Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Proposed decision

Not even censuring those who where hounding Anonimu for months gives them a good pat on the shoulder by ArbCom
Is Anonimu the single party whose conduct reaches an ArbCom level of concern? Seems so, from Kirill Lokshin's proposed decision.

Anonimu's conduct was reprehensible but not even censuring those who where hounding him for months (see evidence page) gives them a good pat on the shoulder by ArbCom. --Irpen 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonimu's conduct is the most reprehensible by far, of the significant parties to the matter; and, in more practical terms, the current indefinite block on him makes it necessary for us to clarify what exactly is to be done in his case. I am content to leave sanctions against lesser misbehavior to the discretion of the administrator corps as a whole. Kirill 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important that misconduct by others is also covered; no mention of it at all is especially problematic, because "lesser misbehavior" by multiple parties, once combined, amounts to a not insignificant factor, one otherwise less visible when viewed in increments or partitions. El_C 09:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this page is for arbitrators only, but since you edit, here are my comments, too:
 * This ArbCom is about misconduct, which by far is on Anonimu's side. Which is normal, because he was one, blocking the editing of all the other editors (a dozen). Not even Bonaparte was as isolated at the time he was first banned (he was only uncivil). Anonimu was uncivil *and* fully isolated in his POV-pushing. And he knew it, as people told him that at several occasions.
 * Thus, I feel Irpen's and El_C requirement that "others get punished, too" a bit hypocritical. Certainly you understand the rules. Dpotop 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed decision page itself may only be edited by arbitrators and arbitration clerks, but anyone may comment on this talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen and El_C, If you think that the conduct of other editors needs to be addressed, I strongly advise you to add suitable proposals on the workshop page. Paul August &#9742; 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul August, thank you for your offer. I refrained from doing that since my past experience indicates that once the signal-to-noise ratio at the workshop reaches an untenable level, the workshop stops being relevant and arbitrators don't read it anyway. Last time when Kirill Lokshin proposed the hang-them-all decision to Digwuren's case, he showed no indication to even have read multiple comments and even protests from most respected editors, not case parties, posted not even to the workshop but to the proposed decision talk. If you are implying that you intend to follow the workshop despite its being so messy already (and if proposals sanctioning such editors as Dpotop and Biru are going to be offered it would get only worse without doubt), then fine, I will try to make some proposals backed by diffs and I hope El_C would do the same. But I would hate to waste my time, like I have done in other cases when the workshops where commons sense was buried in noise and trolling ended up simply ignored by Arbitrators. --Irpen 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I will consider carefully any proposals you add to the workshop page. I can make no promises other than that. Paul August &#9742; 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly I do not expect promises that my proposals are accepted by the committee. They can certainly be not worth it. But I am heartened to hear for the first time the assurances that they would, at least, be read. See you later at the workshop then. --Irpen 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Following this remark I am expecting you (Irpen) to either:
 * present me excuses or
 * explain how I am to blame in this Anonimu-related ArbCom
 * I do defend my oppinions, just like you do, but following Wikipedia rules. Dpotop (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I always read the workshop and evidence pages. Often my comments with my votes on the Proposed Decision page are responses to various comments there or on talk pages. FloNight (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Uninvolved adminstrator"
May need to rephrase that slightly. We've all dealt with the Eastern European battles at some point. Some better definition needed? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Uninvolved" is generally interpreted to mean "not involved with the actual dispute or engaged in other disputes with the parties". Kirill
 * Absolutely, but there will be those out there who will try to make it look as though no administrator who's ever been involved with Eastern European articles can get involved. The addition of the phrase you quoted above would help greatly. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we've used the wording without clarification in other cases, and it hasn't really caused problems yet. I don't really see the need to stick it in here unless this potential problem actually starts occurring in practice. Kirill 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - it's your call, though I feel it's worth pointing it that, if agreed upon, there's never been such a big ArbCom decision before of such sweeping range. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Macedonia is somewhat smaller in territory, but the overall idea is the same. Kirill 22:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe covers a considerably larger area than Macedonia. The locus of the dispute is the interpretation of the role of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. So naturally enough the conflict is invariably between editors of Russian background on one hand, and editors of various Eastern European backgrounds on the other. This proposal for discretionary sanctions seems to be structured in a way that it is considerably easier to impose a sanction than it is to lift them, with a threat of desysoping against those that may lift them without sufficient justification. My concern is that given there are many admins with Russian and East European backgrounds who have also been actively involved in these disputes in the past, this may be open to abuse. Would it not be better to provide balance in this remedy by also threatening to desysop those admins who impose a discretionary sanction but are proven to be previously involved, rather than restricting the desysoping to those who may lift the sanction only? At the very minimum there needs to be a broad definition of "involved", being that if an admin has made significant contributions to Eastern European articles, broadly defined, then he/she is deemed to be "involved" and is thus barred from imposing discretionary sanctions.Martintg 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Martintg. The threads of ANI clearly show that there's a pattern of ethnic grouping, even among the best editors and admins. Dpotop 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Discretionary sanctions" proposals
This is a relatively obscure case, which was brought to address misconduct by a single user. That user has now been blocked indefinitely and there is consensus in favor of the block, so the case has become largely moot, and if it had been filed a week later would never have been accepted. Unsurprisingly, relatively few editors have been aware of the case or chosen to comment on it.

The proposed decision contains provisions giving discretionary powers to administrators regarding editing on a wide range of articles relating to the whole of Eastern Europe. As the arbitrators know better than anyone, many of these articles have suffered from protracted disputes, and I understand why this has been proposed. However, without commenting on the merits of the discretionary sanctions proposal, I am not certain that this case would represent the best vehicle for adopting it. At a minimum, if the committee is not minded to await another case before adopting proposals in this area, might it be appropriate to broader notice of the proposal (perhaps through noticeboards or the like) to obtain comment from the wider editing and administrator communities? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I share Newyorkbrad's concerns here. Paul August &#9742; 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree this is a rather obscure case in the big scheme of things (after all, the user in question confined his editing—such as it was—to a very small number of pages), I submit that it's been a huge headache for editors having to put up with the constant edit warring, lack of civility, personal attacks, and sundry disruptions—the whole nine yards. So, if you look at it from that narrow perspective (i.e., of editors trying to do their bit), the case has been anything but obscure.  Of course, it's all relative. At any rate, good idea: if you are looking for a noticeboard to announce this case, I would suggest Romanian Wikipedians' notice board as a starting point.  Turgidson (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the Digwuren case, civility has returned and there has been no edit warring in Estonia related articles, so it's no longer a headache, discretionary sanctions are not required. I suspect it's the same with other areas of Eastern Europe. Perhaps six months ago discretionary sanctions may have been necessary, but not now. The fact is that plain old fashioned bans work. Martintg (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. I will add some other remarks:
 * It's not "Eastern Europe", but "Soviet Occupations". All the conflicts that were mentioned here occur along that line.
 * In our case, it's not a content dispute, but user misconduct, which can't be specific to EE, and
 * The current rules do work. There are entire subjects that have stabilized or are slowly stabilizing, e.g. Moldova, Transnistria. Moreover, in the case of Transnistria, all the power of Wikipedia rules was needed to get rid of an astroturfing ring that was supported by naive (AGF assumed) admins for one year.
 * Given the implication of admins and power editors in the mentioned conflicts, imposing draconian rules will only transfer the conflict at admin level, and lock out all other editors.
 * In conclusion, it is exactly here, on "hot" subjects, that the full power of Wikipedia rules is needed, not some "speedy justice". Dpotop (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Steamroll it
I see no reason for the continuation of this show. There's no sense in trying to defend myself after the jury has deliberated (i.e. when the case is in the decision phase). Even if I'm inocent, I can't be part of what's happening on some Romania related articles on wikipedia. When self-declared ironguardists, widely acknowledged antisemitic books and youtube videos are accepted as valid sources, it's clear for me this' no the right place to be.

And here's a tribute to the all activists who fought against fascism:

P.S: Thanks to Paul August for his reply (which, even if short and late, is a lot compared to no reply at all by other arbitrators).

Anonimu (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind showing evidence that "self-declared ironguardists, widely acknowledged antisemitic books and youtube videos are accepted as valid sources"? I for one have seen none of that, only baseless charges being levelled from your side. And here's a tribute to all the heroes, including Grigore Caraza, who fought against Communism: . Biruitorul (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Caraza prides himself in his book with a 1962 declaration stating he was "staying on legionnaire positions". As can be seen here, he uses this against another author (name not given in source) who has allegedely claimed he became a legionnaire only in prison. And if an assumed declaration isn't enough, we have this article by a right-wing leaning respectable journal reffering to him as "the legionnaire Grigore Caraza". For those not knowing, the Legion aka the Iron Guard, was a fascist organization responsable for numerous political assasinations and the infamous Bucharest Pogrom. As for the antisemite bookks is Paul Goma's, a classic of Jewish Bolshevism, condemned as antisemitic, among others, by the Romanian Jewish Community ("Paul Goma proves to be a radical negativist. His primitive and violent anti-Semitism combines themes from the inter-war period with current anti-Semitism, and Islamic fundamentalism, blaming the Israeli people for being criminals in the treatment of the Palestinians. "), by the Writers' Union of Romania and by a Le Monde article. Nevertheless, his antisemite writings are widely used as valid sources on wikipedia! As for using youtube as a source, here's just one ocassion diff.

Hey Biruitorul, you consider a war criminal (Ion Antonescu) a hero, and you're a Holocaust negationist according to the definitions of the Final Report of the Wiesel Commission (supported by the Romanian, US and Israeli governments). It's no surprise you consider this self-declared fascist a hero.Anonimu (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though I don't intervene in such situations, I feel compelled to make an exception in this particular case.

We have here a good example of what has always been Anonimu's defense and reasoning: playing victim while pretending to be a good user and editor of Wikipedia. What he says now, about sources, is of course reasonable, clear and civilized. In fact, in all Anonimu's discussions start in a civilized coherent way. The problem is they rarely end up that way. This of course when a discussion is engaged which doesn't always happen. I say it is a good example because, even on this page, Anonimu has a hard time not to make any personal attacks ("Hey Biruitorul, you consider a war criminal (Ion Antonescu) a hero, and you're a Holocaust negationist").

Anonimu is not the good user and editor of Wikipedia he just pretends to be so when defending himself. In fact he is a good defender of Communism and of Communism's image on wikipedia (more precisely of Eastern European Communism). He refuses most sources accounting for communism's crimes by either saying they're fascist (most of the time) or that they're unreliable. He calls conspiracy or unfounded almost all critics of Communism and if given evidence of the contrary, changes the subject of the discussion by focusing on his opponent and eventually insulting him and becoming uncivil. And by the way, you would expect Anonimu's sources to be more reliable, not at all. His sources include, among others, the famous "Cartea Alba a Securitatii" ("The White Book of the Securitate", Romania's Gestapo), famous not because it is widely quoted, for it is not, but because of the controversy surrounding the validity of its claims and its notable omissions.

I share a big part of Anonimu's criticism of youtube sources. Although I think famous filmed evidence is just as good a source as any quoted text. But this is not the issue, when one has a problem with a source one should change it and if the change is not welcome, discuss it in a civilized manner. This however has rarely been Anonimu's conduct and that is the issue here.--Fsol (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If being a "good user and editor" means using wikipedia as a social networking website, I ain't one. If being a "good user and editor" means making lame compromises (like "I won't touch that topic, if you don't touch that other" or "I'll support you there, if you support me here") I ain't one. If being a "good user and editor", means trying to maintain neutrality, despite the political opinions or personal dissatisfaction (ussualy presented as "moral values") of some groups of editors, I surely am. There was no personal attack in my previous comments, just a presentation of Biruitorul's statements during our co-editing of wikipedia.Anonimu


 * "If being a "good user and editor" means using wikipedia as a social networking website", no it doesn't mean that.
 * "If being a "good user and editor" means making lame compromises",no it doesn't mean that either.
 * "If being a "good user and editor", means trying to maintain neutrality, despite the political opinions or personal dissatisfaction", I agree this is one of the marks of a good editor, however not Anonimu's case. He assume's good faith only in sources praising communism, but despises, attacks and removes all sources that criticize it. Where's the neutrality in that?
 * "There was no personal attack in my previous comments", this is what Anonimu usually says after making personal attacks. Luckily every thing is typed so we can just look back and see whether this is true or not. Only in his previous comments Anonimu wrote: "Hey Biruitorul, you consider a war criminal (Ion Antonescu) a hero, and you're a Holocaust negationist" and "It's no surprise you consider this self-declared fascist a hero". This is what they call in football terms attacking the player, not the ball. Attacking your opponent and not the issue at hand.--Fsol (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only reproduced what Biruitorul had said. Thus, he must have personally attacked himself. Anonimu (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu hasn't reproduced at all what Biruitorul said. What he said can be seen below: "I once, many months ago, praised the "heroism" of Antonescu's decision to attack the USSR. Since then, Anonimu has peddled the notion that I consider him a hero: I do not, and I have stated that about a dozen times so far".--Fsol (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I haven't reproduced what Biruitorul has said today or yesterday, but what Biruitorul has said during 2007.Anonimu (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul said something different back then. That is exactly what I meant and you understood that perfectly well. You're just doing what you always do after you insult people: you insist that you have done nothing wrong. Biruitorul called a fascist a hero for doing something. You however insist on painting people with the names that you give them. (People reading this should not get me wrong, I firmly despise Antonescu, but this is not the issue here)--Fsol (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Biruitorul called a fascist a hero", period.21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you insist on repeatedly stating your point to proove your point, ok but it just proves a lack of arguments. Biruitorul didn't call a fascist a hero for something fascist that he did, just for something foolish that he did (in my opinion).--Fsol (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul just praised his "heroism", without mentioning why he considers him a hero. And even if he would have said what he now claims, he still considers a hero a dictator who put the army of his country in Hitler's hands (and that's smth very fascist)Anonimu (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul's claim is still that X was heroic for doing something, not just heroic as you say. But this is irrelevant for, as I have previously explained, even if your insults were true they have no place in a civilized discussion. The fact that your are a communist or anarchist or anything else is not an argument in any discussion. The same is true of Biruitorul. Even if your insults were "true" (as you insist), which he denies, they have no place on wiki.--Fsol (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is false, since I appreciate fair criticism of deformed workers' state, but not when this is done from a hateful POV. Also, I think is fair to present aspects of an autor's life that compromise it's neutrality (like being an [filo]legionnaire -i.e. fascist -, a former spy, a traitor, or being paid for writing in a certain direction). As for that books you mention, the same reference is present in a history book published by a publishing house known also for the extensive anti-communist literature it edited (I actually read the source just to verify what the claims in this history book referenced with it, and I decide it's better to put the original source).Anonimu
 * "That is false, since I appreciate fair criticism of deformed workers' state, but not when this is done from a hateful POV", this is what Anonimu always uses in order to discredit valid, widely quoted, sources. And who decides if "criticism [...] is done from a hateful POV" ? Well Anonimu of course. And if others don't agree, then he proclaims himself the neutral party and starts edit-warring and attacking his opponents, which is why he came to be in this situation.--Fsol (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Three points: 1. The sources are never valid or widely quoted. 2. I not proclaim myself the neutral party, I really am it. 3. I don't attack my opponents, I only present to other editors some of their former statements or actions.Anonimu (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who ever tried discussing something with Anonimu knows what he considers to be valid sources, no need to comment on that. The willingness to be neutral is of course commendable, however in my opinion, Anonimu has always been far from neutral, always attacking communist criticism, attacking anti-communist sources, insulting and discrediting sources that everybody else considers valid. Anonimu doesn't stop at slandering sources, he also slanders his opponents, which is why he is in this situation. I may have to rephrase what I just said because he is probably going to say neutrality is relative. Let me put it this way if Anonimu is neutral then everybody else on wiki is biased. I really don't know if there's any person with whom Anonimu had a dispute not to have been called either fascist or deranged.
 * How would you know? You have about 70 edits on wikipedia, half of then in the last 7 days, 5 of which on this page (This being one of the 10 page you edited since registering). So please, don't come here and pretend you're all knowing.Anonimu (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you see me as all knowing as I assure you I am not. The number of edits I make on wiki is none of your business, nor are any other statistics concerning this account. The way in which I chose to edit wiki articles from this account is not you business either and surely not the issue here.
 * Even though I don't see the relation between the number of articles this account edits and the question you ask (How would I know what your behavior is?), I will answer. There are several ways. First there was my own discussion with you in which, of course, you ended up insulting me in a way that is reproduced in the evidence page concerning your uncivility. Second, there is a contributions screen which allows one to see the edits of a user and in which I saw your conduct in other discussions. Third, there's your evidence page.--Fsol (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course your edits a relevant... when a user which had only 30 edits a week ago comes to accuse me and uses words like "anyone" "ever" "always" "everybody else" "any person" something is seriously rotten in Denmark. I didn't insult you, and the meaning of what you posted as evidence is crystal clear to anybody who has lived at least a year in the last 5 years in Romania. And it was not an insult. So you confess you were stalking me? Great... I can't wait for the moment you'll canibalize me....Anonimu (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already accusing your opponent of stalking and what seems to be future canibalization. I see old habbits are hard to get rid of.
 * Again I say, the number of edits of this account has nothing to do with my knowledge of what you have been doing arround wikipedia. Your evidence page speaks for its self and so do your contributions.
 * This two paragraph contradict eachother. Since you only had 30 edits one week ago and you claim to know me very well, it's clear that you have stalked me.Anonimu (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First you ask me if I was stalking you, then you pretend to know the answer, then you don't lose any opportunity to tell me I'm going to "canibalize" you, and now you find it clear. As I have already said, I fail to see the correlation between the number of articles this account edits and the knowledge of your behavior (which appears both in your contributions and in your evidence page). So the way in which I chose to edit from this account is no business of yours.--Fsol (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu says "I didn't insult you, and the meaning of what you posted as evidence is crystal clear to anybody who has lived [...] in Romania". For those of you who would think Anonimu didn't in fact insult me as he says: Anonimu started telling me to get psychiatrical help. Here we have again the exact behavior that characterizes Anonimu's way of discussing with others: insults and personal attacks followed by negation or self-victimizing or both.--Fsol (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see you didn't follow my advice... Hey, man, get real. I have no interest in lying... I have nothing to lose.Anonimu (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what you mean by "get real. I have no interest in lying... I have nothing to lose", however I do see what you mean by not following your advice for getting psychiatric help. That is another insult on your long list. The last time we spoke I stopped talking with you exactly at the moment you started being uncivil. I will do so now again.  So I wish you a Merry X-Mas and Happy Holidays, Anonimu!--Fsol (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I don't attack my opponents, I only present to other editors some of their former statements or actions." Again Anonimu's behavior of personal which I have already described. Personal Attacks followed by negation or self-victimizing or both. First he calls Biruitorul a fascist and a negationist, when told that he's making a Personal Attack, he denies it. In the mean while, Biruitorul explains his point of view: "I once, many months ago, praised the "heroism" of Antonescu's decision to attack the USSR. Since then, Anonimu has peddled the notion that I consider him a hero: I do not, and I have stated that about a dozen times so far". He is nor a fascist nor a negationist. But when confronted with the fact that he did really insult someone he still pretends he's neutral and that he is only stating facts. Not only are Anonimu's insults and personal attacks but they're false as well.
 * He did praise Antonescu for his heroism, and his position it's exactly one of the definitions of negationism, as they appear in the Wiesel Report. These are not more of an insult than someone calling me a communist.Anonimu (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone can be called a communist, without it being an insult, if he himself calls himself a communist and thus doesn't consider it insulting. And even so that would be a sort of personal attack since there is no relevance to a discussion whether one is communist, anarchist or anything else.
 * However when you call people fascists, fascist idolizers and negationists while they themselves repeatedly deny it, it is an insult. And even if they don't deny it, it still remains a personal attack because it has no relevance with the subject you're discussing. Have I managed to make the difference clear to you?--Fsol (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not me who calls it, it's his deeds. I'm only the messenger... 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You call someone something that he denies and finds insulting. I think it's pretty self evident that you are insulting him.--Fsol (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That someone should not be acting in a way that is typical for that something.Anonimu (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm Jewish I am tempted to say: So what if Biruitorul is anything Anonimu says he is, that is beside the point in any civilized discussion. When you discuss something on wiki, who the other person is, what he wants, what his history is, is irrelevant. Only his or her arguments are relevant.--Fsol (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you say I shouldn't discuss like you do...Anonimu (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not insulting you, just discussing the subject. Which is the fact that your behavior on wiki is uncivil and aggressive, furthermore it has consumed the energy of far to many users.--Fsol (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I "consumed the energy" of my opponents, why wasn't there any major edit from any of them in the last 2 weeks (period during which I wasn't active on mainspace or talk pages). Moreover, it seems a lot of them wnet into a hibernation. So was I really the cause they didn't improve wikipedia? I don't think so.Anonimu (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of them don't have the will and the endless desire to fight for every contribution they make on wiki. It's hard enough as it is to find sources, concensus and good formulation on every contribution, but when you have to fight for every single thing it becomes harder. And when the opponent that harasses you, insults you and behaves in a totally uncivil manner, one just lets go. Perhaps no major edits happened in the last 2 weeks, but at least from now on contributors to wiki will find a more hospitable environment to contribute. Arguments will happen in a civilized way and thus more people will be attracted to write on wiki. Or at least less will no longer be chased away.--Fsol (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, Fsol. Indeed, the sheer amount of basically wasted energy devoted to fighting off the disruptions caused by Anonimu is a non-negligible aspect of all this.  Let us hope and pray that those energies can be spent in more productive and creative ways here at WP in the future. One more thing: no one has gone into "hibernation" — quite the contrary, mon cher Anonimu, quite the contrary.  We all keep on truckin', thank you very much.  Just keep in mind that old Romanian proverb about the caravan sailing on.  Turgidson (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really see where I harassed someone. I was harassed every day for the last year. Every article I edited attracted most of the guys who had a personal beef with me ( i.e. the plaintiffs in this Arbcase). This had also a positive finality, grammar, style and sourcing being generally improved. So, you see, I was actually forcing them to improve wikipedia... I know about half a dozen articles that wouldn't have been written (by my "opponents") or would have remained stubs if I hadn't been an editor. Wikipedia should thank me. To Turgidson: I'm not a Dinamo fan.Anonimu (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've just got out of the phase where you deny having harassed and are entering your self-victimization phase. You don't see where you have harassed, do you? Well then why don't you take a look at your evidence page?--Fsol (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That video is not just "filmed evidence", is a edited series of videos with commentaries (One of the commentators even disputing the fact that part of thoes videos were filmed during the events). And I still wnat to see that policy that allows editors to use videos as sources.Anonimu (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonimu's reply amply demonstrates his utter inability to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. I once, many months ago, praised the "heroism" of Antonescu's decision to attack the USSR. Since then, Anonimu has peddled the notion that I consider him a hero: I do not, and I have stated that about a dozen times so far. Moreover, I have questioned whether the victims of the massacres perpetrated by Antonescu's forces in Transnistria (which I never denied did occur) in fact formed part of the Holocaust, also making clear that I don't give a fig about whom the diktat of the Wiesel Commission may brand anathema. It's simply none of Anonimu's business to proclaim me a "Holocaust negationist", a term I find baseless and deeply insulting.


 * As for Caraza: Anonimu could have averted a lot of trouble if he had brought out that evidence beforehand. However, let's tackle the matter head-on. First, Caraza was 11 years old at the time of the pogrom/rebellion, so he was not involved there. Second, the România liberă article does call him a "legionnaire" (somewhat odd, since he was 11 when the group was dissolved), but then goes on to praise him as a "victor in the fight against Communism, one of the few survivors of the prisons and re-education camps", and to note that the city of Piatra Neamţ made him an honorary citizen (this in 2007, in the post-Wiesel Report, post-EU entry atmosphere - so one can assume the award was properly vetted). (Another article in that paper refers to him as an "intellectual", again reinforcing his respected position.) Third: yes, in 1962 Caraza did praise the Iron Guard for its religious orientation, which coincided with his own devout Orthodoxy - he noted he admired its mission of strengthening Christianity in Romania, of forming a new man and of "the Resurrection". Now, I am not out to praise the Guard (far from it), but neither do I see the matter in black and white. Here is an individual who has rotted in an inferno for thirteen years, whose faith is his only comfort - it's perfectly understandable that he would seek inspiration in the pre-eminent religious movement in 20th-century Romania. None of us has undergone what he did, and it's not up to us do dismiss as a "fascist" this man who suffered so terribly. Perhaps in retrospect the statement was misguided, but I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for the man. By the way, Father Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa also flirted with Legionnaire ideals while in prison -- but that didn't stop two American Presidents from honouring him.


 * No evidence has been shown that Goma has been used as a source. Personally, I find YouTube videos to be problematic as sources, but the video in question (raw footage of neo-Communists beating up peaceful pro-democracy activists) is not especially controversial, and the point the video is supporting is backed up by six print references, so the complaint is moot. Biruitorul (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "diktat" Biruitorul talks about was acknowledged as fair and supported by the Governments of Romania, US and Israel. And the description of Biruitorul's position is exactly one of the definitions of negationism in that Official Report.

Caraza didn't try to dismiss that declaration 40 years after he wrote it, and moreover considers it a thing to be proud of. If he had changed his oppinion, it would have been quite easy for him to deny its factuality (he could have said it was tortured to write it or other shit). And the fact that he was 11 when the progrom happened is irrelevant. Most current American white supremacist were about the same age when the last extensive racial crimes against African Americans happened, but this doesn't prevent them to be as hardcore as the one who took part in those crimes.

It takes a simple google search to see that 4 articles are sourced with Goma's antisemitic book. As I said above, that's no "raw footage". If this "complaint is moot", I think that you'll find no problem with sourcing articles with home video reenactments of historical moments... and then we'll change the name of this site to myspaceopedia.org and create an online dating service.Anonimu (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny: "Anonimu could have averted a lot of trouble if he had brought out that evidence beforehand.". When I was supposed to bring that evidence? At 3 AM UTC when he reported me at AN/I, or after I was blocked (at an equally early UTC hour) ? Anonimu (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the citation you now complain about was added on January 15, by another editor, while you were arguing with him (or her) about those things. And, you didn't say anything about it till here, on November 24, after I challenged that ridiculously low figure of only 137 people imprisoned in Communist Romania (during a period of about 15-20 years) that you seemed comfortable with, and while I was bringing sources backing the estimate of tens-to-hundreds of thousands (Tony Judt, Anne Applebaum, and Adrian Cioroianu, quoting Corneliu Coposu). The allegations were pursued here, here, and here, etc, all during that time frame, which is about 4 days before you were blocked, not minutes or hours as you now imply.  You could have engaged in a civilized dialog about sources, and perhaps a bit more research, and reflection, instead of engaging in personal attacks.  The choice was yours.  Turgidson (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article in that respectable newspaper is from June, so in January I couldn't confim his orientation. And then I forgot about it until November 24, when I notice some activity on that article. I didn't contest those authors (even if, Judt excepted, I had reasons to) just this fascist. You, on the other, have immediately assumed bad faith and, moreover, you misrepresented my comment about the source as a personal attack against you. In a normal encyclopedic atmosphere, you should have requested for my motivation of the contestation of that source and then wait a reasonable time for reply. But you, not only did you fail to request such a thing, but you also reverted on sight and began a slander campaign against me. And there was no case of personal attack during these events, from me at least.Anonimu (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I still don't care about the report's arbitrary definitions; I will continue to debate history free of superstitions, and you will be so kind as not to label me a "Holocaust negationist", because that constitutes a serious personal attack.
 * 2. None of this makes Caraza a "fascist" in this decade, and his religious-based support for the Guard, misguided though we free men may see it as today, was at least understandable, considering the inferno he was in (and I note your blithe dismissal of the torture that happened there). Statements of his in 1949 or 1962 do not invalidate his scholarly works of 2004.
 * 3. The number is down to three. Anyway, I agree Goma is dubious, but he's also an authority on the Red Week, the atrocities of which we should not hide. Nevertheless, yes, let's try to find more reliable sources if possible. As for the video: please, don't be so alarmist. We could remove it without too much harm to the article, but neither does it destroy the article either.
 * 4. Well, you could have used the talk page in a calm and controlled manner, rather than revert-war yourself into this situation. Biruitorul (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. I can't say I'm surprised. Of course, when communism is attacked in a report supported by some wine-loving president, you hail those who do it, but when a report supported by 3 capialist gvts attacks antisemitism, it just a "superstition". I don't consider this a more personal attacks that the characterization you applied to me based on my perceived political opinions. The only difference is that I can quote you expressing a view defined by this US supported report as negationist, while you can only conjecture my opinions.
 * Hm, I think that "hail" is not exactly what happened with Tismaneanu. Much of the Romanian press (as discussed here at the time) described the report as "not serious enough", because it did not include some of the most important crimes of the Communist regime, and concentrated on petty "insider" stuff from Tismaneanu. Dpotop (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't regard Wiesel as superstition - I think it's a commendable effort and may very well be true in its entirety. What I regard as superstitious is its attempt to portray itself as the final word on the matter, and brand as heretics (or "Holocaust denialists") all who deviate a millimetre from its findings, or even dare question them. That's not how scholarship should work. Biruitorul (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. Was Hitler's madness also "understandable" since it was crystalized during his detention? And note that Caraza states he was a fascist before being imprisoned. TYhe fact that he didn't make the slightest move to refute that declaration shows he still considers it valid.
 * Legionarism, to my knowledge, has killed no one since 1941, and Caraza himself, a Legionnaire (if indeed he was one) well after that, has killed no one either (except possibly Securitate agents). Given the many millions Hitler killed, the comparison is invalid. Given that you don't know Caraza's full record, I still question whether he was indeed a "fascist" in this decade. Biruitorul (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. Count again... it's 4. Goma is no authority on anything. He's not a historian. His book can be used in the article about it and in the one about antisemitism in Romania. The way it is used now it's a disgrace for Wikipedia, and the ones supporting it are acting against Wikipedia policies. That video and other like it is one of the reasons of wikipedia's lack of credibility.
 * So, what exactly makes for "authority"? Is Wiesel a historian? His authority on the Holocaust comes exactly from his personal experience. Of course, Wiesel's lack of formal training in history has its shortcomings (the guy has been criticised, just like Goma is, even though the "Criticism" section in Elie Wiesel has been recently deleted). Dpotop (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the Soviet occupation article no longer has Goma, so it is 3. And yes, he is authoritative enough, but like I said, there are more probably more reliable sources out there, so I don't consider him a sine qua non. Biruitorul (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4. I couldn't have revert-wared by myself. Unless I had some kind of double personality, and I don't.Anonimu (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You revert-warred for a couple of days with other users before being reported, instead of heading to the talk page during the war you initiated. Biruitorul (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)