Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Estophobia

Canvassing
The nomination has been compromised by canvassing. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the lowest accusation I have ever seen. Someone called for help for improving a wikipedia article and you declare it canvassing. Suva 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some further canvassing:  Sander Säde  21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What's this article doing in Russian announcement page, anyway? Is Mikkalai trying to imply Estophobia is a Russia-specific phenomenon?  I would certainly like to see his sources... Digwuren 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of Darwinek's stongly defended masterpiece of bad faith, I similarly declare I smell sick Russophobia here that squeezes logic from someone's brains. The Estophobia article is both NEW and DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY related to Russia and Russians. And that someone else doesn't like Estonians it is not my problem, but yours. Not to say that Estophobia speaks ONLY about Russians. `'Mїkka 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert war on Darwinek's speculation about "bad faith"
I really don't think it's meant as a personal attack. Very good editors do make nominations in bad faith now and again when their emotions get too heated. It is the nomination that Darwinek is questioning..

In any case, even if you do not feel it is appropriate, it is not so egregious as to merit deleting another user's comments. There are much more obvious personal attacks all over this AfD, on both sides of the issue! --Jaysweet 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about other attacks. I am offended. Period. Unlike others, I don't want to start a thread of bickering here: "no it was not bad faith"--"oh yes it was". I cut it at the root. Realizing that Darwinek did not intend an offense, I am not demanding apology. I agree people say worse things about each other. But sometimes I do not tolerate insinuaitons towards me. `'Mїkka 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * let me politely remind you that the insult is judged by the insulted. The statement questions my integrity. I am insulted. Period. Go away. This AfD feels very insulting to me. Does it mean I can remove it now? Sander Säde  21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't see the difference between statements "bad faith" and "original essay", then you will have bigger problems which will not be solved by " ". `'Mїkka 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to censor other peoples comments if they raise potentially legitimate concerns. Certainly when the proposer votes to keep Serbophobia but raises and AfD against Estophobia, I think one has cause to reflect on the motives of the nominator. Martintg 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I (and other people) vote each article by its own merits. Are you suggesting that all 15+ people who voted to delete this article "raise potentially legitimate concerns"? I could have understood Darwinek's remark if I were in spectacular minority, but in the present situation I see it as pointless biting. So after a second thought, if someone reinserts it again, I will no longer object; the validity of Darwinek's remark speaks for itself. `'Mїkka 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to take issue with the assertion "let me politely remind you that the insult is judged by the insulted." By that logic, boy howdy, I'm gonna start reverting the hell out of stuff all over Wikipedia!  heh...
 * The other reason I am defending Darwinek's remark is that I, too, am starting to smell bad faith here, not necessarily by the nominator, but by some of those advocating deletion (please note that I also advocate delete, so I am not accusing anyone in particular here). I did not know anything about the Bronze Soldier controversy before this, and it appears emotions are running very high.  While I think this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia (I haven't seen a single example of Estonian-hating that wasn't in some way connected to the Bronze Soldier and/or Estonia's newfound independence from the former Soviet Union, so it's hard to argue that it is a true widespread phenomenon independent of Russo-Estonian relations), some of the vitriol pouring out here is quite disturbing.  I will not name names, but I do now suspect that some of those advocating deletion are doing so because they are pissed off at Estonia over the Bronze Soldier, rather than anything to do with the quality of the article.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been getting that feeling a bit.  So I definitely see why Darwinek said what he did. --Jaysweet 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You got yorself brainwashed, buddy. Many Soviet people greeted and supported independence of Baltic States, and my Lithuanian friends used to send me Vasario 16 postcards. But the situation drastically changed when ordinary Russian plant and factory workers suddenly became "enemies of the baltic people". First they were herded like cattle by Stalin to wherever he needed workworse, be it Siberia or Moldova or Latvia, and now they were stripped of rights and often of real estate (yes, which was not theirs before 1939) without any compensation or recognition for their contribution for the post-War restoration of the economy. Big surprize Russians don't feel big love to Estonian government. `'Mїkka 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading your comments above under "Canvassing," I feel it necessary to add that I agree the "bad faith smell" here is not confined to one side or the other. We here in the West have not really heard of the bronze soldier controversy, or the problems between the Russian and Estonian governments -- I had no idea this was going on!  While I think the majority of comments here are made in good faith, there's obviously some really bad blood boiling beneath the surface here... --Jaysweet 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reading more about this now... what a sad and difficult situation. I see why emotions run so high.  --Jaysweet 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And your reversal contributed to this, colleague. `'Mїkka 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka's claims that Russians became "enemies of the baltic people" over night, stripped of rights or had their property confiscated is simply not true. This is yet another example of this irrational anti-Estonian hysteria that is being whipped up by external Russians like Mikka. All ethnic Russians who were citizens of Estonia in 1940, about 10% of the population, had their citizenship restored automatically. Only those immigrants, of all ethnicities including ethnic Estonians, who arrived in during the Soviet period, have to go through a naturalisation process. The reason is simple, being former citizens of the Soviet Union, which no longer existed, these people have to make a choice, do they wish to be Russian or Estonian citizens. It is a matter of personal choice. About a third have opted for Estonian citizenship, a third have opted for Russian citizenship, and the remainder haven't decided yet. Being a non-citizen has some benefits too, i.e. avoidance of the military draft for example. Martintg 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Classification" of accounts
Apparently a revert war started when User:Ghirlandajo decided to classify the votes by nationality. It is not only biased and an attempt to sway votes, but is factually incorrect, as votes from different countries are dispersed unevenly throughout these sections. In each section there are people who do not belong to the ascribed community, and why Ghirla assumed the divine power to decide who belongs to what community is beyond me. I urge admins to remove this biased classifications and return it to previous state, where votes were accounted for their merit, not for the origins of their authors. --Hillock65 12:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this classification is very misleading and should be removed - actually, I think it is rather racist, but that is my opinion. Isn't something like that against WP rules as well? In any case, it breaks the logical order of comments. I restored the original version, unless someone can come up with a reason to sort it, I think it should stay like normal wikiconversations. Sander Säde  13:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Make that "tried to restore". If someone has time, please restore the pre-vandalized version of the discussion... Sander Säde  13:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will report this to ANI. --Alexia Death 13:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can´t understand why Ghirlandajo put me together with Polish accounts? I can´t speak Polish and Poland and Czech republic are different countries with different culture and history.

Yes, ethnic cliques aren´t something new. I think that some article are "owned" by ethnic/religious/political cliques and sourced by sources that they like. --Dezidor 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because he is not really classifying by countries but by supposed conspiratorial groups. But, being ashamed to admit such, he's pretending these conspiracies are ethnic. Digwuren 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, I disagree but I understand him. Maybe because I saw edit´s of one English Wikipedia admin/checkuser/oversight/POV editor/wikistalker/owner-of-articles and his clique whos motivation is also quite clear. --Dezidor 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because from the point of view of recent political history and Wikipedia POV there is no difference between Polish and Czech accounts. Both are West Slavic nations, Catholic by religion, former Soviet satellites and current Washington yes-men. This background dictates their take on the current situation. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Czechs are catolics by religion? Good joke. Most of the Czech population claim to be atheist or agnostic (60%). :-) --Dezidor 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose most strongly what Ghirlandajo did here. Classifying people by nationality like this is repellent. Wikipedia should not allow this to stand, and the user who did it should suffer consequences. Balcer 13:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left a warning on Ghirlandajo's talk page. He will be blocked if he persists. Crum375 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why such actions of 'classification' on national basis remind me of some attempts at classifying nations and races or of the 'selections' that took place in Auschwitz railway station. E.J. 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Crum375 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently there wont be, as usual, any consequences for Ghrila neither for his uncivil bashing nor this WP:POINT violation in this grouping, just affirming his belief that he is untouchable by policy even tho it sometimes stops him from getting his way...--Alexia Death 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In Estonian literature, there's a character who misbehaves so much that processing the new ones cause the authorities to forget the old ones, and thus, limits the severity of the punishments considerably. I guess the comparison is rather apt. Digwuren 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we don't let him get away with it he won't. Do you think we have enough for an ArbCom case? — Alex(U 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I lack experience in the field of ArbCom cases, so I am not good at assessing this. But if somebody steps up and puts one together, I'll help as best as I can.
 * Under some other circumstances, I would be bolder in taking the plunge. However, Ghirlandajo has two years worth of experience with a number of ArbCom cases; I can't take it upon my conscience to allow such an important case to go to dogs just because of the experience level difference.
 * That having been said, it's important to recognise that a major part of the reason we are here now is that not enough people have had courage to stand up and do the Right Thing where people like Ghirlandajo have been involved. Digwuren 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe. In my time on Wikipedia I have seen many questionable actions by Ghirlandajo, but this is the first one that seemed to me, well, evil, for lack of a better word.    Could one build an Arbcom case on the basis of one single action that clearly puts the user who carried it out beyond the pale (assuming he refuses to apologize)?


 * Indeed, mounting an Arbcom case against Ghirlandajo is difficult, as he knows that territory very well. Still, if it was focused on this single deplorable action by him, this might prevent him from clouding the issue.


 * I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my request to Ghirlandajo that he issues an apology to all the users who were affected by his action during this vote. Now would be the ideal time for it. Balcer 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose Ghirla prepares a by-constituency breakdown of the vote here on the talk page. For verifiability each grouping should include a list of those votes counted in that constituency. Does anyone here object to his/her username being listed under a nationality or other grouping? -- Petri Krohn 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from trolling. It's clear from the above discussion that many people object. Don't encourage Ghirlandajo to put his listing here. He is in enough trouble because of this already, don't goad him to make it any worse.  Balcer 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)