User:Pmanderson/RfC

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

In a dispute arising from Rarelibra's strong belief that WP must always use the official name of places, even when that name is not common in English, Rarelibra used an obscene and offense vulgarity in Polish.

He has since denied that he did so, repeatedly, despite the evidence of dictionaries and of a native speaker of Polish. He claims to speak Polish moderately well, and to have a Polish wife.

He has removed an admin's warning on the subject from his talk page; and responded with a personal attack on the admin.

Underlying substantive disputes
I do not think any of these require an RfC, but stating them here may be helpful.


 * Rarelibra thinks that Wikipedia must use the official name for places always; this is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, and to the policy WP:NAME which cites it.
 * Even editors who agree with the name he wants have been known to disagree with this; I do not believe there will ever be consensus to adopt his view.
 * Rarelibra therefore believes that the island known in English as Tenedos must be known as Bozcaada, despite the evidence of overwhelming English usage.
 * There have been four requests to WP:RM over this; The Turkish editors have taken one side, the Greek editors the other, and those of us who support English usage have always prevailed.
 * Rarelibra uploaded a map of the province of which Tenedos is part; I (and others) deprecated it.
 * It has now been replaced.
 * One of the pieces of evidence involved is [this website], which translates Bozcaada as Tenedos. WP:NCGN accepts the principle that this sort of thing is evidence that Tenedos is widely accepted in English; that's why the website (whose name includes bozcaada) bothers to list it. It's not conclusive evidence; but I would like to cite this example, the only one I know, on WP:NCGN - I think it should be listed even if the article were moved.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''


 * That Rarelibra should stop using such language, in Polish or in English.
 * That he should acknowledge that he has done so.
 * That he should apologize for having done so.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Use of the phrase "glupy dupek" 04:27 27 Jan
 * "Głupy dupek" does mean "stupid asshole".
 * Piotrus' comment
 * used on the Polish Wikipedia: Głupy dupek

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.