User:Halibutt/Archive10

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nominacja na admina
Co ty na to? Gotowy? Wiesz, to daje calkeim fajne narzedzia (rollback, view deleted pages...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To cie nominuje jak tylko naprawisz sobie sygnaturke - cos sie sypnelo z html-em. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomin
 Piotrus would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Piotrus to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Trzymam kciuki. Don't forget to strike yourself out once you accept, and that self-advertisement is common outside Poland, so don't hesitate to ask for support. Besides, the more vote, the greater the legitimacy of the vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zasłużyłeś na to stanowisko! logologist 08:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jasne, reklamuj sie, wiele osob tak robi. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is going worse then I thought in terms of numbers, but if the quantity is not that good, quality certainly is. You have attracted support from many respectable users, and that counts. I find it telling that many opposers don't know you, but vote so because they follow some friend :/ You may want to consider deletion of the Black Book - seems that it has become the 'skeleton in the closet', doing no good, only damage (you know, this was the reason I didn't want to 'take it' myself - it diseases everyone it touches). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Zerknij --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Po raz pierwszy >70% - oby tak dalej :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism
I did not mean you are a nationalist in a modern sense, but, to me, you did exhibit nationalistic tendencies in Wikipedia when dealing with historical interpretations. The comment of mine was triggered by the discussions at Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920) and Talk:Battle of Wołodarka (I can probably dig up more, but these two are quite illustrative, I think). Perhaps this would not be so obvious to other voters, and perhaps most of them would not give it as much weight as I did, but to me it is a big deal, so, sorry, I cannot support you. I do, however, believe, that in other regards you would make a decent admin&mdash;the breadth and depth of your contributions speak for themselves. With all that in mind, good luck in your RfA.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The sort of conclusions you drew from the sources provided did not really seem obvious or logical. Granted, those particular sources could have been interpreted in more than one way, but you chose one that presents information in a more controversial (and indicative of nationalism) way. To me, this is a somewhat distrurbing sign.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA?
Thanks for your response. By "aggravating disputes" I was not referring to your responses in the RFA itself; rather, judging by the responses of others you seem to have made yourself quite a few opponents in editing nationalistic topics. Of course that may not in fact be your fault given the emotional value of such topics. I'll think on that some more. In the meantime, though, from the history of the Black Book it seems that you are in fact its author. Or did I miss something here? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my opposition from your RFA. Best of luck! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Heya
I just wanted to pop you an email to let you know why I voted Neutral on your RFA. I really don't know you too well as I haven't been working on the same articles as yourself so can't really tell how you would make as an Admin. However, you seem like a pretty valuable and fantastic editor of Wikipedia! So I'd probably side more with support than oppose on my neutral - it's also helps that Pioritus nominated you as he's a good judge of character. Also, I don't have a concern with people campaigning on their user page for RFA - I feel that this is a bit of a storm in a teacup. Anyway, just wanted you to know why I voted neutral. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin
I believe he is taking English wikivacation. The last time I checked, he was pretty active on Lithuanian WP. He said he is pretty stressed about the whole Polish-Lithuanian edit war.

Also, I am sorry, but I voted oppose on your RfA. I just feel that it would add additional fuels to the debates. I think you are a pretty calm person, but you have a very strong bias. And admins should be as objective as possible. I hope you won't be discouraged to contribute. 15,000 edits is REALLY seriously impressive. And I hope to see you around. Renata3 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean you are an intelligent guy, dilligent, you are proud of your country and that is just perfectly normal thing. However, the biggest issue I had with you is that sometimes you are quite stuborn. Like naming Vilnia - Wilno - Vilnius. You said that Gdansk votes are applicable and just refused to listen to anything else. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, I have my own. But as an admin you should be able to listen to different sides and arrive to some sort of compromise. But I should say that you are very polite guy (which is really a HUGE benefit for you and that's why I respect you). It goes without saying that I respect your contributions.
 * Sorry for my spelling, it's almost 11pm here... Feel free to leave me a message. Renata3 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not get too much involved with the whole edit/naming war. I usually have no time/patience follow through such arguments. And history in general is not my strongest area. But I remember very well you saying that you are going to enforce Gdansk vote and you repeated that like 3 times without listening to others. Maybe later I dig out the difs.
 * But it feels like ancient history now. I don't think we should start the whole mess again. Let's be friends :)
 * As for your contributions. I think you deserve a barnstar, a whole bunch of them, and then a monument. But I just cannot vote yes for your adminship. Let those talks and discussions be just 5% of your overall contributions here, but I cannot vote yes, because they exist. If you would ask me to vote for an WP:FA - gladly (provided it meats criteria), to provide you sources - gladly (if I have them; this pdf is for your Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania), to help you out - my pleasure. But I just cannot vote for your RfA. Sorry. Renata3 05:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way. Following the new RfA mania, people could fail your RfA because you don't use your edit summaries that often :) I think that's the silliest thing I have ever seen, but my point here is that you should use them more often. It truly won't hurt. With peace Renata3 13:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA
Well, you're welcome. You said Only those who do nothing are not controversial, and you're absolutely right. I now think that my comment seems a bit uncalled-for, and I shall edit it out. --Merovingian 05:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that Users are responsible for whatever is on their userpages. And besides, you argued for "keep" on the black book's VfD anyway, and is that not an endorsement? I don't know you at all, and if this RfA was put up before the Stevertigo case I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then the fiasco surrounding Stevertigo showed me how it was almost impossible to take away adminship, no matter how blatant the abuse. Please don't be offended by how I voted, you are certainly a good editor but I don't know you enough to be sure the "black book" stuff was uncaractheristic. Borisblue 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote
Dear Halibutt. My oppose vote was not based on my past interactions with you. It is based on the unwholesome and dangerous actions of the nominator and his likely motives behind your nomination.--Wiglaf 09:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, my sinister plan construction of network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo is revealed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Advice about your RFA
I think it is unfortunate that so many Wikipedians are confusing Polish nationalist users with yourself and Piotrus. I have voted to support your RFA and pointed out that it is often you and other Polish users who are the first line of defense against these extremists. However I strongly urge you to ask Piotrus or another admin to delete your Blackbook user page. I've never approved of the idea, but in fairness&mdash;however it was originally intended&mdash;it is doing more harm than good; and that harm is to you. I don't believe that as long as you maintain it your RFA will pass, if you get rid of it your chances may improve enough for it to pass especially if you notify the users who object on those grounds that you‘ve deleted it. Good luck! -JCarriker 10:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA
My sympathies. It's very hard to stop a storm like that once it gets going. People start blowing one or two issues out of all proportion and ignore that you're actually an amazingly productive editor who'd be even more effective with the admin toolbox. It's especially frustrating to see your RfA turn into a platform for people to launch attacks on Polish editors in general. I'm also somewhat frustrated that people seem to find it acceptable that a blatant sockpuppet can launch a cowardly attack on you on the main RfA page. There's probably nothing anyone can do now - just try not to take it too hard. You Poles have been through worse. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised and pleased with the direction your RfA has taken - with oppose voters changing their votes to neutral and even support. I'm glad that people are largely managing to, like John Kerry, forget Poland and vote on the candidate :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin nomination, German cities, and so forth
Hello Halibutt, thanks for replying on my talk page. I'm not sure what to make of your response. I'm sorry if I offended you in my comments in response to your activities. That was not my intention. I do not think, however, that I have ever assumed bad faith on your part. I was quite disappointed and upset by your actions with respect to Dresden and other articles, and thought they were out of line, my assumption was that your activities were made as a result of anger and annoyance at what you conceived to be unfair rules. I think that, as a result of this anger and annoyance, you rather egregiously violated WP:POINT, but I have never thought at any time that you were acting in bad faith. At any rate, I am certainly not trying to say that you must admit that I was right and you were wrong about the Gdansk vote. In fact, I think that that vote was deeply flawed by its own vagueness at key points, and by the provision that said that wikipedia policies could be violated in order to enforce its decisions. As such, I think the point which you were, imo, disrupting wikipedia to prove, was probably a decent one, although I of course don't fully agree with you. Certainly the "shared history" phrase was abominably vague. What upset me, then, was certainly not your opinion of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which I agree was flawed. It was your decision to engage in unilateral revert wars over a number of articles in order to demonstrate your point that the vote was flawed. If you had simply changed it once, had it reverted, and then discussed it on the talk page, I would have no problem at all supporting you for adminship. What is worrisome to me is that you engaged in pretty egregious edit warring and have refused to acknowledge any wrong-doing. Basically, I am not interested in getting into the substantive point again - obviously, we have disagreements there that are not going to be resolved, and I have no expectation that we must agree on everything for you to make a good admin. My only concern is with the conduct issue, and with a desire to see that this kind of thing is not repeated. You reverted Dresden five times on June 6 of this year. Mainz was reverted 4 times within 24 hours on June 5-6, and then reverted several more times in the days that followed. You were also reverting several other articles. Whatever the quality of your underlying point, this is simply inappropriate, and I don't feel like I can support you becoming an admin if you can't acknowledge that this was a violation of policy, and that by acting this way, you were in the wrong. As I said, I really do want to vote for you. In most of our interactions, you have been reasonable and have worked to avoid unnecessary conflict. There were other instances where I've felt frustrated by your actions, as I'm sure you've felt frustrated by mine. But I don't think any of that is reason not to vote for you as an admin. As I said, my only concern is this clear instance of policy violation. I hope this clarifies my views more. john k 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt - I'm sorry if I offended you on the talk page, as I said. You offended me as well, so I figure we're even there. Beyond this, I did not say you were trying to prove a mysterious point. I fully understand what point you were trying to prove - that the vote on Gdansk was (in certain respects, at least) absurd. You did this by taking what you yourself are admitting was an absurd action - massive reverts against a considerable consensus that you were wrong. You are also, so far as I am aware, the only person to actually take advantage of the flawed Talk:Gdansk/Vote "rule" that said the 3RR rule can be violated to enforce the vote, although you can perhaps point me to other sources on this subject. But even beyond this, a violation of the 3RR rule on something which was clearly covered in the vote would have certainly been acceptable. For instance, if you had repeatedly reverted attempts to call the city "Danzig" after 1945. Obviously, the idea that the 3RR rule could be violated was itself problematic (which is why I voted against it), but that would have been a clear instance where the vote justified such action. As it was, you were violating the 3RR rule on an issue which just about everybody else who participated in the vote agreed was not really covered by the vote - certainly nobody supported your interpretation on the talk page. Personally, if I tried to interpret a vote in a controversial way, and then not a single person backed me up on the talk page, I would admit I was wrong and back off, rather than starting a revert war and then continuing to act as though I was in the right.

And I most certainly did admit in my post above that you had a point about some things - specifically, that the Gdansk vote was seriously flawed in some respects. Of course I don't agree with you fully, and I don't think that the "shared history" that Dresden has with Poland is sufficient to require mention of the Polish name of the city in our article, but I don't see how that matters - that is a content dispute, one which we have already discussed in considerable detail at Talk:Dresden, and one which we are unlikely to come to any consensus over. But, as I have said several times, I really don't care about that. Anyway, if you want to hold a grudge against me, as you apparently do, that's no skin off my back. I am, however, not going to support you for adminship, as you seem to still feel you were essentially right on this issue. I find this to be the kind of judgment that I am wary of in an admin. I imagine that, most likely, you will/would be a perfectly fine admin, so I'm not going to vote to oppose, but I feel like I have fairly decent reason to worry, based on this incident and your continued defense of your behavior there, that there might be problems, and so I don't feel that, in good conscience, I can vote to support. I'm sorry things have turned out this way. As I've said before, I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor, even when we disagree, and I really did want to be able to vote to support you. john k 08:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Halibutt, Thanks you for the reply. It goes some distance towards easing my concerns, although I fear we have been talking past each other a bit.  I will respond point by point.

''Perhaps you might find it useful in your future contacts with other people, so I'll post a reply to your latest comment on my talk page.  # If I ever offended you in any way - I'm sorry. I did not notice that (you never told me, did you) and I surely wouldn't do it again if only I knew. Whatever you think of me, you surely agree that even in the cases where I dissagree with people, I do not aim at offending them. In my private life I barely ever use offensive language and I think it's the same with my wiki life (correct me if I'm wrong). ''
 * Perhaps offended is not the right word. I have been seriously irritated and annoyed by some of your activities in the past.  Other disagreements have been less irritating and annoying.  Either way, I don't think this really matters. john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) You again repeated that I tried to prove a point which is not true. I find it funny that you find the point I was allegedly trying to prove in certain aspects right, while I'm trying to convince you that the point is completely wrong... But let's leave it as it is.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I can tell, the point you were trying to prove was that there were serious problems with the Gdansk vote, and that if followed to the letter, it would result in weird commandments like including the Polish name of Dresden in the first line of that article.  I understand that you were not simply trying to prove a point, and that you believed that, if this crazy rule was to be around, it should be uniformly enforced.  But it was certainly my understanding that you thought it was a bad rule, which is why I say it is a WP:POINT violation - if one thinks a rule is stupid, one should try to get it changed, rather than trying to enforce it to the letter.  I would agree with you that it was a badly formulated rule, I just disagree with your way of going about drawing attention to it. Or have I gravely misinterpreted something here? john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As to taking advantage of the rule - I was not the only person to do that, as can be seen on the pages related to Szczecin. But it's not my intention to engage in finger-pointing. I haven't done it during my pre-school years and certainly it's not my wish to start it now.
 * Fair enough. I hadn't looked carefully at every article that might have been involved, but you're clearly write about Szczecin.  I withdraw that claim. john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Our interpretations of who has the ability to interprete a voting result will aparently differ, so there's no point in providing me with examples. Really, I believe that the power of interpretation is vested only in the same body that chose the rule. You believe it's vested in a particular group of people. Here we differ and let's leave it that way. You are also right that I still feel you were essentially right on this issue. Where we really differ is that I admit that you were equally right on that and the problem was only in how we decide on who has the right to decide. At the same time you still feel that you were right and I was wrong, which I find unfair.
 * Here's where I become a bit troubled. My view is that any policy (whether it be the policies agreed to at Talk:Gdansk/Vote or the manual of style, or whatever) must be interpreted for each page by the editors of that page.  There is no other possible way to do it.  In the case of Dresden, a substantial majority (or, more accurately, everybody except you) agreed that the vote should not be interpreted in the way you wanted it interpreted.  You argued, to the contrary, that you had the Gdansk vote on your side, and thus could ignore the consensus of editors of Dresden in enforcing your interpretation of that rule.  I feel like this is a very dangerous attitude.  You say that you think that only the original voters (or another general vote, I guess) would be able to "interpret" the rule.  But this is unworkable.  What you mean, I think, and what I agree with, is that only another vote could explicitly amend the rule.  But there is no way to get around debates about interpretation, and when there is a dispute about interpretation, it is always going to come down to what the editors of the given page's consensus is.  This always brings up the possibility that the consensus will be that a rule should be violated, of course, which I assume is what you object to.  But this is inevitable - our rules aren't perfect, and if a general rule says that something specific should be done which the editors of a particular article don't think should be done, that is a sign that the rule itself needs to be changed, not that one user gets to push the rule down everybody else's throat.  In any event, it is hard to come up with clear instances of a rule being directly violated by a consensus.  Usually, there is either a) a disagreement about whether or not the rule is being violated (this is usually what occurs in POV disputes, for instance); or b) two rules conflict with one another, forcing people to choose one way or the other. But, basically, it is never up to one user to define what a rule means - the only way a rule can have meaning is through the general consensus of everybody on a page. My problem, then, is not your particular interpretation of the Gdansk vote.  I think it was, at least, a tenable one, although I disagree with it and think it was overly technical and legalistic.  My problem is that you continued to push it even though it became clear that everybody disagreed with you, and that you defended this on the basis that you were enforcing a rule.  In my view, the most important rule on wikipedia is that things are done through consensus, and an attempt to get around this by claiming that you have the one truth about how a particular rule is to be read is problematic. john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As to being outnumbered at the talk page - note that that's exactly what I did. I backed off and withdrew, just like you would, according to your own words. I still believe I had a point there (had a point, not tried to prove it) though.
 * Indeed, you eventually backed off, and that was good. And you haven't really repeated it (although I notice that only a month ago you tried to reinsert the Polish name into the Dresden article...).  Anyway, I think my big concern here is your idea that you can be the ultimate arbiter of what a particular rule means.  Nothing is ever cut and dry, and consensus on a given page should always trump just about everything else. john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not holding a grudge against you, I'm merely showing you the other side of that coin, you apparently were unaware of. My side of the coin. And no, I'm not trying to convince you to support me on my RfA. I'm trying to explain some things to you since I actually liked you until that unfortunate incident and still have lots of sympathy for you for being one of the few people to initially support my attempts at creating some compromise at Talk:Gdansk. Halibutt 22:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you're not holding a grudge, and please understand that I am not holding one either. I was also quite grateful to you for your reasonableness at Talk:Gdansk back in the day.  At any rate, I feel like this latest response gets me closer to understanding your view, although what seems to me to be your idea that your individual understanding of rules or policy ought to trump consensus which you feel violates said rules or policy is problematic, and leaves me still reluctant to support you for adminship.  I hope there's no hard feelings on that account. john k 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Good luck
Halibutt, when opposing your adminship, I thought I would be the only one to do so, given a scope and quality of your contributions to the Polish segment. Now that I see your nomination opposed by a much larger number of editors that I thought feasible, I start to doubt whether you deserve all this. Perhaps it's not so bad when so many editors know you and have their opinion on your editing. If you're interested to know my opinion, I believe the current situation arose from you and Piotrus not being careful enough to dissociate yourselves from the trolls who disrupt normal functioning of this project, such as puerile Molobo, a tireless revert warrior Space Cadet, and Witkacy with his paranoic Black Book. There is no need for great editors like you and Piotr to connive their trolling just because they are ethnically Polish. Look, I don't connive Nixer on the basis of his living in Moscow. Whatever the result of current voting, I hope that the lessons will be learned and I don't think I would oppose your nomination the next time it surfaces. --Ghirlandajo 11:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please chek your email. --Irpen 07:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Ghirlandajo's statements above. Tom e rTALK 08:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

About your RfA
Hi. I opposed your RfA (re:Template:Support), but I wanted to express my goodwill- I think you have potential, and it's really disheartening to have people opposing based on your nationality. Oh, and for what's it worth- my grandfather was Polish :).--Sean|Bla ck 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned that your black book takes up space, did you even consider for a moment how NoHat felt having his name on such a page? Why did you wish to offend and provoke him in that manner? I was on someone's "black book" once, and I know how it feels. I'm sorry, I cannot vote support for you unless you show that you become more considerate to other users in your editing the next few months. And please don't leave any more messages regarding your RfA- I will not change my vote this time. I will reconsider your case if you decide to reapply after a few months. Borisblue 03:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the RfA instead. I've posted the conversation there. I don't think I'm the only one troubled by this and I think your explanations will be helpful to all- and helpful for your RfA as well I will respond there and not on my talk page. Borisblue
 * PS I'm glad that you decided to talk to Nohat about this. I will take serious consideration what he says about this matter. Borisblue 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I'm on partial wikibreak recently and was not able to follow your RfA closely, but I'm not surprised to see the opposition to your nomination there. Please do not take it too personal if you get not elected. In fact I prefer to see you having your own opinions and being able to stand for them. If the alternative to your adminship is not being afraid of sometimes controversial edits, I'd prefer you not to be an admin. The good thing about your RfA is that it tells much about the attitude and maturity of many of the editors, both those who supported and opposed your nomination. It also shows that some take edit conflicts too personal :-( --Lysy (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin
Czesc Halibutt,

i read your message on my page, only as i never participate on admin voting on de I'm not doing it on en as well .. sorry .. but i wish you good luck and think you will get it anyways ;) ... Sicherlich Post 11:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my vote
Hi, I just stroke my vote out of youur RfA. Did not change it to support or neutral, simply sort of deleted. I did that because I am seriously impressed by the way you handle critisism. If you are going to handle disputes about Polish-Russia-German-Lithuanian-Belarus, etc. controversies... then you are going to become the best darn admin. Renata3 20:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake
Hi Halibutt, seems I was wrong. I could have sworn there was a previous RFA for you, but it looks my mind is playing tricks on me. Sorry for the confusion, and my apologies. I'll also clarify it on Piotruis talk page. -- User:Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk 21:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA
I think that you should keep trying. Just wait a month, and it will blow over. This is only your first try. My first RFA failed also, but I did my work, reapplied, and now Im an Admin. What do you say? Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that they can be harsh. I took it personally when my 1st RFA failed, but I tried to take the good (if any) from their comments, and use it to better my contributions. And really, I discovered that they were right. While trying to improve myself, I discovered things about Wikipedia, and realised that I really was not ready. In my first RFA, I got 5 support, in the second, I got 80! All you have to do is try and leave the past behind, and do better, and believe me, they will see. But only you can make them see. If you really want to be an admin, you would be persistent, and try again if this one fails. Many users get it on their third or even fourth try. Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, na Twoim RfA głos oppose nr 7 powinien być usunięty, sprawdź support 52, ale ja nie wiem jak to zrobić. Powodzenia! --SylwiaS 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not accuse you wrongly. I accused you of exercising poor judgment in your participation in the creation and support of the black book, and of negligence in allowing your userspace to be used as a launchpad for slandering fellow wikipedians. In both cases, I feel my accusation was justified, and while I removed my opposition to your RfA candidacy upon reading what you'd written on other people's pages, and would probably not oppose your candidacy in the future, I did not change my vote to "support", because I asked you before your candidacy expired, to tell me what you regard as my "offensive remarks". You still have not done so. And yeah, sorry, I was rather busy with school and didn't have time, not to "check my allegations" or "reply to [your] comments", as I did both, but rather to further research and source the extent of the negligence and poor judgment to which I referred. Tom e rTALK 06:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, I'll look into it tomorrow afternoon. Right now, my time is too taken up w/ trying to write a program due tomorrow that is NOT working, and I have an exam tomorrow as well...  I promise I'll get to it as soon as possible tomorrow afternoon. To clarify, however, I was not accusing you of maliciousness with regard to the black book, only of negligence with allowing your userspace to be used to malign other editors.  TShilo12 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look Halibutt, if you want me to change my vote from "oppose" to "support", you're going to have to respond to my request that you address me with whatever you feel were my "offensive remarks". If you don't, I'm given limited options other than to simply conclude that the allegation of my "offensiveness" was nothing more than rhetorical posturing. Tom e rTALK 08:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Rfa
It's something of an unwritten rule, but on there you politely disagree, smile and move on putting any large comments on the talk page. The rfa for many people is basically just a look into how they'll handle disputes, since that's the biggest difference between a regular user and an admin. The tone of your response to me was a perfect example of what I was saying about how you seem to be a bit too defensive. Karmafist 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Podsumowanie
71% is quite good. Give it a month or two and I am sure you can pass - quite a few neutrals or objects noted they will change the vote if you don't do anything controversial :) A wiec - cos ciekawego sie nauczyles z tej nominacji? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA
I'm afraid, with 71% support (ignoring neutrals), that your RFA failed. I seem to have forgotten to close it; it's been corrected now. Regards &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Niewiarygodny
First, I'm amazed at how many people took the trouble to comment on your RfA. In the news business, even when we're criticized, we can always fall back on the statement, "Well, at least they're reading us!"

However, Halibutt, your claim on the RfA discussion page that you "never thought much about" Germany and the Germans exceeds credulity. I simply don't believe it, given your involvement in Wiki issues involving Germans in Poland. So does the breezy statement that I "might be right or might be wrong" about your attitude toward Germans. This sounds to me like a smokescreen intended to convey an air of sweet reasonableness that hasn't always been present in your statements or actions.

I don't know the details about your meeting with Germans at Usedom, but the impression I got from what I read about it on Wiki was that all was not sweetness & light. Do you really have German friends or feel friendly toward modern Germans?

Believe me, I can understand that a Polish Jew would have trouble taking an impartial attitude toward Germans, and I do remember what you related about Mauthhausen. But I don't think you've managed to set aside those feelings and think rationally when considering other historical issues involving Germans, as witnessed by the Danzig/Gdansk discussion.

But then, it's just my opinion.

Sca 20:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh... Cheer up! :)
Hey Hal! =) I was already to write you how sorry I am. Please, don't worry - there's a lot of things to do here ( and a lot of opportunities - and reasons - to become an admin:) ). And first of all - do not say you will not candidate second time. One of the greatest users of pl: - Togo (his candidacy failed due to POV of few admins a couple of months ago) - by coincidence has just quit plWiki and we do miss him a lot. Well, I hope he will return one day, maybe just with a lesser adict. So don't even think about it! =)

So far, I want to give you a hug and thank you - because it was exactly you, thanks to whom I have become a Wikimedian! In my very beginnings you have shown me what wiki co-operation means. It's been over a year! And although I've been working mostly on pl: and there I could only find some evidences of your activity (and protest) I have learned from you. I'm sure that you can show us a lot more and you can take this lesson, using it in a good way. So don't worry, but keep on rockin' (in a free world...).

Best regards, and I hope to start some project about a contemporary Poland one day. Hope to seeing (more articles) from you. :) aegis maelstrom δ 05:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Votum et vita
I am certain you will succeed at every constructive endeavor. Only be patient, give yourself time enough. logologist 06:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk page
I don't recall saying anything about not posting on my talk page. By all means, feel free. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, as I recall, I specifically mentioned admin-nomination pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As I recall, I did. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's clear: "For all the reasons given, mainly the Black Book, and also because of the many responses from Halibutt to the oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote against without being confronted. There is no voting taking place on my talk page. And the sentence you just quoted: "It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference." Less is more, in the case of RfAs" says "in the case of RfAs." No RfAs taking place on my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk)  06:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since your talk page is now blocked for some reason, I will respond here. You wrote that Less is more, in the case of RfAs, but to me it was not clear whether your important to respond, and sometimes important not to remark was a general one or also related to RfAs. Anyway, I still believe that the right to defend oneself should not only be granted in real life, but also in wikipedia. Halibutt 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Darn it...
... now I want to go vote support! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the Black Book
Sure I can delete this, but... I cannot find it :> You may want to list it on Speedy_deletions - it will get deleted quickly, and with more 'authority'. Through I wonder if the talk page should not be preserved (isn't it were the Jimbo comment was?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is how cool you are
It seems that your never ending voting has calmed down a bit. I would like to say that I’m really in awe of how you handled it. This is for you --SylwiaS 22:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Zdaje się, że pierogów na Święta Ci nie zabraknie. Tu jest coś na poprawę humoru w sprawach gdańskich itp.--SylwiaS 09:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Reconsider Please
Hi,

As you may remember, I opposed your recent nomination for adminship. I don't regret doing so, as I have my own reasons for voting conservatively on RfA in general (which I'd be happy to discuss, if you wish.) I am sad, though, to hear you won't be applying again. Many wonderful candidates respond to RfA concerns by improving or moderating behaviors, or at least being more careful in acting. Given that your support was quite high, I'd respectfully ask that you keep open the option of applying again. I, for one, was looking forward to supporting a future RfA on your behalf. You may have a few inveterate "Wiki-enemies" (that isn't uncommon), but most RfA voters are rational and fair-minded. Personally, for what it's worth, I think your reapplication in several months quite likely to succeed. The choice is yours, of course. Best wishes, Xoloz 06:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think several of us wanted nothing to do with whatever nationalistic arguments might have been simmering, and I paid little attention to them. The TfD dispute -- recent and unrelated to nationalism (as far as I know) -- was the primary particular reason for my vote, and several others (including the Neutrals too.)  I would expect those votes to reverse, if there are no other recreation out-of-process incidents.


 * Also, weird though it is, RfA voters tend to hold you accountable for your entire record at the first RfA, and then to dismiss all but the WORST old SINS (like threatening to hurt Jimbo or something) in a future RfA. In my experience, anyway, a second RfA only considers the record after first RfA.  So, anything that happened long ago, only to be drudged up, might be forgotten again soon.  Sounds funny, but it happens.


 * The last thing I'd add is that you can be sure at least one vote would DEFINITELY change, so take heart, if you like. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Xoloz said. I'm still waiting to hear tho, what I said that was so horribly "offensive"...  Tom e rTALK 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I Ditto that too, things need to cool off. Trzymaj się. Karol 09:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm sorry to hear that you won't be running again, and hope you reconsider. Leithp (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your message
Czesz. well unbelievable, i'm sorry to hear that your candidature failed. but if the majority felt that way, that's how it goes. just take the comments as a constructive criticism of what areas can be improved, and not as a collective "condemnation", because even those who opposed you gave you credit for your contributions. so see that as a hopefull sign, read their feedback carefully and grab the chance to maybe have a different approach on communication. all the best... Gryffindor 11:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Although Halibutt didn't leave a message for me, I support Gryffindor here. In a month or two, I will be the first to nominate Halibutt for adminship. --Ghirlandajo 11:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say that the majority felt that Halibutt would make an excellent admin. Unless we think that we have something like a larger and a smaller half, 71% definitely makes a majority, lol. (Halibutt, nigdy nie mów nigdy!)--SylwiaS 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a big deal
Being admin is not a big deal. BTW, I agree with your last change of the lead of history of the Jews in Poland. Cheers. Vb 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RFA
I'm really sorry to hear that your request did not pass. I chose neutral because of the amount of oppose votes, and their reservations, but I think I'll be able to provide full support next time. Until then, best of luck! --Merovingian 12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Still, I'm rather certain that somebody will nominate you in the future. --Merovingian 12:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA
I wouldn't give up on being an admin if that is something you want to do! My advice is to wait a few months, let things settle, and then reapply. I am positive that you will have much more support the second time around, especially if everyone sees that you have put any previous problems behind you and worked on for the better. I do wish you luck in any endeavors you undertake. If you decide to reapply, please let me know and I will vote! Best luck! --Martin Osterman 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that you're talking to someone who has less than 300 edits on the namespace and hopes (someday) to apply for an Admin position should my internet ever decide to load Wiki faster than it currently does (molasses is faster right now). You've got a great edit count and lots of community interaction.  Give it some time, see how the community reacts, and then go from there!  If you reapply down the road and there are no serious problems, you'll have my vote. --Martin Osterman 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Halibutt. Don't worry about it, and don't let it get you down. Regroup, and next time someone nominates you it'll come through. In the meantime, don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything. &mdash;thames 15:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I supported your RfA this time and will the next. I can empathize, since my RfA also failed a couple of months ago. I am trying to address some of the negative voter's points and others, I will just ignore. I will probably try again sometime in 2006. I suggest you do them same. --Rogerd 17:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Halibutt, I'm sorry your RfA didn't go through. I know you said you won't seek adminship again, but if you change your mind, you will certainly have my vote again. Keep up the great work.

On another note, I noticed that we now have the article Three Bards. I also see that you added Norwid to Template:Three Bards. Do you think the template and/or article should be renamed, or should we leave things the way they are? Appleseed 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, my friend, I'm proud to have supported you and will do so again! I'm very glad you are staying on Wikipedia, it sorely needs good and good natured editors such as yourself. At some point in the not too distant future, I strongly urge you to reconsider running for admin again. With the strong outpouring of support you received, plus the fact the infamous "black book" is now gone, you will almost certainly make it next time around. Cheers and best regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your gracious message. Adminship qualifications aside, you are a very valuable Wikipedia editor and a credit to the project. As you know, the important business of Wikipedia is writing and editing articles; I'd rather see a user focus on editing rather than doing administrative tasks any day. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Quid pro quo
Since you deleted my comment on this page – as is your right – I've deleted yours on mine.

The main issue between us has been the use of German names for cities in historical pieces about the period in which the cities were German or predominantly German. As I recall you voted against referring to Danzig from 1308 to 1793 as Danzig. If I remember correctly, you also resisted German nomenclature in the Copernicus article. If that's not so, I apologize. If I've attributed the actions of other Polish users, such as Molobo and Space Cadet, to you, I apologize.

Footnote re your comment: Danzig was not German "millenia ago." Nor was it Polish millenia ago. But it was German 60 years ago, and predominantly German for about six centuries before that.

Sca 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Halibutt

Don't Give Up Just Yet
This template was great, and I think you learned alot from this rfa process. Please let me know the next time you're up for rfa, i'll be glad to give you strong support after seeing that template and some other talk page contribs here and there -- your article space contribs are excellent. karmafist 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nie tak zza grobu, bo cały czas mam na was chłopaki oko. Byłem w szpitalu na głowę, ale to wiesz, że szpitale mają komputery z internetem (mają nawet roboty roznoszące leki), problem leży wyłącznie w zbajerowaniu właściwej panienki. Czołem Halibutt, miłych edycji, Kosmak na Orbicie aka Space Cadet 12:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tak, mam zamiar cie renominowac po Nowym Roku :> wiec zbieraj sily--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
Hello again. Sorry about the adminship bid. I encourage you to accept a nomination in the future. Wikipedia needs more assertive, content editors in its ranks of admins... Anyway, I am contacting editors applies NPOV and NOR standards rigidly for their input on Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where a consensus has yet to be established. (Given your knowledge of modern single-party state structures, your opinion will be particularly well-informed. For example, notice that Soviet bloc leaders are conspicuously absent from he list. There is the argument that general secretaries of Communist parties are not dictators because there is a collective leadership. I think that they are correct in arguing that it is POV to describe someone like Brezhnev as a dictator. Yet if they are not included, it implies that they were not dictators; and it is POV to claim that they were not dictators. Just about any classification is a Catch-22, so I favor deletion.) If you have time, please take a look at the page and add your input. Best regards. 172 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Support
Sorry ! I accessed my discussion page after a long break today,  and  started to write my support message immediately. But then i saw that it was too late. (Yeah, i see now here, how my vote would have been usefull...) Don't despair. I don't think it's a sign of an ingratitude of wikipedians. I thank You for your input to the free encyclopedia and i believe that many of us would join these thanks. And even if vita est instablis ut mare et nullus sua fortuna potest certus esse i think you won't give up the work in the wiki, for it would loose many without You. support Linas Lituanus 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (re RfA process 17-25 Nov)