User:Dr. Dan/RFI

Initial case by user:Piotrus

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section. 

After months of interaction with this user, I am afraid I have lost hope that he can contribute positivly to our project. While he occasionaly does useful copyediting, a very significant portion of that user's edits (see statistics appendix below) seem to unconstructive remarks on various talk pages. Of course a fondness of discussions is nothing serious (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but we have more important things to deal with) - however his remarks are almost always off topic to the issue discussed and are further highly sarcastic, usually ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks and way too often leading to flaming, wasting times of other editors and stressing them out. The user has been warned to change his attitude many times - examples from his talk page: 29 January 2006, 26 June 2006, 29 June 2006, 4 July 2006, and particulary see 30 July 2006, 11 December 2006, 12 December 2006 and 12 January 2007. Unfortunatly I see no change in his behaviour - other then he is getting increasingly bold with hostile, provocative comments (this is the newest one which prompted me to file this report). Recently some editors have tried to contain the flame wars that habitually edit after his remarks by removing or achiving his posts before they get too many replies (once, twice, thrice, not that it seems to have any effect on him. His constant snipping remarks contributed, among other things, to months long withdrawal from our project of one of the most active contributors - User:Halibutt, the the 168 most active editor (see also his accusation of that user being 'a very warped, and lying propagandist at his absolute worst'). As obviously warnings are ineffective, I'd like to ask the community to consider other actions before this user manages to offend and chase of other editors from our project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Before user:Piotrus move


After months of interaction with this user, I am afraid I have lost hope that he can contribute positivly to our project. While he occasionaly does useful copyediting, a very significant portion of that user's edits (see statistics appendix below) seem to unconstructive remarks on various talk pages. Of course a fondness of discussions is nothing serious (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but we have more important things to deal with) - however his remarks are almost always off topic to the issue discussed and are further highly sarcastic, usually ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks and way too often leading to flaming, wasting times of other editors and stressing them out. The user has been warned to change his attitude many times - examples from his talk page: 29 January 2006, 26 June 2006, 29 June 2006, 4 July 2006, and particulary see 30 July 2006, 11 December 2006, 12 December 2006 and 12 January 2007. Unfortunatly I see no change in his behaviour - other then he is getting increasingly bold with hostile, provocative comments (this is the newest one which prompted me to file this report). Recently some editors have tried to contain the flame wars that habitually erupt after his remarks by removing or achiving his posts before they get too many replies (once, twice, thrice, not that it seems to have any effect on him. His constant snipping remarks contributed, among other things, to months long withdrawal from our project of one of the most active contributors - User:Halibutt, the the 168 most active editor (see also his accusation of that user being 'a very warped, and lying propagandist at his absolute worst'). Or just see this gem, where he reffers to Halibutt's contributions as 'flaming and anti-Lithuanian propaganda' and 'a weird, hateful history of editing'. As obviously warnings are ineffective, I'd like to ask the community to consider other actions before this user manages to offend and chase of other editors from our project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) PS. In a recent post, Dr. Dan calls me a 'self proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland on English Wikipedia'. Here he accusses me of 'falsehood'...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish to begin my belated response by giving you all my overview of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I believe it is a superb venue to acquire and exchange information. I am proud to be a member of the project. P.P.'s "Statistics Appendix Box", is interesting in itself because it truly does not reflect my participation in WP. 90% of my involvement in Wikipedia is reading it, and getting knowledge from it, about the many, many subjects that I have never had any familiarity with like the fig wasp, Bohuslav Martinů, or Indian Standard Time, and believe me, I play a mean game of Jeopardy!. You see, P.P., how a person contributes to Wikipedia is their business. It can be copyediting or going to the discussion pages and correcting or questioning or shaping an article. It takes quite a big ego to think, Hrmph!, I created articles like Żydokomuna, while Dr. Dan merely goes to its talk page and has the temerity to question it and give me a hard time over it. This argument of yours is truly a strawman argument because you had the same problems you are complaining about me with user:Ghirlandajo, one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Allow me to digress and say, Ghirla, if you are listening, please come back. I salute you, and the great Russian people, and the many fine contributions to Wikipedia that have come out of there.
 * I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who took the time to support me and question the validity of this investigation and my block. I was also surprised by the many E-mails of support that I received from contributors who preferred to "remain off the record". It was comforting. I am especially grateful for the input of user:Musical Linguist, as I consider her to be not only extremely fair-minded and an impartial editor, but one who was not even remotely involved with the "personalities" of this issue. Durova, I must respectfully say that I am dissapointed that in your rush to judgement, I was not able to make my points of defense before the block occured. It had a quality of censorship that does not concur with your professed hesitancy to not shoot first and ask questions later. I should hope that in the future if the concept of the RFI should be successful "one should not be sentenced before the trial", hanged before (actually during) Eid ul-Adha, or before all the evidence and testimony are fully presented. I hope I can get a chuckle out of you, or at least a smile when I tell you IMHO, that this particular charge of yours was more of a Lord Cardigan, rather than a Nadezhda Durova. As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did, but if you, Durova, do not see the other side's equal guilt, maybe you should at least consider some of the protests to your decision and what motivated them. As a small example, I ask Durova to read Talk:Laurynas Gucevicius (archive 3) to get a small sense of what I mean. Rather than being uncivil, I'm probably more guilty of being sarcastic or what you have referred to as "sniping" or P.P. has referred to as "snipping". Would you agree, Durova, that a good example of this type of sarcasm would be, "You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours...Due to you busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Wikipedia." Actually this statement caused me to smile and actually laugh a little. You know kind of like touché. In any case, it wouldn't cause me to tear open my żupan or my caftan. Sorry.
 * Now to the heart of the matter. These remarks are for everyone's benefit especially fair-minded and objective people. Like most of you, until now I was unfamiliar with the organization, Vilnija. On January 13, 2007, the participarts of Wikipedia were treated to a new article by the esoteric entity that P.P. called We, I suppose this We (I asked him and he never did say what he meant) meaning he and his friends. It's title Vilnija. It has since been toned down quite a bit since then, but it began with a rather unusually hostile opening statement containing no less that seven (yes, seven) citations, followed by lots of other goodies, and ending with an edit summary, "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one." (sic) The following six entries were made by P.P., Halibutt, and Lysy (three of the most vociferous non-Lithuanian contributors to Lithuanian subjects), who seem to be having a hard time understanding why their input is challenged. I don't think it's unfair to say that the Vilnija article is a pretty good example of what starts the "ball rolling" in these frequent disputes. So much for attaining the elusive "modus vivendi" that P.P. has frequently asked for. And I've said over and over we all have to walk the walk, not just talk, the talk. Then the "article" moved to the discussion pages where a particularly onerous accusation was made against me by P.P. that "I was a supporter" of this organization. Or was it someone else? Falsehood #1. As I tried to get more information about this "extremist" organization, I ran across an edit entered in Wikipedia on November 8, 2005, in the "oeuvre" that the prokonsul created, Żydokomuna, in which P.P. stated that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona were extremist and anti-Semitic. This declarative statement he made seems to the best of my investigating to be untrue. Falsehood #2. Evidently P.P. did not remember his edit, because he demanded to know the basis of my claim. In fact, I believe more than anything this so angered him (the straw that broke the camel's back), that this was the true reason he instigated this investigation. Yet he made the declarative statement about these organizations, without explanation, sources, or citations. Upon being shown where he made the statement, his explanation was that he "translated" the statement from Polish Wikipedia. He was further angered by the fact that after I read the Polish text, I informed him that his statement was not a translation, but at best an extrapolation from an unreferenced source. He denied that and continued to claim his sentence was a translation. Falsehood #3. Btw, I can imagine the outcry from the "club," if I had authored this article.
 * In this RFI, P.P., shows us that I have been warned to change my attitude many times, and gives us 8 examples from my talk starting January 29, 2006, ending January 12, 2007. Let me go to two of them (the first and the last) to save time. In the first example, he invokes the user:Molobo, a role model of civil and constructive contributions. An editor with quite a interesting history of editing to say the least. But one who P.P., never blocked (but unblocked numerous times), never even chided, and of course did not bring about an RFI or an analysis of his contributions to anyone's attention. In the second example, as things began to "heat up" a little lately, P.P. made a Request to me on my talk page (01.12.07). It seemed sincere and I told him that in essence I agreed. Peace at last? A roadmap for some type of consensus? One day later we get the Vilnija article (with "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one"). In this RFI, P.P. states that certain editors remarks caused Halibutt to withdraw from Wikipedia for Months Long Withdrwal (sic) Falsehood #4 (more like a couple of days). In fact I myself did withdraw from the project for a month last November, because I found the escalation of bad will very tedious. I also suggested at the time to mutually lay off "controversial" topics for a while. Regarding Halibutt's months long withdrwal, it's announcement is there for all to read in user:Halibutt/News (you have to go to the history)on December 23, 2006. In a very bizarre edit Halibutt tells us he is being blackmailed. By whom? Falsehood #1, That Ghirlandajo made death threats against him. Falsehood #2, That administrator Renata and her Lithuanian pals made anti-Semitic comments toward him. Falsehood #3, and that Dr. Dan offended his parents (never did) Falsehood #4.
 * There may have been a time when all of these type of "contributions" went unchallenged. Slowly this began to change as more and more people began to question the fairness and veracity of some of the information that we were reading. A particularly thorny issue was the use of sources out of Communist Poland that were often a magazine or newspaper article. And please understand me on this point, I wouldn't claim that one should use Der Sturmer as a reference either. Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil. As for civility, and the lack of it, I still contend there is plenty of blame to share by all of the participants in this matter. It would be a good idea for each and everyone to keep this in mind. With that, I wish all Happy Editing! Dr. Dan 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it helps at all i highly support investigative actions.-- Hrödberäht 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to address these remarks and ask for 48 hours or less, to do so. As a very active member of various organizations opposing the Iraq War, and recent attempts to escalate it, I am unable to give these serious, but untrue, characterizations the time needed to address them appropriately. I'm also on call this weekend, and as a physician, I take that very seriously. So between work and my contributions of time to the anti-War effort, I need a little time to respond to these remarks before any decisions are taken. Thanks Dr. Dan 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So granted: 24 hour block. Your analysis appears to be topical and substantive, but the persistent sniping violates WP:CIVIL.  When the block expires please continue the content discussions without personalizing the disputes.  Respectfully,  Durova Charge! 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised by this move. Particular contributor Dr. Dan directly asked for time to respond to this matter, the time was not given. There is WP:AGF? Dr. Dan is the best copy editor and he deserved the right to present his view and point the problems. Also does the policy which states: Please remember that reporters may not be entirely ‘innocent’ themselves, so be sure to check their edits and treat all sides fairly. Also was carried out? Because looking in presented “evidence” contributor Piotrus did not mentioned some issues which should be mentioned in this case. Also does this case should not be placed in under investigation case? So I convinced that the ban should revoke and let contributors present their cases without any rush. M.K. 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also very surprised. First of all, although I don't know Dr. Dan well, I have come across him on pages where he was arguing with a friend of mine, and found that his behaviour with people on a different side was fine. I've looked at these "offences", and they don't seem to have anything like the level of disruption to justify a block. Remember, blocks are not meant to be punitive. From experience, I think that if this had been taken to WP:ANI, people would have been told to get a thicker skin or to have a nice cup of tea. Finally, Dr. Dan specifically asked for time to respond to the matter. I think it's precisely because of concerns about it turning into a forum for "Please, teacher. Johnny said something naughty" that WP:PAIN was recently abolished. This block should be undone. Musical Linguist 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Dr. Dan has time to post several personal attacks and flame other contributors on various talk pages a day, but no time to do a minor copyedit more often then once a week or so, perhaps this will give him something to think about and reevaluate his priorities. He has been warned enough on his talk page, and he had ample time (months) to respond to those warnings and adjust his behaviour. And, Musical, there is a level where 'Johny being noughty' is too much for our community to take, and when Johnny suceeeds in getting one of our most active users to go on months-long wikiholiday with his personal attacks, it's a proof enough that growing thick skin is not enough in this case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all your "evidence" should be placed under full investigation. For instance in this case, this "personal attack" was under big suspicion among editors . And let remind you that person have quite a problem in his real life, and he did not hide just noted about timing. And if you hold such attitude which you presented, I am regret, but I am not regret Dan, but you instead.  M.K. 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite confident that experienced RFI editors like Durova know when they've investigated enough. For instance in the discussion you brought up most editors criticized Dr. Dan for it, and the defence 'grow thick skin' as I explained above is not the one I recognize. I don't see why I should learn to take such abuse - per WP:CIV and our policies, it is the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially then admin making such statements as this . BTW, what do you calling   among other things, to months long withdrawal I understand that you historically related with user:Halibutt, looking his contributions from 06.12.23  I cant see any so called "months long withdrawal". And another note do you intent to prosecute and all Lithuanian community, because Halibutt unambiguous made clear (bold some points to better see):
 * "Unfortunately, an ongoing campaign of slander and blackmail against me has forced me to abandon wikipedia for some time. Death threats from Ghirlandajo, anti-semitic comments from Renata and her Lithuanian pals, offending my parents by Dr.Dan, offending my nationality and culture by the nationalist Lithuanian community here - all these were a step too far. Perhaps I'll come back when they change their ways - or wiki finally starts to defend serious editors against trolls and ultra-nationalists. Regards, //Halibutt" "Interesting" statment deserves reaction, you say WP:CIV? BTW, did you mentioned here (for the background) that your friend, as you call it he 168 most active editor, Halibutt recently already started to mocking particular nations language, as well as living persons etc. ? M.K. 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody who want's to verify how Dr. Dan (and M.K's) campaign effects Halibutt, you are welcome to check stats here (comapre pre-September to post-September). If you'd like us to investigate Halibutt's offences, or those of any other editor, you are free to post here with diffs or start a WP:DR procedure; otherwise, please stop your campaign against Halibutt (and if I can understand your post correctly, myself).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, Dan's outrageous suggestion that my parents were members of the commie party, while funny in itself, was meant to discredit my views. This is not the way to go.
 * Secondly, I was indeed on wikivacations. Recently I thought that it could be nice to come back, but apparently it was not. Sorry for that, M.K., next time I'll think twice before posting anything on wikipedia.  // Halibutt 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take this with a huge grain of salt
I would like to warn anyone who was lucky enough to not have had any disputes with user:Piotrus, and therefore having not been a victim of his intimidation, to take his complaints with a huge grain of salt.

The essence of all these conflicts is never civility but the long-lasting content disagreements over many articles tendentiously edited by Piotrus to suite his Poland-centered world-view (I would have gone one step further and called this even Polish nationalist world view but Piotrus' nationalism is admittedly, less extreme than that of some others). Piotrus' persisting with pushing the Polish nationalist POV into various articles brought about conflicts with valuable editors from all countries that happen to be the neighbors of Poland and have lots of shared history, primarily Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. This by itself would not have been abnormal if not Piotrus' reprehensible tactics he is persistently using by trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks or forcing them quit. In the past he used false 3RR reports, cherry-picking of admins to bring his complaints to, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Most recently he used several times the WP:PAIN which is now thankfully shut-down specifically because of the Piotrus'-like abuse of it. Now he found a new venue to push for expulsion of his opponents, this board.

He has succeeded in achieving one of his goals already. User:Ghirlandajo, the jewel contributor, left the Wikipedia and does not seem returning. Now it is Dr. Dan's turn. Who will be next I wonder?

To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk, RfC's, etc. Attempts to present this as civility issues or policy violations are misleading and aimed at achieving another content "victory" by expuslsion of another opponent. When such tricks were tried against Piotrus' friend Halibutt, I was equally critical then.

Anyway, I've seen enough to initiate the administrative recall of Piotrus for the unethical behavior unbecoming for an admin. I refused to do that earlier despite many calls I received in private from the Russian, Lithuanian and German editors in the past year. I was mistaken then and it's time to correct this now. --Irpen 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I never expected you, Irpen, to scoop so low and to present so many misinterpretations (to say the least). I have just four comments. 1) No diffs in the above post should give everyone a pause. Fiction, of course, is hard to back up with diffs. 2). Similar accusations were raised by Ghirla and M.K at Requests for comment/Piotrus. M.K's rant was not supported by anyone except Dr. Dan (suprise...), and Ghirla ended up in ArbCom and Mediation, where he agreed to put himself under a civility parole (requested for, among other things, to stop a flow of similar unfounded accusations). I'd thus advice, Irpen, that you don't repeat his mistakes. 3) In any case, according to the message at User:Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with his wikibreak (and Irpen tryong to insinuate anything else is just another example of fallacies of his arguments). That said, you are free to try DR or initiate my voluntary recall, the last attempt to do so proved quite fruitfull, I think. 4) As for my 'persistent pushing of Polish nationalist POV' - I invite anybody to read comments by our Featured Articles Director on my RfC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) PS. Important note: To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk is completly untrue, as I have no problems with Dr. Dan content editing (occasional copyediting). It's his flaming on talk which is usually off-topic to article's in question I have the problem with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, you won't impress or scare me by showing what happened to your other opponents. So, please no "advises not to repeat" stuff. As for diffs, I could dig them if memories fail you somehow. I thought you remember you false 3RR report against Ghirla, that was dismissed false. Also, you may recall your inciting Elonka to post a complaint on him to WP:ANI. You may also recall your inciting someone who I never met to submit a report on myself during our dispute over Taras Fedorovych. You may also recall your asking William M. Connolley‎ to block Fisenko over a content dispute he had with you. Should I dig the diffs or you remember those cases? --Irpen 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you are trying to catch up with the party you missed - i.e. Requests for comment/Piotrus, where those issues were brought up and dismissed. I am sorry to disappoint you, but WP:RFI report against another user is not a good place to try to start Requests for comment/Piotrus 2, and if you think you can try to turn this from discussing Dr. Dan to discussing Piotrus, I am afraid you'll not succeed. Per my last post, I am waiting for an apology for claims dismissed by my RfC as well as other accusations ('persistent nationalist POV pushing' and similar).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence to back up such a claim of POV pushing, I would be very interested in seeing it. Can you please provide diffs?  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WD, you have not been around where everyone who edited with Piotrus have been lately. At the same time you just love to get involved in all sorts of personal conflicts with your uninformed opinions. I suggest simply that you study every matter before opining. The disputes here are deep. They run for years and your last attempt to get involved was extremely unhelpful. I would rather prefer that this is dealt by Durova or anyone else more or less familiar with the context, if you would please allow this. --Irpen 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova is actively working in a mediation which involves Piotrus, so I do not think she would be the best person to look into the matter. I can myself, or another user may, but in either event you should provide diffs to support your claim.  If you can indeed support such a claim I would support a recal of Piotrus, but if you cannot I would ask you to withdraw this damaging accusation.  I realise my efforts earlier with Ghirla did not go as well as could have been hoped, and I have taken that as a learning experience.  In my defense a series of other users that seemed to have some agenda "supported" me, and in the end were altogether unhelpful in the matter.  I can of course leave the issue be if you so wish, however, as I said, you should prove this claim or withdraw it, as it's a fairly damaging thing to accuse someone of.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WD, I just want to say I have always appreciated yours (and Durova) attempts to uphold WP:CIV and other policies here. I think that your actions have always upheld high standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, WD, I would prefer that you leave the issue alone. I consider you by your attitude unfit to get involved in interpersonal conflict resolution and this was best demonstrated at PAIN. That said, I can't prevent you from further involvement into such issues as this is what seems you want to do. But since you asked me about this particular issue, then yes. Please stay out of it if you can. --Irpen 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One mistake is hardly something to hold a grudge on someone for, nor does it ever speak fully for one person's abilities or attitudes. In any event, I would appreciate diffs (or other evidence of that nature)  or a retraction of your comment, please.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. So there was a mistake, huh? And was there an apology? Anyway, was your offer to leave the dispute if I request so meaningful, or you intend to persist with your involvement despite I gave a clear answer to your offer? --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And WD, please consider my request to stay in; I always found your comments helfpul and well-meaning. PS. I second WD request for a diffs (proving that point) or an apology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any attempt at a sort of mediation or informal dispute resolution only works if all parties to it agree to the matter, and Irpen clearly does not, so I will not further investigate or look into the matter, though I reserve the right to get involved at a later time should I feel compelled to do so. I will however, clarify a few things.  First of all, Irpen - I left Ghirla a large apology on his talk page.  He is an extremely valued contributor, and someone I regard with a tremendous deal of respect.  I never intended to slight him in any way.  Secondly, I stand by my request for Irpen to provide diffs, or at least give some reassurances that he is having this looked at by a third party.  I don't feel comfortable leaving an issue with what, if unproven and unbacked, amounts to a personal attack unresolved.  So, Irpen, I beseech you, please provide some diffs, or some evidence this matter is being looked into.  All I ask if I am to be uninvolved is to have assurance that someone is looking into it.  ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus and Durova would know exactly what I mean and I gave above some hints to refresh Piotrus' memories. Now, you can rest assured that Durova is a very thorough person and she will get to the bottom of this if she chooses to stay in. I trust her judgment a lot. Thank you. --Irpen 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WD, to fill you in - those issues where discussed in December at Requests for comment/Piotrus filled against me by Ghirla. As his accusations were supported by 5 out of 40+ people who commented there, and criticized by many more, the case ended up at ArbCom and User:Durova/Mediation, where Ghirla withdrew most of them, apologized and agreed to be put under civility parole, I really wonder what's Irpen's angle here with trying to revive this - but as I said above WP:RFI is not WP:RFC and this entire section is only distracting us from discussing Dr. Dan abuses.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider me recused from this investigation. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There were raised questions about pushing POV, interesting example, and I am sure if not intervention form the side particular article would mislead till now. Interesting stance Piotrus demonstrated then one contributor started to mocking one nations language again contributors made clear about such behavior , but Piotrus "explanations"  were no good, especially then some time ago same situation arise and was noted that there was no "mistakes" in such case . Does explanations needed for   accusations of various organizations, which Dr. Dan presented? M.K. 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User contributions analysis
Of last 500 edits (that's since mid-September'06) using these scripts:
 * article space: 37%; Wikipedia space: 3%
 * Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.6% (13)
 * talk (article, user, etc.) space: 60%

Is trolling prohibited?
Since this is not a Request For Comments call, I'll refrain from posting a longer comment on Dr. Dan's behaviour or Irpen's absurd accusations above. I'm however concerned about the grounds for this RFI in the first place. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits trolling. Is the fact that an editor is being counter-productive enough to call for admin actions against him ? --Lysytalk 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lysy, thank you for what appears to be your support concerning this investigation (I mean its grounds, etc.) Fortunately there is not a wikipedia policy explicitly prohibiting trolling. In that case, I wouldn't be able to thank you. Dr. Dan 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lysy, that you don't like something does not make it absurd. That Piotrus' in the past many times played various tricks to achieve the blocks of his content opponents is a fact.
 * His false report against Ghirla to 3RR board is a fact.
 * His provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla is a fact.
 * His contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding his conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable is a fact.
 * His advising someone to submit a 3RR report on myself over Piotrus' dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych is a fact.
 * His report to PAIN on Ghirla that was promptly removed by JzG as trolling is also a fact.
 * Now that the PAIN is deleted because it was most often frivolously used as Request to block my opponent board, the new venue for this activity has been found, this board.


 * Piotrus should just cease attempting to eject his opponents from Wikipedia through blocks. This report is just another take on it. I say, this board should likely follow PAIN into the wastebasket because complaints are always brought out of context and investigating them in full requires an incredible patience of the investigator to reveal the full scale of events. --Irpen 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is a fact is your bad faith interpretation of the events, Irpen. I ask you once again to stop repeating claims already discredited in my RfC and either blank them or apologize.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need diffs, Piotrus? I am sure you remember now each and every instance I brought up above. I can back them up with diffs and you know that. I hope Durova will finally figure this all out once she is back. Once this "investigation" is over, I will submit this board for deletion to follow WP:PAIN. There is a normal DR course and there are also attempts to circumvent it using various pages as a substitute for the Request to block my opponent board. --Irpen 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several users asked you for diffs. But you know what - we are just joking, we don't really want them... Sigh. I hope Durova or some other admin will look at your posts and take appopriate actions. And it was actions of people like you who try to gain immunity from wiki policies like WP:CIV that doomed PAIN, not actions of those like me or WD who try to deal with such abuses.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus, since your memories seem to be failing you, here are the diffs that show your pattern to use various sneaky tricks to achieve the blocks of your content opponents:


 * False report against Ghirla to 3RR board.
 * Provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla.
 * Contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding your conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable.
 * Advising someone how to submit a 3RR report on myself over your dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych.
 * Your PAIN report on Ghirla that was removed by JzG as trolling is unavailable because PAIN's history is deleted. But here is the disscusion.

This attempt to block Dr. Dan fits nicely into the same pattern. You forced me to spend time to dig those out as if you forgot but they are all here now for review. --Irpen 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break
And as I mentioned several times they are also discussed at my RfC in the aftermath which Ghirla got a civility parole. I will not deny I have a habit of trying to curb violations of our policies, from WP:CIV to WP:VAND. That, Irpen, is what any sensible user does. In any case, the Ghirla case was difficult as we dealt with a user who while often violating WP:CIV was also an immense content creator. This case is not the case, as Dr. Dan content creation is rather close to non-existent (per stat's discussed above and below). I am still awaiting your apology for your statements above (that I was acting in bad faith and try to promote some 'nationalist Polish POV-pushing agenda').--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla is not on civility parole, that's for one. Secondly, I am glad that now you stopped demanding proofs that seeking blocks of your content opponents is your tactic as these were exposed. Good.

Now, I know that you just love to demand diffs pretty aware that they exist just in order to waste your opponents' time. This had happened before as well. Proofs of your polonocentric POV-pushing into articles are even more abundant and I can supply plenty of diffs as well. I just don't want to waste time on something that seems to me too obvious. If Durova is unfamiliar with your editing habits, which I doubt, and requests me to provide her with some material, I will set aside some time to build an equally convincing set of diffs. --Irpen 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla has agreed to a civility parole on mediation page, Irpen. I see no point in repeating myself over and over again; I can agree with you on one: I hope Durova will comment here and curbs your pointless and offending accusations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the beginning of my comment, this is not an RFC, and certainly not Ghirla/Piotrus RFC. Sorry guys, but this is also not a proper place to discuss your past animosities. --Lysytalk 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. This is disruptive. With this in mind, may I ask you a few questions? Is trolling prohibited?... (rhetoric question). More seriously, are we supposed to be overindulgent to counter-productive disputes? Shall we (even implicitely) encourage trolish-like behavior? Would it build a nice and user-friendly working environment? Further, the problem is not that there are content disputes (they always will be there) - but the way we handle them. I'm afraid Dr. Dan follows one of the worst patterns - consequently and for a long time. Personally, I think some kind of talking he enjoys does not belong to wikipedia talk pages. See our discussion on Talk:Jan Dzierzon, where he deliberately led an OT "pissing match" (his own term ; he did also a good work to discuorage me ). I have some more  interesting examples, if you wish, including one where he attacked your Polish-Lithuanian cooperation proposition(about 4 months old diffs at request), and another one, where some recent direct pro-Lithuanian comments by Piotrus were nitpicked. One gets impression that he is really interested in maintaining some conflicts, in which he willingly participates. And, finally, your own words to him: "your recent attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality in a number of talk pages can be harmful". Are you still concerned about the grounds for this RFI? Best, --Beaumont  (@)  14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Beaumont, nice of you to participate. Regarding your link, nitpicked, my contributions there are something that I felt were very relevant to the discussion, and I'm pleased with them. Do you see them violating any civility? Do you think perhaps a greater degree of censorship prohibiting people from expressing their opinions would be more to your liking? Regarding Lysy, I go back along way with him, and we were having a frivolous "pissing match" regarding a fictitious WP entry Henryk Batuta, sorry it, and my choice of words concerning it, offended you. Since Lysy didn't seem offended (and I doubt that he was), maybe you should get over it. If Lysy was offended, my apologies to him too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read my text. Concerning nitpicked comment and the other co-operation proposition by Lysy I do not mean incivility, I mean conflict-aimed useless remarks. A phenomenon observed yet elsewhere by Lysy some time ago... --Beaumont  (@)  17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, Dan's remark might have contributed to conflicts but I doubt that was his intention. People often feel angry when they write to Wikipedia talk pages. I have been called all sorts of names by Piotrus and his friends. Piotrus called me a Polonophobe, Lysy called me "affected by Soviet education" and made highly offensive remarks about my ethnicity, Halibutt called me all sorts of things and I am not even mentioning Molobo and other less respectable editors here. Still, I did not rush to various boards to seek any of them blocked. Some things we say may provoke conflicts. I say, grow a thicker skin and concern yourself with content creation not the POV pushing and expulsion of opponents. What is utterly reprehensible is to play dirty running from board to board agitating for blocks of those who oppose your POV. Piotrus has been doing it for a while. Time to stop it, dismiss this frivolous "request for investigation" and send this trollboard to the oblivion to follow the WP:PAIN's path. --Irpen 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I call you a 'Polonophobe'? Please support your accusations with diffs. Unlike you, who accuses others (above on this page) of 'spreading nationalist POV', I don't have the habit of making such remarks about others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you did call me a polonophobe. And there is an edit of yours somewhere out there. You did it just once, perhaps you were agitated, and I did not run with that to various admins screaming "block him". Nor did I save it to hit you with it later. I am not to go dig through dozens of thousands of your edits to find it. I mean, if this was an ArbCom and the whole case would be hinged on that, I would have put aside half-a-day and found that diff but for now I won't. I do remember it clearly though and suffice that I provided diffs to every of your previous challenges on this board.


 * Don't worry too much. "Polonophobe" is not the worse offense I was called here and, anyway, I did not make a big deal out of that and I still don't. Besides, your friend Lysy called me worse and Hali used quite an offensive language as well. The only time I complained about civility is when one fellow called me a "purulent faggot from the hooker's town" and even then, only because he did not contribute a single content line and was just revert warring and spreading hatred. I hope this here was the last time you sought for the opponent's block. This "investigation" will go bust anyway and please do not produce any more of this. Just accept that some articles may end up differently from your POV as other editors can also have an opinion on them and can contribute accordingly. If you dislike that, use talk pages and not admin boards. --Irpen 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may be so bold as to interject with a comment, and commenting only in general and not on this case in particular, I don't think it's the venues of these discussions that's leading to these disagreements, it's the people. If a court has a mistrial or a bad descision that is overturned, it's not the courthouse that's to blame, it's the people in the courthouse.  Likewise for these boards.    PAIN was fine, and it should be noted that Durova was a regular there for a while, until certain people turned it into the civility police.  I hope that these people do not turn this board into such a thing, as this board has a useful purpose.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some judicial systems are better and produce less mistrials than the others. Boards that attract sorts of editors eager to provide their opinions on interpersonal conflicts inflaming matters are likely to produce wrong outcomes. Boards presided by the members of the community entrusted by this very community (elected arbcom members) produce by far less questionable verdicts.

If you have an opponent in the content dispute, deal with the person you have, not the one you would like to have. If your opponent is an obvious troll, go to WP:ANI. If the case is complex, you tried everything and failed, go to RfArb not to the kangaroo court where random people occasionally step in to be a judge and jury on the whim. ANI is attended by enough editors to make whimsical verdicts less likely. Here we may get lucky and get Durova put aside a day of her life, dig this all out and see that the report is a bad faith one. Or we can get quick uninformed opinions provided in haste, warning templates stamped left and right to "gauge the reaction" and other similarly productive actions. This board is exactly the forum that guarantees frequent errors and hurt feelings. PAIN is gone, thanks god. Time for this one to follow. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, Peter, should I ask you to warn Piotrus to not call me a Polonophobe (as he did), Lysy to not make ridiculing remarks about my ethnicity and Halibutt not to call me a lier. I can spend another 1/2 hour to provide you with diffs but better yet, I advise you to help me bring this trollmagnet board to a closure. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, which is it you want? Warnings or noninvolvement?  They are kind of mutually exclusive, you know.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. --Irpen 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dodge, I do not know you, and probably you do not know much about me (other than this investigation). But obviously you did not recuse yourself from this matter afterall, at least not totally. Personally, I thought Irpen's last remarks were quite "on the mark" and worthy of consideration. Forgive my being "dense" but I understood him asking you to give warning, but where did you, er, see him wanting non-involvement? Best Dr. Dan 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, I did ask for Peter's non-involvement further above for the reasons irrelevant to this matter. --Irpen 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Irpen, I think you meant that you wanted his further involvement rather than non-involvement. My remarks were not meant to dissuade him from participation, I just thought he "recused" himself earlier. I am against censorship. Period! He's more than welcome to participate here. The more the merrier. Just the same, I don't see where you were asking for non-involvement. If I'm mistaken, then as they say in certain sections of New York, fugheddaboudit. Dr. Dan 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no position on this RFI, Piotr, or Irpen. I was merely making an interjection about how the editors are responsible for their behaviour whatever venue they are in on Wikipedia, and that they cannot blame bad behaviour on a certain board or area's "climate".  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) And yes, I'm going now.  Really, really.  Just wanted to clear that up.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After user:Piotrus move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section. 

After months of interaction with this user, I am afraid I have lost hope that he can contribute positivly to our project. While he occasionaly does useful copyediting, a very significant portion of that user's edits (see statistics appendix below) seem to unconstructive remarks on various talk pages. Of course a fondness of discussions is nothing serious (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but we have more important things to deal with) - however his remarks are almost always off topic to the issue discussed and are further highly sarcastic, usually ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks and way too often leading to flaming, wasting times of other editors and stressing them out. The user has been warned to change his attitude many times - examples from his talk page: 29 January 2006, 26 June 2006, 29 June 2006, 4 July 2006, and particulary see 30 July 2006, 11 December 2006, 12 December 2006 and 12 January 2007. Unfortunatly I see no change in his behaviour - other then he is getting increasingly bold with hostile, provocative comments (this is the newest one which prompted me to file this report). Recently some editors have tried to contain the flame wars that habitually erupt after his remarks by removing or achiving his posts before they get too many replies (once, twice, thrice, not that it seems to have any effect on him. His constant snipping remarks contributed, among other things, to months long withdrawal from our project of one of the most active contributors - User:Halibutt, the the 168 most active editor (see also his accusation of that user being 'a very warped, and lying propagandist at his absolute worst'). Or just see this gem, where he reffers to Halibutt's contributions as 'flaming and anti-Lithuanian propaganda' and 'a weird, hateful history of editing'. As obviously warnings are ineffective, I'd like to ask the community to consider other actions before this user manages to offend and chase of other editors from our project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) PS. In a recent post, Dr. Dan calls me a 'self proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland on English Wikipedia'. Here he accusses me of 'falsehood'...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it helps at all i highly support investigative actions.-- Hrödberäht 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For Dr. Dan's reply, see below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to address these remarks and ask for 48 hours or less, to do so. As a very active member of various organizations opposing the Iraq War, and recent attempts to escalate it, I am unable to give these serious, but untrue, characterizations the time needed to address them appropriately. I'm also on call this weekend, and as a physician, I take that very seriously. So between work and my contributions of time to the anti-War effort, I need a little time to respond to these remarks before any decisions are taken. Thanks Dr. Dan 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So granted: 24 hour block. Your analysis appears to be topical and substantive, but the persistent sniping violates WP:CIVIL.  When the block expires please continue the content discussions without personalizing the disputes.  Respectfully,  Durova Charge! 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised by this move. Particular contributor Dr. Dan directly asked for time to respond to this matter, the time was not given. There is WP:AGF? Dr. Dan is the best copy editor and he deserved the right to present his view and point the problems. Also does the policy which states: Please remember that reporters may not be entirely ‘innocent’ themselves, so be sure to check their edits and treat all sides fairly. Also was carried out? Because looking in presented “evidence” contributor Piotrus did not mentioned some issues which should be mentioned in this case. Also does this case should not be placed in under investigation case? So I convinced that the ban should revoke and let contributors present their cases without any rush. M.K. 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also very surprised. First of all, although I don't know Dr. Dan well, I have come across him on pages where he was arguing with a friend of mine, and found that his behaviour with people on a different side was fine. I've looked at these "offences", and they don't seem to have anything like the level of disruption to justify a block. Remember, blocks are not meant to be punitive. From experience, I think that if this had been taken to WP:ANI, people would have been told to get a thicker skin or to have a nice cup of tea. Finally, Dr. Dan specifically asked for time to respond to the matter. I think it's precisely because of concerns about it turning into a forum for "Please, teacher. Johnny said something naughty" that WP:PAIN was recently abolished. This block should be undone. Musical Linguist 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Dr. Dan has time to post several personal attacks and flame other contributors on various talk pages a day, but no time to do a minor copyedit more often then once a week or so, perhaps this will give him something to think about and reevaluate his priorities. He has been warned enough on his talk page, and he had ample time (months) to respond to those warnings and adjust his behaviour. And, Musical, there is a level where 'Johny being noughty' is too much for our community to take, and when Johnny suceeeds in getting one of our most active users to go on months-long wikiholiday with his personal attacks, it's a proof enough that growing thick skin is not enough in this case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all your "evidence" should be placed under full investigation. For instance in this case, this "personal attack" was under big suspicion among editors . And let remind you that person have quite a problem in his real life, and he did not hide just noted about timing. And if you hold such attitude which you presented, I am regret, but I am not regret Dan, but you instead.  M.K. 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite confident that experienced RFI editors like Durova know when they've investigated enough. For instance in the discussion you brought up most editors criticized Dr. Dan for it, and the defence 'grow thick skin' as I explained above is not the one I recognize. I don't see why I should learn to take such abuse - per WP:CIV and our policies, it is the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially then admin making such statements as this . BTW, what do you calling   among other things, to months long withdrawal I understand that you historically related with user:Halibutt, looking his contributions from 06.12.23  I cant see any so called "months long withdrawal". And another note do you intent to prosecute and all Lithuanian community, because Halibutt unambiguous made clear (bold some points to better see):
 * "Unfortunately, an ongoing campaign of slander and blackmail against me has forced me to abandon wikipedia for some time. Death threats from Ghirlandajo, anti-semitic comments from Renata and her Lithuanian pals, offending my parents by Dr.Dan, offending my nationality and culture by the nationalist Lithuanian community here - all these were a step too far. Perhaps I'll come back when they change their ways - or wiki finally starts to defend serious editors against trolls and ultra-nationalists. Regards, //Halibutt" "Interesting" statment deserves reaction, you say WP:CIV? BTW, did you mentioned here (for the background) that your friend, as you call it he 168 most active editor, Halibutt recently already started to mocking particular nations language, as well as living persons etc. ? M.K. 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody who want's to verify how Dr. Dan (and M.K's) campaign effects Halibutt, you are welcome to check stats here (comapre pre-September to post-September). If you'd like us to investigate Halibutt's offences, or those of any other editor, you are free to post here with diffs or start a WP:DR procedure; otherwise, please stop your campaign against Halibutt (and if I can understand your post correctly, myself).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, Dan's outrageous suggestion that my parents were members of the commie party, while funny in itself, was meant to discredit my views. This is not the way to go.
 * Secondly, I was indeed on wikivacations. Recently I thought that it could be nice to come back, but apparently it was not. Sorry for that, M.K., next time I'll think twice before posting anything on wikipedia.  // Halibutt 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take this with a huge grain of salt
I would like to warn anyone who was lucky enough to not have had any disputes with user:Piotrus, and therefore having not been a victim of his intimidation, to take his complaints with a huge grain of salt.

The essence of all these conflicts is never civility but the long-lasting content disagreements over many articles tendentiously edited by Piotrus to suite his Poland-centered world-view (I would have gone one step further and called this even Polish nationalist world view but Piotrus' nationalism is admittedly, less extreme than that of some others). Piotrus' persisting with pushing the Polish nationalist POV into various articles brought about conflicts with valuable editors from all countries that happen to be the neighbors of Poland and have lots of shared history, primarily Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. This by itself would not have been abnormal if not Piotrus' reprehensible tactics he is persistently using by trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks or forcing them quit. In the past he used false 3RR reports, cherry-picking of admins to bring his complaints to, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Most recently he used several times the WP:PAIN which is now thankfully shut-down specifically because of the Piotrus'-like abuse of it. Now he found a new venue to push for expulsion of his opponents, this board.

He has succeeded in achieving one of his goals already. User:Ghirlandajo, the jewel contributor, left the Wikipedia and does not seem returning. Now it is Dr. Dan's turn. Who will be next I wonder?

To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk, RfC's, etc. Attempts to present this as civility issues or policy violations are misleading and aimed at achieving another content "victory" by expuslsion of another opponent. When such tricks were tried against Piotrus' friend Halibutt, I was equally critical then.

Anyway, I've seen enough to initiate the administrative recall of Piotrus for the unethical behavior unbecoming for an admin. I refused to do that earlier despite many calls I received in private from the Russian, Lithuanian and German editors in the past year. I was mistaken then and it's time to correct this now. --Irpen 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I never expected you, Irpen, to scoop so low and to present so many misinterpretations (to say the least). I have just four comments. 1) No diffs in the above post should give everyone a pause. Fiction, of course, is hard to back up with diffs. 2). Similar accusations were raised by Ghirla and M.K at Requests for comment/Piotrus. M.K's rant was not supported by anyone except Dr. Dan (suprise...), and Ghirla ended up in ArbCom and Mediation, where he agreed to put himself under a civility parole (requested for, among other things, to stop a flow of similar unfounded accusations). I'd thus advice, Irpen, that you don't repeat his mistakes. 3) In any case, according to the message at User:Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with his wikibreak (and Irpen tryong to insinuate anything else is just another example of fallacies of his arguments). That said, you are free to try DR or initiate my voluntary recall, the last attempt to do so proved quite fruitfull, I think. 4) As for my 'persistent pushing of Polish nationalist POV' - I invite anybody to read comments by our Featured Articles Director on my RfC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) PS. Important note: To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk is completly untrue, as I have no problems with Dr. Dan content editing (occasional copyediting). It's his flaming on talk which is usually off-topic to article's in question I have the problem with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, you won't impress or scare me by showing what happened to your other opponents. So, please no "advises not to repeat" stuff. As for diffs, I could dig them if memories fail you somehow. I thought you remember you false 3RR report against Ghirla, that was dismissed false. Also, you may recall your inciting Elonka to post a complaint on him to WP:ANI. You may also recall your inciting someone who I never met to submit a report on myself during our dispute over Taras Fedorovych. You may also recall your asking William M. Connolley‎ to block Fisenko over a content dispute he had with you. Should I dig the diffs or you remember those cases? --Irpen 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you are trying to catch up with the party you missed - i.e. Requests for comment/Piotrus, where those issues were brought up and dismissed. I am sorry to disappoint you, but WP:RFI report against another user is not a good place to try to start Requests for comment/Piotrus 2, and if you think you can try to turn this from discussing Dr. Dan to discussing Piotrus, I am afraid you'll not succeed. Per my last post, I am waiting for an apology for claims dismissed by my RfC as well as other accusations ('persistent nationalist POV pushing' and similar).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence to back up such a claim of POV pushing, I would be very interested in seeing it. Can you please provide diffs?  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WD, you have not been around where everyone who edited with Piotrus have been lately. At the same time you just love to get involved in all sorts of personal conflicts with your uninformed opinions. I suggest simply that you study every matter before opining. The disputes here are deep. They run for years and your last attempt to get involved was extremely unhelpful. I would rather prefer that this is dealt by Durova or anyone else more or less familiar with the context, if you would please allow this. --Irpen 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova is actively working in a mediation which involves Piotrus, so I do not think she would be the best person to look into the matter. I can myself, or another user may, but in either event you should provide diffs to support your claim.  If you can indeed support such a claim I would support a recal of Piotrus, but if you cannot I would ask you to withdraw this damaging accusation.  I realise my efforts earlier with Ghirla did not go as well as could have been hoped, and I have taken that as a learning experience.  In my defense a series of other users that seemed to have some agenda "supported" me, and in the end were altogether unhelpful in the matter.  I can of course leave the issue be if you so wish, however, as I said, you should prove this claim or withdraw it, as it's a fairly damaging thing to accuse someone of.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WD, I just want to say I have always appreciated yours (and Durova) attempts to uphold WP:CIV and other policies here. I think that your actions have always upheld high standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, WD, I would prefer that you leave the issue alone. I consider you by your attitude unfit to get involved in interpersonal conflict resolution and this was best demonstrated at PAIN. That said, I can't prevent you from further involvement into such issues as this is what seems you want to do. But since you asked me about this particular issue, then yes. Please stay out of it if you can. --Irpen 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One mistake is hardly something to hold a grudge on someone for, nor does it ever speak fully for one person's abilities or attitudes. In any event, I would appreciate diffs (or other evidence of that nature)  or a retraction of your comment, please.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. So there was a mistake, huh? And was there an apology? Anyway, was your offer to leave the dispute if I request so meaningful, or you intend to persist with your involvement despite I gave a clear answer to your offer? --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And WD, please consider my request to stay in; I always found your comments helfpul and well-meaning. PS. I second WD request for a diffs (proving that point) or an apology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any attempt at a sort of mediation or informal dispute resolution only works if all parties to it agree to the matter, and Irpen clearly does not, so I will not further investigate or look into the matter, though I reserve the right to get involved at a later time should I feel compelled to do so. I will however, clarify a few things.  First of all, Irpen - I left Ghirla a large apology on his talk page.  He is an extremely valued contributor, and someone I regard with a tremendous deal of respect.  I never intended to slight him in any way.  Secondly, I stand by my request for Irpen to provide diffs, or at least give some reassurances that he is having this looked at by a third party.  I don't feel comfortable leaving an issue with what, if unproven and unbacked, amounts to a personal attack unresolved.  So, Irpen, I beseech you, please provide some diffs, or some evidence this matter is being looked into.  All I ask if I am to be uninvolved is to have assurance that someone is looking into it.  ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus and Durova would know exactly what I mean and I gave above some hints to refresh Piotrus' memories. Now, you can rest assured that Durova is a very thorough person and she will get to the bottom of this if she chooses to stay in. I trust her judgment a lot. Thank you. --Irpen 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WD, to fill you in - those issues where discussed in December at Requests for comment/Piotrus filled against me by Ghirla. As his accusations were supported by 5 out of 40+ people who commented there, and criticized by many more, the case ended up at ArbCom and User:Durova/Mediation, where Ghirla withdrew most of them, apologized and agreed to be put under civility parole, I really wonder what's Irpen's angle here with trying to revive this - but as I said above WP:RFI is not WP:RFC and this entire section is only distracting us from discussing Dr. Dan abuses.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider me recused from this investigation. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There were raised questions about pushing POV, interesting example, and I am sure if not intervention form the side particular article would mislead till now. Interesting stance Piotrus demonstrated then one contributor started to mocking one nations language again contributors made clear about such behavior , but Piotrus "explanations"  were no good, especially then some time ago same situation arise and was noted that there was no "mistakes" in such case . Does explanations needed for   accusations of various organizations, which Dr. Dan presented? M.K. 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User contributions analysis
Of last 500 edits (that's since mid-September'06) using these scripts:
 * article space: 37%; Wikipedia space: 3%
 * Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.6% (13)
 * talk (article, user, etc.) space: 60%

Is trolling prohibited?
Since this is not a Request For Comments call, I'll refrain from posting a longer comment on Dr. Dan's behaviour or Irpen's absurd accusations above. I'm however concerned about the grounds for this RFI in the first place. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits trolling. Is the fact that an editor is being counter-productive enough to call for admin actions against him ? --Lysytalk 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lysy, thank you for what appears to be your support concerning this investigation (I mean its grounds, etc.) Fortunately there is not a wikipedia policy explicitly prohibiting trolling. In that case, I wouldn't be able to thank you. Dr. Dan 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lysy, that you don't like something does not make it absurd. That Piotrus' in the past many times played various tricks to achieve the blocks of his content opponents is a fact.
 * His false report against Ghirla to 3RR board is a fact.
 * His provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla is a fact.
 * His contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding his conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable is a fact.
 * His advising someone to submit a 3RR report on myself over Piotrus' dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych is a fact.
 * His report to PAIN on Ghirla that was promptly removed by JzG as trolling is also a fact.
 * Now that the PAIN is deleted because it was most often frivolously used as Request to block my opponent board, the new venue for this activity has been found, this board.


 * Piotrus should just cease attempting to eject his opponents from Wikipedia through blocks. This report is just another take on it. I say, this board should likely follow PAIN into the wastebasket because complaints are always brought out of context and investigating them in full requires an incredible patience of the investigator to reveal the full scale of events. --Irpen 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is a fact is your bad faith interpretation of the events, Irpen. I ask you once again to stop repeating claims already discredited in my RfC and either blank them or apologize.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need diffs, Piotrus? I am sure you remember now each and every instance I brought up above. I can back them up with diffs and you know that. I hope Durova will finally figure this all out once she is back. Once this "investigation" is over, I will submit this board for deletion to follow WP:PAIN. There is a normal DR course and there are also attempts to circumvent it using various pages as a substitute for the Request to block my opponent board. --Irpen 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several users asked you for diffs. But you know what - we are just joking, we don't really want them... Sigh. I hope Durova or some other admin will look at your posts and take appopriate actions. And it was actions of people like you who try to gain immunity from wiki policies like WP:CIV that doomed PAIN, not actions of those like me or WD who try to deal with such abuses.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus, since your memories seem to be failing you, here are the diffs that show your pattern to use various sneaky tricks to achieve the blocks of your content opponents:


 * False report against Ghirla to 3RR board.
 * Provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla.
 * Contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding your conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable.
 * Advising someone how to submit a 3RR report on myself over your dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych.
 * Your PAIN report on Ghirla that was removed by JzG as trolling is unavailable because PAIN's history is deleted. But here is the disscusion.

This attempt to block Dr. Dan fits nicely into the same pattern. You forced me to spend time to dig those out as if you forgot but they are all here now for review. --Irpen 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break
And as I mentioned several times they are also discussed at my RfC in the aftermath which Ghirla got a civility parole. I will not deny I have a habit of trying to curb violations of our policies, from WP:CIV to WP:VAND. That, Irpen, is what any sensible user does. In any case, the Ghirla case was difficult as we dealt with a user who while often violating WP:CIV was also an immense content creator. This case is not the case, as Dr. Dan content creation is rather close to non-existent (per stat's discussed above and below). I am still awaiting your apology for your statements above (that I was acting in bad faith and try to promote some 'nationalist Polish POV-pushing agenda').--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla is not on civility parole, that's for one. Secondly, I am glad that now you stopped demanding proofs that seeking blocks of your content opponents is your tactic as these were exposed. Good.

Now, I know that you just love to demand diffs pretty aware that they exist just in order to waste your opponents' time. This had happened before as well. Proofs of your polonocentric POV-pushing into articles are even more abundant and I can supply plenty of diffs as well. I just don't want to waste time on something that seems to me too obvious. If Durova is unfamiliar with your editing habits, which I doubt, and requests me to provide her with some material, I will set aside some time to build an equally convincing set of diffs. --Irpen 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla has agreed to a civility parole on mediation page, Irpen. I see no point in repeating myself over and over again; I can agree with you on one: I hope Durova will comment here and curbs your pointless and offending accusations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the beginning of my comment, this is not an RFC, and certainly not Ghirla/Piotrus RFC. Sorry guys, but this is also not a proper place to discuss your past animosities. --Lysytalk 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. This is disruptive. With this in mind, may I ask you a few questions? Is trolling prohibited?... (rhetoric question). More seriously, are we supposed to be overindulgent to counter-productive disputes? Shall we (even implicitely) encourage trolish-like behavior? Would it build a nice and user-friendly working environment? Further, the problem is not that there are content disputes (they always will be there) - but the way we handle them. I'm afraid Dr. Dan follows one of the worst patterns - consequently and for a long time. Personally, I think some kind of talking he enjoys does not belong to wikipedia talk pages. See our discussion on Talk:Jan Dzierzon, where he deliberately led an OT "pissing match" (his own term ; he did also a good work to discuorage me ). I have some more  interesting examples, if you wish, including one where he attacked your Polish-Lithuanian cooperation proposition(about 4 months old diffs at request), and another one, where some recent direct pro-Lithuanian comments by Piotrus were nitpicked. One gets impression that he is really interested in maintaining some conflicts, in which he willingly participates. And, finally, your own words to him: "your recent attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality in a number of talk pages can be harmful". Are you still concerned about the grounds for this RFI? Best, --Beaumont  (@)  14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Beaumont, nice of you to participate. Regarding your link, nitpicked, my contributions there are something that I felt were very relevant to the discussion, and I'm pleased with them. Do you see them violating any civility? Do you think perhaps a greater degree of censorship prohibiting people from expressing their opinions would be more to your liking? Regarding Lysy, I go back along way with him, and we were having a frivolous "pissing match" regarding a fictitious WP entry Henryk Batuta, sorry it, and my choice of words concerning it, offended you. Since Lysy didn't seem offended (and I doubt that he was), maybe you should get over it. If Lysy was offended, my apologies to him too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just read my text. Concerning nitpicked comment and the other co-operation proposition by Lysy I do not mean incivility, I mean conflict-aimed useless remarks. A phenomenon observed yet elsewhere by Lysy some time ago... --Beaumont  (@)  17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, Dan's remark might have contributed to conflicts but I doubt that was his intention. People often feel angry when they write to Wikipedia talk pages. I have been called all sorts of names by Piotrus and his friends. Piotrus called me a Polonophobe, Lysy called me "affected by Soviet education" and made highly offensive remarks about my ethnicity, Halibutt called me all sorts of things and I am not even mentioning Molobo and other less respectable editors here. Still, I did not rush to various boards to seek any of them blocked. Some things we say may provoke conflicts. I say, grow a thicker skin and concern yourself with content creation not the POV pushing and expulsion of opponents. What is utterly reprehensible is to play dirty running from board to board agitating for blocks of those who oppose your POV. Piotrus has been doing it for a while. Time to stop it, dismiss this frivolous "request for investigation" and send this trollboard to the oblivion to follow the WP:PAIN's path. --Irpen 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did I call you a 'Polonophobe'? Please support your accusations with diffs. Unlike you, who accuses others (above on this page) of 'spreading nationalist POV', I don't have the habit of making such remarks about others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you did call me a polonophobe. And there is an edit of yours somewhere out there. You did it just once, perhaps you were agitated, and I did not run with that to various admins screaming "block him". Nor did I save it to hit you with it later. I am not to go dig through dozens of thousands of your edits to find it. I mean, if this was an ArbCom and the whole case would be hinged on that, I would have put aside half-a-day and found that diff but for now I won't. I do remember it clearly though and suffice that I provided diffs to every of your previous challenges on this board.


 * Don't worry too much. "Polonophobe" is not the worse offense I was called here and, anyway, I did not make a big deal out of that and I still don't. Besides, your friend Lysy called me worse and Hali used quite an offensive language as well. The only time I complained about civility is when one fellow called me a "purulent faggot from the hooker's town" and even then, only because he did not contribute a single content line and was just revert warring and spreading hatred. I hope this here was the last time you sought for the opponent's block. This "investigation" will go bust anyway and please do not produce any more of this. Just accept that some articles may end up differently from your POV as other editors can also have an opinion on them and can contribute accordingly. If you dislike that, use talk pages and not admin boards. --Irpen 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may be so bold as to interject with a comment, and commenting only in general and not on this case in particular, I don't think it's the venues of these discussions that's leading to these disagreements, it's the people. If a court has a mistrial or a bad descision that is overturned, it's not the courthouse that's to blame, it's the people in the courthouse.  Likewise for these boards.    PAIN was fine, and it should be noted that Durova was a regular there for a while, until certain people turned it into the civility police.  I hope that these people do not turn this board into such a thing, as this board has a useful purpose.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some judicial systems are better and produce less mistrials than the others. Boards that attract sorts of editors eager to provide their opinions on interpersonal conflicts inflaming matters are likely to produce wrong outcomes. Boards presided by the members of the community entrusted by this very community (elected arbcom members) produce by far less questionable verdicts.

If you have an opponent in the content dispute, deal with the person you have, not the one you would like to have. If your opponent is an obvious troll, go to WP:ANI. If the case is complex, you tried everything and failed, go to RfArb not to the kangaroo court where random people occasionally step in to be a judge and jury on the whim. ANI is attended by enough editors to make whimsical verdicts less likely. Here we may get lucky and get Durova put aside a day of her life, dig this all out and see that the report is a bad faith one. Or we can get quick uninformed opinions provided in haste, warning templates stamped left and right to "gauge the reaction" and other similarly productive actions. This board is exactly the forum that guarantees frequent errors and hurt feelings. PAIN is gone, thanks god. Time for this one to follow. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, Peter, should I ask you to warn Piotrus to not call me a Polonophobe (as he did), Lysy to not make ridiculing remarks about my ethnicity and Halibutt not to call me a lier. I can spend another 1/2 hour to provide you with diffs but better yet, I advise you to help me bring this trollmagnet board to a closure. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, which is it you want? Warnings or noninvolvement?  They are kind of mutually exclusive, you know.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. --Irpen 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dodge, I do not know you, and probably you do not know much about me (other than this investigation). But obviously you did not recuse yourself from this matter afterall, at least not totally. Personally, I thought Irpen's last remarks were quite "on the mark" and worthy of consideration. Forgive my being "dense" but I understood him asking you to give warning, but where did you, er, see him wanting non-involvement? Best Dr. Dan 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, I did ask for Peter's non-involvement further above for the reasons irrelevant to this matter. --Irpen 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Irpen, I think you meant that you wanted his further involvement rather than non-involvement. My remarks were not meant to dissuade him from participation, I just thought he "recused" himself earlier. I am against censorship. Period! He's more than welcome to participate here. The more the merrier. Just the same, I don't see where you were asking for non-involvement. If I'm mistaken, then as they say in certain sections of New York, fugheddaboudit. Dr. Dan 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no position on this RFI, Piotr, or Irpen. I was merely making an interjection about how the editors are responsible for their behaviour whatever venue they are in on Wikipedia, and that they cannot blame bad behaviour on a certain board or area's "climate".  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) And yes, I'm going now.  Really, really.  Just wanted to clear that up.

Dr. Dan's reply

 * I wish to begin my belated response by giving you all my overview of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I believe it is a superb venue to acquire and exchange information. I am proud to be a member of the project. P.P.'s "Statistics Appendix Box", is interesting in itself because it truly does not reflect my participation in WP. 90% of my involvement in Wikipedia is reading it, and getting knowledge from it, about the many, many subjects that I have never had any familiarity with like the fig wasp, Bohuslav Martinů, or Indian Standard Time, and believe me, I play a mean game of Jeopardy!. You see, P.P., how a person contributes to Wikipedia is their business. It can be copyediting or going to the discussion pages and correcting or questioning or shaping an article. It takes quite a big ego to think, Hrmph!, I created articles like Żydokomuna, while Dr. Dan merely goes to its talk page and has the temerity to question it and give me a hard time over it. This argument of yours is truly a strawman argument because you had the same problems you are complaining about me with user:Ghirlandajo, one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Allow me to digress and say, Ghirla, if you are listening, please come back. I salute you, and the great Russian people, and the many fine contributions to Wikipedia that have come out of there.
 * I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who took the time to support me and question the validity of this investigation and my block. I was also surprised by the many E-mails of support that I received from contributors who preferred to "remain off the record". It was comforting. I am especially grateful for the input of user:Musical Linguist, as I consider her to be not only extremely fair-minded and an impartial editor, but one who was not even remotely involved with the "personalities" of this issue. Durova, I must respectfully say that I am dissapointed that in your rush to judgement, I was not able to make my points of defense before the block occured. It had a quality of censorship that does not concur with your professed hesitancy to not shoot first and ask questions later. I should hope that in the future if the concept of the RFI should be successful "one should not be sentenced before the trial", hanged before (actually during) Eid ul-Adha, or before all the evidence and testimony are fully presented. I hope I can get a chuckle out of you, or at least a smile when I tell you IMHO, that this particular charge of yours was more of a Lord Cardigan, rather than a Nadezhda Durova. As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did, but if you, Durova, do not see the other side's equal guilt, maybe you should at least consider some of the protests to your decision and what motivated them. As a small example, I ask Durova to read Talk:Laurynas Gucevicius (archive 3) to get a small sense of what I mean. Rather than being uncivil, I'm probably more guilty of being sarcastic or what you have referred to as "sniping" or P.P. has referred to as "snipping". Would you agree, Durova, that a good example of this type of sarcasm would be, "You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours...Due to you busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Wikipedia." Actually this statement caused me to smile and actually laugh a little. You know kind of like touché. In any case, it wouldn't cause me to tear open my żupan or my caftan. Sorry.
 * Now to the heart of the matter. These remarks are for everyone's benefit especially fair-minded and objective people. Like most of you, until now I was unfamiliar with the organization, Vilnija. On January 13, 2007, the participarts of Wikipedia were treated to a new article by the esoteric entity that P.P. called We, I suppose this We (I asked him and he never did say what he meant) meaning he and his friends. It's title Vilnija. It has since been toned down quite a bit since then, but it began with a rather unusually hostile opening statement containing no less that seven (yes, seven) citations, followed by lots of other goodies, and ending with an edit summary, "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one." (sic) The following six entries were made by P.P., Halibutt, and Lysy (three of the most vociferous non-Lithuanian contributors to Lithuanian subjects), who seem to be having a hard time understanding why their input is challenged. I don't think it's unfair to say that the Vilnija article is a pretty good example of what starts the "ball rolling" in these frequent disputes. So much for attaining the elusive "modus vivendi" that P.P. has frequently asked for. And I've said over and over we all have to walk the walk, not just talk, the talk. Then the "article" moved to the discussion pages where a particularly onerous accusation was made against me by P.P. that "I was a supporter" of this organization. Or was it someone else? Falsehood #1. As I tried to get more information about this "extremist" organization, I ran across an edit entered in Wikipedia on November 8, 2005, in the "oeuvre" that the prokonsul created, Żydokomuna, in which P.P. stated that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona were extremist and anti-Semitic. This declarative statement he made seems to the best of my investigating to be untrue. Falsehood #2. Evidently P.P. did not remember his edit, because he demanded to know the basis of my claim. In fact, I believe more than anything this so angered him (the straw that broke the camel's back), that this was the true reason he instigated this investigation. Yet he made the declarative statement about these organizations, without explanation, sources, or citations. Upon being shown where he made the statement, his explanation was that he "translated" the statement from Polish Wikipedia. He was further angered by the fact that after I read the Polish text, I informed him that his statement was not a translation, but at best an extrapolation from an unreferenced source. He denied that and continued to claim his sentence was a translation. Falsehood #3. Btw, I can imagine the outcry from the "club," if I had authored this article.
 * In this RFI, P.P., shows us that I have been warned to change my attitude many times, and gives us 8 examples from my talk starting January 29, 2006, ending January 12, 2007. Let me go to two of them (the first and the last) to save time. In the first example, he invokes the user:Molobo, a role model of civil and constructive contributions. An editor with quite a interesting history of editing to say the least. But one who P.P., never blocked (but unblocked numerous times), never even chided, and of course did not bring about an RFI or an analysis of his contributions to anyone's attention. In the second example, as things began to "heat up" a little lately, P.P. made a Request to me on my talk page (01.12.07). It seemed sincere and I told him that in essence I agreed. Peace at last? A roadmap for some type of consensus? One day later we get the Vilnija article (with "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one"). In this RFI, P.P. states that certain editors remarks caused Halibutt to withdraw from Wikipedia for Months Long Withdrwal (sic) Falsehood #4 (more like a couple of days). In fact I myself did withdraw from the project for a month last November, because I found the escalation of bad will very tedious. I also suggested at the time to mutually lay off "controversial" topics for a while. Regarding Halibutt's months long withdrwal, it's announcement is there for all to read in user:Halibutt/News (you have to go to the history)on December 23, 2006. In a very bizarre edit Halibutt tells us he is being blackmailed. By whom? Falsehood #1, That Ghirlandajo made death threats against him. Falsehood #2, That administrator Renata and her Lithuanian pals made anti-Semitic comments toward him. Falsehood #3, and that Dr. Dan offended his parents (never did) Falsehood #4.
 * There may have been a time when all of these type of "contributions" went unchallenged. Slowly this began to change as more and more people began to question the fairness and veracity of some of the information that we were reading. A particularly thorny issue was the use of sources out of Communist Poland that were often a magazine or newspaper article. And please understand me on this point, I wouldn't claim that one should use Der Sturmer as a reference either. Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil. As for civility, and the lack of it, I still contend there is plenty of blame to share by all of the participants in this matter. It would be a good idea for each and everyone to keep this in mind. With that, I wish all Happy Editing! Dr. Dan 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Dan. Nobody suggested that you should be blocked from reading Wikipedia; in fact nobody ever has been or will be blocked from using our project (at least, not by us). There is a difference between using and contributing to Wikipdia, and while certainly how you use it is your business (with respect to GFDL), how you contribute may become a business of others. Your occasional copyediting is welcomed; however as parts of the discussion above (not hijacked by Irpen to discuss grieviances against other editors) show, quite a few users have problems with your comments in discussions, which were found to be unconstructive and offensive. I will not, forgive me, go off topic and discuss other's actions (feel free to start such discussions at apprpriate sections). You admit above youself that As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did and I will definitely work on becoming more civil. I appreciate such honest admissions. I hope to see many more of your helpful copyedits, and your comments on talk will have no 'snipping' quality. I hope that this and previous discussion, and the block you received, will convince you to follow my and other advices and there will be no need for discussing your actions again in the future in context of WP:CIV violations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)