Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Antifinnugor/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

9 Nov – 14 Nov
patiently criticized by other editors (e.g.   )
 * 9 Nov: first anon edit to Finno-Ugric languages
 * 11 Nov, a first little revert-war, user repeatedly calls reverters 'primitive' ,
 * 12 Nov: 'words of warning' by User:Dhanak foreshadowing the fruitless dispute that was to follow.
 * anon continues to re-insert his stuff, together with comments on the talkpage (e.g. ),

14 Nov – 28 Nov

 * 14 Nov: afu's first logged-in edit (though still unsigned.)
 * from the rfc:
 * user is asked for sources:
 * and refuses (November 17, User:Mark Dingemanse)
 * and refuses (November 19, User:Mark Dingemanse)
 * and refuses (November 19, User:Mark Dingemanse)
 * and refuses (November 20, User:Mark Dingemanse)
 * The need for consensus is emphasized:
 * and ignored (November 20, User:Tuomas)
 * Subject is asked to refrain from personal comments:
 * and refuses (November 12, User:Derek Ross)
 * and refuses (November 20, User:Mark Dingemanse)


 * 16 Nov: user is repeatedly asked to provide references . He rather insists that his views are perfectly obvious, and even asks editors to please avoid the citation of books.
 * 16 Nov: my first involvement with the page, having been alerted to the issue by User:Mustafaa.
 * 20 Nov: User:Mark Dingemanse grows tired of afu's game and collects some sources for him. These are properly included into the article, and remain referenced there to this day. Note that while these are references critical of the FU family, afu's claims are far more extreme than anything in these papers.

28 Nov – 31 Dec

 * 28 Nov: personal attacks start in earnest  . After this time, most of user's edits to talk pages will contain personal attack,  I will not bother to give a complete list, but many are referenced from his rfc.
 * 3 / 12  Dec: not all his edits are equally bad,  and user seems to honestly believe that an obvious truth is being cencored by incompetents. He never, however, acknowledges the need for citing sources (let alone actually giving any; keeps insisting his stuff is too obvious to be questionable)
 * from the rfc:
 * user is offered a compromise:
 * which is rejected (December 4, User:Dbachmann)
 * which is rejected (December 14, User:Dbachmann)


 * 14 Dec: user starts to create forks to insert the statements rejected in the main article:
 * Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups
 * Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups
 * Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups
 * these articles have a complicated history of redirection, moving and vfd, see

Talk:Critic_of_Finno_Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups Votes_for_deletion/Critic_of_Finno_Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups. Consensus (excepting afu, of course) was to make these into redirects to the main article, which has a 'criticism'/'disputes' section (now here). This led to vigorous reverting, frequently characterized as 'vandalism' by afu. one of these articles escaped attention and continues its existence, to this day.
 * background: it is true that I at first supported the creation of a specialized 'criticism' article. This was before I realized that there is no significant literature, and that such criticism as there is is easily summarized in a short section on the main article. I have repeatedly emphasized that I would still support a specialized criticism article if enough references were brought forward to warrant one. All references known until today are easily accomodated in the main article.
 * comment: this 'extension of the battlefield' (fork spam) in itself should count as disruption, as it was very time-consuming and annoying to follow. If this practice becomes common, every dispute will generate dozens of similarly-named articles soon. (c.f. 'Title Wars')
 * re: references: the 'References' in afu's pov forks consist of (a) unconvroversial links to linguists' homepages (b) uncontroversial links to wordlists (c) the references shown to him on 20 Nov by Mark as an example of what we mean by 'cite your sources', long since included in the main article. (d) the link to Maracz' article, not included in the main article for reasons discussed here. All of these are not exactly references for afu's own claims, which go beyond any of his 'sources'.


 * 17 Dec/18 Dec: appearance of 'mysterious' duo User:Balf & User:Nemenyi (c.f. evidence by Bishonen below)
 * 20 Dec (on top is a copy-paste of my comment, see final line)
 * 24 Dec
 * from 26 Dec User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups

31 Dec – 4 Jan

 * 31 Dec: Dbenbenn opens Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor
 * 1 Jan: after a final copy-paste of his "Critique" writeup, afu stopped his edits article namespace. This was noted on the rfc.
 * 2 Jan: his last 'vandalism clearing', reverted again by User:Wiglaf.
 * on the heavily-certified rfc, user sees no need to justify his behaviour, and seems to parrot all accusations (characteristically, without a single reference; note that all diffs on the rfc paste were given by afu's critics), insisting to call reverts 'vandalism' and the rfc diff-collection 'KGB method' and 'spying' (e.g., and especially, .)
 * 4 Jan: first (to date only) conciliatory propositon (mixed with more ranting), recognized by me , but recognized as unacceptable, and probably not sincere.

after 14 Jan

 * 14 Jan: afu is back, vigorously reverting 'my' 'vandalism' to his pov forks, as well as showing signs of wanting to open a counter-rfar.

dab (&#5839;) 10:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

13 November – 12 December

 * Large number of reverts on Uralic languages mirroring the events on Finno-Ugric languages
 * Antifinnugor (at first without an account) adds his same unsourced edits that have been removed from Finno-Ugric languages to Uralic languages . After creating an account, he reverts on Nov 19, (not logged in), Nov 20 , Nov 21 , Nov 22 , , , Nov 24 , Nov 26 , Nov 27 , Nov 28 , , , , Dec 3 , Dec 4 , Dec 5 , Dec 11 , , Dec 12.
 * On the corresponding discussion page he starts his personal attacks on Nov 28, , . Nyenyec 10:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nonce accounts, 1 January
Antifinnugor's summary on Requests for comment/Antifinnugor is putatively certified by User:Balf, a nonce account, and I urge Antifinnugor to remove this signature, in his own interest, as it's only making him look bad. He refuses, disclaiming knowledge of Balf, and instead goes on to aggressively denounce User:Dhanak as a sockpuppet, quite at random (compare Dhanak's contribs, and especially Dhanak's contribs at hu:wikipedia). Subsequently another certification of Antifinnugor's summary appears from a user of similar credentials, User:Nemenyi. As I told afu, it doesn't make much difference if the pair are sockpuppets, or RL friends of his. But perhaps the accounts could nevertheless be investigated?

Attempts to help Antifinnugor with process, 25 December – 14 January
We are conscious of Antifinnugor's problems of limited English skills and limited familiarity with en.wikipedia processes. Several editors have tried in good faith to help him argue his case more effectively:

25 December, Antifinnugor reverts frequently on Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups and is warned by Nyenyec about the 3RR being official policy on en.wiki. When he nevertheless goes on to break the rule, I urge him to stop. He responds civilly, but continues to revert. He is subsequently blocked for this violation.

1 January, Afu responds to the RfC against him in the wrong place on the page. I write to him advising him to move his response, and he does so.

1 January, I advise afu to remove Balf's signature certifying the RfC, see above. He refuses.

10 January, the RfAr is accepted by ArbCom, and Nyenyec promptly sends afu a note of advice and links about how the RfAr process works. Afu does not reply nor, apparently, use the information, since his next action on 14 Jan is self-defeating:

14 January, Afu attempts to open a retaliatory RfAr against DBachmann, though failing to list it on the main Requests for Arbitration. Nyenyec sends him detailed advice about how to defend himself, how to supply diffs, etc, referring also to an explanation he has written in Hungarian. I also write to afu, explaining why the RfAr on DBachmann will only harm his case, and giving detail on where and how to enter argument and evidence on RfAr/Antifinnugor instead. In spite of advising afu against RfAr:ing Dbachmann, both Nyenyec and I also tell afu how to make his RfAr/Dbachmann formally valid, if he still wants to go through with it. Lots of good advice, painstakingly set out. Afu quickly deletes both messages, together with all previous advice from Nyenyec and me on his page. -
 * Comment: Afu's continual scolding and abuse, of especially Dbachmann and Nyenyec, is a much bigger problem for Wikipedia than the voting by sockpuppet/roommate, 3RR violations, or other formal infringements. I'm convinced he'll be right back with his flaming if he should be let off with a caution, since he has shown himself impervious to mere reasoned appeals. Note that hu.wiki, which lacks our sanction system, has been quite unable to contain his aggressive behavior.--Bishonen | Talk 22:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence provided by User:Dbenbenn
For my part, I tried my best to resolve the dispute with Antifinnugor. I had three extended conversations with him on our user talk pages.

4 – 11 December
First, we discussed a specific change he had made to Finno-Ugric languages many times. See for the final version of that conversation.

During the same time period, we had another conversation at my own talk page, see User talk:Dbenbenn/archive1 for the final version of it.

16 – 21 December
For our third conversation, see User talk:Dbenbenn/archive1, about the same topic as the first. The conversation ended when I said "If you want to understand the theory, I suggest you take a class in linguistics". Antifinnugor rejected this suggestion.

Evidence presented by User:Mk270
I contend that Antifinnugor, whose very username is POV, is engaged in an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's neutrality norms. The method he uses to do this is itself a violation of Wikipedia's rules on civility (inter alia), though his incivility is directed at others; in the handful of interactions I have had with him he has been civil to me. There are however many other aspects of his methods which ought to be prevented as a matter of policy.

Restricting myself to matters not adduced by other complainants, I take particular exception to the user's habit of misrepresenting his edits, either in the changelog or in the talk page.

The user represented these edits as "minor":


 * 
 * 

And this also as vandalism clearance:


 * 

Other behaviour having the effect of frustrating collaborative efforts to resolve differences included removing the attention flag put up as a call for people to help fix a page he'd edited:


 * 

More mischaracterisation of edits: this was described like this

The user is also adept at misdirecting conversations; descriptions of his accusa tions against others are misrepresented as accusations against himself:

In, see: , and 

His POV can be perfectly adequately integrated into Wikipedia (though on notability grounds it should form part of Hungarian politics rather than anything to do with linguistics), however, the normal means of reaching the consensus necessary to achieve this are impossible in the face of what appears to be a calculated attempt to attack the discussion process itself, with these constant mischaracterisations of his and other people's actions.

Antifinnugor is sometimes accused of publishing original research. This accusation should be withdrawn - he is faithfully parroting the (in my opinion, as someone familiar with historical linguistics, totally discredited) research of others.

I would like the comments here about the effort taken to help Antifinnugor, and his reaction, also to be taken into account.

Mk270 15:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

20 January
Barely 10 minutes after receiving a notification from the Arbitration Committee that (s)he should not make modifications on this subject, makes a change to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups  (with summary "cleared unfortunate vandalism"). (Note: this page should be a redirect (and eventually deleted) because of incorrect capitalization of the title ('G'), no matter what its contents are.)

DHanak -V 19:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, this probably was not an intentional violation of the injunction, because (s)he hasn't touched any of the related pages since then. It might, however, serve as an example of his/her typical attitude. --DHanak -V 22:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)