Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonimu

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 21:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

Anonimu (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

This dispute centers around Anonimu’s behaviour on a dozen Bessarabia-related pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Anonimu persistently and abusively reverts users who use the word “occupation” in those articles, despite the existence of an article called Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and a rationale explained in full here.

The problem is Anonimu’s recent and chronic acts of incivility, edit warring, pushing of his Communist POV, and other intolerable behavior.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Anonimu needs to treat others with respect, even if he disagrees with them. He needs to assume that other editors are acting in good faith per WP policy and engage them in discussion to understand where they're coming from if he has concerns about their edits. He needs to discuss changes and edits that he dislikes on the appropriate talk pages first, before reverting. He needs to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for things he's in favor of, and to denigrate those things he disfavors.

If Anonimu (blocked seven times for 3RR violations) rejects these requirements, he should leave Wikipedia since he cannot abide by its policies. If he refuses to leave, he should be banned. If, however, he accepts these requirements, he should be on a strict civility and revert parole for enough time to demonstrate that he is willing and capable of changing his ways.

When considering the request, editors should remain mindful of rhis recent ArbCom decision.

Description

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

Anonimu is a recent and chronic violator of core Wikipedia policies. He is routinely uncivil, assumes bad faith, instigates and participates in edit wars, disrupts Wikipedia to make a point, and in general treats those he disagrees with with contempt, aggression, and retaliation. He rejects good-faith attempts to reason with him and to encourage him to edit constructively.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Edit war, incivility, WP:POINT at Bessarabia-related articles

Anonimu initiated an edit war at Bessarabia-related articles which has now turned into disruption to make a point, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.

Edit war at History of Romania:
- [1] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [2], [3]

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

Edit war at Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic:
- [4] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [5], [6],

[7], [8], [9] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

Edit war at Bessarabia:
- [10] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [11], [12],

[13], [14], [15] [16] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and five different editors.

Edit war at History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953):
- [17] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [18]

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

Edit war at Khotyn:
- [19] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [20], [21],

[22], [23] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

Edit war at Budjak:
- [24] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [25], [26],

[27], [28] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

Edit war at History of Moldova:
- [29] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [30], [31],

[32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and four different editors.

Edit war at History of the Romanians in Ukraine:
- [39] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [40], [41],

[42] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

Edit war at Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic:
- [43] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [44], [45]

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

Edit war at Chernivtsi Oblast:
- [46] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [47]

Edit war ensues between Anonimu and Biruitorul.

Edit war at Moldavian SSR:
- [48] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [49], [50],

[51], [52], [53], [54] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and three different editors.

Edit war at Romanian Armies in the Battle of Stalingrad:
- [55] Anonimu changes wording to make Soviet actions look less bad than they were.
- [56], [57],

[58] Edit war ensues between Anonimu and two different editors.

Past incivility

Here, Anonimu called Biruitorul an “ultra-nationalist”
Here, Anonimu called Biruitorul an “ultra-nationalist holodeni”, which can only mean “Holocaust denier”, despite his repeated and impassioned declarations that he is in fact not a Holocaust denier. He also did this here and here. (If Biruitorul once made statements Anonimu interpreted as Holocaust denial, it’s not his business to level such a charge, especially when Biruitorul fully and repeatedly endorsed the standard history of the Holocaust on several subsequent occasions.)
Talk:Delia Grigore – here, Anonimu displays habitual abrasiveness and lack of courtesy in yet another discussion.
Talk:Soviet occupations/Archive 1#Important statement – highly incivil remarks there.
Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre – this page is loaded with incivility by Anonimu, directed at users who disagree with him. In this discussion, Anonimu repeatedly defends the killing of 200 unarmed civilians. It was also here that Anonimu began insinuating that Biruitorul controls the actions of User:K. Lastochka, an absurd and offensive allegation. See [59], [60], and [61], where he says Biruitorul is her “idol” and she his “groupie”. This pattern continues to the present, with him calling Biruitorul her “capo”: [62]. See also [63].
Anonimu continued to defend this massacre here. On that page, he also lamented the failure of the Red Army to exterminate Poles.
Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina – [64], [[65] personal attacks.
Here, Anonimu accuses Biruitorul of paranoia.
Here, Anonimu sardonically accuses Biruitorul of canvassing, a baseless charge.

Past edit warring

Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania – an article on which Anonimu spearheaded revert-warring for about six months before causing it to be protected (this case made it all the way to the ArbCom). Also replete with incivility; see for instance [66], [67], [68] and [69], where he implies his opponents are fascists. (An explanation of the last two diffs: the official colour of the Iron Guard was green.)
Romanian Communist Party – protected since July 19 due to Anonimu’s edit-warring. Here, he also posits the existence of a cabal: [70].
Just part of a revert war on Nicolae Ceauşescu: [71], [72], [73].
Almost the entire edit history of Gheorghe Flondor consists of revert-warring by Anonimu over a trivial point, and the discussion is filled with his incivility.
The edit history on Ceauşescu family is dominated by Anonimu’s revert-warring, centered around the question of whether Andruţă Ceauşescu was an alcoholic or not, despite the existence of reliable sources that say yes.

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

Many of the above edit wars, and others, verge on and indeed violate WP:POINT. Among the more obvious are the Gheorghe Flondor and Ceauşescu family revert wars.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Most recently, both K. Lastochka and I attempted to steer Anonimu away from his latest bout of incivil edit-warring, but he simply erased out messages using abusive edit summaries. Note too that his talk page is a no-go area, in violation of Wikipedia norms.

K. Lastochka’s message: [74], removed, restored, removed, restored, removed by her.
Biruitorul message: [75], removed in three minutes with an abusive edit summary.

The talk pages linked above show ample evidence of endless but fruitless attempts to reach compromise.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Biruitorul 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With general incivility, yes, via several posts and ANI threads. Will ^(talk) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to comment about other stuff, but I just noticed this comment of his: "stop editing articles you're ignorant about just because the capo did it" [76] which I think is way beyond the limit of decency. -- AdrianTM 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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

{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:

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:

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.