Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus

Outside view by Ideogram - discussion

I am quite certain nothing will come of this RfC. Ghirla's credibility with all steps of the dispute resolution process is quite low. --Ideogram 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Ideogram 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this kind of comment really the way to resolve this problem? I hardly see how further driving Ghirla into a corner will benefit anyone. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't comment in the space reserved for other people's comments except to endorse. --Ideogram 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

rest of deleted convo, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agreee with Ideogram that discussions should take place on talk, as is RfC custom. And Ghirla, I would like to note that such offensive edit summaries coupled with deletion of other people's legit comments are further undermining whatever 'cause' you might have.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I know Ideogram better than you do. Furthermore, while you are known for encouraging trolls, I am known for exposing them for what the are and eliminating Wikipedia from this stuff (see the anti-troll barnstar on my user page :) That's what makes a difference between us. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it is deplorable to turn tables and start with assassination of the complaining side. This is a RFC for Piotrus. Are you trying to say that the behavior of admin Piotrus is perfectly OK because Ghirla is not an ideal gentleman? `'mikkanarxi 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I think that the page needs tweaking. What looks like a statement by Calgacus seems to have been added to an endorsement section. I don't want to wade in and tweak things myself, but figured I'd mention it here so that someone else can fix it. There are also sections that seem to have been written in the first person, but it's not clear who wrote them.

I'll probably also post my own statement, but I need to spend some time reading the rest of it first. --Elonka 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I pointed that out to Calgacus and he replied he is ok with moving this - will you? I prefer to limit refactoring by myself to the bare minimum here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I got it... I'm not sure about the headers though. I don't spend a lot of time in RfC-land. --Elonka 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling moved from main space

Outside view by Goodlief

I signed the first outside view because it is true. I signed the next because... it is true.

The RFC is not neutral at all; so I will not read it.

As Elaragirl had once stated: "[you] two have let your personal frustrations affect your ability to interact with one another." End your war with each other because quite honestly, neither of you are going to win-- you both lose. This debacle cannot get any wider; a debacle is a complete collapse or failure, and you have both failed to work together. Shame on you two, but it's ok. Now kiss and make up, please.

RFC are not meant to showcase private wars publicly. Goodlief 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Goodlief

Outside view by Samir

Peripheral to these issues. Goodlief (talk · contribs · logs) registered 24 hours ago and appears to be trolling WP:RFC -- Samir धर्म 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Samir धर्म 07:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Samir, he was blocked 48 h for RfC trolling. I think this has nothing to do with our particular RfC, so I moved your comments to talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No probs. -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Darwinek's endorsement by Dr.Dan

Comment w/o endorsement. Like where else would have you signed? Am I right you were yawning when you signed? Dr. Dan 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to mikkanarxi comment

There are two points I'd like to address in my reply to mikkanarxi. First, it's interesting to see how my calling Ghirla 'a problematic editor' is labelled 'slander' and 'enormous character assassination'; but his calling my actions harassment, tedious editing, spamming, character assassination, abuse of admin powers, suppor of trolling, name-calling, hypocrisy and vandalism (all words from his opening statement of this RfC) is ignored. Perhaps it's just me, but the pharse 'double stadnards' seems appopriate; that said I can agree with mikkanarxki that putting me and Ghirla on a common ground seems a tad strange... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing you, not ghirla. Also, he is not "calling your actions", he is accusing, with quotations. As an admin, with certain powers you surely have to see the differences, otherwise your judgement will be quiestionable and questioned. `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, you say that 'we are discussing an accusation of an admin (!) being a rogue'. Do tell where have I abused my admin powers in my conflict with Ghirla? Please also note that when few months ago Ghirla accused me of abuse of admin powers, it was explained to him by a neutral mediator that I have not abused my admin powers. PS. I am proud to add WP:ROGUE to the list of my misdeeds, just after WP:CABAL :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you are abusing admin rights. I admint, there is a hair splitting between the "wikipedism" wikipedia:Rogue admin and "admin being a rogue", i.e., an "admin being a bad guy". Also please notice the word "accusation" in the phrase. In other words, again, this RFC is duscussing your behavior. And my phrase is in the context of an attempt of turning tables, resetting the focus to Ghirla, which is a deplorable tactics of defense. And a smiley is not an answer either. `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, it's impossible to discuss my actions without looking at Ghirla's; especially as most of his 'arguments' are about me waging 'an anti-Ghirla crusade'; I believe this RfC would be rather moot if I could not address such concerns. Besides, I am not an RfC expert, but during his own RfC, most of Ghirla's arguments centered around the behaviour of others, particularly, Halibutt - it's a shame you did not comment there to condemn such tactics there... As for his quotations, well, if anybody follows them I am sure they will reach the same conclusion as K. Lástocska did - i.e. that most of them don't support Ghirla's interpretation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mr. Lástocska's opinion is far from impartial. Several months ago, I saw him engage in Russophobia on WP:FAC and told him so. It is sort of cheap to cite established Ghirlaphobes as neutral observers. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, is this [1] the WP:FAC to which you refer in your allegation?István 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, if you believe you have so many opponents intent on making your life miserable that they merit their own name ("Ghirlaphobes"), I urge you to review WP:CABAL and to consider examining your own behavior. Appleseed (Talk) 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Appleseed please, denying that there are Ghirlaphobes on board, is like saying that Piotrus is not the self-appointed "leader" of the non-existent Cabal. Dr. Dan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that the supporters of this RFC are Piotruphobes? :-) Appleseed (Talk) 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure some are, while some genuinely take issue with P.P.'s actions and lack of neutrality in his capacity as an administrator, and have nothing against his persona. I truly think that the issue of his being an administrator and his related behavior in that capacity, has a lot more to do with this RfC than most Ghiraphobes will acknowledge, ever. Dr. Dan 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of this RFC, the major complaint isn't anything Piotrus has done, but the ongoing bickering between him and Ghirlandajo. The rest of it is just the same old complaints from the usual "Piotruphobes", few but vocal. Appleseed (Talk) 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am lost, please clarify - you belong to Ghirlaphobes or Piotruphobes?. Thanks. M.K. 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the argument "He pissed on the carpet, so I can do the same" is a no-go. I didn't comment of Ghirla's RfC because I was up to the eyebrows in shit from our Romanian colleagues at this time. Still, on some other occasions I did comment that Ghirla has to cool down. I am not going to search for quotes mong my 60K+ edits, since it is not me who is being discussed here. `'mikkanarxi 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Admin's abuse: yes, it is among accusations: gratuious unblocking of Molobo. So you indeed earned the right to proudly wear your Rot Front template. `'mikkanarxi 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Riiight, a year old unblocking which had nothing to do with Ghirla... this is 2006, not 2005, Mikka. Do you have any 'abuse of admin powers' issues from this year, or any specific example of my behaviour from the last few months you want to discuss, or are we going to turn this into 'once upon a time, you made a mistake, and I will remind you of it till the stars go cold'? :)-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not provided any recent examples because I don't see you perform any administrative actions, in general. They are limited to rollbacking edits of those users you are in conflict with. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided any recent examples because there aren't any, despite how many times you will claim otherwise. Anybody can review both my contributions and my logs. Looking at the days before you filled this RfC (i.e. before the 12:14 6th December), you can see I used rollback several times reverting vandalism: 03:42, December 6; 17:45, December 5; 17:44, December 5; 13:02, December 5; 12:44, December 5; 01:20, December 5; 01:15, December 5... none of those rollbacks was against you, and no matter how often you will repeat that I use rollback only on you it will not make it true. As for admin logs, on the Dec 5 I deleted two articles (redirect and speedy); none created by you. I am afraid the 'real' evidence does not back up your claim of 'Piotrus anti-Ghirla crusade' - as can be seen by anyone who looks at the diffs you provide (when you provide them).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! Ghirla, it's "Ms. Lástocska"! :) (and how the hell am I Russophobic? I speak Russian, my favorite writers are Pushkin and Lermontov, favorite composers are Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and Rahkmaninov, I find Russian history and culture fascinating. You'll notice even my username is in some strange form of magyarized Russian. Just because someone disagrees with you yourself doesn't make them Russophobic.) K. Lástocska 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad. Ghirlandajo flings accusations of Russophobia rather easily ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and hence I do not believe he takes them very seriously. Why, he even believes User:M.K, his partner in this RFC, is a Russophobe as well (you can't help recognziing M.K.'s Russophobic hand in this article). Note that this does not prevent him and M.K. from being friends. Balcer 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, why Piotrus did not recruit me. Double standards? M.K. 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

lol. --Beaumont (@) 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lol. feel refreshed? M.K. 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A major comment by Piotrus ('Reply 2')

On the main page of this RfC I have replied to particular issues raised by Ghirla. Since then I have noticed in several comments that some users think there is a 'Polish-Russian war' on Wikipedia; such a view seems also to dominate Ghirla's opening statement. I'd like to take the opportunity here to address this 'big picture' issue. Simply put: there is no 'Polish-Russian war' on Wiki; the only 'war' that may occasionaly surface is a 'Polish-Ghirla war'. Let me elaborate.

Granted, there are many controversial issues related to the history of both countries, but I - and others - have been working long and hard to set such historical issues besides us and concentrate on writing an neutral encyclopedia. As a user who has written a good part of 18 featured articles I have had on many occasions collaborated extensivly with our Russian collegues. Of course, both sides have different POVs - that is only to be expected - but we have time and again worked to succesfully find a middle ground. If a 'Polish-Russian Wiki war' truly existed, we would not have been able to feature articles like Polish-Soviet War, Battle of Warsaw (1920), Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), Warsaw Uprising (1794) or Katyn massacre or History of Poland (1945–1989), to name just a few, and not to mention many Good Articles and other succesfull collaborations. As I prefer facts, here are some differences where our work is supported by Russian editors (Alex Bakharev, Kazak, Kuban Kazak), or other users known for their expertise on Russian subject (Zscout370, 172, Grafikm fr). Of course, for an article to reach FA-level it takes many months of balancing between pro-Polish, pro-Russian or pro-whatever POVs; however as the above examples show this can be achieved and majority of Polish and Russian editors (who are by no means 'barred' from editing them by any 'cabal') have no problem with working together; we often have long debates on talk, but the end result (FAs) speak for itself (unless one would claim that a 'Polish cabal' subverted the FA process...). This I hope is enough to prove there is no conflict (war - sic(!)) between Polish and Russian editors.

That said, there are however exceptions, when certain users, instead of seeking a middle ground NPOV compromise assume the stance 'my POV is neutral, your is propaganda' and refuse to change their views even by an inch. This is a stance often taken by Ghirla, who for example reffered to our newest FA (History of Solidarity) as propaganda and to an older one a monument to the Polish POV interpretation of history (both passed with a very wide marigin). Ghirla, whose vast knowledge in the fields of Russian architecture and art is amazing, has unfortunatly some extremly strong feelings when it comes to Polish-Russian relations, views that are fortunatly rarely supported by other editors (Russian or otherwise) - for example, few would support his claim that Katyn massacre was staged by CIA... (but it explains why he objected to the FA as noted above). That is not to said, let me stress, that those articles contained no pro-Polish POV and that they were not at some point (constructivly) criticized and then improved by Russian editors; collaboration with neutral Russian (and other) editors ameliorated such problem time and again. Ghirla, however, as seen in this RfC, tries to build upon the fact that Polish editors has an undeniable pro-Polish bias, and refuses to acknowledge that we are willing to compromise (succesfully, as FA show); I find his portayal of the situation as some 'wiki Polish-Russian war' extremly misleading. What there is is an occasional 'Polish-Ghirla war'. Let me make another disclaimer: often Ghirla 'has a point', i.e. the article he criticizes contains pro-Polish bias (hence he is sometimes supported in discussions by other editors). However instaed of discussing the issue in a civil way or providing sources, Ghirla's contributions to Poland-related articles are usually very minor, and revolve around addition of unsourced, controversial and extremly POVed statements (per 'Katyn is not a massacre and was probably staged by CIA' as shown above), then accusing editors (usually, Polish) who try to NPOV them of trolling/vandalism/nationalism, and when he finally gives up on changing content we often see another round of tag warring. This recent article is a good example of the most recent situation developing along those lines that culminated in this RfC (I was so annoyed by his offensive comments at talk and edit summaries there that I took the issue to WP:PAIN; he in turn decided it's a proof our our 'anti-Ghirla campaign' and took it here).

Finally, several editors suggested that we should make peace. I'd dearly love to settle this conflict. I made many gestures of good will, such as asking him to join a mediation related to one of our conflicts (his reply and mediator's reply to his reply, after which he never posted there again); I also refusing to support an ArbCom againt Ghirla few months ago by declaring that 'I have no beef with him and he was behaving better' (this was noted by other editors). As for his reply to my gestures - well, the RfC sais it all, I believe.

To sum it up: yes, Polish editors have pro-Polish POV. No, it is not any more excessive then any other POV by an average group of contributors out there. No, we have no conflicts with Russian editors other then those that can be expected when two or more groups negotiate towards NPOV on an average Wiki article; we have featured many FAs which is the primary mission of Wiki - in other words our collaboration is very succesfull. Ghirla's behaviour on Poland-related article's is far from constructive. He tends to portray average, normal conflicts as a major war, and accusses all who disagree with him of extreme incivility. His accusation that Lástocska is a 'Russophobe' is a perfect example of his behaviour. As seen in my FAs, I am always willing to compromise and negotiate. If anybody can convince Ghirla to take our hand - i.e. stop insulting us and start negotiating - this would solve the issue. The only way I and other Polish editors could compromise more is if we would stop editing Poland-related articles entirly.

Uff, that was one long post...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was long and really didn't say anything meaningful. Dr. Dan 14:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Piotrus continues to hijack the discussion of his own incivity and admin abuse to content disputes. I'm not going to follow suit. I assure him that his spamming of public boards in order to have his articles promoted to featured or, if he fails to achieve this aim, his harrassing of our FA director merits a separate RfC. Suffice it to say for the present that Piotr uses WP:FA for propaganda as well. Once the article is promoted by a crowd of Polish voters, it becomes (in his view) sacred and intangible to every efforts aimed at attenuating its POV. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out by several editors below, the claim that I am harrassing our FA director is completly bogus the say the least. It 'merits a separate RfC' as much as the issues raised in this one, and Ghirla's insistence of otherwise is yet another perefect illustration of how he takes completly innocent situations and tries to portay them as a part of 'anti-Ghirla' crusade. This is kind of tiring, as well as this completly inconstructive reply to my post...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Q.E.D.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what about your energetic efforts to have every Russo-Polish conflict named an "invasion" if it is started by Russia and a "war" if it is started by Poland? What about your contininuing claims that Russia did not exist before the 18th century? What about your efforts to conceal from our readers the concentration camps of Pilsudski's Poland? To mask Polish imperialism as its striving for freedom? To forget about the Polish-Nazi alliance against Czechoslovakia and the Polish participation in the partition of that country? To represent Soviet victories as the Polish ones? To purge from the project images documenting the Soviet liberation of Poland in 1944? Well, there are too many content issues and I would not allow you to hijack the discussion there. I will only note that I never write articles on Polish history (when not provoked to), while you do, representing yourself as an expert in Russian history and interfering into such topics as Russian Enlightenment with strange accusations of Polonophobia. I also never insert Russian names into the articles on Polish towns and cities (such as Warsaw, which was a Russian city for a century), while your friends regularly provoke conflicts by adding Polish spelling to the articles on such towns as Smolensk, Pskov, Trubchevsk, etc. I urge all participants to stop discussing content and to return to the questions of xenophobia, name-calling, vandal-calling, etc. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good illustration of why it is often so difficult to work with Ghirlandajo on articles related to Poland and Russia. To readers unfamiliar with the history of that part of Europe, I can only say that his presentation of various conflicts that have arisen between him and so-called "Polish editors" is rather skewed, to say the least, and might even appear puzzling to readers unfamiliar with the relevant discussions on Wikipedia. For example, no one outside a mental hospital would claim that Russia did not exist before the 18th century, but there is a good case for calling it Muscovy in English during this period, as our own Wikipedia article does and as countless historical works do. However, Ghirlandajo is one of the editors who strongly detests the use of the word Muscovy and has interesting theories on its origin in Western historiography (in a nutshell, according to him its use in part a result of a Polish and Jesuit plot).

The second problem often encountered is Ghirlandajo's belief, well illustrated above, that certain editors (specifically non-Russians and what he considers non-experts) should not edit articles related to Russian history, and that the edits of such "unqualified" editors can be summarily reverted on sight, with no explanation. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding on his part. Even if he does not like it, Wikipedia is at this point a work mostly by non-experts and amateurs, in the best sense of the word. The sooner he accepts this, the better. Also, I would like to personally invite Ghirlandajo to become even more involved in editing articles related to Poland. The more editors, the better, that is the Wikipedia way. Balcer 03:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, Drogi, now we get the second lecture tonight about the Wikipedia way. Instead of pandering to the readers unfamiliar with the history of that part of Europe (for what purpose, God only knows), talk to those of us who are very very familiar with what is going on here. Don't link us to an absurd claim that Ghirlandajo is fixated on a Polish-Jesuit plot. Tonight I read your link to that claim for the first time (and delightfully it was in English for all of us to read), it appeared to be an open discussion of his POV on the subject on the Talk page . Not in Russian, not by email, not behind closed doors, or calling for an army of pygmies to come to his aid after hearing the bell ringing as in the Pavlov's dog's experiment. And as to this absurdity that Ghirla's interpretations are skewed. What, and the opposing sides' are not? You say he doesn't like the term Muscovy. And I say his opposition doesn't like the terms Vilnius or Kaunas or Trakai or Laurynas Gucevicius. Do you know the saying that the chickens have come home to roost? It does fit, like a glove. Dr. Dan 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Ghirlandajo's dislike of the word Muscovy. But I do object to how he presented the controversy. Let me quote again the very specific sentence I was reacting to: "What about your contininuing claims that Russia did not exist before the 18th century?" This was a typical strawman argument, and it deserved a response, lest someone unfamiliar with the controversy think that Piotrus really propagated such a ridiculous notion. And yes, an RFC is precisely the place where one would expect, and in fact hope, to have editors previously uninvolved in the dispute and unfamiliar with the subject matter examine the evidence presented by both sides. If some of the evidence is presented in a misleading way, it surely deserves a response.

As for your other insinuations, I will leave them without comment, except to say that I personally have almost never used Polish on English Wikipedia under any circumstances (though in almost 3 years of editing and over 8000 edits it might have happened a few times), and that there is nothing wrong with sending email to another editor (you certainly did not have a problem with communicating by email with me). Balcer 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I take issue with you catagorizing my remarks as insinuations, I find your input to be the most intelligent and least biased out of the contributors that are accused of belonging to a non-existant Cabal who Piotrus assumed he was the leader of.

Regarding the Muscovy issue, its a deliberate provocation to "technically" deny Russia's "official" existence before the 18th century cloaked in some clap trap about "English" sources. I also notice there is some absurd satisfaction derived from the "chronological" advancement that Poland has over its neighbors, according to some editors. Usually forgetting that while they may have been advanced in some things visa vis their eastern neighbors, they were woefully behind their western neighbors, and may have developed a complex over it. Lastly, Poland "existed" inspite of the partitions, and Russia "existed" inspite of it being called Muscovy, in some quarters. Dr. Dan 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Then our own article Muscovy, part of our cycle on Russian history, is one gigantic provocation, right? If you really think so, I expect to see you propose its move to a more reasonable title. And what is this notion of chronological advancement you are alleging? Everybody familiar with Polish history knows that when the Polish state arose, its neighbours (Germany, Bohemia, Rus) had existed for a long time. Is this another strawman argument, aiming to show that Poles are as a rule ignorant of their own history? Balcer 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't agree or "insinuate" that our own article Muscovy is one gigantic provocation. Just like I wouldn't deny Poland's existence as a reality during the Partitions of the PLC, and would consider denying that "fact" on a technical basis a provocation, if it was made with malice. BTW, it's interesting to note (hopefully not a freudian slip), that you chose not to include Lithuania as a neighbor of Poland along with Germany, Bohemia, and Rus. I'm sure that you don't consider Lithuania to be a mere province of Poland, and that choosing not to include it in your example was a simple momentary ignorance of geography, rather than a provocation. Dr. Dan 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply left it out because I do not recall that Lithuania existed as an organized state around 966, the period in which the Polish state was founded (which is also why I did not list Slovakia, Belarus and Ukraine). I am truly amazed how much you can infer about my mental state from such a simple omission. Balcer 16:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So then, the operative word is "organized" (Poland organized therefore significant, Lithuania unorganized therefore insignificant). And the operative year 966 (an interesting choice of years, were Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden in 966, or the year that the significance of national existence began to be measured?). No need to be amazed or dazed, I'm not analyzing your mental state, only your written down thought processes. Will the lecture continue? And one more thing, the unfortunate remark Is this another strawman argument, aiming to show that Poles are as a rule ignorant of their own history? Of course not, nor it is implying that the Poles could ever be ignorant of their own history, but it would be nice if their historical interpretations regarding their neighbors could be more in tune with reality more often. Dr. Dan 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know where this conversation is going, and it long ceased to be relevant to this RFC. If you wish to continue, please take it up on my talk page. For the record, I have not suggested that "older is better" when it comes to states or nations, and I certainly do not believe any such thing. Also, in the future, please do not analyze the thought processes of other editors. Some might consider it rude. Balcer 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus' post was long indeed, but summarizes well the situation. The wiki way - as far as I can understand it - is to present the sources and to negotiate and to balance different POVs. Sometimes, to make a gesture of good will. This is, generally, what I perceive on Piotrus side. On the other hand, I can not admit the same for Ghirla. When in POV conflict, he easily gets into a fight, not necessarily in the Polish-Russian relation context. This is perceived as uncivil, a recent example (by Atlant (talk · contribs)) can be found here. This is not the wiki way. That's a big difference. --Beaumont (@) 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont, you seem like a nice man, or a nice lady. When you are able to criticize P.P.'s behavior and antics on Wikipedia objectively, then you are welcome to lecture one and all on the wiki way. But if in an almost knee-jerk reaction you are going to mask your own lack of objectivity and neutrality with that kind of "balderdash" as posted above, you might as well lecture us on the milky way, instead of the wiki way. My problem with these whole counter productive circuses is they reek of a desire to censor and to propagandize on Wikipedia. Reading the histories (thankfully they are there and will be for a long time), it's so bizarro that almost everything the Polish "victims of Ghirlandajo" accuse him of doing is dealt out even more so to it's smaller neighbor, Lithuania, by them. Nor is Germany immune to these pot shots. The issue being discussed is Piotrus' role as an administrator and a contributor to these matters, not a recapitulation of irrellevant he loves me, he loves me not anecdotes. Dr. Dan 01:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

this is worth {{npa2}} template that I put on your talk page. EOT --Beaumont (@) 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What is so offensive in message above, Beaumont? M.K. 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Worth it to you, but not to me. Best. Dr. Dan 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. answered on my talk page, and do try to become a little more neutral. You probably could do so with a little effort.

I only wonder why does Piotrus care so much... If I were him I would simply ignore this rubbish and went on... While feeding trolls does not add to their credibility, it certainly is a waste of time and efforts, as there is little chance they will become civilized any time soon. Oh, and a side-note to what Dan wrote above: didn't I ask you a zillion times to try to focus on the topic discussed and cease your constant he loves me, he loves me not anecdotes? //Halibutt 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hali that it took so long to get back to you, just now read your lovely little piece. I would have liked to copyedit the mess (did the electronic translator break down?), but unless I have your permission, I won't do that. Thank you for not considering me as one of the trolls, otherwise you wouldn't be addressing me (right?), and wasting your time and efforts. Regarding, he loves me, he loves me not, all I can say is what the world needs now is more love. As always, Best! Dr. Dan 19:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Response by Ghirla to István endorsment of Biruitorul

Per RfC customs and rules, long comments and questions should be started on talk, to prevent main RfC page from turning into a discussion page. I have moved a newly started discussion here, with a note in the relevant place to inform a reader that there is a debate on talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Support The label "sad" is understatement - like two people who are otherwise OK but cant get along, like ex-spouses in who's inane squabbles you really dont want to get involved ...but a forced moral equivalency is not correct here - this mud doesnt stick 50/50. To keep positive about it, Piotrus behaves correctly in those instances where I have had involvement - indeed admirably in one case (failed FAC) where he kept his poise under undue provocation. I'm happy to put my two cents in for his defense. István 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you refer to the first nomination of the History of Solidarity. By claiming that Piotrus "kept his poise under undue provocation", do you mean his lengthy harrassing of our FA director that followed? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That is about as far from harrassment as Mexico is from China. — Deckiller 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And giving the harrassment label is just another example of his typical attitude that I described above... --Beaumont (@) 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree--that wasn't harrassment, that was discussion. That's what civilized people do when they get into disagreements. e.g. "please explain your reasoning", "I'm trying to understand my own POV", etc. A request for someone to explain their reasoning is not a challenge, it's a request for clarification so the parties involved could come to some consensus.... K. Lástocska 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this represents a common tactic used by Ghirla - calling non-controversial edits harassment, vandalism, trolling, character assassination. I strongly urge people to follow the diffs he provides and see for themselves if his accusations are backed up by them. As I said in my reply: unless you take his word for it, his 'evidence' does not support his accusation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Apart from Mikka, JzG, and Calgacus, all other users who have commented on this RfC so far are newbies, mostly from Eastern European countries formerly dominated by Russia. Judging from their comments, they have little understanding of what's going on between Polish and German/Russian/Lithuanian editors and (unlike Piotrus) I actually hear their names for the first time. If their interactions with Piotrus have been uniformly positive, good for them. What is objectionable, is that they fail to distinguish admin abuse from content disputes and basically hijack the discussion of Piotr's incivility to discussing content. That Biruitorul (who has slightly more experience in the project than the others mentioned above) seems unable to spot admin abuse is particularly frustrating, given his ambitions to become an admin. I emphatically object to placing me on the same footing with Piotrus. First of all, he is a sysop, while I'm not, so there is no comparison here. Secondly, I never called him names (let alone despite his protests), I never passed secretive communications with other editors in Russian language, I never agitated for Piotrus to be blocked on public boards, and I never encouraged the activity of edit-warring trolls as a sort of ram to push anti-Polish POV. Those who fail to see the crux of the matter should understand that their comments don't help to defuse the situation. On the contrary, they may encourage Piotrus to increase his level of aggression against myself. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to start an RFC and then complain when the comments disagree with yours? Also, why does it matter that some of the editors are "from Eastern European countries formerly dominated by Russia". Is there now a multinational "anti-Ghirlandajo cabal"? Is everyone who disagrees with you a "Ghirlaphobe"? Appleseed (Talk) 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether I've spotted admin abuse or not is immaterial. I have spotted unfortunate behaviour on both sides. The fact is that neither of you is 100% innocent, and you both ought to step back and make peace. Be men. Biruitorul 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul, Sir, did it ever occur to you what the remark, Be men, sounds like to a woman? Please be a little more circumspect in the future. Dr. Dan 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but two cents from Ms. Lástocska, it didn't bother me at all, I completely understood what he meant. He meant "be men", as opposed to "be whiny little boys", or "be half-civilized apes". I seriously doubt there was any gender discrimination implied. :) K. Lástocska 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms. Lástocska. Dr. Dan: If this dispute involved two women, or a man and a woman, I wouldn't have told them to "be men", so your question is purely academic. If it's all the same to you, I will unhesitatingly continue to associate being a man with courage, decency, stoicism, and a willingness to move past petty grievances. I will continue to champion this traditional view of masculinity at the expense of those who seek to wreck it. Biruitorul 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up! Ms. L, what's wrong with whiny little boys? B., as a man it's delightful to know that you will champion "traditional views of masculinty". Let's just keep women out of burqas, in the meantime, unless it's voluntary. Dr. Dan 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And let's also be careful about setting up straw men. If the word "Western" wasn't implicit, let me make it explicit: I will continue to champion traditional Western views of masculinity. I do expect women to dress modestly, but not to veil their hair (unless in church). Biruitorul 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we possibly get any farther off topic? - this RfC is a sad affair, and has run out of gas. We're at the end of this Chekhov play, when everyone lay exhausted, stunned by how ugly human nature can get, realising that nobody is hero or villain, and feeling awful about what they've seen and done. (actually I dont feel awful but I expect the pro/an-tagonists do by now). Guys - You are both great contributors of quality material, even by each other's admission. You both suffer from a common weakness of highly intelligent people - that is to interpret dissent as personal attack. I dont buy the Russki-Polski thing either - this is just personality conflict, and if you had not got so far up each others' noses, then I bet others would have eventually. I lean more with PP because I see general civility except when Ghirla is involved. Ghirla, you are challenged, as we all are, to Jekyll your Hyde. And you both ought to stop following each other around everywhere - like two brawling cowboys busting through the window (or personal talk page) of unsuspecting bystanders. But this RfC isnt a complete writeoff, you have, at both your expense, given a graduate-level case-study lesson, the class notes of which might read:

1. A vendetta RfC (both PPs and Ghirla's last year) is a colossal waste of time,

2. If either (or both) of you were not quality contributors, nobody would have cared a whit

3. People with the brains and spare time to add tons of quality to wikipedia are also capable of waging impressive vendettas

4.You are what you write, an edit is forever, and what you say will be held against you - eventually...

5. Keep everything in English on this wiki - using native language is opportunity for any troll/sith/crank who gets crossways with you to later to tout it as evidence of secretive behaviour or personal attack.

6. Women will dress themselves for Church however they want, and will usually dictate how their husbands and whiny little boys dress too. (in the West, that is)  ;-) István 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And that should be the end of it. I agree 1000% - even, sadly, reluctantly, as I, an inveterate reactionary, am dragged into the 19th century - with #6. Biruitorul 07:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear Hear!! News flash: Hungary and Romania broker peace treaty between Russia and Poland!! Or better yet: News flash: warring Wikipedia editors decide to grow up and quit sniping at each other, PLEASE.

PS Biru, don't worry about it, the 19th century wasn't all bad. :) K. Lástocska 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'll survive. I may even do some good, like hold Karl Marx hostage until he changes those foolish notions he's planning to publish in a little book with Engels (a capitalist par excellence, I might add). Biruitorul 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just getting further off-topic now...IMHO Marx wasn't the problem, he made a few good points, the problem was what Mr. Lenin and Mr. Stalin did while purporting to be "socialists." But that's entirely beside the point. :) As long as you're in the 19th century, say hi to Franz Liszt for me will ya? K. Lástocska 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, ideas have consequences, and it's better to fight insidious ones in their embryonic forms. Marx surely laid the groundwork for what was to come, even if, having died 34 years before the Bolshevik revolution, he was not directly responsible. Hitler too didn't emerge from a vacuum - others (Wagner, Spengler, Nietzsche) contributed to his ideology. But don't worry, I will say hi to the Liszt fellow, and I'll also try to persuade the Russian Tsars to abandon their autocracy - God-given though it may be - in order to save themselves (and the 20th century). Biruitorul 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do agree. :) Have fun! (egad, I love Wikipedia...)K. Lástocska 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - and I might add, we've moved past Chekhov into Samuel Beckett. Biruitorul 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Absurdism--definitely. Next stop, Havel? Or are we wandering even farther afield? :) K. Lástocska 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Albee, perhaps? Obviously, this area isn't my strong suit; I'm shocked enough as it is by Georg Büchner and his audacity at using proletarian heroes! Biruitorul 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

and it's even less my strong suit--I'm a musician, for heaven's sake...back to Liszt anyone? :) PS Piotrus, sorry for hijacking your RfC, on the other hand I think it deserved what it got. :) K. Lástocska 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry to both of you. But that's one of the things I like about this process: Ghirlandajo's initial complaint, which was no laughing matter, quickly degenerated into farce. I think that shows we're all amongst friends here, and can't stay cross with one another for long. Imagine us all gathered round a dinner table, with one of us rising, pointing his finger at another, and intoning, dead-serious: "Ladies and gentlemen, I have a most dreadful accusation to make against this man here." Everyone's faces grow solemn, a hush descends, and the moment of truth comes: "He ... hasn't returned the wrench I lent him ... three days ago!" Then the guests start laughing and resume their previous conversations, dismissing the accuser as a blowhard; he resumes his seat, dejected, but soon laughs it off too. That's sort of what happened here. Ghirlandajo, I'm not saying you are a blowhard, and your complaint did have merit, but this process is anarchic and took on a life of its own, leading us here. Biruitorul 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Biruitorul, do you still need that wrench? Dahn 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dahn, but it's been in places I'd rather not think about. Keep it as a souvenir. Biruitorul 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Response by Dr. Dan to Lysy (and Beaumont and Piotrus) not endorsing mikkanarxi

Outside View by Mikkarxi

... P.S. On a personal note: I have removed from my watchlist all Polish Moldova/Romanian related topics because these two communities have almost religious, aggressive intolerance to other's point of view, and their administrators do nothing to calm/neutralize their most ardent warriors, and in my age I have to watch my health. Mikkanarxi 7 Dec 2006

Users who do not endorse this summary

2. The nationalistic comment above against Poles and Romanians is inacceptable. It's neither relevant nor needed here. --Lysy^talk 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3. per Lysy- Beaumont 13 Dec 2006

Lysy, please, were you sober when you posted this? Mikka's comment was not nationalistic (1st falsehood), nor was it against Poles and Romanians (2nd falsehood). Why try to stick in this false and inflammatory POV into this mess? No surprise that Beaumont should per Lysy it either. What's "surprising", is that Piotrus didn't attempt to show some neutrality, or better still, chide you for your remarks. Then again, this entire RfC is all about that lack of judgement and neutrality. That's what the Molobo mess was all about. And when Halibutt called Zivinbudas a "Brudas" on Piotrus's talk page, there was no, HEY! Not on my watch! HEY! Not on my talk page. Is this a "sufficiently" neutral admistrator? Maybe that's the real "Crux" of the matter. Dr. Dan 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was sober and I still stand that mixing the nationalistic remarks about Romanians or Poles into this RFC is neither useful nor relevant. --Lysy^talk 16:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed Lysy. Whether Mikka's opinion that the subject matter is relevant or needed, or your opinion that it is not, was not my point. And I too still stand by my position that Mikka's comments were not 1. "Nationalistic", 2. "Against" Poles and Romanians. Retractions are becoming harder to get these days. And as for the other issues like "Brudas", neutrality, or the possible "Crux of the Matter," nothing from Lysy? Dr. Dan 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question by Piotrus

From my experiene, RfC consume a lot of time and effort, yet in a more confusing cases - and this one apparently is one of those - rarely produce changes. I'd like this RfC to not fall into such pattern, and thus I'd like to ask all involved editors, Ghirla of course included, what is the solution they would like to apply. Of course we all want for the conflict between me (or in general, Polish Wikipedians) and Ghirla to end, but the question is 'how, exactly, are we going to achieve this'?

Mediation was tried, Ghirla demanded my desysoping and withdrew after mediator disagreed with him and asked him to be more civil. One RfC was tried, we are in a middle of a second one. I tried being friendly; see his reply to my attempt to talk, I am apparently 'presona non grata' on his talk page. Comments by others didn't help ([7], [8]). As another sign of good will I have also declined to participate in an ArbCom against him. Ideogram summed up the result of my good will gestures quite well recently. Refrainign from editing each other's articles sounds like a good idea, and actually we rarely meet on Wiki; I almost never edit Russia-only related articles, and Ghirla avoids Poland-only articles; unfortunatly our countries share a lot of common history and from time to time we meet and 'sparks fly'. Considering my ability to FA even controversial articles like that on Katyn massacre I don't believe it would be fair to require me to abstain from editing Russian-related articles. Ghirla can also add valuable content related to Poland (ex. Russo-Polish War (1654–1667)).

The problem, as I see it, is that Ghirla has a habit of inserting unreferenced controversial information (ex. [9]), deleting referenced information he disagrees with (ex. [10], sometimes with misleading summaries), using offensive terms in edit summaries (ex. [11]), and at talk, accusing those who disagree with him of various violations in less then civil manner (ex. Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#POV, Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#WP:POINT); and when criticized for such behaviour he accusses others of bad faith (to say the least), never admiting his fault. All of those examples are from just one article, but this pattern is repeated in many others. I don't see what I could have done better in that case, other then avoiding editing this article altogether; considering that because of my expansion it was eventually DYKed, I believe that my contributions to it (and to other such articles) are valuable enough to discourage that course of action.

I would very much appreciate suggestions what can be done to improve the situation. Speaking for myself, I'd like Ghirla to stop acting in a way I described in the previous para. I am looking forward as to what is it that he would like me to do (or not to do), and what are will other people suggest we both do.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop these habitual attempts to turn every discussion of your abuse into RfC/Ghirlandajo. It is your confrontational attitudes and aggressive spamming that are being discussed here by me. The rest seems to be chit-chatting on unrelated topics, however. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that's a redlink. I think you meant Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. Appleseed (Talk)

The only thing I can come up with is that you two (with the help of neutral outsiders) need to write up some sort of peace treaty describing what you expect of each other and rules you will both agree to be responsible and mature enough to abide by. Basically just stuf like assume good faith, no personal attacks, no snide remarks in Polish or Russian (or any other language for that matter), stuff like that. Then you both sign it and if one of you breaks it, well, that might have to warrant a temporary block. I know it sounds draconian but in a conflict as bitter as this one, it might be the best option. K. Lástocska 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you to specify who of those posting on this page you call a "neutral outsider"? Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Biru and Istvan, for two, and I am trying to be as neutral (i.e., not taking sides for petty reasons) as possible. K. Lástocska 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

This RFC is practically missing the evidence of any serious attempts to resolve the dispute. Without it the RFC seems kinda trolling itself. --Lysy^talk 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Appleseed (Talk) 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what are we all going to do to fix the problem? Guy (Help!) 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is futile and not intended to lead us anywhere. Just a statement of the conflict we've been aware of for long enough. I'm afraid both parties are quite convinced of bad faith of the other side by now. I don't know about Ghirla, but my policy towards him is trying to avoid editing articles where he's active. Every time I tried this, it ended up in edit wars as he seemed to consider any Russian-related article to be his private domain. I've tried approaching him in his talk page or with email in the past but has long given it up as it all was in vain. I fail to see any attempts on his side to resolve the conflict peacefully. Until we see such will on both sides, the RFC is nothing more than a waste of time. --Lysy^talk 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will also note that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus#Outside_view_by_Ideogram_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 and comments there also indicate that the likely motivation behind this RfC was the desire to 'get even', not to create any solution. Despite that I am perfectly happy to see this reach some sort of workable compromise - however it's a shame that neither Ghirla nor M.K. have posted anything in the past few days in the bottom sections where we are discussing such solutions (which again feels me with doubt whether they want to do anything else but list their greviances with additional 'addendums' on RfC main page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Question by Piotrus

I suggested it earlier today on Mikka's outside view. After you resign your "controversial" adminstratorship (the heart of this RfC), you can run again. This would be in the best traditions of democracy. See recall election. Since there is little doubt that your behavior and activities on Wikipedia have been fair, within it's guidelines, and altogether exemplary, you will be reinstated "carte blanc", forthwith. Probably by a landslide! Nothing to fear, since even those who might not have voted for you in the first place can now see how indispensable and precious you have become to us. Then your detractors will have to recede and shut their "yaps", and you, Prokonsul, head up high, visor open, will rise above the fray, wearing or not wearing the župan (as you wish), and can continue to put the notion of any so-called Cabal to bed, and champion and unblock your favorite "editors". Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Dr. Dan 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I think that a "vote of confidence" (or not, as the case may turn out to be) is a decent solution, but I would suggest: rather than having Piotrus resign and then run again , there should just be a vote on whether to let him keep his admin powers or to strip him of them. One thing to decide is, would it be better to have a "parliamentary vote" (i.e., have just the admins deal with it) or a "plebiscite" (anyone and everyone votes). I favor a plebiscite myself, but it's up for debate. K. Lástocska 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As a big red box on my user talk page states, I belong to the Category:Administrators open to recall - unlike, let me point out, either of the two admins who question my fitness as an admin (mikka and JzG). I find that somewhat amusing :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget about the big red box, are you ready, and should the vote be done by the House of Commons or the House of Lords?. Dr. Dan 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Drum roll!!!

Sigh. Do you even have to ask? Sejm, of course. But I will settle for a sejmik, if I must.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right then--election, anyone? K. Lástocska 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, sigh back. Even in my satirical question, I get a satirical reponse (po Polsku) on the English Wikipedia with Sejm. Why didn't you offer impalement instead? According to Jerzy Hoffman's movies, that was another po Polsku method of resolving these kinds of issues. No? Dr. Dan 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of thought that was more of a Romanian specialty....and what kind of response besides satirical do you expect for a satirical question? K. Lástocska 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to mass murder per capita, Romania pales in comparison to Hungary. Biruitorul 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yuck! Looks like we're one up on you there! Gross, now we're comparing national mass murderers...let's change the subject...K. Lástocska 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the subject initially, and I graciously agree to change the subject. Biruitorul 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant no insult at all to Romania, I was just being, well, satirical. :) K. Lástocska 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a garland of garlic and a crucfix just in case. Now regarding a vote, think very carefully about this. If one side or the other doesn't have the votes, fugetaboutit, otherwise let this "plebscite", end this conflict once and for all. Are we ready? Dr. Dan 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. somebody teach Biruitorul colon etiquette.

Etiquette dictates that, once a certain number of colons is present, none ought to be present; columns one word long are difficult to read. Hence, Dr. Dan, you will please refrain from advising what I should or should not be taught, if it's all the same to you. Biruitorul 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't see a reason for you to step down. It's not your burden to mess with the the so-called recall or the "vote of confidence". It's their burden to show any wrongdoing on your side, which is something yet to be shown. On the other hand, the idea of reelection or recertification of admins is quite healthy, as it puts the responsibility pressure on admins in front of the community. Such approach, however, should apply to all admins, rather than being played selectively against some.--KPbIC 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Krys, I agree, but this whole thing went outside the boundaries of reasonableness a LONG time ago. K. Lástocska 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you have the right to change your mind, Latoschka, but what is it? Election or not? Dr. Dan 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all it's "Lástocska", and second of all I didn't really change my mind. As I read it, Krys said that Piotrus shouldn't have to bother with this whole "vote of confidence" thing. In a perfect world he shouldn't have to, but this is Wikipedia, and it's probably the only solution that could put a lid on this issue for a few months, at least. K. Lástocska 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! Sorry for the typo, you're so strict. Now I am glad that I put up the garlic and the crucifix afterall. Dr. Dan 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

well, knowing how you are about typos....K. Lástocska 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You could have just corrected the typo (like I would have done), and have Balcer jump on you, instead of me! Dr. Dan 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, per KPbIC. Appleseed (Talk) 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this idea is better. We should listen to what the arbitrators say. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, it looks like your diff has nothing to do with my agreeing with KPbIC's statement. Appleseed (Talk) 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely support Dr. Dan`s position, the voting can be the real step towards in the problem solution. And please keep in mid that we are talking about admin's truly inappropriate behavior. Full support for vote. M.K. 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So that my position is not misunderstood here. I made my suggestion to Piotrus, because he asked everyone for suggestions. Frankly, many of those clammoring for his head should be very careful with this "possible" referendum. Personally I think there is a much greater likelyhood that he would not only survive such a vote, but that he would be in a stronger position to continue in the manner that many of you dislike, after it was over. Something to think about. Dr. Dan 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can turn out in very unpleasant situation. But I still think that leaving position as admin and testing yourself can be step towards solution. But yes Piotrus should decide, and as we can see new initiative, lead by Guy, arose. M.K. 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, something to think about.. --Beaumont (@) 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose proposal. If Piotrus stands accused of breaking rules, that should not be decided by a vote on his adminship (which will depend on the number of people who happen to be active, interested, and around - which is also why this does not have the force or effect of a motion of no confidence in real life). If there is a vote on whether he did break those rules, it is this one (I'm not really paying attention, as all relevant things have been said a long time ago,but I would say the result is "inconclusive"). Propose that we move on instead. Dahn 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The whole idea of desysopping Piotrus is problematic. Will it benefit the project? No. Will it drive away a contributor of whose editing abilities opinion appears to be pretty much universally supportive? Most likely. Above all, is there compelling evidence he has misused admin tools? Not really. What is needed, has been needed all along, is for Piotrus and Ghirla to learn to live with each other. It won't be easy, but they will have to do it I think. So now we need to know what we, as fellow editors, can do to help make that happen. Who's got a really positive idea here? Because none of the above seems to me to be likely to fix the underlying problem, other than by driving one or the other party away, which would be stupid and shortsighted. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let Piotrus make that decision himself. Waving a magic wand, and believing that your opinion is the best answer to this problem is not a really positive idea here either. Perhaps Piotrus has the same opinion of my President vis a vis his opponents, and "wants to bring them on". p.s. Beaumont, what happened to your "yup"? Dr. Dan 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather explore first whether these two long-standing and highly respected contributors can bury their differences. Wouldn't you? Guy (Help!) 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Well. I'm sorry I've not been active here for a few days, but it seems to be descending into yet an other trip round the same old block, which doesn't actually help anyone much. What we are trying to do here is document and resolve the dispute, yes? So I'd like to ask the following questions of the protagonists. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Piotrus

Piotrus, I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you see why Ghirla feels there is a problem, that is, having read Ghirla's statement are you now able to understand this from that perspective?

   I'll be brief. Ghirla does not take well to criticism, and tends to interpret any disagreement with his POV as an 'Ghirlandophobia, Russophobia, trolling, etc.'. I have often disagreed with Ghirla in the past, and I have criticized not only his POV but his uncivil edit summaries and talk; this behaviour seems had led Ghirla to conclude that I am a 'Ghirlandophobe' engaged in a 'anti-Ghirla crusade'. To be fair, in a few cases I have lost my temper and my edits were less then constructive; I believe that such cases were very few, no more common then any other non-saint admin or user is entitled to throughout years on Wiki, and none has been repeated once proven controversial. In any case I have apologized for any such behaviour, and am ready to apologize if any 'forgotten' cases are brought by, as it is expected in a discource between civil editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Are there any issues raised by Ghirla which you do not fully understand, and which could be elaborated on without pouring more fuel on the flames?

   Too many to make it a short post; but I believe that basically 99% of his complains have as much merit as the one that 'I am harrasing a FAC director and this deserves a separate RfC', which was commented on by others above; 1% of course is legitimate as I desribed above (there is a grain of truth in every exageration).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Under what circumstances would you consider this dispute resolved?

   As I wrote above: I would be satisfied if Ghirla would 1) stop inserting unreferenced controversial statements into articles 2) stop removing referenced text 3) stop using offensive edit summaries and 4) stop being offensive at talk. I don't expect an apology, and I don't want to ban him from editing Poland-related topics; there are too many articles with shared history that would make it impossible to enforce without severly limiting his editing capabilities.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Do you see any changes you could make in your behaviour which would help to appease Ghirla's concerns, in as much as you are able to elucidate them?

   I can think three times instead of two before posting in Ghirla-related discussion; thus limiting any possible offences from I'd say an average of once every six months to even lower :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Are there any behavioural changes Ghirla could make (i.e. not "stop thinking like a Russian") which would help to appease your concerns?

   I don't believe it's easy to reform somebody's psyche. It would be nice if he stopped thinking of Poles as enemies, would realize that he has a POV himself and that WP:CIV exists for a reason, if you want to hear my wish list :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Do you consider that there is any realistic chance that you and Ghirla can come to be, if not friends, then at least respectful opponents?

   If he changes, yes. It's hard to be a respectful opponent when somebody acts as described in point 3.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to answer these without rehashing old ground. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for Ghirla

Ghirla, I have some questions for you.

1. Do you see why Piotrus feels there is a problem, that is, having read Piotrus' statement are you now able to understand this from that perspective?

   I think it is clear for everyone involved that Piotrus feels that there is a huge problem for extremist Polish editors because they are not allowed to push anti-Russian POV in Russia-related topics, as was the case before I came to Wikipedia. I don't speak about Poland-related topics: although I know they are a mess, I hardly ever encroach on this mined ground. He knows that it's quite impossible for him to claim that Russia appeared in the 18th-century and spread other nationalist legends, until I am around. That's why he haunts me on Rus' Khaganate, Khotyn, WP:ANI, and wherever else he may spot my edits and clamors for them to be reverted and for myself to be blocked from editing. His staunch assertion of self-righteousness above only served to obfuscate the situation from neutral observers. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Are there any issues raised by Piotrus which you do not fully understand, and which could be elaborated on without pouring more fuel on the flames?

   There are many statements which I fail to comprehend. Piotr tries to portray his misuse of admin tools and lack of civility as a sort of "Polish-Ghirla war" (to use his own term), which is quite misleading. I don't consider myself in conflict with scores of meatpuppets recruited by Piotrus on his national notice-board. How can one take this insinuation seriously? It's enough to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution, Talk:Jogaila, or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader to see that I very seldom or never took part in anti-Piotrus proceedings of the community before this RfC. If some sort of drama follows Piotr around Wikipedia, on pages which I hardly ever edit, is it my fault? If Piotrus behaved in a civil way, without spamming user talk pages and noticeboards in order to scare people out of their wits with fables how bad Ghirla is, I don't think I would have any problems with other Polish editors, even with such notorious guys as Halibutt and Lysy, who found it appropriate to accuse me of trolling several lines above. As a matter of fact, Piotr's attempts to represent himself as a sort of expert on Ghirla are quite misleading. In his statement, he represents me as a sort of authority on Russian art and architecture. I can't recall my articles on either subject written within last three months, so it's hard for me to understand the basis for such assertions. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Under what circumstances would you consider this dispute resolved?

1. I consider the "dispute" resolved as soon as Piotr stops accusing me of vandalism, calling me "chandelier", discussing my actions in Polish language, referencing my spurious block log, spamming user talk pages with anti-Ghirlandajo insinuations, and starting threads on my edits on public notice-boards (which (ab)normally contain veiled calls to reverts or blocks). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you see any changes you could make in your behaviour which would help to appease Piotrus' concerns, in as much as you are able to elucidate them?

1. I agree not to meddle with Poland-related topics as long as Piotrus does not meddle in Russia-related topics in order to demonstrate his dubious expertise in such matters. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Are there any behavioural changes Piotrus could make (specific, please, not nebulous like "stop following me around") which would help to appease your concerns?

1. Indeed, I would appreciate if Piotr switches his attention to Poland-related topics that urgently need attetion from following my edits all around Wikipedia, Commons, and meta. More specifically, I request him not to flood articles containing 75+ inline citations with gratuitous citation needed tags, not to accuse me of vandalism and trolling, not to call me "chandelier", not to refer to my block list, not to discuss my actions in Polish language, not to spam user talk pages with anti-Ghirlandajo insinuations, and never start threads on my edits on public notice-boards (which normally contain veiled calls to reverts or blocks). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you consider that there is any realistic chance that you and Piotrus can come to be, if not friends, then at least respectful opponents?

1. This is what I had in mind when starting this page. Our extensive contributions entitle us to mutual respect. Unfortunately, I cannot say that Piotr's behaviour during the last weeks is something that gives me much hope for his reformation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to answer these without rehashing old ground. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Good Questions-Fair Questions, Gentlemen? Dr. Dan 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, when I have a little more time I will see about answering your questions in detail; for now, I would like to direct your attention to #A major comment by Piotrus ('Reply 2') where I have addressed most of those issues, particularly for 3, 4 and 5 I could simply copy and paste relevant parts here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You can if you think it will help, but I want to see if we can get the two of you to meet halfway. Your post, while long and detailed, fails to recognise that Ghirla has any legitimate basis for grievance. I'm sorry, I can't agree with that assessment. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it fails. I still think that (long story short) Ghirla acted many times in an incivil and unconstructive way, and after being criticized each time he started spinning a tale of 'Ghirlandophobia, anti-Ghirla crusades' and such. That said, I do recognize Ghirla has a point - i.e. I did critcize him on quite a few occasions - and on few of those, throughout our 2+ years of history, I unfortunatly lost my temper and wrote an incivil comment myself (like the one time I used the pejorative word 'Ruski'; is there any other comment that is offensive?); for that I apologize - I should have 'kept my cool'. Certainly it would be nice to meet halfway and work out some compromise. I have explained above what is it that I am looking for from Ghirla (don't insert unreferenced controversial info, don't remove referenced text, don't be offensive in edit summaries nor on talk). Which is why I am looking forward to Ghirla's reply to your questions - so far the only solution he came up with was desysoping me, which, as you yourself admit, is hardly an optimal solution to our problem (that said, I do remind all parties with a grievance that I, unlike about 95% of admins in this project, am open to recall. PS. I would like to direct your attention to this recent edit by Ghirla. I don't foresee us 'meeting halfway' if such behaviour continuies... (and thank you, Mikka, for moderating this).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on making these long winded speeches that say nothing? It's always back to the same accusations and a recapitulation of your grievances. Why are you waiting for Ghirlandajo's answer Which is why I am looking forward to Ghirla's reply to your questions-, instead of working on your own replies? You have proudly announced that you are an administrator open to recall more than several times already, when in fact all administrators are truly subject to "recall" if their behavior warrants it. You know, if an U.S. Administrator, called someone a nigger or a kike, they'd probably be history, faster than the many times you've used ruski. Pretty serious, I'd say. And the childish reference to a chandelier (your group's pet name for Ghirlandajo) is not the same as abbreviating Halibutt. Lastly you ask why your behavior of a year ago that has been questioned, shouldn't be forgotten by now. You make it seem like it was ancient history (a year ago, in two years of your editing, is hardly biblical antiquity). I'd say you should truly consider putting yourself up for this general scrutiny, and let the chips fall as they may. Dr. Dan 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, for the umpth time, I am not stopping you or anybody else from initating whatever procedures you deem appopriate; however as it appears to me that a vast majority of people who commented here don't seem to share your opinions, you'll excuse me if I will not do the job for you. As for 'these long winded speeches that say nothing', it appears that some users at least find them useful (per various comments above), I am sorry you are not one of them - I will nonetheless reserve the right to reply in as much detail as I think the matter deserves. As much as I appreciate that most of your recent contributions are related to this RfC, if it is so much trouble for you to read my posts, perhaps you should try something more pleasant; for example, consider editing mainspace articles - we have so few copyeditors with an excellent command of English like yourself... Finally, as I know your love for OT side-comments, let me give you a Polish proverb to consider regarding long posts and discussions: przyganiał kocioł garnkowi :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, calling somebody a derogatory name in a foreign language is not usually a career ending episode in US politics (see George Allen), so your comparison is not very convincing. Anyway, in Polish the word Piotrus used is only midly derogatory, so the comparison with "n" and "k" words you made is completely off base. I just thought I should make this clear to those not familiar with the Polish language. Balcer 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A good point--I don't know Polish very well at all but I know Russian, and the Russian word for Russian is русский, or "russki". I know Polish is very similar to Russian so I doubt Piotrus had much intent to be derogatory--a bit of lost-in-translation perhaps. Also, how is calling Ghirla "chandelier" anything besides just strange? K. Lástocska 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Piotrus, what the heck does that proverb mean....I tried Google but couldn't find a translation. :) K. Lástocska 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that that a close English translation would be 'A pot calling a kettle black'; but perhaps a better one exists.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I learned a new phrase today! :) K. Lástocska 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment in question was also made in Polish language, on a user talk page, as I replied without much thinking to a Polish-speaking editor which used it first. Btw, I admire the persistency of editors who analyzed my talk page comments and found it, though :) Good detective job :) It was never meant to be offensive, and as Balcer pointed out, as far as I know it, it is indeed not considered very offensive in Polish language (I'd say it's as offensive as using 'black' to describe African-American person in US); nonetheless I have apologized for it (as in the end, if somebody thinks he was offended, an apology - and an explanation - is due). Now, if you want to make a case that this incident merits my desyspoing... I am not stopping you, Dr. Dan.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On a new note, I am very disappointed with recent edits by Ghirla, particularly editing removing my warnings to other users fellow sysops (interfering with my normal editing and apparently ready for a revert war); his recent declaration also does not fill me with hope this conflict can be resolved by good will of both sides alone, nor are his comments at public forum (where nothing seems to stop him).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

These diffs might be useful for an arbitration case, but they do not help to resolve the dispute. (Neither do Ghirlandajo's recent additions on the main RfC page). If you think this dispute can't be solved by good will of both sides, any further comment is a waste of time and it would make more sense to build an arbitration case. If the dispute can be solved by good will, then all that is needed at this moment is showing good will. There is ample opportunity to show good will (instead of pointing at past good will, which may be good but can be dismissed as not really relevant just like past misdeeds can be dismissed) by answering Guy's questions without waiting for the other to answer first. Kusma (討論) 12:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly I was somewhat busy in RL and couldn't answer them immediatly, I hope a 12 hours delay is acceptable :) As for good will - it has to be shown by both sides. I am still waiting for a reasonable proposal from Ghirla; the abstention from editing Polish/Russian topics is both unreasonable (as I have proven I can peacefully work on such subject by helping to promote several articles about P-R history to FA status) and next to impossible to enforce, as there are too many articles that are related to both countries (Khotyn for example is just one of the lastest examples of aricles edited by both of us); in the end, history of Poland and history of Russia are simply to interconneted to make it a viable solution.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you for the proverb. I wanted to respond earlier but Balcer's response to my question to you, caused several edit conflicts as he wrote and rewrote his thoughts on the matter. Decided to finally go to sleep. Now others have broken the train of thought. But let me say this, ethnic slurs are unacceptable to most people, and in sofar as measuring the degree of a slur's hostility, it is better to assess the feelings of the recipient of the slur, rather than how it is perceived by the one making it. As a side note your pal Halibutt has used the archaic and somewhat laughable "Jerry" in his Wikipedian contributions. I can imagine the uproar, if someone used "Polak" in a derogatory fashion on these pages (most ironic since Polak is the Polish word for a Polish male). And Ms. L, "chandelier" is simply stupid and childish, rather than strange. You might not think it strange if detractors of yours called you lasso hoo, nor appreciate it. Dr. Dan 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Balcer, you usually know what you're talking about, but George Allen was voted out of office last month, and his insensitivity to ethnicity, and a perceived "racial" slur, are considered to be very contributory to that outcome. Dr. Dan 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He got very close to 50% of the vote, a very respectable total. The slur did not end his career, though it definitely did hurt him. Clear now?Balcer 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's clear, he lost, and it was quite a surprise. A very "respectable" loss maybe, and a poor example from you. Even clearer now? Dr. Dan 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, slurs are bad, and if you want to me to find an example where they did a US politician some good, that might be hard. Again, I did not say that the "macaca" statement was anything but bad for Allen. But he was not thrown out of the Republican Party for it or forced to drop out of the campaign, and in the end he lost by a tiny percentage of the vote, in a state which is widely cosidered to be becoming more blue with each passing year. Overall, his example shows neatly that using a foreign language slur is something entirely different in US politics than using the "n" or "k" word.Balcer 17:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, he also owned stock in Barr Labs, displayed the Confederate flag, and was portrayed in an unflattering light in his sister's memoir. Appleseed (Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Koledzy, he was a poor example to illustrate your point. Dr. Dan 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Ghirla, I am sorry to say that most of the above responses put me in mind of my kids' reaction when I ask them what they did to upset the other. Always it's "well he did this and then he did that and then..." Should I just give up? Neither of you seems to be making much of an effort to see it from the other's perspective. To say that the dispute will be resolved when the other party stops adding material you don't like is an absurdity; if one or other party considers that the material is problematic, the solution is to discuss the content on Talk and be absolutely rigorous about sticking to the content and its references, not straying onto personalities and past personal history between you. If we can handle Gdanzig then surely we can come to some kind of accommodation here? I'd be really grateful if the two of you could agree on an example of a disputed edit active right now, where each of you feels that the other is acting unreasonably. Perhaps if we focus on a specific dispute rather than the generic battle between you, we might make some progress. Right now I find the whole business a bit dispiriting, so please humour me here. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the bright things here is that we don't actually ineract that often. For example, right now we are not actively engaged in any edit conflict; although as I explained above Ghirla comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rus' Khaganate are pretty incivil (and were commented upon as such by other editors there), however other then that (and I do find such comments offensive and would like them to stop, mind you) there have been no conflict in the article itself. Again, setting aside various uncivil comments (from my perspective) that Ghirla posts on various discussion pages with regards to this RfC; there is no conflict ongoing right now. The last conflict which touched content was from about two weeks ago and concerns Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), where from my perspective Ghirla did all the four things I complained above - and surely from his perspective I engaged in 'anti-Ghirla crusade' or such. But to build on your comment - I perfectly agree content issues can be discussed on talk; as I shown above I do it often, and help raise many articles to FA in a friendly editing atmosphere. Just look at Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and decide for yourself who was trying to be civil and keep to content issues and who was turning the discussion into a series of incivil personal attacks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We could interact even more seldom, if you did not follow me over the previous days. I can't agree that your dismissal of edits by your opponent and fellow admin as "vandalism" was particularly civil. Neither do I think that your failure to use Talk:Khotyn and your preference for calls to arms on the talk pages of Romanian editors was constructive. Finally, your today's forum shopping on WP:ANI was not instrumental in defusing the situation at all. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • As anybody who checks Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming_of_citation_needed_template can see for himself who editors out there agree with and who they disagree with (on a sidenote, I consider edits like this very unproductive). As for Khotyn, I see no reason to discuss addition of 2 or 3 citation requests and dozens of interlinks on talk; I do agree that removal of those, as well as references, should be discussed. As for my 'call to arms to Romanian editors', talk page were invented for a purpose - I feel they are more knowledgable to assess the merit of your edit, which inserted such 'NPOV' words as 'brutal occupation' and such, as well as removal of some information which you deem 'legendary'. On a sidenote to other editors, as Khotyn was a site of important Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth battles, as well as a territory important to Russia, you can see that it's nearly impossible for us to stay completly 'off each other backs'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"call to arms on the talk pages of Romanian editors"? Ghirla, I'm Hungarian! :)

Incidentally, Ghirla, I do think you are too worried about talk page and noticeboard postings. All those postings do is notify people of a situation, it does not coerce them to act, to vote one way or the other, or even to click on the link in question. Last I checked, even Polish Wikipedians had free will. :) K. Lástocska 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, here - a recent example of what I mean by non-constructive comments on talk: Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka. FYI, I find insinuations that I (and others) try to 'polonize' Wikipedia or engage in 'delibarate provocations' offending.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First attempt at some coming together by Elaragirl

I find this entire RfC incredibly painful to read. While Ghirla is often a touch rough around the edges, I challenge anyone to look at his incredible contributions and tell me that he is one of Wikipedia's most important editors and contributors. Piotrus is also a voluble sort, and is quicker to anger or take offense, and has made prodigious contributions to Wikipedia as well.

I propose the following steps to try to form some sort of compromise position to exit this RfC before it gets to ArbCom. I would like to see an attempt at a resolution taken. I am not a mediator -- I'm just some newish user. I don't support either side because the only "side" I can see here is fratricide -- of our community, of two good men.

The problem

Ghirla takes everything personally. Piotrus dismisses almost everthing Ghirla says. Both are hot-tempered.

Specific Suggestions

Ghirla should refrain from editing Polish articles, especially Polish articles that touch on Russia. Looking through history, it's pretty hard to find anything that would require collaboration between Polish and Russian editors in most of the articles you edit. I didn't say meddling, I said EDITING. You should block yourself from even touching them. If you find something wrong, get another editor to fix it.

Piotrus should refrain from editing Russian articles, especially Russian articles that touch on Poland. He should also refrain from trying to fix articles that Ghirla works on.

Both people need to seriously ask themselves why they are fighting over this. You haven't made a single honest effort to really talk to each other. You're talking at each other. You're talking at issues and disagreements you have. Your nations aren't bickering like this, so why are you?

There shouldn't be any remarks and asides in foreign languages regarding the other editor. There shouldn't be nitpicking edits to slap in cite tags, or tensely terse exchanges of venom at each other. Ghirla has to admit that he often lets his temper get the best of him, and that he has gotten out of hand with civility (admittedly after provocation). Piotrus cannot simply dismiss Ghirla's statements, or assume that Ghirla must be wrong.

If you don't both stop funneling anger at each other, you know what will happen? You'll both do something stupid and get banned. Some stupid vandalizing idiot will ruin your articles, and the entire scope of Russian and Poland related articles will become a vandalized warzone between bickering camps. I beg you to give this stupid fight up before it really, really hurts our community. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. And neither should comment on the other, edit the other's Talk page, or interact with the other in any way except on the talk pages of articles they are both editing (and hopefully there will not be many of those). Both should choose an intermediary if they consider an edit to one of the types of articles you list above. I think we can safely say that neither party has the least intention of making any kind of concession here. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This solution would take two people who make great contributions to Wikipedia and attempt to solve the problem by ... restricting their ability to make those contributions. This does not make any sense to me. Besides, the histories of Poland and Russia are too closely intertwined to be separated. Poland was dominated by Russia in one way or another for 260 of the last 300 years. This solution would essentially ban Piotrus from writing about Polish history of the last 3 centuries, precisely the area where most of his high quality, FA level contributions have been. Balcer 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: edit conflict - Balcer said most of what I wanted, but here it goes. What to do with articles that are as 'Polish' as they are 'Russian'? Ex. Polish-Soviet War, or to take more recent examples, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) or Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars (which despite the name has quite a lot to do with Poland). Or Soviet partisans in Poland, to take an older example (I can provide scores of others). And what about articles that are more general but still important to the history of both nations (ex. Khotyn, or World War II)? As I wrote above, and as I believe Ghirla agrees, most of our edits have nothing to do with each other. But when we meet, it is rarely on a 'Polish-only' or 'Russian-only' article, but on such articles. I am sceptic about a solution which would forbid us from creating valuable articles - despite various conflicts, I have no problem with Ghirla writing an article like Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), and I believe there is nothing wrong with myself writing ones like the first four I mention in the first sentence of this post - in the end, please note that Wikipedia benefits from my contributions on this theme, and by and large community, including most Russian editors, have no problems with my contributions to this area.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

is anyone else as sick of this as I am?

We're just going around and around and around in pointless circles, like a malfunctioning satellite orbiting a dead planet. Piotrus, Ghirla, I BEG you, stop rehashing everything the other has said and done in the last year, stop taking everything personally, stop believing in cabals and conspiracies. Agree to forgive (if not forget) past transgressions, agree to assume good faith, agree to maintain a calm and civil working relationship. I don't expect that you will ever actually like each other, but I do expect that both of you are intelligent enough human beings and responsible enough Wikipedians to END this stupid war, here and now, once and for all. For your own sanity, for our sanity, for the good of the whole project, STOP! K. Lástocska 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When I have time, I will finally post my outside view to this order. --Irpen 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal to make: how about a Christmas truce? If Germany and France could do it, then surely Russia and Poland can too. Just stop until after the New Year, and then you can dig in your trenches if you want, continuing the war for another three years (that would be fun - a three-year RfC) or else turn the truce into a lasting peace. Anyway, I guarantee you most people will have better things to do in the coming days than watch this risible imbroglio. Biruitorul 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Myself included. I have no problem with a truce, as this entire mess is and was never started by me. Commenting on Ghirla's controversial edit is not my idea of a 'fun time' - believe me, I will be more than happy not to comment on his edits, if there is no need too...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As Cato said "if you cant stand the stench, get out of the vomitorium, Ralph" (okay, thats made-up but no less farcical than what this RfC has become). My solution is for PP to refrain from unblocking short-term blocks that other admins have placed. - all calls for "civility" and to refrain from adding "controversial" or "unsourced" material will, in this context, inevitably become the basis for a new vendetta RfC. Secondlz, both should avoid posting anywhere the other has posted for at least 3 days. This avoids gagging contribution but diffuses hot disputes and is completely verifiable. And I would oppose any impromptu "election" as this would be an example of altering normal political outcome simply via levying accusations (just think, one could eventually remove any admin just bz pestering them past their breaking point) Although I believe that Piotrs actions are quite similar to those of other admins (i.e. not perfect, but reasonable) when Ghirla is nowhere involved, PP must stick to a higher standard given his office and it is incumbent upon him to make the first move. And I agree 100 percent that we are beyond yet another summary from either side of the others transgressions against God and wikipedia - else its pass the bucket, Cato. István 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

for PP to refrain from unblocking short-term blocks that other admins have placed - I have managed not to do it for about a year - I think I can manage one more :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

István, your bogus Cato quote cracked me up! :) Biruitorul, I came up with a similar idea recently (in the aftermath of a dumb Hungarian-Slovak squabble), since this time of year seems a good one for peace treaties and general goodwill. :) In my imagination it was called the Christmas Day Accords, and it was essentially a general treaty intended for all warring factions on Wikipedia: Piotr and Ghirla, the Hungarians and the Slovaks, Labour and the Tories, pro-Bush and anti-Bush, etc. In essence it would say simply: we agree to put past conflicts behind us, we agree to always assume good faith, we agree to work productively and civilly with people whom we do not agree with as well as with our allies, we agree to maintain a high standard of professionalism, maturity and respect....etc. Of course the treaty would be ratified on Christmas Day--who knows, maybe they'd make a movie about us someday... :) K. Lástocska 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative solutions

I do agree with Balcer and Piotrus comments on Elaragirl proposition. Separation is not well defined since there are no Polish or Russian articles. Moreover, the idea of wikipedia strongly discourages such separations - we are supposed to colaborate and we have some polices for this. At the very best, separation could be just temporary to chill out the atmosphere. And this does not solve the problem. There is a strong call to end this, not a good idea how a state of peace could be achieved.

Now, let us consider more closely question no 3 (Under what circumstances would you consider this dispute resolved?). There are some constructive claims.

• [Ghirla stops] inserting unreferenced controversial statements into articles - WP:VER, WP:OR
• [Ghirla stops] removing referenced text - clearly this is resonably covered by WP:VER
• [Ghirla stops] using offensive edit summaries and stop being offensive at talk - after all WP:CIV is a policy!
• [Piotr stops] calling me "chandelier" - easy to do and desirable
  • Done. It's not like I have done it more than a few times anyway, and I don't even recall when was the last time... in addition, I promise not to come out with any other nicknames for Ghirla.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• [Piotr stops] discussing my actions in Polish language - easy to do and desirable
  • Done.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• [Piotr stops] referencing my spurious block log - feasible
  • Done, unless we are in another DR procedure where it can be a useful evidence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• [Piotr stops] accusing me of vandalism - formally, avoiding the v-word is not too difficult; Piotrus could think three times before he uses it in Ghirla-related affairs, as he declared he is ready to do. Ghirla should realize, however, that his actions are not unquestionable.
  • Done. Again, I believe I have not done this very often - only in cases where Ghirla removed referenced information; I consider such deletions vandalism; but per WP:V I will try to assume more good faith in the future (which is not that easy when a revert war develops with one party removing referenced info and not using talk...but I'll try to be extra careful with words).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit more problematic requests

• [Piotr stops] starting threads on my edits on public notice-boards - implies unacceptable "diplomatic immunity" and carte blanche to do anything you want. Try to find a more specyfic formulation based on policies.
• [Piotr stops] spamming user talk pages with anti-Ghirlandajo insinuations - on wiki one can not stop other communicate, whatever the matter is. There is however WP:SPAM if Ghirla wants to request anything with this regard and, again, Piotrus could think three times whether a particular issue is worth posting.

Briefly, Piotrus' solution is let's stick more closely to the policies. Ghirla proposes not to disturb him in his scope. While the former is absolutely necessary, the latter implies untouchable position of Ghirla in Russia-related articles. As this is something strange to wikiepdia, it should be reworked somehow to be acceptable.

Remember, there are no neutral people and the NPOV policy does not assume this! The wikipedia assumes, however, that people who have different POVs and work together are able to discuss the matter in a civil manner. Civil manner, this should be the priority in the conflicts. Do both sides agree? Could the above points be a stub for a peace treaty?--Beaumont (@) 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Addition of uncited text is generally but not always bad, I have no fundamental problem with requiring Ghirla to stop doing this but in my view the word controversial is important; if Ghirla adds uncited text and it's accepted as uncontroversial, there is no pressing problem. Removing cited text can, however, be perfectly valid per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I think we need to consider that. We also need to consider if these are the kinds of remedies which should be the business of ArbCom, which would make them enforceable. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that in the end in every single case Ghirla was removing referenced info, the community (i.e. majority of editors editing those pages) were able to work out acceptable solution which kept the information (sometimes expanded or NPOVed). Example of deletion of ref text which most certainly does not fall under NPOV:UW: (deletion with edit summary of 'reverting deletions - sic!) - this is what I'd like not to see (and thus comment upon on talk pages, and start 'anti-Ghirla' crusades with enquiries if such edits are acceptable...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, I agree with Guy. This is how the system works. If a fact is not controversial and commonly accepted, then it requires no references. If a fact is questioned, however, WP:VER states clearly who is to give o "proof" for inserted text. But are there undue weights or other possible problems, it should be discussed in talk pages. Again, in the discussion it should be sources that are used as arguments. Calling for comments of other editors, univolved so far, is quite a civil way too. Being rude in the talk is not and never helps. This is why I insisted so much on WP:CIV. And why I do not see both sides "equivalent" here. BTW, Piotrus declared that he is ready to fulfill some requirements outlined above. Does Ghirla want to stick to related ones too (basicly, the policies)? --Beaumont (@) 08:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation - if something is to be "enforceable" it must first be "definable", i.e. in an operative sense. Take "controversial" for instance - does anyone think that the two, in the future, would apply the same definition/standard to each others edits as to those of other editors? They are already very thin-skinned with each other, and this will not go away overnight. Ditto "civil", "neutral", or any other adjective requiring value judgement in context. I cant imagine either of them not testing each others nerves, same as before, and I would bet alleged (and disputed!) breach of such agreement would soon become basis for yet another RfC or such. A definable and verifiable measure would be to disallow edits to any page the other had edited for a period of 3 days, plus PP should not reverse short-term blocks made by other admins for a set period of time (say 1 or 2 months). Whatever it winds up being, its time to talk about solutions now and drop the repackaged allegations. (BTW is "chandelier" really perjorative in Poland?) István 13:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think 3 days might be slightly long--1 or 2 days might suffice. If the problem continued it could be extended to 3 days. I agree with your observations though--it's like that big, weird debate a few weeks ago about the date of Hungary's independence--no one bothered to define which version of Hungary, independence when, political, constitutional or geographical, etc etc etc. (and as far as I know, "chandelier" isn't perjorative, it's just a weird pun on his name that Ghirla finds annoying.) But there's another perfect example of things being undefined: Piotrus clearly thought it was just a silly joke, Ghirla considered it a condescending, patronizing dismissal. Everyone agrees that we should all be civil, but can we all agree on what "civil" means exactly? K. Lástocska 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a cartoon once in Lester Pearson's biography. It showed what was happening in the world in 1964 - the US was escalating in Vietnam, while de Gaulle, Khrushchev, Mao, etc. were up to very serious business indeed. Meanwhile, Canada was having the Great Flag Debate, and the cartoonist drew Pearson, John Diefenbaker and Tommy Douglas as three little babies on a beach, each waving their own flag and playing with their sand castles and beach toys. I'm reminded of that now. The rest of Wikipedia is engaged in serious work, while people here are crying, like in a kindergarten play area, "he called me a chandelier!" Sheesh. Biruitorul 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure gloss over it, he called me a chandelier, he also used ethnic slurs, and has been accused of abusing his adminsitrative powers, and of an intense bias. Oh, but he has apologized, or better still this behavior was "from long ago" ( a year ago, in two years of editing). So sweep it under the carpet! Sheesh, back. p.s. Regarding the Lester Pearson analogy, I liked it and think it's good. But the little "club" doesn't like anecdotes and "stories" of that nature and have often brought their POV regarding that, to my attention. Thought I'd warn you ahead of time. Dr. Dan 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also like Biruitorul's analogy and think it is very apt. And one year is a whole era on the Internet. Balcer 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Biru's analogy is perfect, IMHO. Dan, what ethnic slurs did he use? He has already explained that when he said "Ruski", he was using the Polish word for "Russian", while writing someone a personal message in Polish on their personal talk page. Once. Another thing, being accused of abusing admin powers and of having an "intense bias" does not mean the accused is guilty of those things...or are we back in Guantanamo? K. Lástocska 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear any confusion, the proper Polish word for a Russian is Rosjanin, whereas the other word is somewhat "slangy" and slightly derogatory, though definitely nothing close to the career ending "n" and "k" words in English. Balcer 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While "Ruski" is not formal, it's certainly not an ethnic slur in Polish, well maybe it was once, like WW2 but not any more. "Rosjanin" on the other hand is very formal and not used in normal parlance other than official talk. Calling someone "You Ruski!" in Polish is not offensive. Similarly, calling someone a chandelier is not offensive. You're just being over-sensitive here. --Lysy^talk 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be in Guantanamo to insult a Pole by calling him a "Polak" (which unlike Ruski, is the the Polish word for a Polish male), unless you are in Poland (ironic, isn't it?). Once again, this "milder" ethnic slur, "Ruski" which is only slightly derogatory in Polish, might be viewed differently by a Russian. So I assume, Balcer, if instead the "n" and "k" words, one uses "jigaboo" or "yid" (less derogatory), it's O.K.? Just what are you trying to tell us with this "explanation? Dr. Dan 18:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not slightly derogatory, it's just slang. Please stop beating this dead horse. You have the wrong horse. Appleseed (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, how can you assume that I support the use of ethnic slurs like those ugly words you listed? I am deeply offended by your insinuation. Anyway, I have not lived in Poland for decades now, and I am sure others have a better understanding of the nuances of Polish, so it's best their opinion is followed on this and not mine. Balcer 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, let's have ago at the above mish-mash of big-time "bull". Apleseed, most ethnic slurs are slang, so your point is not well taken and is meaningless. If the the "horse" had truly died , we wouldn't still be talking about it. Nor am I "beating" it. Balcer, I never said you supported ethnic slurs. The ugly words that I used illustrated the issue, not how I feel about them. As for your hurt "indignation", and being offended by a non-existent insuation, do you think you are talking to a child? Talk about strawman arguments. It's a pity that your self-righteous dismay over ethnic slurs weren't directed to the perpetrators of the ones in question. Were you sleeping? Dr. Dan 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't religiously invigilate every single utterance Piotrus makes on other users' talk pages, so accusing me of not reacting is ridiculous. Anyway, as this discussion has shown, there was no serious slur uttered here, despite your best attempts to insinuate otherwise. This is the end of this discussion for me, especially since you have now stooped to the argument that its very existance proves your point. Well, in that case I am not going to make this argument for you. Horse, rest in peace. Balcer 02:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most ethnic slurs are slang, but not all slang is an ethnic slur, this one included. And yes, the horse has died. We are not talking about this issue. Only you are. Appleseed (Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to disturb the poor horse's grave, I must clarify something. Just as "Polak" is the Polish word for a Polish male, so is Русский, or "Russki", the Russian word for a Russian male. So Dan's suggestion that the word "Ruski" might be viewed as more derogatory by a Russian is slightly illogical.K. Lástocska 02:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The horse is alive and kicking, so don't worry about disturbing it. Why are you "clarifying" an error again? Ruski is not the Polish word for Russian. If you carefully read the above exchange, you will see that "that" has been explained to all who read English. And as I also mentioned above that the term Polak, while it's the Polish term for Polish male, it is highly offensive when used as an ethnic slur in English. Is it clearer now? Dr. Dan 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, horse....read MY comment, where did I say that "Ruski" is a POLISH word? As for what they mean in English, you must remember that not everyone here speaks English as a first language, so the immediate connotations that words like Polak and Ruski might bring to mind for many here are probably different from their exact English meanings. K. Lástocska 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a horse, dear. Whether you speak English as a first language or not, is not my problem. You are on English Wikipedia. And Polack, is an ethnic slur. And P.P.'s use of Ruski was not an endearment. Dr. Dan 03:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't calling you a horse, I was apologizing to the hypothetical horse whose peace we had disturbed. As for the language issue, I'm well aware what language is used here. And I speak it well. What I was trying to say is, words borrowed from other languages can be confusing. For example, if all of a sudden "Magyar" somehow became an ethnic slur in English, and someone got mad at me and yelled "you Magyar!" I likely wouldn't exactly be offended, because to me "magyar" just means "Hungarian", plain and simple. I know what you're talking about is the other way around, but it's the only analogy I could think of right now. :) K. Lástocska 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my crudity (I've been called "Crude" Dr. Dan, and worse by Clubmembers and their Sockpuppets) , but your analogy (Magyar) is piss-poor!. Goodnight, btw, just love Budapest. Dr. Dan 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good night, Dr. Rude. I love Budapest too. :) K. Lástocska 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. However, I am comforted by its gradual, elegant accumulation of colons. And something deep inside tells me that Dr. Dan is too. Appleseed (Talk) 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

well, it's not really going nowhere...as you just pointed out, it seems to be inexorably headed...

over here. ;) K. Lástocska 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont, while we are wating for Ghirla to reply to your well meant proposal, I'd like to add one more request which considering most recent events needs to be addressed as well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• [Ghirla stops] carrying out controversial moves - WP:RM

One more, although it may be covered by other issues we discussed, sparked by this comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• [Ghirla stops] issuing threats

While I am on the roll...after this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• [Ghirla stops] behaviour which falls under WP:STALK

Wow. That's impressive. A policy violated with almost every new post...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• [Ghirla acknowledges] that no editor or group of editors owns any article and everybody has the right to edit them - WP:OWN

WP:LAME edit war on a user page, of course with false accusations of policy violations: [12], [13]...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe improper use of messageboards was mentioned. It is interesting to see how Ghirla removes some notes he doesn't like while adding others (Polish editors do bad things again...). I think this violates quite a few policies, but honestly, I am gettig tired of showing only 'one day in the average life of dealing with Ghirla'. Help! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew from commenting on this page as soon as you turned it into your personal blog. Don't expect me to respond to offensive "proposals" advanced by a couple of minions you recruited on the Poland-related noticeboard. I find it prudent to speak only with those editors I consider neutral and not involved with either side. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for showing us your willingness to cooperate. You refuse to speak to the 'other side' (per above), but you also refuse to speak to neutral mediators... It's somewhat amusing to see you start this RfC, and then withdrew from it when you find not everyone agrees with you. No matter, a solution can be found one way or another. As for turning this into personal blog - it's really funny coming from a person who has just posted a third 'addendum' on the main RfC page. PS. Thanks for calling the other editors involved in this RfC 'my minons', I feel really honored to have one think all those editors would be in my cabal :) PS2. Yes, R.D.H., I will try to find that badge for you, with a 'official Piotrus minion ribbon'. If anybody else wants one, I can make some copies, perhaps a WP:PUA :D -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd like one. Can I get it in time for Christmas? And please remember there is no "Cabal", and you are not its self-appointed "leader" either. Please stop referring to it. Dr. Dan 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your continued refusal to read what others wrote - like the mediation statement is noted. Anything else?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, has the design for the "minion ribbon" been finalized, and am I going to get one? Dr. Dan 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to Ghirlandajo

As there might not be enough space for this on the main RFC page in the section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus#Outside view by Raul654, and since clearly Ghirlandajo is not entirely happy with the opinions expressed there (as evidenced by his unsigned edit of a comment by Piotrus that I reverted), I would like to offer him an opportunity to explain himself here. Now I myself believe things are clear: Ghirlandajo accusations of harassment have been completely debunked, and now an apology from Ghirlandajo is in order. Such an apology would go a long way towards restoring some decency to this RFC process. So far Piotrus has apologized extensively for his minor misdoings, but we have not yet heard a single acknowledgement of any wrongdoing whatsoever from Ghirlandajo. However, it is possble that I am missing something in this whole picture. I look forward to Ghirlandajo's explanation.Balcer 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'd also like to see him reply to Beaumont suggestions in the #Alternative solutions. I have agreed to the proposed solution there... but we need 'two to tango'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway we could get Ms. Lástocska to exlain what you mean by tango? Can Mieczyslaw Fogg's rendition of "Ostatnia Niedziela" be the song used, if you agree to tango? It has both Polish and Russian renditions. Dr. Dan 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. If you insist...the expression "it takes two to tango" is a very common one in English language, although perhaps slightly archaic by now. In this context it means that Piotrus cannot resolve this dispute on his own, Ghirla must also contribute to the peacemaking and diplomatic process. Perhaps in this case it takes two to mazurka, or trepak if you wish. Myself, I would prefer a csárdás, but I don't suppose anyone cares. K. Lástocska 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, back. I know what "it takes two to tango" means in the English language. I wanted you to interpret what P.P. meant by it (as you were courteous enough to do when he made his ethnic slur against Ghirlandajo). You just may have to do some more interpreting for us. Dr. Dan 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sarcastic comments get sarcastic retorts, deal with it. K. Lástocska 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, ditto. Dr. Dan 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional request from myself: I'd like Ghirla to follow Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable, paricularly Don't edit others' comments; i.e. please stop removing my comments, changing their headings or content, and replacing them with misleading summaries? I am afraid that such actions are not helping to resolve the conflict.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right

This is going round in circles. Elaragirl's comments above are right on the money, and both warring parties have chosen to ignore them. So, do we take this to ArbCom or what? Or are Ghirla and Piotrus eventually going to accept that they are both here for the same thing and learn to get along? Because I really don't see much evidence of that at this point, we've had long enough for some evidence of willingness to compromise to come up, and it hasn't as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, JzG. I have replied to Elagirl's comment. I have replied to yours, to Beaumont and to comments by others who want to reach a solution. I have offered to work with community to rech a solution and replied to every question and proposal above (and below). We have however questions outstanding for Ghirla in the section just above this, and in quite a few others, including in some comments and outside views in the RfC. It is not my fault that Ghirla fails to reply and - so please don't say that 'both parties hav chosen to ignore' something or refused to show 'evidence of willingess to compromise'. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was getting frustrated reading the Talk and missed the progress on the main page. If both you and Ghirla will endorse RDH's proposal on the main page, and a small cabal of admins (self included) will volunteer to act as moderators to whom violations can be reported, I'd say we can look at finally putting this behind us. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Outside View and Proposal by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Note: see also clarification of some terms at User_talk:Piotrus#Proposed Injunction.

I, Piotrus, tentativly support this proposal (especially the enforcement part), but it needs to be hashed out - and preferably combined with #Alternative solution solutions proposed above. Issues that need to be addressed:

1. The two parties shall agree to refrain from editwarring with one another for at least two months. Since we are not admins, WP:WW is not applicable. Of course we want something before the existing WP:3RR, so let's define what. Can one of us revert anotheer once? Twice? Or not at all? Will revert after a day count? A week? Can we notify others that we think an article needs attention and a possible revert?
2. During this period, both parties shall also refrain from making any unsolicited edits to their talkpages or other userspace.. Works for me, I have seen just about enough of that.
3. Both parties shall refrain from any behavior which may be regarded as stalking or harassment of the other, in any space.. While this would I assume cover this, that or that, how do you define stalking or harassment on article's talk and edit summaries. Let's take the most recent examples: Talk:Treaty_of_Polyanovka#Canvassing_by_Ghirlandajo: Balcer and Appleseed felt Ghirlandajo has acted in an incivil way in approaching this manner. I agreed. Ghirla's only reply was to remove my comment with an offensive edit summary. I'd like to see a solution that would not only address such removal and edit summary offences, but would prevent him from being offensive at talk in the first place (i.e. please note this reffers not only to 'Ghirla shall not offend Piotrus' but 'Ghirla shall not offend anybody'). In other words, I'd like to see WP:CIV very strictly enforced - if one of us offends another user, please seriously deal with that. If not, the situation will go on (Ghirla being uncivl, editors complaing Ghirla is incivil, Ghirla complaining editors complain, RfC somewhere along the way...)
4. Implementation would need to specify where can we report perceived breaches.
5. Once again, I'd like to merge this with solutions proposed by Beaumont, which should also be enforced.

All right, I believe we are getting somewhere with those proposals...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the 'other side' continues to refuse to participate, I think we should consider looking at this ArbCom case. I think a similar solution can be applicable here, and as a sign of goodwill and compromising gesture on my part, I repeat I am willing to get binded by the same restrictions as Ghirla (i.e. civility parole), if a community thinks we this is would be appopriate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification suggestions:

Edit warring

G and P should let at least 24 hours pass before reverting an edit the other has made. That is, not just "don't revert each other more than once in 24 hours", but "let the other's edits stand for 24 hours before reverting".

Commenting at noticeboards

You should not comment on each other's actions at all. If the other's actions are bad, other editors will notice in time. The Wiki will heal itself.

Implementation

You agree on a cabal of admins that you trust to be neutral in this matter.

Leave it simple with no possibility for wikilawyering. Kusma (討論) 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Kusma's clarifications. On implementation I was also going to suggest one or more admins whom both parties trust. And I like the idea of a 24 hour RR, much better than mine for edit warring. no comments on noticeboards at all, may be a bit too restrictive for our two outspoken gents, but it more than makes up for it by being simple.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but if you take You should not comment on each other's actions at all. If the other's actions are bad, other editors will notice in time. The Wiki will heal itself. literally, how are we supposed to report each other if they made the 'forbidden edit'? There should be a place we can ask the 'neutral admins' to review edits we find disruptive, otherwise nothing will change - we will both go on complaining about each other, annoying ourselves and others...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This could be dealt with as a matter of implementation as well. If either of you feel the other has done something which violates the injunction (including 'forbidden edits'), then bring it to the neutral admin(s) attention. If they cannot decide, they would at least be able to summon "fresh eyeballs" to look in on it. The wiki should then heal itself, once it knows where the booboo is located:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no rush. If some backwater article happens to say that all Russians/Poles are EVIL SPAWNS OF SATAN for 24 hours, perhaps it's because no one is actually reading the article over that 24 hour period? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter how backwater the article, an error should be corrected ASAP.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to stop

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, on the basis of this thread on WP:PAIN: [14]. More of the same, in other words, and no sign of it ending. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, why the hell did you have to go do that?! Especially since we are so close to finding a resolution here. Thanks for the WP:SNOWballs :(--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with JzG here. After Ghirla's withdrew from the discussion here, no matter how good a solution we could have designed here, it would need ArbCom enforcement anyway. I think we can still draft a proposed civility parole and other suggestions for the RfArb here, so all is well, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I trust you and Ghirla to keep to any agreement made here, much more than I do the sitting ArbCom not to render a decision which would only make things worse.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was a rushy decision. But I hope it will work. Per R.D.H.: I hope ArbCom will not make things worse.--Yannismarou 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Ghirla can hardly be expect to keep a decision we make without him here - and I don't see him contributing to our discussions here (not suprising, considering his withdrawal notice above). Only ArbCom can force people to accept decisions; in the end, RfCs are nothing but large mediations - and mediations will not work with only one party talking.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul, Ghirla has endorsed the proposed injuncrtion after clarification by Kusma and I. So no further discussion with him here is needed...the RfAR even less so.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we indeed seem to be making good progress lately, particulary at User talk:Durova/Mediation where Ghirla wrote: I don't object to a civility parole which is the essence of my request. With this behind us, I guess the main problem is the devil in the details - however I hope this can be worked out in the next few days, and indeed, the need for ArbCom seems to have diminished.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Outside View and Proposal by István

Thank you, István, for this suggestion. As much as I appreciate your effort, I am afraid it is too limited in scope and too impractical (in letter, not spirit) to solve this issue (no offence). Too limited, because it does not address the biggest issue (from my prespective, of course): incivility by Ghirla directed not only towards me but also towards many other editors. From the discussed solution, only full civility parole seems to address this sufficeintly. Impractical, because this would require both of us to check if the page we are editing has been edited by the other one in the last 24h. First, I believe 99% of the pages we edit have not been edited by the other one recently, thus we would be forced to do a lot of unnecessary checking. Second, because often we interact peacefully - making changes, but not actually warring each another (adding ilinks, expanding, etc.). Thus this would discourage both of us from making varuous useful non-conflictng edits. I believe that your idea has been much better expressed by the above proposals which suggest a ban on reverts of other's edits - those are the root of the content issue, and much easier to prevent (to prevent reverting one another one has to simply not revert :). In either case, let me stress that it is the civility, not content issues, that are the main root of the problem - but again, thank you for your suggestions! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe a 2RR over a 24 hour period. would be more workable for you both? Wikipedia is a HUGE place, afterall, surely the two of you can arrange it to avoid one another 90+% of the time:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And why not? The purpose of the post is to set some perspective and scope around the issue, and insist that whatever sanction/injunction resulting should fit within these. Granted, the whole discussion is read very differently by you and Gh than as by others. I, as a neutral observer, observe a lack of perspective and needless straying beyond the scope of PP-Gh interaction, sometimes even down the blind alley of enforcing adherence to poorly defined terms which will lead right back to this point yet again in 6 months. The sanction itself is a variable, if you dont like it, use RDH´s or another one. (perhaps I should have been clearer in the original post) But if Sanction=x, then x does not apply outside PP-Gh interaction (hence withdrawal of my own Schnappsidee of disallowing unblocks, and other such nonsense) and should not, in magnitude, overshadow or discourage active involvement by either editor, who, aside from the current spat, are helping to build wikipedia. But x can be anything definable, within that scope.

There are those, self included, who really care enough about this project and open-source in general to step in (on vacation) and try to help iron out this wrinkle, to seek an outcome that leaves the Wiki project in as good a shape as possible. Open source is still an infant, and we are setting precedent; it may not seem important, but this exercise will shade others´ opinions and behaviour in the future. István 09:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

One note: please check RfArch (for example) to see that the problem (incivility) is not limited to P-Ghr interactions only. Thus a solution that would address the entire problem is much more useful for everyone then a solution that would address incivility directed at me only (I can live with it; there are editors who left this project because they couldn't).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, your wish to see every one of Ghirla`s transgressions redressed, maybe even exercise his right to vanish, but I do not. I would not argue with you that he hasnt barked at others all too often, but 1. you and he are the subject of this RfC, and 2. Nobody here (who has accomplished anything) is completely innocent of stepping on toes, or having them stepped upon and the majority of Gh`s crankiness seems to me mostly garden-variety, and, also IMHO someone who is a star producer should be afforded an extra bit of leeway. What you read as "spirit" in the original post is not just empty rhetoric but a concrete proposal to limit the scope (on this we may respectfully disagree) of sanction and to explicitly keep the whole affair in perspective - it has also galled me (a little bit) to see discussion descend (at times) into snippy gossip by those who have accomplished much less than the objects of their gleefully feigned outrage ("I am shocked, shocked to see incivility on the wikipedia, you cad..."). It also reminds me that perhaps those in the English speaking world may have a different threshhold of "incivility"... lucky you (pl.). István 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to write a lengthy response to Istvan's proposal, but it seems Piotrus has already underlined the basic problem with it. If we adopted that solution, Ghirlandajo would still be able to offend me, slander me, blackmail me, and use all his usual tricks on me, just like he's been doing for the last one or two years. So far nobody was able to stop him from that and I believe it's high time we found some solution. Adopting Istvan's proposal would surely limit Ghirla's assaults on Piotrus, but he's by far not the only person targeted. //Halibutt 23:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing comments

by Piotrus

I usually find RfC a waste of time, as they don't solve anything (there is nobody who has the power to issue binding decision of even summarize). I am positivly suprised that this RfC has acutally led to some constructive comments and solutions; however it still lacks a summary. This is an attempt by me (a biased party, of course), to provide one.

I have compiled some numbers at User:Piotrus/Sandbox/RfC numbers. In summary, 40 inviduals took part in those discussions. 8 (15%) supported Ghirla; 20 (38%) supported Piotrus, 24 (47%) were mostly neutral.

Desysping myself has been raised by several users, but was rejected by majority. Not a single user has taken any formal action to recall me that I am aware of. Most of the solutions discussed and supported by the majority were centered around a civility parole and our purposeful avoidance of editing the same articles and particulary reverting each other.

The issues discussed here have led to two new WP:DR procedures:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla (currently on hold as priority has been given to
• User:Durova/Mediation where we seem to be making progress (we reached an agreement about 1RR on articles we edit, Ghirla seems to have withdrawn part of his accusations including request to desysop me and has agreed to civility parole). As currently Ghirla is taking a wikibreak the mediation is also on hold.

Finally, I would like to thank all who took (considerable, I'd think) amount of time to read through various comments and evidence, and offer their thoughts as well as help mediate and suggest how we can solve this problem. I feel that your input and support has been crucial in convincing Ghirla to voluntarily accept civility parole in mediation.

This RfC has been archived on 22 January. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This RfC has been archived again on 15 February (no activity occured other than discussion below).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By Irpen

There is no such thing as an official closing of RfC's but if there was one, I would have placed this closing on hold pending the outcome of Piotrus/Ghirla case. Also, if Piotr's endless attempts to seek blocks of his opponents by various ways not end, I will add a new entry to this RfC. --Irpen 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When RfCs are archived (like this one was), they are considered closed. See also note at the top of this old RfC I am sure you are familiar with. Please don't edit this RfC main page, but you are welcome to start another one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I unarchived it. The issues are not closed in any way. --Irpen 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I rearchive it. There has been no discussion nor comments for close to a month, Ghirla who filled the RfC has agreed to solve the issues in mediation and/or ArbCom. Please don't disrupt this page but if you think there are unresolved issues, do feel free to start a new RfC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This RfC has many important issue that I will refer to in my outside opinion. Please do not try to sweep it under the rug. --Irpen 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have been here to raise those issues a month ago. The Ghirla-related RfC has ended. You can start an Irpen-related one, but don't disrupt this one. Your revert warring on that page is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving: 1) 'If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.' - no comments for almost a months, no Piotrus-Ghirla related incidents for that period as well 3) 'The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.' - both mediation and ArbCom have superceeded this RfC. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My own RfC was up listed for 6 months. That's "extended" enough. It did not bother me. What are you afraid of? --Irpen 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That you will attempt to hijack the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute into something completly unrelated, just as you tried to turn Piotrus-Dr. Dan dispute on RFI into 'Piotrus is evil and tries to block all his opponents'. Please start a new RfC if you want to discuss other issues, this is not 'pernement page to file complains and grievances against Piotrus'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, what are you afraid of? --Irpen 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)