research sources (even by buying books or researching in libraries, although I admit that the primary motivation was that I wanted to know more about the subject). All that changed after a year, when Google book searched appeared... The pseudosourcing of doubtful claims grew into a craze, and I couldn't keep with it using traditional researching. Then I became dissilusioned, and I started using Book search more and more to source minor claims (note that the articles I started and the ones I signifiantly contributed to are all based mainly on traditional researching - full books available from google included). So, in the end I'm no worse than my contesters. It's a pity we have no mean to ban pseudoreferencing by Google book search. (I've seen things as abominable as putting the full result of a search as a ref, in articles you're familiar to.)Anonimu 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this has nothing to do with this RfC, the problem here is being uncivilized and reverting stuff without any support for that reverting, is not about using "traditional" or "non-traditional" sources, this is only to distract from the main focus of the discussion. -- AdrianTM 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with AdrianTM. The issue is not content, but behavior. My point to Anonimu that even his search for sources is not in order to understand and better present a topic but only to find "proof" of his POV. My last response was to make the point that not everyone approaches articles from "what can I find that supports my POV." No worse than his contesters? I have not seen anyone else summarily declare that nothing proves something. His characterization of this all as a "block Anonimu campaign" only underscores that he perceives this as nothing more than a personal collective vendetta against him rather than the natural and inevitable consequence of his own statements and acts. For the record, I categorically stand by my statement. I've said all I have to say here both on Anonimu's behavior and on what I believe constitutes responsible and constructive contributive behavior and editorial conduct. PētersV 19:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin decided that one of the present contesters was on a block campaign against me, while the starter of this RfC told me some months ago, in mobspeak, that he'll do anything to block me. I see nothing wrong in assuming that this is just the materialization of those menaces. You continue to show bad faith by bringing that contention again and again, despite the fact that i've explained to you that you had misread it.Anonimu 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia is judicious editorial behavior construed as hypocritical. Anonimu's accusations and attempts to tar and feather me for disreputable behavior, for block-shopping, for unabashed POV pushing on my part, etc. only bear out my original statement. Any considerations I may have had to modify my original statement in any way have been erased. PētersV 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of response continued (1)

My final P.S. I have contacted one of the authors of Anonimu's source and they have confirmed that the statement that the Soviets did not occupy Romania was in error and that I can "rest assured that the mistake regarding Romania has been rectified in the new edition of the textbook which will appear next year." As far as I am concerned, the final nail--to Anonimu it's not about understanding a topic and working positively and constructively to resolve discrepancies, it's only about waging a war of personal POV in the complete absence of editorial integrity. PētersV 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you only have to convince the editor to send an OTRS to wikipedia to prove you right.Anonimu 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm done here. As for my "bad faith" (further above) of bringing up my contention "over and over" (your insisting you have no sources because only fiction writers--that is, a liar if you are a historian--actually produce books, and feel free to show where I have misrepresented you) that you have "explained" away, I see no such explanation. What you said is what you said. Live with it. I contacted the author and verified the source is in error and will be corrected. Live with it. Your contention that anyone needs to prove anything when you have insisted you need prove nothing is just another reason for me to stand by my statement. I wish ArbCom well in their deliberations. PētersV 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you voluntarily ignored my explaination.. which is actually worse. It's your word against the printed word. Unless the editor contacts wikipedia, your personal conversation with the editor has no relevance. BTW, ArbCom isn't actually reading this.Anonimu 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I read OTRS it does not apply. I am not here to play Wikigames. If you wish to assume bad faith (accuse me of lying) under the guise of following Wiki rules / you don't know who I am / I'm "practically an anonymous user" (my Wiki Email matches that in my website, Latvians.com, it takes no effort for anyone here to send me an email and to see where my response returns from), please do feel free. It's more important to me to not bother a respected author and university professor than to bother them again to satisfy your contentions that rules must be followed and who am I to be trusted anyway ("practically anonymous"). Had you taken the high road in any of this I might have been more inclined, but your unremitting and unapologetic (BTW, your original article talk "apology" was an apology in name only) efforts to paint everyone into the bad faith corner has not persuaded me to impose on the author again. Full thread for anyone interested here.

   As I already wrote, if you assumed good faith on the source (I did from your side, that you did not misrepresent it out of context, it might have applied to later acts based on just the portion quoted), then we would be done. Since we are demonstrably not done, and you indicate it's my "word against the printed word", I take that (and I'm a "practically anonymous user") to insinuate I am lying about contacting the author, that I concocted the verbatim response I posted, and that in fact I'm not even who I say I am. And that would be taking the editorial conduct high road (which earns you the privilege of continuing to contribute here)? PētersV 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some of your edits and they are good; but for the sake of validity, you could try to forward the email from the professor in order to confirm the source as being errornous. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could be G.W. Bush, and I still would need a mail sent by the editor to wiki to confirm. Self-published sources can be used only in the article about yourself, and even then, with caution. So my request was legitimate, and in no way I implied you were lying. I was just saying you don't have the academic credentials to override by your own a published reliable source. Anonimu 14:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to send anything to you. He can send it to Wikipedia and have them confirm it. And he can just forward the email that he received from the editor, instead of asking the professor to write another email. Sending it you is the same as sending it to Bonaparte or any other editor. You hold no special status in that regard and the source would still not be validated by having you witness the email. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I used an unusual phrasal construction, but i didn't ask him to send me anything.Anonimu 14:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've written to Wikipedia to determine what proper actions, if any, there are regarding errors in sources, and outside of the proceedings here.

Could you please past their reply here, or somewhere we could read it in original (cause your quoting style isn't the best). If it's not personal, of course.Anonimu 10:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

   Now I'm "overriding" a source? I'm not doing anything, I'm merely passing on the author's acknowledgment of an error. That we're now bickering over my not having academic credentials (I assume that means degree in history) rather puts this all into perspective.

You're not the legal representant of that editor, so yes, you're overriding it. If you could put an article in a peer-reviewed journal and say that editor said he made a mistake, that would be enough. But, sincerely, I think it's easier to send an e-mail.Anonimu 10:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

   Anonimu, you did not imply I was lying? I am truly sorry that you do not like what you say and imply being put into straightforward English to make it clear what you are saying and implying. You mistake me for someone who is here to play charge/counter-charge. I'm only holding up a mirror. A more constructive dialog will yield more positive results, but you have not availed yourself of any such opportunity. PētersV 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a talent at making my actions look worse than they were. But everyone who would read my comments with an open mind will find that the matters are not as grave as you would like to present them.Anonimu 10:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made it a point to assume good faith first, something you have made a point not to, ignoring norms of contributive positive editorial behavior at every turn including quoting Wikipedia "rules" for why you would be compelled to continue to cite a source as published although an author has confirmed an error ("see you next year"). The first, and only global, Wikipedia "rule" is that "rules" are to be ignored (WP:IAR) when they get in the way of writing an encyclopedic article of quality. You see rules as roadblocks to throw in the way of progress--and then taunt other editors why they haven't done any work lately to improve an article--not as enablers of editorial excellence (this in response to Turgidson):

I'm not going to ignore one of wikipedia's procedures. BTW, where's "the further development of this article" you were so eager to carry out? Anonimu 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a talent for making your actions out to be "worse than they are"? I am making them out exactly for what they are, nothing more. PētersV 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of response continued (2)

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)

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)

Your comment simply screams "straw man".Anonimu 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To Illythr, our debate paths have not crossed lately, but you certainly know me well from my encounters with Mauco. So you know very well that I am willing to debate anyone anytime on any source and to examine their editorial interpretation of that source. There were points in my debating with Mauco where I even bought sources he quoted when they were not available in the library just so I could carry on an informed debate. (I do admit that paying $100+ once just to prove Mauco wrong was, perhaps, a bit excessive.)
   Let's put semantics, dancing angels, et al. aside just for the moment.
   How do you examine a position or debate a source when an editor says they have no sources, and for good reason?

• It's not possible.

How do you progress on an article when that editor does find a source after weeks of searching which apparently supports their position, but it turns out the source is in error, and that editor then insists they can't ignore procedures even though doing so is to the editorial detriment of an article, "see you next year" when the next edition of the errant source is published, corrected?

• It's not possible.

Let's not forget to add, in the process of all of this, they taunt other editors for lack of progress on the article--when they themselves are the roadblock. How are we to take any of that as constructive editorial behavior?

• It's not possible. PētersV 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Statement of the dispute"

• 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)

Do review WP:AGF, and I also suggest moving this and your comment to talk. Biruitorul 03:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turgidson (talk • contribs)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm Singur impotriva tuturor, as a proud FC Rapid fan ;)Anonimu 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A comment by Anonimu

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But Anonimu doesn't state that he's in support of Soviet propaganda, does he? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I also find "anglo-american imperialists" insulting. -- AdrianTM 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You wish. You're neither Anglo, nor American. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Yet another comment by Anonimu

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)

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)

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)

Raceanu did it for money, while Volo did it in revenge..., and then for money.Anonimu 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hey man, i thought you were good at english.. but maybe you should read a bit more.Anonimu 10:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

About Anonimu's "6.I was blocked only 6 times for 3RR, one of these six being overturned." That's only because other "anti-the-word-occupation" editors have made the 4th revert, after which Anonimu did the next three again until the editor jumped in for the 4th revert after which Anonimu did the next three and the other editor jumped in for the 4th revert after which Anonimu did the next three reverts... you get the point. See the edit warring example associated with my statement (no longer at that link due to archiving). PētersV 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] would anyone mind...

...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)

Please do. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Relax, he made it clear that you are not valuable enough to be a spy. -- AdrianTM 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Good behavior?

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.

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)

• Perhaps I'm just being naive to believe editors should/would (a) stick to sources and (b) represent them fairly and accurately including using the same terminology as the source. PētersV 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• Other than that, yeah, nice put. NikoSilver 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Anittas

Anittas (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked (again), this time for continued racism and hate speech. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_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)

[edit] No action = no change

Alas, no change in behavior, apparently Anonimu is taking the inaction here as license to continue disrupting. Consider the following deletes and reverts of restorations of sources in Soviet occupation of Romania using various claims which clearly misrepresent the current article contents in the process:

• deletes {{Template:Soviet occupation}} -- even though treaty established Soviet occupation, there's no "POV"

then deletes sources:

• initial delete claiming "(sorry, but those sources don't refer to 1944-1958 as "occupation", as the lead claims)", however, lead only claims that majority sources say through 1958, so deletes sources under a false premise
• deletes again (undo revert by Eurocopter tigre) claiming "(undid disruptive edit = tendentious misrepresentation of sources)"
• deletes again (undo revert by Eurocopter tigre) again claiming "(undid disruptive edit = tendentious misrepresentation of sources)"
• deletes again (undo revert by Vecrumba) claiming "(rv misrepresentation of sources that don't consider the 1944-1958 period an occupation, as claimed by article)" -- again deletes sources under a false premise

The last revert, by Turgidson, stands as another revert by Anonimu would cause 3RR. I do hope Irpen continues to have the sense to stay away from this one (considering he has done reverts in the past which then freed Anonimu to continue edit warring again up to the 3RR limit), per edit warring evidence in my statement. PētersV 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a false accusation, since the lead doesnt "claim that majority sources say through 1958", it states very clearly that Soviet occupation refers to the 1944-1958 period, and not to another one. The deletion of those misrepresented sources is only making wikipedia more credible. Anonimu 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if it would say majority, it would lie, since half of those don't talk about 1944-1958.Anonimu 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OOPS! 3RR violation apparently (unless Anonimu didn't delete exactly the same sources)... [added after edit conflict]

• deletes again this time claiming "(stayed != occupied !!!)" - this would be Anonimu contending that "occupation forces stayed in" a territory does not equal "forces occupied territory"

This is constructive behavior? PētersV 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: US troops stationed nowadays in Germany, Italy, Romania & Bulgaria etc are not occupying the respective countries. And you should read 3RR again.Anonimu 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If occupation forces entered in 1944 under occupation and stayed, then it is what it is. It is enough that they are called OCCUPATION forces to indicate an OCCUPATION is occurring. The lead addresses the "length of" issue. Since you ALSO deleted the occupation template at the start of this latest editing escapade, all you are attempting to do is to erase as many sources indicating "occupation" as you can, nothing more. PētersV 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stayed" = "occupied" is just your contention and is not supported by the source.Anonimu 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Forces which entered to occupy are "occupation forces." They were minimally occupation forces throughout the period they were there under treaties. The article objectively discusses the time frames. Deleting the sources is in no way justified. I am not contending anything. Occupation under treaties is fact. PētersV 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Lead states:

"Soviet authors and the 1952 Constitution of Romania referred to the events of 1944 as the "liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union". However, most Romanian and Western sources use the term "Soviet occupation of Romania," some applying it to the whole period from 1944 to 1958." [my emphasis]

The only misrepresentation is Anonimu's. PētersV 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't justify the misrepresentation of sources in the lead sentence.Anonimu 17:06, 15 November 2007

(UTC)

Also note the clear provocation (using proxy to revert and insult me, hoping i'll break 3RR)....Anonimu 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Ah, you accuse me of active conspiracy. I am merely dealing with your behavior and the editorial facts, no more no less. Please do not include me in your "out to get Anonimu" clique/cadre/fantasy. PētersV 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess a Korean considered the only improvement to wikipedia he could do was reverting and attacking me... how covenientAnonimu 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only take your last statement about a Korean as utterly bizarre. And yet again you try to make this out to be some sort of personal vendetta when it's not. PētersV 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ip is from Korea... pretty bizzare I agree... of course it's not... ips revert me just because it's Thursday...Anonimu 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring by Anonimu — removal of sources, unjustifed reverts, blithely ignoring a solid consensus, tendentious edit summaries, continually pushing up to the limit on 3RR and even beyond, abusive comments to fellow editors, personal attacks bordering on the vicious, etc, etc — is continuing unabated. I can only surmise that the fact that no one takes decisive action to put a stop to this pattern of behavior only encourages him to continue, and redouble his disruptive efforts. I could be wrong — maybe there are some other explanations that escape me — but compare if you wish with the very swift (and justified, in my opinion) action taken after the transgressions by Anittas, which started on this very Rfc (so it's not like no one is looking at this page). Why the double standard? Turgidson 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my latest actions are justified by the need to give credibility to wikipedia.Anonimu 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, re: 3RR: I count your initial delete followed by 4 reverts (so far). All identical. If there is fine print in 3RR that I should be aware of which by the letter of the law indicates some technicality by which 3RR did not occur, then I suppose I'll find out what that is. Should there be such a technicality--which you by your demonstrated behavior (and comment) you were fully aware of of prior to your last revert--that would just go to my point of using "rules" to disrupt, not to contribute. PētersV 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There no fine print: there policy: 3RR acts per 24 hour, but they were 2 days (>45 hours) between the first and the second revert. The only thing this proves is that you don't know basic wikipedia principles.Anonimu 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu: well there you go, I'm merely uninformed and/or unobservant. At least you have now confirmed that you conform to the letter, not the spirit, of the law. PētersV 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I've actually showed that i didn't want to revert war (i've waited 2 full days for someone to improve the article by restoring my version, even if I could have reverted 24,1 hours after the first edit).Anonimu 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked "Exceptions" to 3RR. Are you claiming that you were truly reverting vandalism (rv "disruptive edit" per your edit summaries), that is, you contend that undoing the restoration by editors of prior (perfectly suitable and proper) content you deleted is protecting Wikipedia? If so, that would set a new standard for cynical abuse of Wikipedia, at least in my experience, and I have witnessed my fair share of egregious editorial behavior. If not, then how exactly did you not do 4 reverts (to restore your initial delete)? PētersV 17:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I was making wikipedia more credible with my edits... so i was not just protecting, but actually improving.Anonimu 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering you were also repeatedly deleting the Soviet occupation template even though Romania was indisputably occupied by the Soviets by treaty, I would have to take that as you offering me the opportunity to rest my case that you are only here to push your personal (not editorial) POV. PētersV 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi PētersV: I've personally witnessed Anonimu going with impunity over the 3RR limit several times this year (at least twice since this Rfc started). I've seen other editors immediately getting slapped with a 24 to 48 hours block for such violations, but only once Anonimu. So again, I can only surmise that he views this near-immunity he has as carte blanche for breaking the rules, with the flimsiest of fig leaves as "justification". If I'm misintrepreting the situation and/or missing something about how the rules are supposed to be enforced, please someone let me know. Turgidson 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

being a KGB agent gives you such advantages...Anonimu 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't leave well enough alone, can't resist the temptation to make a mockery out of Wikipedia. PētersV 19:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The repeated taunts by Anonimu just go to show he has learned nothing from this RfC. To the contrary, the lack of any action to put a stop to his disruptive behavior (in the face of near-unanimous disapproval of his actions from the editors who have commented on this RfC) seems to just have emboldened him. So I would modify the title of this section to: "No action = change for the worse". Turgidson 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's the problem. -- AdrianTM 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Soviet occupation of Romania

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:

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. 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)

Huh?Anonimu 08:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another dismissive remark. Hopefully, reviewers of this RfC will not be fooled. Dpotop 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Romanian Armies in the Battle of Stalingrad

This is another page where User:Anonimu has engaged in edit warring. He keeps introducing the word cession as describing the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, following the ultimatum of June 28, 1940. I believe this is not correct: in this context, the right word is annexation, according to the dictionary definition. I left a message to that effect on the talk page there, in the hope this will help settle the issue. Turgidson 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cession is supported by sources.Anonimu 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the article on annexation:

Annexation differs from cession, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is an unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community. During World War II the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. Changes were introduced to international law through the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation.

Where is the source stating that Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were "given or sold through treaty" to the Soviet Union, following the June 28, 1940 ultimatum? Unless the preponderance of reliable sources mention a treaty (where, when? was it signed before the Red Army moved in?), annexation needs to stay, and cession must go. Turgidson 13:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's OR. If those western(!) authors considered it a cession, that's what we should call it here.Anonimu 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's total BS. Which western-shmestern-whatever authors (besides official Soviet sources) say that the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in 1940 was not an annexation, but simply a cession, like perhaps the Louisiana Purchase, or the Alaska purchase? One more time, Anonimu — do you realize that words typically have a precise meaning, and that one cannot simply repeat ad nauseam non-sequiturs, if one wants to have an argument based on logic, not on fallacies? Turgidson (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave you four sources, one of them being a book on international law. All of them used the word "ceded". So who's bulshitting the readers? Me, that gives em neutral sources, or you, who gives them an official comment of the US gvt? Occupation also has a precise meaning, but you continued to put a spurious claim that Romania was under Soviet occupation until 1958, even if under international law it was a sovereign country. So don't talk to me about "meanings".Anonimu (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you anything, just to familiarize yourself with the historical record before wasting the time of editors who actually add content to WP, and to use arguments based on logic. For a more detailed response, see the next section. Turgidson (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The why don't you stop wasting my time?Anonimu (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The view from the State Department

Check out "Background Note: Romania", United States Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, October 2007. This is what it says:

In 1940, the authoritarian General Antonescu took control. Romania entered World War II on the side of the Axis Powers in June 1941, invading the Soviet Union to recover Bessarabia and Bukovina, which had been annexed in 1940.

[...]

A peace treaty, signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, confirmed the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, but restored the part of northern Transylvania granted to Hungary in 1940 by Hitler. The treaty also required massive war reparations by Romania to the Soviet Union, whose occupying forces left in 1958.

This is about as official (and reliable) a source as it gets, yes? Is there any ambiguity left as to whether

• The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina was an annexation, and not a "cession", as Anonimu keeps saying? and
• The Soviet occupation of Romania occurred, and lasted until 1958, despite claims to the contrary by Anonimu?

I think the case is clear. -- Turgidson (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is as official and reliable as any document of the Soviet gvt.-- Anonimu (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is just as official, I agree. As for reliability, US is a third, uninvolved party, while Soviets had clear interests in the issue. -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

US has as many interests, if not more... -- Anonimu (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody has interests, is this a good enough reason to not use any source? -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

States, especially imperialist ones like US, have much more interests than individuals...-- Anonimu (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is sophistry. Of course states have interests, and since states comprise many individuals, of course their interests are wider. And the sky is blue. So what? The fact of the matter is, an official source of the United States Government (the State Department) agrees with the position taken by the vast majority of the editors here at WP who have expressed an interest in the subject, and by the vast majority of reliable sources (including countless scholarly publications) that have written on this subject, and disagrees with the point of view you are pushing, which is based on -- what? Just your opinion, that's it? Turgidson (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your failure to aknowledge the numerous reliable sources using "ceded" is just another proof of your bad faith. The fact that you and other nationalist Romanians feel the need to defend your "historical boundaries" doesn't change history. Romania was a coward and ceded Bessarabia to the Soviets. This happens when you have your country ruled by bourgeoisie and aristocracy, accept it.Anonimu (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, yet another (very explicit) breach of WP:AGF on the part of Anonimu; so what's new? As a matter of fact, I did make a spot-check of one of those references that Anonimu mentions — a book by well-respected historian and Columbia University professor, István Deák: Essays on Hitler's Europe, University of Nebraska Press, 2001, ISBN 0803266308. Indeed, on page 131 there is a relevant quote, but Anonimu did not reproduce it, and, in fact, completely left out the context in which the word "ceded" is used. Here is the quote (I narrowed it down a bit, but the relevant context is there):

" the Führer...now allowed his allies to seize Romanian territory. On June 27, following Stalin's ultimatum, Romania ceded Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union."

My argument (which Anonimu repeatedly choses to ignore, or mischaracterize), is not whether Romania ceded (or gave away, or handed over on a silver platter, or walked away from, or whatever) those territories, pursuant to the Soviet ultimatum, with its rather explicit threat of military force (which actually was carried out almost immediately after being issued). Rather, I argue, based on essentially all available reliable sources, including those provided by the US Government, and, indeed, those provided by Anonimu himself, that those territories were annexed (or, seized, if you wish). In other words, this was not a land deal (like, say, the Louisiana or Alaska purchases), but rather, a land grab. Capisci? Turgidson (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the word used "ceded"? Yep, it is. Are those 4 sources using this term more neutral and accurate that the US govt? Of course. Do you refuse to acknowledge it? clearly yes. BTW, Alaska and Louisiana were land transactions, not cessions. And the you cry I used mob metaphors to characterize you...Anonimu (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ceded" with regard to Bessarabia does not mean "not occupied," that is your personal contention. You can shout ceded all you want. PētersV (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone has some problems with logic.Anonimu (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Right on the money—and that's you, Anonimu. Just go back and read, one more time, the definition of cession: "Cession is "a surrender; a yielding; a giving up." It is voluntary, as opposed to annexation, which is forcible", and that of annexation: "Annexation differs from cession, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is an unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and made legitimate by the recognition of the international community". After you absorb these two definitions, and thoroughly understand them, then (maybe) we can talk. Till then, a continuation of this discussion is pointless. Turgidson (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nop, that's you two. You have some problems with understanding the meaning of "giving up" and "unilateral". Go search in a dictionary and then come back.Anonimu (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of this RfC?

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)

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)

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)

Keep pouring NPAs... you're actually making my case.Anonimu (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

It's really amazing how those who editorially follow the Soviet (dead totalitarian empire) line (for whatever reason) appear to get away with calling people nationalists (not in a good way), imperialists, fascists, and all sorts of names and making all sorts of wild contentions (thinking of Grafikm_fr's statement that the majority of Latvians were happy for the opportunity to pick up Nazi guns and slaughter Jews). Meanwhile, anyone towing the Soviet line, as soon as someone uses the word communist or Soviet, goes crying that they've been egregiously offended.
   As for the apparent double standard, we're only condoning it if this is not taken to the next step. PētersV (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed; RfC are mostly pointless. That said, I'd advise involved users, once the discussion dies down on main RfC page, to create a 'summary' - something like what I did at RfC/Piotrus.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But the only true outside view considered all the "evidence" piffle.Anonimu (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there's that admin who thinks most of the participants should be banned.Anonimu (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think Jeske would block me. Will ^(talk) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

As the initiator and godfather of this RfC, I fully endorse K. Lastochka's suggestion that we move on to arbitration. The only alternative is mediation: Anonimu, would you like mediation with us? If not, then on to the ArbCom! Biruitorul (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Continued personal attacks by Anonimu

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)

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)

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)