Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas 2
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC).
- (Anittas | talk | contributions)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Description
User:Anittas has, in the past few days, made a number of insulting comments against LGBT people, mainly addressed towards User:Node ue. These comments were first made in a joking manner, and followed on from multiple insulting anti-gay statements made previously. However, after being asked for apologise and told that the comments he was making were insulting, Anittas refused to do so and continued making further personal attacks. He also made a personal attack against User:Node ue due to the fact that he is Jewish and against User:Oleg Alexandrov because he is Russian. I've talked to him multiple times in the past few days both on his talk page and via e-mail. Other users have also tried to calm down the dispute, and Node ue has said that he is personally insulted by these remarks. While I've collaborated amiably with Anittas previously, I think any form of discrimination and insult against things like people's sexual orientation and ethnicity/religion should not be tolerated. 
Ronline ✉ 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
- Initial anti-gay statement made to Node ue
- Anittas' talk page, permalink, showing attempts my multiple users to solve the conflict and Anittas' quite inflammatory remarks - please see the "Anti-gay statements relating to Node", "Statement", "Personal attacks against Node ue" and "Formal warning" sections. In particular, see 1, 2, 3
- Anti-gay message against Node on Anittas' talk page. Please see all of the
- Insulting remark made to Node ue on Alex Bakharev's RfA page
- Racist statement to Oleg Alexandrov
Applicable policies
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
- Oleg Alexandrov tells Anittas to stop making anti-gay statements
- Statement by me telling Anittas the same thing
- First message on his talk page about this, by me (Ronline)
- Node ue's comment that he takes offence at Anittas' statements
- Second attempt by Oleg Alexandrov to solve dispute
- Anittas is told by me (Ronline) that it's time to stop
- Attempts by me to explain to him why his comments were offensive
- Formal warning from Humus sapiens
- Attempt by Humus sapiens to explain to Anittas why his comments were offensive
- Tznkai explains to Anittas
- I explain to Anittas
- Sebastiankessel gives him another warning
- Zoe gives yet another warning to Anittas
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Ronline ✉ 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)- Izehar (שיחה) He ought to have learnt from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas.
- Node 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with Izehar.
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
Is this April 1 or January 12? I see no evidence, whatsoever, from Ron about his accusations towards me. Here are Ron's accusations:
- Ron's argument: Initial anti-gay statement made to Node ue
What I had said: "He has this thing against girls"
My argument: where is the anti-gay statement? That could mean anything. That comment doesn't mention his sexual preference or anything of the sort.
- Ron's argument: Anittas' talk page, permalink, showing attempts my multiple users to solve the conflict and Anittas' quite inflammatory remarks
My argument: I don't see anyone attempting to solve the conflict. What I see is several users warning and ordering me to apologize, without explaining what it is that I should apologize for. For instance, user:Humus sapiens gave me a so-called "Formal warning" with the ultimatum that I apologize to Node, but they did not explain what a "Formal warning" is; they did not clarify whether he had the authority to issue such a warning; and they did not explain the consequences - if any - on my refusal to apologize to Node.
I then asked Humus why I should apologize, and Humus answered, and I quote: "The way you used the word "Jew" is offensive". I then asked Humus how I could use the word "Jew" without making it offensive. Humus did not answer my question, but someone else said that I should use it without making it a "pejorative". I deny the implication that I used the word "Jew" as a pejorative.
Ronline followed-up by saying, and I quote: "The problem, however, is the way you capitalised Jew and then said "You do not speak Moldovan, JEW!". This indicates an offensive tone."
There are two things to consider here; firstly, Ronline implies that writing the word "Jew" in capital letters is a problem; and secondly, Ron says that it indicates an offensive tone, which to me, means that Ron perceived it that way (it indicates). An indication is usually based on speculation or perception of an act. A speculation or a perception of an act is not evidence and cannot be counted as evidence. I also will like to say that so far, I am not aware of any Wiki policy that says we cannot use capital letters.
The only users that might be in the right, in that discussion, was Sebastian Kessel and Zoe who warned me not to make slurs. They were not very specific in their warning, but I suspect that they had a problem with me telling the people involved to "fuck off from my talk page."
Ron also claims that the following comments by me are personal attacks against Node:
"You know that photo of yours? I think it's time for that? ;)"
My comment: What is the description of this so-called attack? How do we know it is an attack? I asked Node a question about a photo of his and said that it's time "for that". In what way does this make a personal attack? I think it's Ron's responsibility to make his argument clear for the viewers so that no-one is left out in the dark.
Ron also claimed that this is a personal attack. In what way is it a personal attack, if I may ask? Did a photo of a girl offend Node? I'm sorry, but it's not enough to say that a certain thing is a personal attack, unless you argue what MAKES it a personal attack.
Ron then says that this, too, is a personal attack, where I said:
"Don't lecture me on my talkpage or anywhere. I'm glad you're admin and all that, and I understand you need to show a balanced judgement after you blocked Mikka, but please leave me me be."
My comment: What makes this a personal attack? In fact, what makes this anything that is supposed to be bad? The comment shows that I ask Ron to leave me alone on my talkpage - a request that he would not honour - and my comment also shows that he had no credibility to me.
Ron then argues that I made an "Anti-gay message against Node. Here is this so-called anti-gay message:
"I am Anittas. I'm Romanian. I took this nickname after the second king of the Hittites. I'm male - not female. I like females, but Node doesn't. The best article started by me is Battle of Vaslui."
What makes this anti-gay? The fact that I wrote that Node doesn't like females? Is this anti-gay? If that comment is supposed to be anti-gay, may I ask how it is anti-gay? I mean, logically, if Node is a homo-sexual, and women does not appease him, and I say this, it is anti-gay? I don't quite understand the logic, and since Ron will not argue his reasoning, I am forced to speculate and predict the way he tried to reason.
Ron then argues that I insulted Node on another user's talkpage. Here is the so-called insult:
"Can someone please tell this JEW - not Moldovan, but JEW - that he doesn't know Moldovan, but is only protending to speak the language? You do not speak Moldovan, JEW!"
My comment: as it was argued by Ron in previous accusations, he believes that writing "Jew" in capital letters makes it a problem. I don't agree, but if someone can direct me to a Wiki policy where it says that writing in capital letters is an offence, then I might have to admit that Ron is correct - tho I'm not aware of such a rule. As for the rest of what was said, I stand by of what I said: Node is not Moldovan and he doesn't speak the language. This is what I think and I base these opinions on my personal observations. I claim the right to have personal opinions.
Ron then argues that I made a racist comment to Oleg A. when saying:
"I think you want an excuse for another RfC and I see you're still a Russian. Return to your roots, first, and then we talk. Okay? ;)"
My comment: I fail to see the racism in the message. Can Ron show us what he deems as a racist comment? It's clear that in the message, I ask the user to return to their roots, first. Is that the racist part of the message, or is it where I say that he's still a Russian?
Ron then gives us a list of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". In this list of evidence, we see Ron, Oleg, and others, asking me repeatedly to stop making anti-gay statements, but as I have showed here, so far, they don't seem to specify what they mean by anti-gay statements. I just don't agree that they are anti-gay statements. When I say that Node doesn't like girls, then I don't see that as an anti-gay statement. [Why does Ron and Oleg then ask me to stop making such comments]? Node followed-up with a request that I apologize to him for making homophobic messages and he claimed to be offended, but because I don't agree that my messages were neither homophobic, nor personal attacks, I did not apologize.
Oleg asks me, again, that what I do is wrong and against Wiki policy, but without explaining why it is wrong and against Wiki policy.
I then deny all accusations that I discriminate Node and say:
"I'm not discriminating him. I don't tell him to stop being gay or that he should have less rights than others. I'm just laughing at him, that's all. Is there an anti-laugh policy on Wiki?"
Ron then says:
"Yes, there is. Because laughing at anyone because they're LGBT - or because they're of a different race, gender, appearance, etc - is discrimination under the vast majority of definitions. This makes you appear as homophobic. The point here, however, isn't discrimination per se. Rather, it's about insult and personal attacks, and you comments are considered that - see WP:NPA - where it says: Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. Thanks"
My comment: first of all, all I said is that I like to laugh at Node, but I did not say that I like to laugh at Node because he's homo-sexual. This is another of Ron's speculations. For the record, I also like to laugh at Ron, and I also like to laugh at Homer Simpson and George W. Bush, for reasons of my own. That doesn't mean that I discriminate them.
I am sorry if my argument is poor, but I did not know how to respond to Ron's arguments, because he doesn't seem to have any arguments. He only posted references to various messages where I conversed with people. In fact, someone who knows me from another forum tried to explain to Ron that I was not anti-gay, because I defended the gay rights in that other forum. However, it seems that Ron, Oleg, and others, continued with their bold assumptions that I discriminated Node, that I made anti-gay statements, racist remarks, etc., but the only thing I see where I might have violated Wiki policy is, as I have mentioned earlier, where I asked the people involved to "fuck off from my talk page". I was, however, warned by two admins and have yet not repeated the offense. I used a harsh language because when I was being civil, I was not listened to. I asked Ron to stop posting on my talkpage. I asked Oleg to never post on my talkpage months back. It doesn't seem to have helped, so I kindly asked them to "fuck off", which i think was polite enough, because I used the word "kindly".
If Ron will present new arguments for his case, I will promptly reply to them. Thank you.
- I've replied to the issues you raised at the talk page of this page. Ronline ✉ 00:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're sarcasm is disgusting. There is no way of politely telling somebody to "f**k off". Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.