Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antifinnugor

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, not different disputes. 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: 19:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Antifinnugor | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Antifinnugor, since his appearance on November 9, has been making politically-motivated edits to Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages.

He reverts frequently. He refuses to use a neutral point of view or to cite his sources. He often behaves in an uncivil manner, belittling other users and calling their edits "terrorism".

Antifinnugor has systematically ignored all attempts to explain his mistakes. He has refused to accept the consensus opinion of the involved editors.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1] Antifinnugor's presumed first contribution, before creating an account. This edit led to a three-day revert war. See also the history of Finno-Ugric languages over the past months for more reverting.
2. Personal comments:
   • "idiotic", "incompetent", "crank", "pityful figure", "crackpot": [2] [3]
   • "primitive", "terrorism": [4]
   • "pervert hate": [5]
   • "engaged hater" "defaming person": [6]
   • "god-like cockyness", "primitive rowdyness": [7]
3. Harassment:
   • [8] to User:Dbachmann
4. 3 revert rule:
   • Reverting Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups, [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
5. Continuing to push his POV on Finno-Ugric languages: [16] December 31

Applicable policies

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
3. Wikipedia:Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

In general, please see the early history of User talk:Antifinnugor. The following diffs are largely taken from there.

1. Subject is asked for sources:
   • [17] and refuses [18] (November 17, User:Mark Dingemanse)
   • [19] and refuses [20] (November 19, User:Mark Dingemanse)
   • [21] and refuses [22] (November 19, User:Mark Dingemanse)
   • [23] and refuses [24] (November 20, User:Mark Dingemanse)
2. The need for consensus is emphasized:
   • [25] and ignored [26] (November 20, User:Tuomas)
3. Subject is asked to refrain from personal comments:
   • [27] and refuses [28] (November 12, User:Derek Ross)
   • [29] and refuses [30] (November 20, User:Mark Dingemanse)
4. Subject is offered a compromise:
   • [31] which is rejected [32] (December 4, User:Dbachmann)
   • [33] which is rejected [34] (December 14, User:Dbachmann)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Dbenbenn 19:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Wiglaf 22:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Mark Dingemanse 00:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (essentially add to 'applicable policies': Wikipedia:Cite_sources; also here, see unwikified reply below...) dab (ᛏ)
5. Nyenyec 19:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. --Dhanak 20:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. grin ✎ 23:02, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
8. Adam78 00:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Mustafaa 21:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Mk270 23:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
11. Node 04:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Bishonen | Talk 19:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Jniemenmaa 19:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Hippophaë 23:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

Here are my comments to the above, antifinnugor 20:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the fu&uralic pages

The "scientific" methods of the promoters are today not different from those before 150 years:

• Use wrong typology, that does not mention, that the similarities are the ones of the Turanian group, to that also belong Basque, Turkish, Armenian, Persian, Sumerian, Etruscian and other languages.
• Fail to mention the numerous and fundamental grammatical differences in the uralic group
• Set up erroneous cognate lists, even in the less then one dozen words there are numerous unsimilar elements. Stating, that there are 200 cognates, in reality less than ten.
• In the cognate list putting words, that have completely other meaning into the same row suggesting they all have the meaning of the English word. Writing English words into the Hungarian column.
• Fail to present a basic word list. If criticizers present one, they immediately delete it without arguments (as usual), with no comment or zynical/brazen comments.
• Fail to mention, how unsimilar are the languages both in dictionary and in grammar
• Fail to mention the important differences in the phoneme set and morphology.
• mentioning completely unrelevant linguistic features like palatalization without explanation of any kind, why they do that.
• Their typology list is completely unstructured, unlogical, almost unreadable.
• In their "critic" section they criticize and defame the criticizers rather than the wrong theory
• On their promoting pages they give no explanation of any kind of the so called "features", also there is no grouping there, and they use unappropriate wording like modern or innovative for languages.
• They show very few links to alternative sides, even though there are quite a number of them. For example, the FU page fails to link to Dr.Marácz article about the unteniability of the Finno-Ugric theory.

Methods of the promoters

But the most interesting are their methods against the criticizers of their theory:

• Call the criticizers charlatan, troll, what they write fecal or a piece of junk How fine, isn't it?
• According to their own words, they want to butcher the critique article. This came from one promoter, (Dbachmann) who himself suggested previously to write a critique page. What a correct behaviour.
• The same finnougrist calls others to vandalize the critic page: Thanks again for collecting this material. (you may want to help turn Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups back into a redirect) — please open the RfC, I will sign it immediately. dab
• Nominate critique pages for deletion
• Do not respect the democratic votes and unscrupulously redirect and/or delete the page contents
• Unscrupulously delete everything the criticizers write onto the promoting pages of the theory without discussion of any kind with no comment or zynical/brazen comments. They do not let a single character from criticizers remain on the original page.
• Add all kind of "dubious" "needs discussion" and similar signs to the critique page without a word of discussion, without mentioning any kind of reason.
• They change the text of the critic page: criticizers say to one criticizer says. How intelligent and convincing.
• When their promotion pages get signed as "needs discussion" and they get a long list of problems, they answer briefly in fact saying nothing, ignore the answer that states, the problems are still there, and remove the sign "page needs discussion" instantly.
• To questions regarding their page, that does not explain much, they either do not answer, or give arrogant answers like: 'You're apparently not a linguist, and I don't see why you waste so much time persisting in dictating the content in this article. --sign of author
• They redirect referring to some completely unknown consent, and for example the author of the above arrogant sentence refuses to answer any question on his talk page.
• Defame linguist criticizers as non linguists.
• Write about nationalism and the like instead of arguing.
• They absolutely do not seem to want any consensus or compromise, do not offer any, instead they keep deleting and refusing to discuss or even to explain simple but not explained entries.
• Shout for rfa against the criticizers while they break the rules quite obviously.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

• antifinnugor 18:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Balf 19:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Nemenyi 21:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Gubbubu. In Hungarian Wikipedia Af proved he can be constructive if some finno-ugrists don't preconcepciously delete his comments. Anti-finno-ugrist theories are not new and not innovative. Well, he can be too radical sometimes, so I beg all of you (esp. Af. and M.) for not to delete each other's edits and be more patient. Gubbubu 17:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Alensha. I agree with Gubbubu. I also believe a well-written critique on the Finno-Ugric theory does belong in Wikipedia. Antifinnugor's manners might need improving, but his articles contain useful material. What he writes about is definitely not a new theory and not his original research. Alensha 19:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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.

To start with, I know nothing of linguistics, or of the politics involved here, so my focus is strictly on Antifinnugor's editing behavior.

From my view, Antifinnugor is definitely making disruptive edits. For example, I would classify [35], [36], [37], and other edits he's made to Finno-Ugric languages as vandalism: he's pasted one article in the middle of another, he hasn't edited the new content to fit into the old article, and has made the edits without regard to the fact that the subject in question is heavily disputed. Further, he's marking major changes to the article such as [38] as minor, in violation of Wikipedia policy. [39] and [40] are clearly bad-faith editing. Antifinnugor is trying to sneak his version of Finno-Ugric languages#Disputes in Wikipedia, and is doing so by giving it a misspelled title.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Carnildo 22:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, as Carnildo states, it's obvious how Antifinnugor is a problematic contributor that damages the spirit of Wikipedia and has the potential to scare many a good and valuable Wikipedian away from our community, unless he improves. The debate and examples on this RfC gives a clear-cut confirmation. The main problem is if, and then how, we might succeed in explaining to Antifinnugor that Wikipedia's policies and guides on for instance Wikipedia:Civilty, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are important for him to follow.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ruhrjung 02:56, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Having no experience or knowledge of the topics being discussed I would just say that although Antifinnugor is behaving rudely and reverting far too frequently, he seems to have little article activity the last six days, and therefore maybe he's finished with his reckless editing. I would monitor his activity for now, and punish him more severely if he continues, once these proceding are complete.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. bernlin2000 ∞ 04:21, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, completely uninvolved user chiming in here. I've read through a lot of this page (skimming the out-of-control bickering in the middle of the Discussion section) and read some of the evidentiary links. "AFU" (as people seem to be calling him), to my eyes, obviously disregards NPOV, Assume good faith, and is tied for the most combative editor I have ever had the displeasure to read. If I had to deal with this his attitude in an article to which I was contributing (no matter whether he is right or wrong), I would seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. This behaviour, no matter whether his edits are correct or not, is simply intolerable. If people disagree with him on the content of his edits, he needs to build support, not knock down opposition.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:43, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not sure if I signed in the right place above—I haven't "certified the basis" because my attempt at a late stage to get Antifinnugor to not break the 3RR was only a small-scale effort. Anyway, enough people have been substantially involved in dispute resolution attempts to make for plenty of certification without me, I'm sure.--Bishonen | Talk 20:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I "certify the basis", but note that AFU has made no edits for a few days before this RfC went live, and the dispute seemed to have died down. dab (ᛏ) 10:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I felt the same way until I saw this edit yesterday, which is included under "Evidence of disputed behavior". Dbenbenn 21:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too.--Wiglaf 21:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• concerning the part of AFU's response directed at me specifically: of course, he provides no links to the issue and leaves it to the reader to dig up the references to what he is talking about. most of it can be glimpsed from the links provided by the RfC. I dare him to produce evidence for one instance of my attacking him personally even remotely resembling his own regular choice of vocabulary. I have also never pretended to be a "finnougrist", or to specialist knowledge on the topic. I have at all times stressed the importance of relying on, and citing, experts' opinions, and implored AFU to do the same. The only inconsistency I am guilty of is that I have indeed encouraged him to collect material in criticism of the theory in a specialized article, assuring him that any peer-reviewed dissenters will as a matter of course be given a place, either in the main article, or in a specialized one. After he did create the "Critique" article, it became clear that he was not able to produce anything remotely resembling a scientific approach, and that he was effectively rewriting the main article from his own pov. All material concerning critics of Finno-Ugric that has turned up to date has been included to Finno-Ugric_languages#Criticism, and obviously, should this section at some point grow substantially, I will still support the creation of a specialized article. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Mr. Bachmann suggested me to write the critic page and then, when it was ready, in a militant tone said, he wants to butcher what I wrote. Since he never wrote anything validable to the subject, I doubt seriously, that he can decide, what is a scientific approach and what not in this subject. And also, this is the most incorrect behaviour I saw in my whole life. After the critic page was ready, he repeatedly vandalized it by redirect, and also animated others to do like he does. antifinnugor 19:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I cite from the present finno-ugric page the so called "critics section": "Entirely outside the sphere of linguistics is the claim of "untenability" of the Finno-Ugric family by László Marácz, referenced by de Smit for its "morbid fascination"." This style- not to reference Dr. Marácz excellent and convincing article about the unteniability of the finno-ugric theory, but to refer to a certain "de Smit", who probably (according to the name) knows no word neither Finnish, nor Hungarian, reminds to the methods of the KGB, that never cited any critic, but criticized the criticizers calling them lunatics and the like. This is a very low level of discussion and no scientific, but a dogmatic level. The wikipedia is not a collection of dogmas and a place to protect dogmas by any mean. At least this is one of its written principles. antifinnugor 19:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• About User:Balf's endorsement of Antifinnugor's summary above: Please note that this user's only two previous edits are 1) a vote on Votes_for_deletion/Critic_of_Finno_Ugric_and_Uralic_language_Groups and 2) a suspicious retort to User:Nyenyec's suspicious question about how he/she found the VfD'd page. Very curious.--Bishonen | Talk 19:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

curious? you mean "evident sock". dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not Balf, and I am glad, that other people also recognize, that vandalizm and dogmas are not healthy for the wikipedia. antifinnugor 20:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So Balf and Nemenyi are real people whose only interest in Wikipedia is to support you in votes?--Wiglaf 21:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Antifinnugor is one of those users who aggressively want to impose innovative theories as facts at Wikipedia without providing references. Let's take his own example of Turanian on this page. In this group, he includes three languages that are generally considered to be isolates (Basque, Sumerian and Etruscian, i.e. Etruscan) and two un-disputed Indo-European languages (Armenian and Persian). Note that the Wikipedia article on Turanian provides completely different information. He constantly defies the no original research rule and the NPOV rule, by presenting his own ideas as facts.--Wiglaf 21:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

not new theory

• The theory I present is absolutely not new or "innovative", as Wiglaf states. If anybody seriously looks at the languages Basque, Sumerian, Etruscian, i.e. Etruscan), Armenian and Persian, it is very easy to discover the typological similarity, that is listed detailed in the User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups page. It is also very easy to see the similarities in the Hungarian, Sumerian, Turkish and other dictionaries. The typology shows clearly the similarities. In each serious linguistic book covering the Turanian type agglutinating languages, or all languages of the world, these similarities are clearly listed. These are not my own research, but the research of linguists working with these and other languages. All I do is going to the bookshelf, take a linguistic book and read it. Also the historical background to all that is written in many books, that I have read. Since these are no English books, it makes no sense to list them on an English reference page. Also, go to the Swadesh list page in the web or to some language learning book and read carefully the grammatic rules of a given language (like for example Basque, Turkish, Armenian or Persian. Also Hindi has very similar features to these groups, but to keep things simply, I do not write about this here, since Hindi has also clearly non-Turanian features, like noun-classes (grammatical gender). And after having read them list the similarities, as I do on the User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups. All the language description pages are open to anybody, who has access to the web. Also some wikipedia pages describing languages in a bit greater depth, especially those, that present grammar features and direct translation samples, are useful and good sources. Anybody can check them any time, and report on the discussion page, if he feels, that something is incorrect. It is that simple. antifinnugor 08:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AFU, such language families aren't based on agglutination alone. According to your logic Balkan languages, Scandinavian languages and Basque form a unique genetic family based on the postposition of the definate article.--Wiglaf 09:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Turanian type agglutination means much more than only endings. Please read my typology of Turanian languages User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups here. What you mean is true, but also the usage of ö and ü is not enogh for defining a language group. In that case German and Hungarian were in the same group, even though there are deep differences in grammar. antifinnugor 19:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sources given

• The page User:Antifinnugor/Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups clearly lists a lot of sources about the subject. What it does not is, like the fu/uralic page is:
  • list in the typology features, which are non unique for the group, and not to mention that fact.
  • list of features not present in some of the languages as general features and "forget" to mention, they are not everywhere present.
  • Not to mention the big differences in dictionary and present wrong cognate lists, where unsimilar and by meaning not matching words are listed as cognates, and to state, there are about 200 cognates, in the reality less than 10.
  • list dubious features like palatalization or three-way distinction without explaining what is meant there and why are these features listed at all.
  • avoid to link to critical pages, instead of this defame criticizers.
  • use completely unappropriate wording for languages like innovative or modern
• The above omissions and false informations make the fu/uralic pages quite irritating and badly informing pages. That's why an extra critic page is necessary to clarify things. And User:Dbachmann -s vandalisation of the page Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups is a truely bad service for the wikipedia.

antifinnugor 08:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nyenyec's accusations and data collection

• I find Antifinnugor's general lack of civility and his stubbornness, especially his refusal to cite sources disturbing. But my biggest complaint about him is his tendency to engage in edit wars. There are four articles that I know of where he was or is involved in revert wars. When someone restores the consensus version he often labels that "vandalism". Nyenyec 22:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Uralic languages (hist) 2004. dec. 11. - 2004. dec. 25.
  • Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups (hist) 2004. dec. 23. - 2005. jan. 1. (now)
  • Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups (hist) 2004. dec 26. - 2005. jan. 1. (now)
    • This page has been listed on Vfd with no consensus.
  • Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups (hist) 2004. dec. 25. - 2004. dec. 27.
    • The edit war stopped, because the page was protected by Jayjg [41]
    • Anifinnugor also got a temporary block for violating the three revert rule when editing this article: (Notification of temporary block)
    • This happened less than 48 hours after I warned him about the 3RR on his talk page: [42]
  • Finno-Ugric languages (hist) 2004. nov. 9. - 2005. jan. 1. (now) with varying intensity.
  • Please also note that AFAIK Hungarian language is the only article where he contributed without a revert war. Nyenyec 22:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• In case of Nyenyec and his sockpuppet User:Dhanak I can speak only about hatred, defamation and hostility. No linguistic arguments any type ever. Nyenyec does not contribute much to the English wikipedia either, except of some Anti-Hungarian defamation user pages, but he forgets in his hate to mention that. Also the repeated listing of references listed on the top of the page is unnecessary here. They just indicate, that User:Dbachmann continously vandalizes the critic page, that might cause too much reverts in 24 hours, not more. antifinnugor 08:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • (Sidenote: the above accusation about Dhanak is not true. Dhanak is (as well as Nyenyec is) a well respected editor of the Hungarian Wikipedia. --grin ✎ 12:41, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC))
  • I challenge you to quote me when I expressed "hatred", "defamation" or "hostility" towards you. Unless you consider asking to check your facts, and quote sources for your unsupported arguments [43] and calling other editor's attention to your POV and often incorrect edits [44] "hostility". Nyenyec 16:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently AFU learned a new word: sockpuppet, and likes it, so he sets it to use immediately. Unfortunately, in this case he is utterly wrong, thanks to Grin for pointing that out in my absence. AFU's belief could be based upon the fact that in most cases I agree with and support Nyenyec, and from the great distance AFU observes our viewpoints they might seem indentical, even though they are only similar. Now, for instance, I'd like to join Nyenyec in his challenging AFU to quote where my contributions expressed hatred, defamation or hostility (towards any member of the Wikipedia community, for that matter). --Dhanak 16:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The content is important

• The point of this RfC is not to discuss the questions of content all over again. AFU's ideas are clearly on the outer fringe of linguistics, they could be included into our articles, if he was prepared to discuss and compromise, and provide references. The issue of this RfC are AFU's policy violation, and we are here seeking the community's opinion how to deal with the case. I think therefore, that people previously involved with this refrain from discussing further, until we get some outside views. dab

(ᛏ) 09:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The content is very important, even though you might not understand much of it. The policy violation, that you continue to mention is by far not so hard, as your permanent vandalization of the critic page. If this RFC were not opened (thank to Dbennben) , I had to open one because of your militant tone and your permanent vandalization activities, User:Dbachmann, antifinnugor 19:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I am in fact glad that I started discussion about the f/u and uralic "language groups" in the English wikipedia, where there are several people, who speak Finnish, like Hipo and also several, who have enough know-how to add material to the subject like mustafa. Interesting is that even the Encyclopedia Britannica's cognate list is erronous: It lists suoni and ín in the same line, even thought they are not similar in form and also have different meaning. The text on the uralic page, that there are more than 200 cognates sounds childish and unbeliaveble considering the fact, that not even a dozen can be presented without errors. I asked hipo several times to cite the concrete source for that table in EB, he did not answer, therefore I can only say, I am told, the wrong table is from ther EB. Also the swadesh list, presented by mustafa showed, that in fact the basic words, that are not likely to change in a longer period of time are very different among these languages. Also the Finnish special features listed by hipo show, completely unknown in Hungarian, and the Hungarian features, that are completely unknown in Finnish illustrate clearly that the grammars are very different. Therefore it is really convincingly proven for me, that there are no common features in these groups, that are not common with other languages, and also, that the dictionaries are very different. antifinnugor 19:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Therefore, if the promoters want to promote such a weak theory, it is no wonder, that they behaviour is so strange, then the shown ones: Delete unscrupolously every, critic, every hint to similarities with other languages, and that they try to present erroneous cognate tables, even, that they try to hinder criticizers, to present basic word list, presenting the differences. The defamation of linguists on the way, they do is less understandable, because it is a highly unfair behaviour, but it illustrates, how desperatedly the promoters try to keep their weak theory in life. The most typical promoter is User:Dbachmann by his permanent vandalizing of the critical page and animating others to also vandalize that page. It is sad, but true. The discussion itself is useful, because it delivered a lot of arguments and facts, that are now written down, and that improve the quality of the wikipedia encyclopedia. That's what it is for. antifinnugor 19:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I read your post too late.--Wiglaf 09:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• sockpuppets: if possible, could a developer evaluate the sockpuppet status of User:Balf User:Nemenyi based on their IPs? They are very obvious cases, but afu denies they are his socks, so they are technically not 'established' socks. (and if they aren't they are probably his little sister and his roommate. He didn't even bother to fake a few unrelated edits for them). The sockpuppet accusation against User:Dhanak seems prima facie pulled out of thin air and is more likely another childish attempt on afu's part at blaming his own misdeeds on others.

• Wiglaf , about what misdeeds are you talking? About your childish and arrogant answer to the question about some Finnish language specialities? antifinnugor 19:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

dab (ᛏ) 10:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Dhanak is a colleague of mine whom I converted to Wikipedia slightly after I got addicted. (I started sept 4, he started sept 7 in the Hungarian WP (see: hu:Dhanak (hu contribs), hu:Nyenyec (hu contribs)). We are both Hungarians working at Vanderbilt University and we are both more active in the Hungarian WP. Hope this helps. Nyenyec 16:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

A few others things that help explain why his stubbornness to cite sources and his refusal to be civil led several editors grow impatient with Antifinnugor. Nyenyec 18:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Subject is asked not to use insults, pointed to Neutral Point Of View and WikiLove by User:Derek Ross [45] 2004. nov 11. (before Antifinnugor registered)
• Subject is asked to cite references for his unsupported claims [46] by User:Nyenyec 2004. Nov 26.
• Subject is asked to check his facts, quote sources by User:Nyenyec [47] 2004. Dec 3.
  • After this and several pages of explanations on Talk:Uralic_languages/archive1#Cases_in_Hungarian Uralic languages from native speakers of Hungarian and including several sources (among them Wikipedia articles) that contradict his unsupported claim that Hungarian does not have any grammatical cases, subject keeps including his claim in his edits up to this day.
  • Several editors (including native speakers) point out that his other unsupported claim (Hungarian having a "to have"/habeo structure), he keeps insisting that it does, even though his own source clearly states otherwise [48]. He keeps including this claim in his edits up to this day. [49]

nyenyec's data collection

• About User:Nyenyec: He collects informations about wikipedia users on private pages in exactly the same manner, as the KGB collected material about system criticizers. This behaviour is illegal even in terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, since he creates an own document, which is explicitely is not endorsed by the license. He obviously believes, that the KGB still exists, and he is required to deliver material about people to them. He is also a great link collector. He provides very few articles, because he is busy by his hate actions and spying other wikipedists. antifinnugor 19:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KGB, yeah, right. The truth is that Antifinnugor made so many POV and outlandish claims that I had to collect them together on my Hungarian User page, which led to him vandalizing it on dec.19. [50]. Give me some time and I'll translate some of them to English. Even after we explained it to him several times, he still thinks, that collecting URLs to stuff that he says is illegal. Nyenyec 20:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I explicitely disagree that you collect any quotes from myself anywhere in any language. I do not think, that any wikipedia editor agrees with your illegal spy activities. It might have been the fully legal praxis in your KGB time, but it is illegal in the civil life, and even illegal according to the GNU documentation rules. Be careful, what you do! (UTC)antifinnugor 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • • User:Antifinnugor to User:Dbenbenn when he started collecting material for this RFC: "Your link list looks as a KGB collection. Congratulations. Do you think, it is legal?" [51]
  • (Sidenote: In Hungarian WP User:Antifinnugor accused Nyenyec being a "secret police agent" in the past; you may wanted to know that this kind public defamation/accusation is actually a crime according to Hungarian law (up to 2 yrs in prison). Along with that he vandalised userpages of Nyenyec. Af was kindly requested to refrain, which he did seem to ignore. He was notified after a short while that if he do not stop falsely accusing people and vandalising their pages then he is going to be banned for a longer period of time from editing. He seem to have stopped that since on huwiki. --grin ✎ 11:19, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC))

• • • Sidenote: Nyenyec quote collection hurts GPL and the law of intellectual property in several paragraphs, and also resembles to KGB activities. Therefore to call him a theft and an agent-like person is no defamation, but simply setling of a fact. It would cost him quite a sum of money, if anybody sued him because of theft of intellectual property. antifinnugor 12:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

page vandalizing and support for dogmas

• I stand behind the facts, I see. It is not stubborness, it is simply the wish for reality and facts. The sources are on the language pages for any language I mention, and also in the Swadesh list. Anybody can read them. Since some users, like Wiglaf allow themselves to give arrogant and childish answers to simple questions, others, like pasquale allow themselves to call me charlatan and what I write, feca, I do not feel, that I am doing things incorrectly. The most shocking is however User:Dbachmann's behaviour, who constantly vandalizes my page Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups without really understanding the facts, we are talking about. At least he never made for me an impression, that he understands them. Such behaviour is really bad for the wikipedia quality, and it is simply a behaviour that tries to support dogmas. antifinnugor 19:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu writes

About Antifinnugor's conduct in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Gubbubu writes: In Hungarian Wikipedia Af proved he can be constructive if some finno-ugrists don't preconcepciously delete his comments. I'm not sure it's fortunate to bring up the Hungarian Wikipedia, since not many editors speak Hungarian here. But let me give you my take on this:

• Antifinnugor started the first (and second) edit war ever in the Hungarian Wikipedia.
  • Well, an edit war happens between two or more persons. Gubbubu
    • Interestingly he's always one of those two. Nyenyec 21:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• He's the number one offender of the following Wikipedia policies: No personal attacks and Civility up to this day, even after several warnings.
  • Af, You, Grin and maybe Dhanak harmed directive No personal attacks too at first, or made steps what Af considered as this; and i think maybe all of we harmed it. But all of you have apologised for this each other. And you know I haven't appreciated your sentence collection about Af, and I told you why he associates to KGB. But this is an other argument. There was some serious conflict, i don't think we should continue that what've managed to close (or managed to reach a more friendly status quo) in HungarianPedia. I'm shocked of a bit of you and Dhanak continueing this argument in the EnPedia. Gubbubu 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I know no other Hungarian editor who comes close to him in POV edits and unsupported outlandish claims (not just from the field of linguistics).

Let me know Gubbubu if you disagree with the above.

• • Just for the record: I do not recall AFU apologizing for anything, especially not for his insults. He sure didn't apologize to me for questioning my Hungarian nationality (one of his very first contributions), or for calling me defaming (just up this page). --Dhanak 16:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I just wonder even now, that you are not aware of fundamental Hungarian grammar. You never explained that, why. I am still waiting. antifinnugor 18:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's true, that he has come a long way. But it's not hard to improve from this [52] is it? My personal opinion about him is that he basically bullied a lot of his edits into the Hungarian articles. His rude name calling, his tendency to revert edits is so well known on the Hungarian pages, that after weeks of fruitless arguing most editors turn away from the discussion pages, rather than try to reason with him. You may call him constructive, but I think he's a bully. But he can get away with it, because the official Wikipedia policies are not yet fully translated into Hungarian and in the Hungarian community there is no precedent for dealing with his behavior. Also the number of active editors is small, about 30 altogether. So the rule in the Hungarian WP is easy: if you don't want to see Usenet style rudeness, name calling or personal attacks, all you have to do is never touch anything Antifinnugor writes. Easy, eh? We didn't even have a POV template, a translation of No personal attacks, or WP:3RR until he appeared, because we never needed them before! At his rate, it'll take months before he improves to the level of the second most uncivil, rude, POV editor on the Hungarian pages. This is why I follow this RFC and the way the en:wp community deals with him with great interest.

• I think you've done something with him and that's why he is rude - only with you. I think there is a personal incompatibility between you and him, and sometimes you don't do a lot against this. I only can repeat my advice both of you. Please try to be more patient and don't revert each other's edits without questioning. Gubbubu 21:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nyenyec and data collection

• • Well, I think this RFC demonstrates that he has a "personal incompatibility" not only with me but several other people. The way I see it, he's being rude only to me because I'm the only one stupid enough not to stop criticizing his POV edits and I'm the only one who he hasn't yet bullied into submission with his rude style in the Hungarian Wikipedia. :( It's true that I don't appreciate his behavior (which is almost exactly the same as in the English pages, with the addition of threats of legal action). But if we let him bully his edits into the articles and scare away reasonable editors like User:Mark Dingemanse and valuable Hungarian editors like him then what will that teach to the bullies who'll come after him? "All you have to do is be rude, revert and all the sissies will leave, after which you can write anything you want!" What if not everyone is leaving? I'll only leave when I see that even the en:wp community fails to deal with him. Nyenyec 21:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu you may agree with the theories he supports, but you can't deny that he's the worst policy violating active editor on the Hungarian pages. Nyenyec 20:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting to hear that from anybody, who illegally collects data in KGB style from other wikipedians. He seems to believe, illegal data collection is a civil and fine behaviour. antifinnugor 20:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah !!!!!!! I must tell you what i said above to Ny., too. :-( Gubbubu
  • If someone would be willing to take full responsibility for everything he or she wrote, he or she would never have to worry about others collecting data (KGB-style or not). Antifinnugor might want to ask himself why others started collecting his statements in the first place. — mark ✎ 22:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I take the responsibility, that's why I write articles in the wiki. However, my personal rights - as anybody else's - need to be respected. We do not live in the jungle, and nyenyec clearly ignores the elementary laws and rules driven by hate or whatever. You may agree, that nyenyec collects your data and presents that to others, if you like, I do not. You also might agree, that a televizor stands on your wall showing to nyenyec or somebody similar everything, what you do and what you think, since you are willing to take full responsibility for everything you wrote. I prefer not to have a televizor on my wall with a self nominated goodman like nyenyec. antifinnugor 18:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Also, if you agree, that others brazenly stale your intellectual property, then nyenyec is the right person for you to cooperate with. You create ideas, and he steals them- this is how it works according to him. Just allow him to stale your property, I do not do that. What I say - every word- is my property, and I just let it used protected by the GNU gpl, which I think is not a bad protection schema. antifinnugor 12:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why someone start to collect data about a person. I think this is a kind of personal attacks. The KGB and ÁVH-related agencies really - I say, Really - applied this method against "hostiles of socialism", and then used this collections on exhibition trials (koncepciós kirakatpereken). I think it's politically very uncorrect behavior in Hungary, giving chances for sad and distasteful associations. But I think it isn't correct even without any political associations. Gubbubu 23:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I made it clear on the Hungarian pages I don't appreciate the communist secret police analogy, it's very demeaning - I've been raised in Hungary, too - and I don't appreciate bringing this matter up since I'm not the subject of this RFC and I voluntarily removed that collection on Dec 20. I maintain that I've never been rude or uncivil to Antifinnugor ever. Neither in the Hungarian nor in the English WP. Please quote me when I write anything close to his now almost continous personal attacks against me. My only guilt is putting together a collection of his quotes after he attacked me personally several times. It never occured to me that anyone would compare an open collection made available publicly of statements written in public to the communist show trials. I considered it more like http://www.bushisms.com (where the idea came from). Since you brought this issue up I translated the collection from Hungarian and made it available on my user page here: User:Nyenyec/Antifinnugor. I'll remove it when this RFC is closed. I'll let the non-Hungarian editors decide for themselves what to think about the collection and whether it's communist secret police style or not. Please don't bring this issue up again or if you absolutely have to, then do it on my talk page. Nyenyec 07:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I explicitely disagree with that steal of my intellectual property. You are again hurting the law. You are not in the jungle, comrade nyenyec. This might cost you quite a bit of licence fees. How uncivilised. antifinnugor 12:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either that it could be true that Antifinnugor is rude only with Nyenyec. Nyenyec was actually a person who was able to keep up being tolerant with AF's conspicuous lack of civility for a rather long time. I admired Nyenyec for this, but I felt I couldn't do the same for such a long time, so I left Antifinnugor after a few turns. AF had dogmas (that's what I must call them) which he would not allow to be called into question, however many other people were there to find several of his convictions unusual, and however serious and grounded their reasoning seemed to be. AF's dogmas applied not only to things themselves, but to the ways of their refutability ([53]), which he defined himself in his own way. If he had really wanted to be scientific, he would have encouraged other people to try to disprove his statements with the established methods of science, since these trials are the ways scientific statements can be proven stronger than they previously were. Instead, he called those criticizing his statements with various personal epithets, accused them of hatred etc.

Antifinnugor, when he tried to defend himself above, wrote things again against the Finno-Ugric theory. It is a real shame he didn't realize that the problem was not with his views but his ways of presenting and treating them in Wikipedia. To put it short, it was not the WHAT but the HOW. He often seemed to have a firm and solid sense of Truth which is far above Wikipedia's morale or etiquette or other people's views around him, which prevails over everything -- which would, in fact, be possible only if Antifinnugor were a deity. Now this may sound ridiculous, but we should admit that this behavior could only be possible on AF's side if Wikipedia recognized such creatures and that Antifinnugor was one of them. Needless to say it is a nonsense, but it may be worth identifying what this approach involves. The other problem is that this is far from obvious for AF, and what the connection is between them (aside from "hatred" etc.), and anyway how come things outside his own world might have any fraction of reality.

I don't know how Wikipedia can decide if Antifinnugor will be eventually able to accept and follow the elementary requirements for the effective cooperation, but I hope we'll find a satisfactory solution which can minimalize the possible detriment of Wikipedia.

--Adam78 02:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your love to nyenyec makes you blind. Nyenyec never ever had any constructive idea, he does not write wiki articles, since I know him, he just criticizes others, he only watches other persons and tries to put his ideas into the wiki, and he also tries to froze the wiki into a dogmatic environment, where spies like himself listen to every word other people write or say. When you read 1984, with the televizor on the wall, this is nyenyec's real world. antifinnugor 18:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antifinnugor I still feel that you are attacking me, because I'm the only one ctiticizing and correcting your POV and hair-raising claims about several subjects, not just linguistics, but WW2 history for example. In the Hungarian WP after you wrote that the Bromberg Bloody Sunday was the direct cause of WW2 (when in fact it happened two days after sept 1) and the outlandish POV stuff about the Prague uprising in '45 and Basque people lookin on Attila the Hun as their ancestor. I learned not to trust your edits and I will correct them and I will ask for sources. This is not a "dogmatic environment", this is verifiability. I created about 19 new articles since you appeared, they are available in this list at the top huwiki hu. Also my article edits are listed here hu, the Hungarian WP statistics for users are here: [54]. You started belittling my contributions before, I asked you why and didn't get an answer. So I still wonder why you need to do this. Remember this is not a pissing contest. This RFC is not about me, or my contributions to Wikipedia, but your conduct on the English pages. Nyenyec 19:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When we discuss the HOW, what did I do? I tried to add the information I have, in an ordered manner onto the pages. What happened? Mr. Bachmann tries by every mean to create dogma pages from informative encyclopedia pages, and he animates other editors to do the same. That is the problem. antifinnugor 18:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I should like, that wikipedia helps us to convince nyenyec and dbachman to follow the elementary requirements for an effective cooperation. I also hope, that I hope we'll find a satisfactory solution which can minimalize the possible detriment of Wikipedia. antifinnugor 18:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found it very worrying that Af keeps to ignore GFDL (which states that his contributions are public and thus free to use or abuse along the requirements of GFDL which are in every cases fulfilled), keeps ignoring people who remind him about that (and keeps spreading non-existing "facts" and serious misinterpretation of GFDL). I find it worrying that he often does use his words without care and thinking, resulting that he is offended when other people quote what he said. Collection of people's quotes to prove that they write things unjustified, careless, offending, uncivil and impolite is completely acceptable in my world, and I strongly disagree with Gubbubu's view of this as "evil", because he seem to associate it with the wrong facts. These collections show what a contributor do, in a compact, visible manner, which saves the time of collecting the contributions of the person in question and trying to form an opinion based on that. Is is legal (per GFDL) and civil, since it's not secret, and it contains exact quotes and context. It only shows what that person did on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it did not work well with Af since he does not change stance even if confronted with his own quotes of calling names and spreading FUD. It was polite of Nyenyec that he removed the page when he realised that it doesn't work. And this is all about huwiki, which is not really related to enwiki here, so I believe you people should concentrate on what happened here, and not about what happened elsewhere (which should - and eventually would - get handled there). --grin ✎ 11:34, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I find it worrying, that you completely misunderstand the GDFL. It protects my, your and anybodys intellectual property on a fair manner. It explicitely says, that the author does not endorse the creation of a new document based of anybody-s intellectual property. This is an important point to mention everywhere, where User:Nyenyec tries potentially to do the same brazen stale. Everybody can be his next victim. antifinnugor 12:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Staying focused

Endorsing Antifinnugor's summary, Gubbubu and Alensha write the following:

Gubbubu. In Hungarian Wikipedia Af proved he can be constructive if some finno-ugrists don't preconcepciously delete his comments. Anti-finno-ugrist theories are not new and not innovative. Well, he can be too radical sometimes, so I beg all of you (esp. Af. and M.) for not to delete each other's edits and be more patient. Gubbubu 17:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alensha. I agree with Gubbubu. I also believe a well-written critique on the Finno-Ugric theory does belong in Wikipedia. Antifinnugor's manners might need improving, but his articles contain useful material. What he writes about is definitely not a new theory and not his original research. Alensha 19:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that this Rfc is precisely about Antifinnugor's manners, and that most people here do not consider his writings to be original research. Consequently, the no original research policy is not listed under Applicable policies. In this light, the response of the user whose conduct is disputed fails to adress the main points of the RFC. Indeed, this seems to be a familiar pattern in the subject's conduct: ignoring the points that are raised and instead pointing to someone else.

That is not to say that Antifinnugor does not raise some valid points in his response. I found at least one: I think that simply redirecting the Critique page to Finno-Ugric languages#Criticism was not the very best thing to do after it survived VfD. However, Antifinnugor apparently did not want to negotiate on this; he never attempted to cooperate with other editors or to build consensus regarding the content of this article. In general, Antifinnugor has done surprisingly little to build consensus; every single attempt to build consensus and to cooperate has come from other editors (e.g. User:Derek Ross, dab, and others). — mark ✎ 22:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went to User:Dbachmann's discussion page and asked him to stop vandalizing the real Critique page 1. What else can I do? I shall start an RFC or RFA whichever appropriate about this, since I do not think, it is legal according to the wikipedia rules, what he does. antifinnugor1

I also went to your discussion page, mark , and explained you, that you try to defame the linguist Marácz. I never saw an answer to that 2. I can prove with documents, that what I wrote to you, is correct. I went extra to hipo's page asking hin, not to reverse everything I write, and the same with mustafa 1. Derek Ross is a very nice and correct editor, who tried to moderate the fu/uralic pages, but he unfortunately resigned, probably due to the militant tone and illegal actions, primarily of DBachmann and the behaviour of mustafa/hipo 3.

What else I can do, then to ask people to behave correctly and fair? 4 antifinnugor 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've annotated your reply to avoid breaking up the discussion in many subdiscussions.

1 Please note that this is not the same as trying to cooperate and to build consensus. On the contrary, your choice of words here and elsewhere ('vandalism') seems to indicate unwillingness to cooperate. Building consensus would involve explaining your edits and discussing them fairly with others. Many people Derek Ross, Dbachmann, Dbenbenn, Mustafaa, and Nyenyec have tried to work that way with you. It is only after your repeated refusals to join the discussion in a constructive way that other editors started to revert to consensus versions.

2 In that case, you seem to have missed my reply that Maracz is employed at the University of Amsterdam in the department of Eastern Europe and East-European history. And what about my earlier findings that Maracz has never contributed any academic article in the field of historical linguistics? Once again, calling someone without a history in academic linguistics a semi-linguist is not defamation. Why would you want to call it such?

3 Please tell me this is irony. The only alternative is that it is another painfully clear example of a strategy of pointing to others where searching one's own heart would be more fitting.

4 Well, there are several other things you might want to try. — mark ✎ 00:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. what do you call dbachmans permanent reversing when not vandalism?

2. Marácz László is a linguist, he studied in Groningen. If he at present works on hystorical linguistic or other parts of linguistic is fussy quibbling, fact is, that he is a linguist, who knows a lot about the subject, probably more, than lots of his contraries. Therefore it is clearly defamatory to call him a semi whatever, and clearly destructive, to delete the link to his study about the subject. antifinnugor 11:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 is meant absolutely serious. mustafa/hipo delete anything I write and dbachman cynically reverts. Did not you see that? Please check the page history, it proves this.

4. I agree, we should try to behave much more civilised. WE all. Especially DBachman. antifinnugor 17:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

may I? diff. Your turn. Show one diff where I look half, or 1/100th as bad as you do in this one. Or stop calling me a vandal or whatever dab (ᛏ) 18:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may. So what? You defamed and showed your hate, and I pointed precisely that out. And now you are vandalizing the critic page permanently, even though you do not seem to understand much about the subject. That are the facts, User:Dbachmann. antifinnugor 19:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a link to my user page. I asked for a link showing exactly in what edit I am supposed to have 'defamed' you. As for understanding the facts, that is just your opinion. I can say "you have sold my grandmother to the Yakuza. That are the facts, User:Antifinnugor". Will that make it true? Will that be helpful to this RfC? dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an outside view

Dear Mark, we all know the RfC is about Antifinnugor's behavior, but his response included his reasons (also it showed that many Wikipedians didn't behave themselves in a civilized manner either). Don't accuse us with trying to divert from the subject, Gubb and I were only pointing out that after the Finno-Ugric matter was (somewhat) resolved and people calmed down, Antifinnugor became a good contributor to Wikipedia.hu and wrote several good articles (unrelated to linguistics). Also, this matter would be settled if Wikipedia had a good, NPOV article about criticism on Finno-Ugric languages, so it's not quite offtopic. Alensha 00:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. In the Hungarian Wikipedia editors didn't "calm down" they turned away in disgust and fear for being targeted by AF and/or given up hope that reasoning will ever convince him. The article we have in Hungarian is not NPOV (it has a POV template on it), it's not good (a linguist would find it ridiculous) and contains several unsupported claims. It's even worse right now than the versions AF uses in his revert wars here in en:wp, since it contains much more political POV and misleading claims about the support for Finno-Ugric theory in Finland. The reasonable people especially those who had a clue about linguistics simply left the discussion, so AF took over. This is exactly what I don't want to see happen here and this is exactly what this RFC is about. Don't let AF bully editors who know far more about linguistics than he does. Make the rules apply to him, too. He needs to cite sources, he needs to write NPOV, he can't force his unsupported edits on the article, just because he chooses to be rude and people get tired of his manners and of revert wars. I'm not against presenting his theories, I even offered my personal help to him translating them to English with the condition that it's NPOV and is at least on the professional level of Marácz's and Marcantonio's arguments "Quality articles on Hungarian language" HuWiki, dec 5.. He immediately accepted my offer HuWiki, then continued pushing his version on the English pages. I decided to watch from the sidelines here in EnWiki, because I hoped that there'd be a consensus which we can apply to the Hungarian pages. Instead this is what's happening. Edit wars, name calling and RFC. Nyenyec 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I can very well imagine, that people might know much more about general linguistic, than I do, but I wonder, if here in the wiki now there is anybody, who knows more or so much about the finno-ugric and uralic language and environment theory as I do. I would be very happy to talk with this editor. And that is the subject here, not general linguistic. Please, do not mix up things, nyenyec, if possible. Your watching people and spying rather than working yourself and trying to do anything useful is really disguisting and also illegal, especially if you prepare KGB style papers, like you did in the past. antifinnugor 19:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, nyenyec, those revert wars, forced by dbachman. These are really problems, paired with lack of real arguments, and lack of knowledge on his side. antifinnugor 18:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Alensha, I can see that you're trying to help us to a balanced view, but "many wikipedians" is a weasel term, please be specific. It's not obvious to me where Antifinnugor's response shows uncivilized behavior from other wikipedians, though that may be because I only imperfectly understand the linguistic issues, please help me to be better informed. His responses do show that he claims there was absolutely outrageous behavior—KGB methods, vandalism, hatred, defamation, hostility, unscrupulous, childish, spying, sock puppetry — but I assume that's not what you mean. Please give examples of actual uncivilized behavior — show, don't tell.--Bishonen | Talk 07:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alensha, I am glad that you speak on afu's behalf on the content side, it will hopefully make it easier to separate afu's character from his pov. I also believe a well-written critique on the Finno-Ugric theory does belong in Wikipedia. — I wholeheartedly agree to this, but after a glimpse at the diffs in this RfC, it should be obvious that such a critique will not come from afu. Maybe you can help. Come over to Finno-Ugric languages, cite sources, and we can start improving the "Criticism" section. This has nothing to do with endorsing this RfC, which is exclusively about afu's behaviour. By endorsing his summary, you are not just saying that you want more critics included. You are saying that you agree with his characterisation of the "methods" of the "finnougrist" editors. I will obviously not converse with afu any more, and I do think users like him are the biggest problem WP has, because, as Nyenyec points out, they drive away the good editors, and consume insane amounts of time and energy for those they do not drive away. For this reason, and not for the personal offence I might have taken, I think this case is serious. Until this day, I have not seen a single edit where afu shows prepared to reconsider, or apologize for, any one of his countless obvious blunders. Therefore, I have no hope to get even one constructive edit out of him, ever. I think his case should just be seen through to the bitter end of arbitration, clearing the path for actual constructive discussion towards a fair representation of such valid FU criticism as there is (and I know there is valid criticism, no disagreement there).

On the RfC side, you say "many Wikipedians didn't behave themselves in a civilized manner either". I would like to know how you got this impression. From the "evidence of trying and failing", you can see the angelic patience afu was treated with at first. Of course, after being called defaming hate-monging KGB goons, some editors were not prepared to continue in a very friendly tone, but I have seen not a single instance where anybody has retorted to afu's insults with more insults. In fact, I am proud of how civilized the involved editors have proven to be, and it reassures me of the strength and sanity of the community. So, in the spirit of citing sources, I would ask you to precisely state where you think afu was treated unfairly, maybe compose an 'outside view' paragraph. But note that just hand-waving attribution of "uncivilized behaviour" is worthless, as is afu's writeup without any links the misbehaviour he alleges. Here, just like in editing articles, you will get nowhere without providing references, the alternative would just be to fling around allegations until the cows come home. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Alensha writes "this matter would be settled if Wikipedia had a good, NPOV article about criticism on Finno-Ugric languages, so it's not quite offtopic." In principle, that might be true - though such an article would be incredibly short if it restricted itself to cited claims by linguists; something like User:Nyenyec/Linguistics and politics in Hungary is the only plausible way I can see such a topic developing into a full article. But it's not going to happen as long as AFU is editing it. I think only a linguist can realize the sheer extent of the crackpottery expressed in Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups: Sumerian as an influence on Hungarian, or Persian as a "Turanian" language, or the claim that different-looking words can't be cognate ("Duo to the completely different word form they are clearly no cognates", sic) simply contradict the entire science of historical linguistics (which is one reason why they remain stubbornly unsourced.) There is no reason to waste the valuable time of editors who actually know something about the topic on attempting to remove the confirmed falsehoods from this article (and getting reverted by AFU for their pains) when Finno-Ugric languages#Criticism fully covers the tiny amount of criticism that has actually been traced to a credible source - and this is exactly why almost all editors concerned agreed that the article should be redirected. If such an article is created, it will have to be written more or less from scratch. - Mustafaa 09:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fully concur with Dbachmann and Nyenyec in this matter. — mark ✎ 11:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I said Antifinugor was treated unfairly, I meant what can be seen in the history of the Finno-Ugric page. I know his first addition was extremely POV. But when one sees something POV, they usually NPOV it or move it to the talk page and discuss it. Antifinnugor's edits were reverted ten times by the time the conversation on the topic began (and it was started by him, when he asked the editors not to delete his additions). I can understand that seeing his edits reverted without any comment was frustrating. Alensha 22:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Alensha: I concur. It must have been frustrating. However, note that he was received in a most friendly way by User:Derek Ross when he started to talk after the first revert war ([55], [56]). Derek Ross succeeded in calming Antifinnugor. Subsequently, AF and Derek Ross worked together to add some NPOV Criticism to the article (Derek Ross did a superb job in ignoring the rather militant attitude of AF and in listening to what he really wanted to say). Derek Ross also pointed AF to the policies and guidelines, and tried to explain the way Wikipedia works. — mark ✎ 12:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I can absolutely confirm this. dingemanse, and primarily hipo and mustafa continously and unscrupulously reverted any explanations I added to the fu/uralic page without a word of comment, without answering any question, without event mentioning they are reverting with comments: "minor changes/As usual" and the like, without any human contact to me. This is absolutely frustrating and consciously provocative behaviour. THis can be all seen on the history pages of the fu/uralic pages. I never deleted any factual correct additions from them, I just added explanations. Dbachman cynically called this "janitor" work. antifinnugor 11:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Show, don't tell. Provide diffs. The first and only time I reverted Finno-Ugric languages was here, on the 17th of November. My edit summary was: Reverted ill-founded criticism section lacking sources. I subsequently notified you on your talk page [57], explaining what I did and why. You furthermore deleted factual correct additions here, where you reverted my additions to the bibliography. I added Marcantonio there, providing your theory with evidence of notability. — mark ✎ 12:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

unfair treation

• Bachman, you yourself say, you do not discuss with me, therefore I must say, you are here the problem, not me. You speak about blunders, but cannot specify them. You want to present dogmas for the wikipedia readers. You write: I am proud of how civilized the involved editors have proven to be, and it reassures me of the strength and sanity of the community. you count yourself with your absolutely incorrect behaviour and your revert war to the civilized and involved editors? Really? antifinnugor 18:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly this is what you write: Until this day, I have not seen a single edit where afu shows prepared to reconsider, or apologize for, any one of his countless obvious blunders. What are you talking about? Why are you unable to present even one single event, and just repeating, how civilized you believe to be and how uncivilized you believe that I am? It is so primitive, Bachman, exactly as your reverting war against an by other editors accepted article, that you are unable to accept, but you believe, you behave civilized. With your wording, that you prefer to use, like feca, charlatan, troll, piece of junk, butcher an article and the like. That's civilized behaviour! antifinnugor 20:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• For unfair treation following, sorry to repeat myself:
• Call the criticizers charlatan, troll, what they write fecal or a piece of junk How fine, isn't it? All this can be proven now.
• According to their own words, they want to butcher the critique article. This came from one promoter, (Dbachmann) who himself suggested previously to write a critique page. What a correct behaviour.
• The same finnougrist calls others to vandalize the critic page: Thanks again for collecting this material. (you may want to help turn Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups back into a redirect) — please open the RfC, I will sign it immediately. dab
• Nominate critique pages for deletion
• Do not respect the democratic votes and unscrupulously redirect and/or delete the page contents
• Unscrupulously delete everything the criticizers write onto the promoting pages of the theory without discussion of any kind with no comment or zynical/brazen comments. They do not let a single character from criticizers remain on the original page.
• Add all kind of "dubious" "needs discussion" and similar signs to the critique page without a word of discussion, without mentioning any kind of reason.
• They change the text of the critic page: criticizers say to one criticizer says. How intelligent and convincing.
• When their promotion pages get signed as "needs discussion" and they get a long list of problems, they answer briefly in fact saying nothing, ignore the answer that states, the problems are still there, and remove the sign "page needs discussion" instantly.
• To questions regarding their page, that does not explain much, they either do not answer, or give arrogant answers like: 'You're apparently not a linguist, and I don't see why you waste so much time persisting in dictating the content in this article. --sign of author
• They redirect referring to some completely unknown consent, and for example the author of the above arrogant sentence refuses to answer any question on his talk page.
• Defame linguist criticizers as non linguists.
• Write about nationalism and the like instead of arguing.
• They absolutely do not seem to want any consensus or compromise, do not offer any, instead they keep deleting and refusing to discuss or even to explain simple but not explained entries.
• Do you call this fair treation? And doing that over a longer period unscrupuluosly and continously. You are the driving power of this, dbachmann. antifinnugor 18:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, even after afu had started insulting me, I went to explain the metaphorical use of 'butcher' (viz., a writeup; note that he had observed my using the term on another User's Talk page, and it was not even addressed to him directly), thinking that as a non-native English speaker he might have misunderstood it as a threat of physical violence: see this diff. dab (ᛏ) 17:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• bachman, you insulted me by FIRST using the brutal and militant words like "to butcher" my article. It is violent, and according to your explanations you are not English native either, but use consciously military and threating wording when talking to me. Your militant enemy like behaviour is also clearly displayed by your vandalization and animating others to also vandalize. I just reacted to your behaviour very decently compared to you. antifinnugor 11:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To butcher sth. is jargon for rewriting. He explained that to you. The issue is irrelevant. Why would you want to rake up old stories? — mark ✎ 11:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for consensus

He has refused to accept the consensus opinion of the involved editors. I cannot remember any acceptable consensus suggestion from any editor.

Here my serious suggestion for consensus:

---

• I do not edit the Finno-Ugric page or Uralic page any more directly.
• These pages (Finno-Ugric page and Uralic page) get a see also reference to the Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups for the sake of better wikipedia user information
• The page Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups refers to the Finno-Ugric page and Uralic pages.
• If there are factual problems, they will be discussed on the discussion pages in a polite manner.
• All reversing and redirecting wars and the like will be stopped, especially the in fact illegal redirection of the Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups page.
• I hope, that in the future other knowledgeable and helpful wiki editor colleagues creatively help to make the Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups page even more informative and helpful for anybody seriously interested in the subject. Some helped already in the past, and gave useful tips.
• If I insulted any editor colleague, I excuse myself now seriously. It was surely not my aim to hurt anybody. I am quite interested in the subject, and therefore I might be a bit too involved. I shall work on this in the future. I do not think, the time was wasted, since the subject is very interesting and clearly needs further research. I believe also, that with this discussion everybody learned much about the subject, who wanted to. I learned a lot, thanks primarily to mustafas linguistic know-how and hipos and other Finns' Finnish grammar know-how.

antifinnugor 20:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view of Antifinnugor's consensus suggestion

I absolutely don't want to stir up fresh trouble if it's finally calming down, and I don't have any personal axe to grind. I want to stress that AF has always been polite to me. But just from what I've read on this page, I don't see a good resolution unless it involves a full and frank apology to Nyenyec in particular for insults and wild accusations, because "If I insulted" is a little disingenuous. Please note however that I speak only for myself. I'll shut up and take it all back if others (especially Nyenyec) think I should.--Bishonen | Talk 21:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no, I am surprised, and pleased, at afu's change of tone. It seems he is slowly learning that aggression gets him nowhere. Of course the 'apology' is a bit disingenious, but I will certainly not let that stand in the way of future cooperation. So he said I am a hate-monging vandal. Well, what better way to prove him wrong than to forget about that, even without an apology, and continue to look for solutions.

However. I am afraid not only the apology is disingenious. Afu is effectively suggesting that he leaves Finno-Ugric languages to "us", and that we leave Critique of Finno-Ugric languages to him. This would be Wikinfo style (and I say again, afu, why don't you go and write your article on Wikinfo, in peace!). It is clearly against WP policy to have two different articles about the same issue, but from different povs. So I am afraid that any standard applicable to the FU article (citing references, npov) will apply just as much to the "Critique" article.

So, again, I am very glad for the change of tone, but I do not see a solution to the factual disutes in just 'dividing the territory'. It is very clear that afu has not read and understood the principles of WP. (afu, go and read WP:NPOV). Otherwise, I cannot imagine how he can still (even in his 'apologetic' post) call 'illegal' or 'vandalism' (a) reverts to consensus versions and (b) standard WP RFC practice (if collection of diffs for an RfC is 'KGB style', I am afraid you will never be happy on WP.) (dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had not seen the 'unfair treation' bit above before, and I am reassured that afu's tone has not changed at all. It is almost funny to see him go on a long rant against me and then say he apologizes in case he insulted anyone. Afer so much text, we are still waiting for a single link from afu to any of the outrageous edits he so consistently accuses me and others of. dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't care for his insults any more, I almost learned to completely ignore them. :( (Of course I'd prefer him stop doing it.) I don't think his apology is genuine however, since even after he offered it here, he still says says that I should stop "spying" in HunWikipedia [58], because I asked him to cite sources for an unrelated topic. (Attila the Hun being regarded as the ancestor of the Basque people). However, I don't care any more as long as he promises to stop insulting others, be civil, cite sources for all his claims - especially if they are outlandish - and respect consensus. I'd also like to invite Alensha and Gubbubu to help out with the criticism section. I respect their contributions in hu:wp tremendously, and they know Antifinnugor's theories, character and background well enough to be able to mitigate when necessary. Nyenyec 16:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

btw, re afu's claim that there was "no acceptable suggestion for consensus", see this diff. I am afraid that if he finds this unacceptable, he will find most of WP policy unacceptable. I suggest that he sue Jimbo Wales, therefore. dab (ᛏ) 17:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with dab's evaluation of the situation. "It is clearly against WP policy to have two different articles about the same issue, but from different povs." - and what AFU wants to make Critique_of_Finno-Ugric_and_Uralic_language_groups, as far as I can make out, is precisely that: an article about the Finno-Ugric group from the perspective of one particular person (himself) who doesn't believe in it, not a survey of the meager literature denying the group's existence. - Mustafaa 22:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Mustafa, you are wrong if you believe, that what I write, reflects just my perspective. It reflects the perspective of the criticizers of this dubious language group, whose existence is not secured by ANY common feature, that only characterizes this group. You are surely not stupid, and I am sure, you realized this while collecting your data into the typology section. It is also not accidentally, that you and hipo permanently delete the link to Mr. Marácz's excellent study, you defame him in the so called "critic" section, you delete the word list I present using the Swadesh collection, that you try to enter incorrect grammatic features, like many cases in Hungarian, you even try to delete of my corrections of the erronous alleged Encyclopedia Britannica cognate list. You also do not mention the historical background including Budenz and similar persons. You do not answer my questions about the dubious Finnish features, becaus you do not know them, right? You do all that, because you yourself realize, that only incorrect and unfair arguments can try to secure the existence of this strange and unlogical, by no linguistic argument certified group. antifinnugor 11:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

socks

PS, now that afu has some support by real people, can we remove the two sockpuppet "endorsements", please? dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite think so. I implored AF on his Talk page to remove the first endorsement himself, as soon as I saw it, in his own interest, as it was making a farce of the proceedings, and he said he had no control over other people who happened to agree with him. :-( Honestly, if he's that adamant, I think they should stay, at least until/unless there's confirmation from a developer. (I tried to get speech with a dev on IRC today, but they were busy.) Antifinnugor, you'd better remove them yourself.--Bishonen | Talk 16:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

as stated above, I have no sockpuppets. Sorry for disappointing you. antifinnugor 18:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you could then explain who these people are, like Dhanak did, before we drag out the IPs. If Balf and the other guy have German IPs, boy will that reflect badly on you. And if they don't, we'll still think they are just random buddies of yours acting on your instructions. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu writes in Hungarian

• Ha nincs sapka, az a baj, ha van sapka, az a baj. Ha német IP, az rossz fényt vet rád, ha meg nem, akkor is azt gondolunk, amit akarunk. Gratulálok. Kedves Nyenyec, te jobban tudsz angolul, kérlek írd be ennek az ügyefogyottnak. Gubbubu 18:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please write in English on the English Wikipedia, this is a public space. Eller tycker ni det är hövligt om jag skriver på svenska här?--Bishonen | Talk 18:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read something before you comment it. The translation is below. Gubbubu 19:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the timestamps before you comment on my comment, unless you want to blame me for not having a chrystal ball to foresee that a translation was coming. I'd appreciate a reply to this. I mean an actual response to the point I make. That's the custom here.--Bishonen | Talk 19:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read something, before you comment it. I think you haven't read my first comment, because it was in Hungarian, and you as I see don't speak this language. So you've commented it without reading and understanding. If you did, you saw that I 'd ask someone to translate it. So what timestamps are you speaking about? Please read something before you comment it, I ask you again. Gubbubu 20:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • people, this is getting more surreal by the minute. I'm having a great time (because I have a surrealist bent), but this is leading nowhere. I'll be back in a day or two dab (ᛏ) 20:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • This RfC is about Antifinnugor's manners, not Gubbubu's, so I won't take it any further off topic by replying to his insistence that I ought to have understood his Hungarian post before I complained that I couldn't understand his Hungarian post. If you have anything to say to me, kedves Gubbubu, please take it to my talk page. (I was trying to figure out your message and a Hungarian-English web dictionary told me that kedves means "winsome" or "lovable", that's why I use it.)--Bishonen | Talk 21:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Gubbubu askes me to translate this for him.
  • [So basically Dbachmann you're saying:] "No matter what you learn about the IPs, we'll consider you guilty. If it's a German IP, it reflects badly on you, if it's not a German IP, we'll still think whatever we want". Dear Nyenyec, your English is better than mine, please translate this to this [silly(?) person]
  • Gubbubu quotes an old Hungarian story, where the bullies beat up someone with the excuse that he doesn't wear a hat. Once he gets a hat they beat him up, since now he's got a hat. (Point is, they'll punish him, regardless of his actions.) Nyenyec 18:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I see. well, afu won't be punished for childish sockpuppetry. And if he puts his hat on, viz. if he starts to cite references, and stops all this abuse, he will not be punished for that, either. dab (ᛏ) 20:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with Gubbubu here. User:Balf and User:Nemenyi never contributed to Wikipedia other than casting votes, where Antifinnugor needed support. AFAIK, even the Hungarian Wikipedia has a policy, that you can't vote unless you have at least 5 edits. Nyenyec 18:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

oh dear, I think I had better not spend my holidays in Hungary, anytime soon. Anyway, I think my point is not unfounded. Dhanak has replied promptly and overtly, when afu saw it fit to call him a sockpuppet in passing. While these 'endorsements' are worthless either way (even if not 'criminal'). sheesh, how easy would it be to fake a few random edits, if you really wanted to make these accounts believeable. But that is a side issue in any case. Afu is not accused of sockpuppetry, but of incivility and edit warring. dab (ᛏ) 19:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you'd better not to go in Hungary. We don't need defamers and inquisitors. I don't think your behavior can be called as civility. In civilised countries if you have accusations you must prove, not the accused have to prove his blamelessness. Have you ever heard about the Holy Inquisition? Please don't follow them. Thx.: Gubbubu 19:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu, is that really you?! I'm starting to get worried: "defamer", "inquisitor", this is the rhetoric of AFU. Even if you disapprove of Dbachmann's style and opinion, there is surely better and more polite way to express this! You shouldn't fight back with the same style you find shameful, right? Please, please, don't make things worse than they are. The endorsements are worthless because these two people did nothing else except that they supported AFU twice – it doesn't really matter if they are sockpuppets, friends, or just two people who happened to stumble on this dispute. Dbachmann, Hungary is a nice place, especially for tourists, please don't make a hasty decision (I do hope you were half joking). --Dhanak 20:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, how do you call accusing someone the way like this: "If you did something, you are guilty, if you not, you are guilty, cause I think you are?" I'm shocked of it very much. Prohibiting, inquisiting, discrimining, I think Wikipedia have take a wrong direction, are we the Propaganda and Censoring Committeee of United International Communist Party, or of CNN, or of American Governmental Intelligence Agency, or what?? This was a free and great project when I arrived, where - even a half year before - everybody could say his oppinion. What happened here? What have we became? I can't realize. I can't accept, can't compass. Sorry, I know you for times, I don't want to hurt you. 20:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was, sorry. I have seen the 1999 solar eclipse from Lake Balaton, and I am hoping you'll have me again :o) but I do hope you are not comparing my style of arguing to accusations of "defamer" and "inquisitor". If I have inadvertently made an edit to that effect, I will apologize immediately. I am very serious about not attacking people personally. dab (ᛏ) 20:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, it would be very nice. Thanks. Please avoid personal attacks, even if AF doesn't does, you shouldn't follow him. I say this to Nyenyec, too. Gubbubu 21:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).

I suppose Nyenyec warned us that linguistics is a touchy subject in Hungary. But, to all Hungarians present: please try to understand that this seems very bizarre to everybody outside Hungary, where it is simply an academic question of linguistics. No conspiracy, no agenda, no inquisition. We don't care if you are related to the Turks, we would just like to compare languages, thank you. dab (ᛏ) 20:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, only language comparison can't solve this problem. It's a more complex question, archeology, genetics, historocal coenology etc. in with it. And metzhods of comparison and language classification are disputed, too. Why do you think the Academy (the Party, the Ecclesy, the Pope etc.) is the one and only depository of truth? Gubbubu 21:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wait... Before things get out of hand, I'd like to remark that this particular discussion is entirely out of place in an RfC about the conduct of User:Antifinnugor. If you don't agree, please refer to Applicable policies above. The above discussion might be important and interesting (I think it is), but it doesn't belong here. Take it to User talk pages or maybe to here. — mark ✎ 21:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who is the Defamer?

As I see, three times when Af called someone as ""defamer", he had beeen called "nationalist" before. Maybe it's not a miracle he lost his temper. Can I ask his dialogue partners to behave themself? Gubbubu 01:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1.

• • Hippo The user is especially not interested in your god- like cockyness, but is interested in real facts. Your wrong typology and even worsem erroneous word lists just propagate your lack of knowledgfe of the subject. Sorry to say that, but someone must tell you the truth.
  • Hippo, please stop your terror and primitive rowdyness. 20:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, who started uncivilised behavior?
    • I would say hip by not answering important questions and by unscrupulous deletions. If he did not do that, I would not mention HIS UNCIVILIZED BEHAVIOUR at all. antifinnugor 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2.

Hippo, please stop your terror Hippo, please do not delete: Mr. Maracz link.

• • No need to comment. Why Marácz-link been deleted?
    • and why is it still deleted? antifinnugor 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3.

• • Antifinnugor', I appreciate your cooperation, but please do not write on subjects which you are not familiar with.
  • Hippo, you think, you are god, and you can decide, who is familiar with what subject and who is not?
  • Why his comments are not civilised? Who says who is incompetent?
    • hippo does not know HUngarian, therefore his comment is clearly provocative. antifinnugor 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4.

• • Nyenyec, you are not surprosingly patient, you are not surprisingly brazen. If we consider your holes in elementary school knowledge, this is not surprising, however. Antifinnugor
  • I don't think Nyenyec is patient enough with Antifinnugor. As I said, there is an incompatibility between them, and they've argued since months in Hungarian WP.
• 5.
  • Harrassment: I haven't found it in the hystory.

Summary: I think you are childish. Do you really think these accusations can be taken seriously? I think I have broken these into shatters. I will contemplate to start an RFC against Hippo, as I get line on him. Gubbubu 01:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nyenyec's view

Gubbubu, let me answer the one point concerning me:

• 4.
  • Nyenyec, you are not surprosingly patient, you are not surprisingly brazen. If we consider your holes in elementary school knowledge, this is not surprising, however. Antifinnugor
  • I don't think Nyenyec is patient enough with Antifinnugor. As I said, there is an incompatibility between them, and they've argued since months in Hungarian WP.

I've been the target of Antifinnugor's personal attacks since nov 12. No one had more insults and demeaning words from him than I did (Maybe dbachman if we only count en:wp). I never, ever returned his insults or personal attacks. (Nor anyone else's.) Just look at this page. Count how many times he insults me. Quote me one time, when I used the kind of language he uses. Hungarian or English. Nyenyec 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think he angry with you because of your quote collection. Gubbubu 08:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

quote collection is not only illegal, because it hurts even GNU GPL, but also theft of my intellectual property. It is also KGB-s method, of the well known soviet state-terror organization. antifinnugor 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything you write on Wikipedia is publicly available, is released under the GFDL, and can be included in other collections released under the GFDL. There is nothing illegal, so please stop calling it that and instead be prepared to take responsibility for what you write. — mark ✎ 11:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tell me about patience when you can name one wikipedian you know, who has been subjected to this many insults without ever responding with harsh words. He made me consider leaving Wikipedia for good several times. I'm still here. I'm still taking his insults. The "personal incompatibility" stems from the fact that I don't stop criticizing him and he responds to criticism or even questioning his edits or asking for sources with insults. In the English Wikipedia I never touched any of his edits. Not one time. All I did was ask him on the talk pages, try to explain things to him and ask for sources. Yet he keeps insulting me. Nyenyec 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't stop criticizing him and he doesn't stop criticizing you. Gubbubu 08:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But as I said before, I don't care. You're right in a sense that this is my personal matter with him. The main point of this RFC is not him insulting me - at least I don't feel that way - it's about him learning to be civil (with others), cite sources, respect consensus and not drive valuable editors away. Nyenyec 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think he gave sources, and can respect consensus, if doesn't feel he 'd been atacked. See Hypo's quotes. Gubbubu 08:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to fuel the fire, so I won't respond to your other points. If the other editors can accept his apology, than so do I. I don't consider it fair to attack Hippo. He has been patient with Antifinnugor and contributed a lot to the articles. I respect him a lot for both. Nyenyec 06:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think he "defamed" Af much and Af him, too. The quotes up on this pages don't prove Af's incivility (I don't talk about the truth, only about the quotes, maybe he is uncivilised?, I don't know). These are dialogues, where in 50 pc. of the cases Af's opponent was who've been harmed. Gubbubu 08:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this is getting very hard to read. I imagine this was one long comment by Nyenyec that was broken up by Gubbubu? Gubbubu, and anybody else who may want to argue that afu is not to blame, because his insults were just in reply to other insults: please provide links (diffs) to the edits you are talking about. So far, I have still not seen a single instance where afu has been treated unfairly. (dab)

Open your eyes, and open your mind, I gave you four links and quotes. I numbered them as 1.,2.,3.,4,. Should I paste them again? It's there. Gubbubu 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(dab, continue:) Gubbubu, I suppose you are right that afu was angry because Dbenbenn (not Nyenyec) collected evidence. But this is standard WP practice. Anyone who edits WP agrees that his edits are completely in the open. Look at the other cases on WP:RFC. How can you argue that collecting offensive edits is "KGB style"

It was the method of secret agencies. Yes, this is fact. I had explained it somewhere else in this page, look for it please. Gubbubu 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

or "illegal"?? It's perfectly normal on WP, and anyone who doesn't like it is not forced to do any editing at all. Afu's privacy is undisturbed (well, we know he's in Germany, but then we also know I'm in Switzerland, so I don't see a problem with that). You say "Afu's incivility has not been proven": I am flabbergasted. How can you say that in the face of [59] [60] (scroll down) [61] and the many others referenced at the top of this page? Your statement just flies in the face of the fact. If you argue that both sides were incivil, provide the links, please, it's not 'illegal', it's highly appreciated to give references to what you are talking about.

dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Dbachman, it is euphemism to describe your behaviour as just uncivilised. Even though you do not know much of the subject, you are permanently vandalizing the critic page, even though the wikipedia editors voted to keep it. You are ignoring the wish of the other wikipedia editors, and try to get the wikipedia a collection of dubious dogmas, you try to support without much knowledge of the subject. You are also animating others to break the wikipedia rules, and act as violent as you do. This is YOUR BEHAVIOUR. VANDALISTIC and VIOLENT. Thank you for your attention. I thought, people in Switzerland try behaving correctly and civilised. You teached me the opposite of this. I am truely flabbergasted by your behaviour. antifinnugor 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to involve personal background and country of origin in this discussion; no need to constantly mirror other people's comments either. Let's keep this discussion as clear as possible. — mark ✎ 11:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. I did not start this style, just responded to that. antifinnugor 12:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just going in circles. I have filed a request for arbitration against afu, see WP:RFAr. dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes I think. This page is a parody. Will we stop this argue and start to work, or arguing to infinity - on two don't really differing pages yet? It is visible we can't convict each other. Gubbubu 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The important point in this RFC is, bachman YOUR behaviour, YOUR violence, YOUR vandalism, YOUR animation others to vandalism, YOUR ignoring of the other wikipedia editors' will and wikipedia policies. Did not you realize that yet? antifinnugor 12:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no, but I do hope that the arbitration committee will chastise me, if I am guilty of vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antifinnugor, please refer to Evidence of disputed behavior and Applicable policies to see what this RfC is all about. It is definitely not about User:Dbachmann. As for who starts writing in which style, this should not be an issue at all; why would the fact that policies might be violated by others serve as an excuse for you to do the same? (Incidentally, Dbachmann didn't involve your country of origin in the discussion the same way as you did; he mentioned it in a post about privacy). Please, let's all cool down and try to focus on relevant things like a suggestion for consensus. — mark ✎ 13:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is about uncivilized behaviour. bachman is the one, who ignores the other editors and redirects pages according to his own interests. He is, who wants to "butcher" pages, that other editors accepted. He animates others to behave as uncivilised as he does and he writes cynical comments about all that. So what? antifinnugor 20:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vfd and the start of the full scale edit war

AF, you write to dbachman: "Even though you do not know much of the subject, you are permanently vandalizing the critic page, even though the wikipedia editors voted to keep it. You are ignoring the wish of the other wikipedia editors, and try to get the wikipedia a collection of dubious dogmas, you try to support without much knowledge of the subject."

Please remember that the result of the vote, was no consensus. I don't exactly know what the policy says about this case, but here's what I think happened:

• You interpreted the no consensus as a keep.
• Since the title had wrong capitalization ALoan moved it to [62] to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups
• Once the contributors at Finno-Ugric languages, in particular Mustafaa and Dbachmann found out that the vote wasn't a delete [63] Dbachman changed your page into a redirect to Finno-Ugric languages. On the talk page he wrote:
  • [64] "Goto Talk:Finno-Ugric languages. This page is an offshoot of the discussion there."
  • and "this page is a fork of Finno-Ugric languages. You simply copied stuff from there, and made your own povvy version here. This would be ok on Wikinfo, it is not ok here. dab" [65]
• This is when an all scale edit war broke out on all the pages that are listed above on his page. In the revert war Antifinnugor was on one side. The other side was Dbachmann, Mustafaa, Wiglaf, User:Bishonen. On other, similarily named pages, Pjacobi, Poccil, ALoan also reverted your version into a redirect to Finno-Ugric langagues.

My point is that I think that the different interpretations of the no consensus vote led to the renewed, all out edit war. Let me know if you disagree.

Nyenyec 17:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's cool down and wait for outside views

In the meantime, I will refrain from engaging in this discussion until we get some outside views; I ask other previously involved editors to do the same. (Dbachmann proposed this four days ago, and I'm inclined to think that we had better listened to it then). The purpose of this page is to let the community comment on the issues at hand. — mark ✎ 14:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu quotes afu

Well, I suppose Gububbu does represent an 'outside view'. But I get the impression that the sections numbered 1...5 above, still without the diffs, are adduced by Gububbu as evidence against afu's critics, i.e. he cites afu's insults, "rowdyness" and what not, as 'evidence' of actual misbehaviour of the people targeted. If this is the case, this is so absurd I don't even know how to reply... Gububbu, we ask you to show actual misbehaviour, not afu's well-known liberal allegations of such. Also, if you don't know what we mean by 'diff', please ask! Goodness, is it just me or is this getting weirder and weirder? dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok from a reply by Gubbubu on his own talk page, I gather there is a genuine misunderstanding. When referring to an edit, you are supposed to link to the history of the page, showing when the edit was made, and what it was. You do this like follows: (1) click on the 'history' tab. You will see a list of edits. (2) Find the edit you are interested in. (3) click the radio-button next to that edit, and the radio-button of the edit below. (4) click on 'compare edits'. You will now see what the edit was. (5) copy the url from your browser address bar. (6) paste the url in square brackets [] into the post you whish to refer to. This will make clear which edit you mean, and it will give the actual edit, not the present state of the page, which may since have been changed. Nyenyec, you may be able to help explaining this to Gububbu in Hungarian. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, do it instead of me, or nyenyec (sorry for ask him again) will do it, if he will have time. i don't have so much time as, seems to be, you have, all day to make diff links and take part in ridiculous quarrels. I'm so fed up, cause in Hungarian Wikipedia it goes too with the same participiants. So all side of the bread is buttery. Thanks: Gubbubu 22:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, sorry to impose on your time, but if you are going to say afu has been treated unfairly, it would be nice if you could adduce one single instance on which your impression is based. Otherwise, I am afraid, you are just voicing an impression you got by listening to afu's claims, and not an opinion based on any evidence at all. nyenyec and I are arguing that there has been no unfair treatment, so it would be difficult for us to provide the evidence for your claims. dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I presented three for you on my userpage. Please, don't refuse them pleading to little formal excuses ("no diff links"), that would be a balcanian method. Nyenyec had found them so easily. So let you read at last please instead of speaking futile. Look in to my telescope, please, my little jesuit. Gubbubu 17:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about? hello? You are linking to this page from your userpage. Thank you, but I have found this page already. I didn't ask for links because I like links. Look, there are more links right here: [66] [67] [68] [69]. Cool, isn't it? Unfortunately, I was asking for links that might help us understnand what alleged 'unfair treatment' you are talking about. Or are you saying "please do not write about things you are not familiar with" (such as, gasp, linguistics, in the case on an article on linguistics), is as 'provocative' as calling someone "pervert hater" and similar niceties? In that case, I just rest my case. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, because the diff links are here yet, on the top of this page. And I copypasted the texts below the links I gave you to everybody see for a lot Af was who should get a 'sorry', because his opponent (esp. Hippo) started behaving uncivilised, and Af only replied them. Gubbubu 10:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. So you argue that the evidence adduced against afu at the top of this page is actually, after you copy-pasted it, evidence supporting afu. (in fact, what you have copypasted, are of course afu's claims that hipo started abusing him. but you seem to take his word for it.) dab (ᛏ) 23:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I argue that exactly. At least in 50% of the given evidences. Thank you for reading and elucidating that. What I've copypasted, are pieces of copypasted texts from pages diff links link to, not afu's hypothetical claims and writings. I think they are real conversations between Af and Hipo. Gubbubu

ok, the only bit you have copy-pasted that is not afu's own text is:

you think, you are god, and you can decide, who is familiar with what subject and who is not?

this is Hippo in reply to afu's decision that he is unfamiliar with the topic. clearly a suggestive question posed by somebody who is slightly annoyed. So, that's it? that's your evidence of unfair treatment? Because all other statements you copied are just afu's own usual rants, and not anybody's 'treatment' of afu. dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is the other way around, the first sentence (I appreciate your cooperation) was written by Hippophaë, the second (you think, you are god) was written by AFU in response. --Dhanak 15:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See [70]], I replied.

See [71], please. This is Hippo's comment. Gubbubu See [72] .

This is Af's comment. I think you are not right now, or if you do, I'm totally silly to diff links, so please somebody tell me about these.. Gubbubu 15:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's right. I mixed them up. See, this is why you are supposed to give diffs, and make clear who said what. So, your only non-afu quote was the I appreciate your cooperation part, by Hippo. Sorry. dab (ᛏ) 15:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, man, I only didn't have time to search for and review the whole yakking on the history page on the last days, but I start to agree with you (not personally you :-)), with everyone who says diffs are good). Gubbubu 17:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

glad to hear it. So you want to quote Hippo saying

I appreciate your cooperation, but please do not write on subjects which you are not familiar with. If you have questions or want to discuss the topic, use the talk page instead of adding comments and questions in the article. You should also notice that the reader of an encyclopaedia is not interested in the personal opinions of the authors.

I'm not quite sure how you want to make a case for afu being abused or harassed, from this, but never mind. dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rfar

the arbcom is hearing my rfar. I would appreciate any help in compiling the Evidence page (although, since was the one who filed it, I suppose I will take responsibility for compiling it. I just don't have very much time at my hands right now.) dab (ᛏ) 23:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

on a brighter note, a powerful argument that afu is actually a good-faith editor, and that the problems we have been talking about were not caused by malevolence, but by a staggeringly high level of naivete and an equally staggeringly low level of cognition and perceptiveness is the recent creation of Requests_for_Arbitration/Dbachmann in article namespace (yay, there is now an encyclopedia article about my humble self!) dab (ᛏ) 21:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

note: page since moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, thence to user:Antifinnugor/Dbachmann since it wasn't in any way official. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)