User:Durova/Mediation

As suggested by Piotrus
Let's try to not to clutter this page too much, and comment, discuss and offer suggestions on talk, as in RfCs or Mediations. I'd prefer it if only Ghirla and I would comment on each other posts on this page, I suggest the sandbox method (strike out what's obsolete, issue a new version, until we agree on everything that is said here or agree to disagree and resume ArbCom). If I or Ghirla like your suggestion (at talk or elsewhere), we will add it to our sections. We will likely not mind if you ask us to attach 'your request' on our talk pages (if you think we missed it in the growing plethora of this tentacle DR), but please let us try to discuss our differences here by ourselves (I'd like to solve 'all' issues we have here, but not 'all of Wikipedia problems' :). If you want to issue an outside view or statement, I suggest the still kicking RfC or RfArb (particularly RfArb for visibility by the neutral parties).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus requests to Ghirlandajo

 * 1) that Ghirlandajo abides by WP:CIV, WP:NPA and related policies. I (and others) have explained what we consider uncivil, with linked diffs, at the RfC, talk RfC, and ArbCom. If needed, we can discuss them in more detail, for now I stand by all the claims I made there and I support all claims made by the other editors who agree with me. This is what we understand by civility and incivility. Please respect that, we ask for nothing are not doing ourselves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) that Ghirlandajo accepts a civility parole, as this term is used and applied in ArbCom proceedings, with all the strings attached (i.e. that I and other users are allowed to report his violations of WP:CIV (as understood in point 1), and the violations if recognized by the reviewers will result in a block). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) that Ghirlandajo withdraws all claims listed in the 'Not recognized by Piotrus' section. At the very least, they represent misunderstanding (outstanding claims) that needs to be resolved before we can shake hands, at the very most, they may be seen as 'character assassination'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) that Ghirla is extra careful when deleting referenced content from articles, or inserting unreferenced content. However, as stated all over the place, I don't consider his POV to be a major issue; it's the accompanying incivility on talk or in edit summaries that is the problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I reserve the right to add to the sections here in the future (particuarly it's 3 am and I am getting sleepy).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo requests to Piotrus as understood and recognized by Piotrus
I, Piotrus, recognize presently the the following complains and requests made by Ghirla at Requests for comment/Piotrus, User talk:Durova/Mediation or Requests_for_arbitration:
 * 1) that I, Piotrus, have used a nickname he finds offensive (żyrandol, literally, chandelier) (not anytime recently). I recognize I did so on several occasions, it was not meant to be offensive. I nonetheless apologize for it and promise not to use it again nor to invent any other nickname. I understand that Ghirlandajo finds both the names 'Ghirlandajo' and short 'Ghirla' acceptable (correct me if I am wrong).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) that I, Piotrus, have once used a perceived but disputed ethnic slur 'Ruski'. Again, it was not my intention to use it an offensive way; I didn't realize how offensive it may be to some. I apologize for it, I will not use it again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) that I might have called his content edits vandalism on a several cases (not anytime recently). After reviewing WP:V I still think that some of his edits are controvesial, but will try to assume good faith and not to call any edits of such a productive and experienced editor vandalism. In the end, there are good times when an edit summary should be blank, or a comment at talk not made - I strongly urge Gjirla to take this philosophy into consideration.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) that I used the 'rollback' against him a few times (not anytime recently). Nonetheless 'rollback' is just a 'one-click' revert, nothing a normal user cannot do (as Ghirla proved). I do understand he finds it incivil when used on him and I stopped reverting him with this function (on the not so common occasions I do revert him), I also promise not to use rollback on him ever again as I now share his view it's impolite to use rollback on an experienced editor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo requests to Piotrus as understood and not recognized by Piotrus
I, Piotrus, don't recognize presently the the following complains and requests made by Ghirla at Requests for comment/Piotrus, User talk:Durova/Mediation or Requests_for_arbitration:
 * 1) that I have abused my admin powers and dserve desysoping. I have never used my admin powers against Ghirlandajo. Disclaimer: I have been an admin for 2 years, I indeed have made one mistake over a year ago when I was learning 'the admin way' and became involved in a short wheel war (that had nothing to do with Ghirla) for which I apologized and which never went beyond one of thousands short ANI disputes. It is old case closed and bearing no relevance on anything in the present. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't recognize any of the following claims: Harrassment and character assassination, Spamming and canvassing, Pet trolls, Agitating for blocks of opponents, forum shopping.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus reply to Ghirlandajo's replies
Reply to the reply of 03:02, December 25.
 * Responce part:


 * 1) Thank you for the apology. Please note that there are other users who share my feeling of what civility is; I am sure they would appreciate it if you'd extend your apology to them as well.
 * 2) The civility parole is by no means to ban you from expressing your opnions. I have no problem with you saying 'Piotrus has a Polish POV', but I have a problem with you saying 'Piotrus is polonizing articles and spreading Polish propaganda'. They both express the same criticism, however one does so in a civil way, while the other can be seen as a personal attack. As long as you can keep to the civil way of criticizing me, I have no problem with it. For another case study, see Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka. I - and others - don't object to the fact that you disagree with us or ask others to commenton the article; we were however offended by what we saw as an attempt to portray this as 'Poles against us' as well as the phrases Appleseed notes in his first para in this section. Again, your goal of criticizing us and attracting attention of editors you believe should comment there could have been achieved in a way that everyone would see as civil. I certainly agree that any solution adobted should not "limit our ability to comment on Poland- and Russia-related articles". As for the civility parole, as I wrote earlier, I will not object if the mediator or ArbCom places it on me as well, although I don't believe I have done anything to deserve it - I will accept it as a sign I don't want to ask you for anything I wouldn't ask of myself. The questions we must however answer are important if technical: who and where can report one another for possible infractons (I'd suggest entire community at WP:ANI); who can rule and decide if block is needed or not (any admin on ANI?) and to close one loophole, how to prevent us and other parties who may not have too much good faith (think, from your perspective, Bona-sock no.1001) from reporting every edit we make there (hopefully Durova can look into how a normal civility parole works?).
 * 3) Thank you, I am glad to see one problem definetly closed.
 * 4) Thank you. As I wrote, I don't believe the content edits themselves are a major issue, we both abide to 3RR and never quarrel long over such issues, anyway (we quarrel more about 'what he said about what I said' and such rather then 'what he said in the article').
 * Request part:


 * 1) In theory, that's a good request, and I agree with to it; but I am afraid we may have some problem drawing those lines in practice. Looking at one specific example of a conflict we had in a Russia-specific article (Russian Enlightenment), as well as in the other cases a content conflict was involved, I believe that if we really want to limit the (not so common) content conflicts between us, a self-imposed 2RR or 1RR as discussed at RfC may help, but even better would be to get people like User:Grafikm fr to promise to step in, and merge our differences into an NPOV versions; I was always amazed at Grakikm's skills in that area. If you agree, perhaps Durova could contact Grafikm and ask him for his opinion on that? I am thinking something along the lines 'we see that we disagree in content, we are limited by 1RR or like, we ask a neutral party to help descalate the conflict').
 * Ok, there are a few issues to discuss here. First, would you object to a comment similar (minus the nationality part) to the one you made yourself? Second, with civility parole active and an agreed upon place where we can report the violator(s), I see no reason to make comments anywhere else - however the violations of civility parole have to be reported somewhere, or it will be meaningless. However, as a sign of good faith and to show that I don't want to 'get you blocked', I can try leaving you messages on your talk asking you to moderate your replies (on talk, edit summaries are rather hard to change). If you refactor them (again, please note we don't mind you criticizing others, we mind the way you do it) so they are not offensive, I see no reason to report this to any more formal place. However, if I see a comment I consider uncivil, and you disagree with me, there must be an agreed upon way of me taking further actions (i.e. reporting you to others so they can judge the situation) that you'd not consider a violation of our agreement.
 * Other:


 * 1) I am still awaiting your reply to the second point in my  (minus formum shopping, which I believe we are defning and discussing above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus reply to Ghirlandajo's second reply
Replies to the section by Ghirla:.


 * 1) While so far we are the only two taking part in this mediation, I'd like to again point out that many other users have agreed (at RfCs and RfArbs) that they feel offended by the same behaviour as I do; also, you yourself have compared behaviour of many users with mine. While we can do much good by patching the issues between the two of us, the case will not be fully resolved before others concerns are addressed (although I do believe that a civility parole would satisfy all who felt offended).
 * 2) Spreading propaganda is a content accusation, true, but strong-worded (like vandalism, for example). Both should be supported by facts: I wouldn't mind if you'd write: "Piotrus, you are spreadng Polish propaganda as claims that X have been called such in Y and/or you are using sources that have been called suchy by Z". That would be acceptable. However just saying that 'you are spreading Polish propaganda' (and claiming article one wrote is the same thing, basically, even if no names are mentioned) is as uncivil and unconstructive as accusing others of vandalism, trolling and such. I do agree with you that this is a good reason to avoid such strong claims, unless one can prove it with policies and sources.
 * Ok, the content issue seems resolved - I don't think either of us claimed it was a big deal in the first place, though.
 * 1) Agree with the first part - let's AGF and try talking first. However if that doesn't work, I am not happy with replying on any single admin (what if that person is on wikibreak?). I think the standard procedure as used by ArbCom civility parole would be the best.
 * 2) Well, then we certainly need to discuss the issue of 'forum shopping' more, as while I agree I had commented on your actions on various foras, I still don't see anyting wrong with majority of my posts, and certainly nothing to warrant accusatons of Harrassment and character assassination, Pet trolls, Agitating for blocks of opponents.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Piotr's requests to Ghirlandajo

 * 1) I apologize for posting comments that have been construed by Piotrus as incivil and will do my best to avoid such comments in the future. The harsh language of our conversations is explained by the long history of our conflict and by little space this has left for assuming good faith.
 * 2) I agree to accept a civility parole as soon as Piotrus accepts it. I am concerned that my self-restrained civility parole would not be interpreted so as to limit my ability to express my opinions in Wikipedia. I have seen the concept of civility, so laudable in itself, invoked to make one's opponents desist from expressing his points of view. The subjective nature of "civility" or "incivility" may play a role here. The civility parole should not limit our ability to comment on Poland- and Russia-related articles.
 * 3) Furthermore, I appreciate Piotr's promise not to call me names and not to use ethnic slurs in the future. For my own part, I drop my request to have him desysoped. My opponent does not seem to have been abusing his admin tools since Molobo was blocked, which was a wise decision that effecticely defused much tension in the Eastern European segment of Wikipedia.
 * 4) I am generally careful in removing referenced content added by Piotrus and other wikipedians. I remove it only when I am concerned about the quality of "references" used and their conformance to WP:RS. I don't regard non-English, non-peer-reviewed propaganda booklets as a reliable source and act accordingly. However, considering the sensitive nature of my relations with Piotrus, I will be extra careful in removing references added by him, retaining the right to discuss it on talk pages and to add referenced statements supporting a different point of view.

Ghirlandajo requests to Piotrus

 * 1) I consider it wise for us to agree that Piotrus will make efforts to limit his involvement in Russia-related articles, such as Grand Duchy of Moscow, for instance. I, for my part, will not meddle with Poland-related articles. This is intended to be an informal agreement, as the lines between Russia-related and Poland-related articles are blurry and many pages intimately concern the history of both countries.
 * 2) I still support my requests to Piotrus to stop discussing myself on public noticeboards and user talk pages of uninvolved editors, while I promise not to mention his name in similar circumstances. Such actions tend to escalate our conflicts rather than defuse them. I am afraid Piotrus will not achieve any progress by invoking my block log again and again, as it all has been tried in the past. I hope that our agreements above will open a new page in our relations and will make agitating on noticeboards unnecessary for both parties. If Piotrus is unhappy about my behaviour, I invite him to state his grievances on my talk page or in a private e-mail. I promise not to remove his statements from my talk page, as has been done in the past, and to respond to his e-mails.

In conclusion, I am grateful to Durova for helping us achieve considerable progress in resolving our differences so far. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Second series of replies to Piotrus
Again, I have very little time online, but here's what I have to say:

1. I am always willing to apologize to anyone who I have wronged in any way, especially as it's Christmas time now. Please remember that this mediation involves only two people, however.

2. I don't think that accusations of "spreading Polish propaganda", if true, run contrary to WP:CIV. Either you do spread it or not. This is the issue of content not civility. I agree that we'd better avoid such strong expressions if we want to steer away from conflicts, however. Although I am nonplussed by Durova's sudden revelation of "obsceneties" among my posts, I am still willing to give her credit and to submit our grievances to her consideration.

3. Piotrus, since you have many Polish and not-Polish wikipedians among your supporters, you know that you'll never have a problem reverting my edits. Nevertheless, I strongly approve 1RR or 2RR and generally abide by this policy. My userpage normally features a special userbox about that. I thoroughly concur with my opponent on this issue and urge the mediator to involve Grafikm fr into settlement of any Ghirla-Piotrus disputes that may arise in the future.

4. I suggest we should apply to each other on talk pages if we want to have the opponent's comments refactored. If we can't agree on that, let's apply to Durova. I can think of no other admins we both can trust that would be willing to review our differences.

5. I believe forum shopping is the general term that covers all my other concerns listed here. If there is no forum shopping, other grievances will evaporate. -- Ghirla -трёп-  22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediator comments
Your numbered points are an excellent way of keeping things organized. For now I'll reply on just a couple of matters. I'd be glad to refactor talk page comments for civility if you're both willing. I hope you supplement me with a few backup choices in case I go on Wikibreak.

To some degree I wonder whether there are language issues here. You're both highly articulate and proficient in English. Yet I understand it's difficult for non-native speakers to master some nuances because English has an exceptionally large vocabulary with many nearly synonymous words. Propaganda, for instance, often carries inflammatory connotations. Obviously I can't read a source in Polish to evaluate it firsthand and I know next to nothing about Polish publishing. Yet most native English speakers would hesitate to describe something as propaganda outside of a wartime context (or at least a Cold War context). Instead we're more likely to call it partisan, inaccurate, biased, or dated.

This is mainly addressed to Ghirla: I suspect your overall fluency is good enough that other editors read your talk page mistakes as intentional. I wouldn't have noticed this if I hadn't copyedited a couple of your new articles myself. It's a matter of tone, which isn't much of a problem in article space but can be deadly in a dispute. If you're somewhat opinionated and blunt by nature, text conversation in English magnifies those traits. When I read your recent WP:AN posts about IRC channels the content itself represents a legitimate point of view but the manner of expression goes over as - to state this idiomatically - itching for a fight. Am I onto something here or have I been mistaken?

This leaves the open question of forum shopping, which I hope you can work out. Overall, you guys are doing a great job so far. Durova Charg e! 07:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to return to the table
Consider this the Internet equivalent of a dinner invitation: I've set out the good linens and a basket of flowers. Have a seat and enjoy some warm soup. (And I do suggest you really come here well rested and well fed - that tends to bring out people's better sides).

If this were a dinner party I'd ask how you'd both been lately. Why did you return here now rather than sooner? What's important to you at this juncture? Durova Charge! 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. Per my comments [|here (see 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads' section] I find some recent comments by Ghirla offensive and would like to see them refactored/removed or an apology.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that Ghirlandajo has not apologized for his incivil comments above; but he has been warning others about incivility (ex. ).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)