Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Halibutt

Comment by Matthead
It's interesting how quickly two editors, which are not exactly uncontroversial either, are responding to this RfC and are alerting others. Coincidence, or is the Polish cabal alive and kicking? -- Matthead discuß!    O       02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And what is your problem here, Matthead ? --Lysytalk 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CABAL accusations again? Should I perhaps start another mediation case if such baseless accusations are going to resurface again? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I meant the purpose of this RfC is to help resolve a particular conflict, not to blow it up with conspiracy theories and accusations. Matthead's comment is counter-productive here. --Lysytalk 07:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Durova - comments
Note: Endorsement copied from main page, and comments by other users moved per rules of RfC that discussion should take place here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:M.K wrote to my talk page to inform me of this WP:RfC. This editor comments that I suggested it, which is a slight misreading of my comment at WP:PAIN. Actually I had suggested an article content RfC for the dispute between this editor and Halibutt. Halibutt posted to that board a few days ago with a complaint about M.K, which I concluded was primarily a content dispute that did not merit action as a personal attack.

What I found odd - indeed troublesome - was Halibutt's persistence. The Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard has a limited purpose and Halibutt's request fell outside its parameters. This editor offered no reason why dispute resolution might not be acceptable. I offered several specific and appropriate links. Given Halibutt's experience as an editor, it rather surprised me that Halibutt had not already tried at least one of them to resolve a dispute that had simmered since midsummer. Instead Halibutt extended the PAIN thread until it included what I cautioned was a thinly disguised personal attack agaist M.K. Even this did not discourage the subject. Halibutt continued to post in increasingly rude and sarcastic terms until another administrator deleted the entire PAIN thread as irrelevant. Then Halibutt resumed it on my user talk page and insisted that I had somehow failed to answer a question even after I had explained the matter so many times that I took the unusual step of adding a WP:POINT warning at Halibutt's talk page. Halibutt promptly blanked the warning and claimed within eight minutes of that blanking that I had failed to reply at all.  Under the circumstances that is difficult to construe as anything less than a brazen falsehood with an added claim that I somehow lack qualification to leave a warning message on a user talk page. (Final reply and complete thread here). Actually I can do considerably more than warn: I am an administrator.

That was not a continuation of any previous conflict. Prior to this exchange I had, to the best of my knowledge, no interaction with Halibutt at all. I refrain from weighing the overall merits of this request for comment yet, having read more of Halibutt's user history, I cannot characterize this as an isolated incident and I have no opposition to a user conduct RfC.

If I were to summarize my impression of Halibutt in one sentence, that sentence would be: What part of no don't you understand?  Durova  02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Update Halibutt has returned to my user page to insult me again. Highlights from his latest post include dick, fuckhead, and I'll think twice before I trust your judgement in the future, given your recent trigger-happiness.  Under the circumstances, considering that I have not even confirmed the basis for this RfC, my actions have been anything but trigger-happy.  I consider this baiting.  I have left a final warning on his user page citing WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA.  Durova  17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those "highlights" present a very misleading interpretation of what Halibutt wrote. He wasn't calling you names--he was actually referring to Ghirlandajo's insult in the endorsement below.  Don't you think you're being a little disingenuous? Appleseed (Talk) 18:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Insult? What insult? I see just a link to some essential reading for example: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones.
 * If appropriate, apologize to anyone to whom you may have been a dick. It's okay; this won't make you seem weak! On the contrary, people will take notice of your willingness to cooperate and will almost always meet your efforts with increased respect." Amen. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If such comments shouldn't bother Halibutt, then discussing those comments with Durova shouldn't bother her. Instead she twisted his words and used them as ammunition in this RFC. Appleseed (Talk) 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a pattern in Halibutt's behavior of using hot button words and personalizing disputes. I noticed this first back at PAIN and cautioned him about it - calling M.K a Nazi in the subjunctive mood is hardly different from insulting M.K directly.  Halibutt stated the profanities out of context and quite gratuitously.  Halibutt should have contacted the other editors directly before bringing the matter to an administrator and if he seriously believed I had any conflict of interest (as he insinuates) then coming directly to me would have been nonsensical: the best he could have hoped would be that I'd recuse myself.  To my reading, the only consistent interpretation is that he was attempting to bait me.  Durova  01:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK is actually meta community accepted essay, Halibutt should have not found it offensive, and neither should Durova. I am rather disappointed with Durova's beheviour; instead of helping a user who asked for help he is being criticized on technicalities (WP:PAIN is not for this... check WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and what it entails despite the not-so-good title). Nonetheless Durova is certainly more neutral here than I am, so even through I disagree with your interpreation of the events, I will wait to see what other neutral editors (who hopefully appear here soon) will have to say about this case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's clarify something: what Halibutt wrote on my user talk page was, one of your fellows suggested I'm a dick or fuckhead - so here's how I break this down:
 * Ghirla used questionable Wikiquette in citing WP:DICK. From that essay, Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly.
 * WP:AGF: Unless there's some history between Halibutt and Ghirla that I don't know about, the good faith move should have been for Halibutt to focus on the essay's meta-message that his interpersonal style is counterproductive and deserves reexamination.
 * WP:CIVIL: Halibutt turned up the rudeness factor by an order of magnitude when he added an even stronger vulgarism and personalized the situation in his post to my talk page.
 * So of course I'm not going to tolerate a spate of gratuitous obscenities. Halibutt's actions have persuaded me that he hides behind semantics when he insults people.  On 1 November I analyzed his page diffs at PAIN and, really, he's had no good reason since then to continue contacting me.  I never volunteered to explain the nuances of policy to him or to referee his interpersonal conflicts.  Quite the contrary: I've asked, told, and finally insisted that he go away.  His behavior has been deplorable.  Durov  a Charge! 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding Unless there's some history between Halibutt and Ghirla that I don't know about. Ghirla has been insulting Halibutt for years now (and not only Halibutt, but myself and many other editors. See his RfC and compare it to this one, the difference in level of magnitude of incivility between those two is quite telling.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me state this clear then: Ghirlandajo suggested that WP:DICK applies to yours truly. He did not specify which part, which is why I understood that all of it. I strongly urge Durova to check what words are used there and that the ones I quoted are really there. Level of magnitude? Rubbish, all is there. I merely asked him/her if it's ok to tell people they're (check for yourselves). I also noted that Ghirlandajo and Durova have been exchanging barnstars and they are countrymen, which is why I called them fellows. I did not think that calling someone a Ghirlandajo's fellow is offensive... But if so, then calling me a dick is as well.  // Halibutt 07:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you reprimand User:Durova for having presented a barnstar to me as a "tireless contributor"? Very nice... I have lost count how many barnstars you and Piotrus presented to each other, but I have impression that you exchange them each month (see here). Yet I don't advertise this as evidence of "criminal collusion" as you seem intent to do. -- Ghirla  -трёп- 17:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Reply to Piotrus) I'm aware that both Halibutt and Ghirla have gotten into scrapes and that their areas of interest overlap. Halibutt, however, was mistaken to characterize Ghirla as one of my fellows.  I've had no contact with Ghirla outside of Wikipedia, have never discussed Halibutt with Ghirla, and - other than the incidents I've stated at this RfC - I've had nothing to do with any of their conflicts at Wikipedia.  My user history shows my level of acquaintance with Ghirla: occasionally we collaborate a little bit.  Although my username suggests otherwise, I'm not Russian - not even by descent - and I've never been to Eastern Europe.  if East Berlin counts as Eastern Europe, I've been there, but no further.  Durov  a Charge! 07:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note User:Durova/Travels and User:Durova/Barnstars. I've given Ghirla one but he's never given me one.  I chose the username Durova because, like Nadezhda Durova, I am a female war veteran.  Durov  a Charge! 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And again a misunderstanding that resulted in yet more warnings. By calling Ghirla your fellow I did not suggest you endorse or not his actions. It was not my intention to offend you by calling you his fellow, nor was it my intention to offend you by asking whether Ghirla's action was a violation of rules or not. Contrary to what you suggest, it was not me to point myself to WP:DICK and it was not me to write that page either. I merely asked your advice. I promise I will not do that again. Sincerely.  // Halibutt 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made a bad faith assumption. Under the circumstances that misunderstanding was rather unlikely: I'd already told you that my nearest relative is a 9/11 survivor (how many Russians could say that?) and I'd placed the link to my travels at the center of my user page.  That's more than any editor is expected to do.  The responsbility was yours to ask, which you didn't, and your subsequent explanations don't hold water: if that guess had been true then you should have expected me to recuse myself and taken your question to a different administrator.  Durov  a Charge! 15:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, never in my life have I visited your user page. I use popups and go directly to your talk page. Besides, I have no idea how many Russians have relatives who perished in the 9/11. That's completely unimportant. I asked your advice as an admin who knows, not as a private person. Frankly, I don't give a broken penny if you're Russian, Martian, American or Zulu, what was important to me was that you are the person running WP:POINT and perhaps more knowledgeable than me. Apparently I was entirely wrong.
 * If you really believe that being called a fellow of Ghirlandajo is offensive, then I'm sorry. If you really think that posting questions and asking advice on your talk page is a blockable offence and equals disrupting Wikipedia, then I'm sorry for all those who contact you. If you truly believe that those who are offended by Ghirlandajo are the ones to be punished for Ghirlandajo's actions, then perhaps you should revise that view? Or perhaps I should start acting likewise? Every time I'm offended I should blame you for that, just like you blame me for being offended by others... Why not, we're equally responsible for that. Get the idea?  // Halibutt 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's compare some statements of yours: I'll think twice before I trust your judgement - which you posed in the same post where you asked my opinion about Ghirla's link. Then in your post above, I asked your advice as an admin who knows, not as a private person.  Then, earlier in this thread, I also noted that Ghirlandajo and Durova have been exchanging barnstars and they are countrymen, which is why I called them fellows.  Then once that's proven false, I don't give a broken penny if you're Russian, Martian, American or Zulu.  If you don't trust my judgement, then it makes no sense to ask for it.  And if you don't care whether I'm Russian or Martian, then it makes no sense to raise the subject.  The degree of inconsistency in your claims is stunning - they don't even hold together on the same page or the same thread.  Durov  a Charge! 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, give it up. It is a big misunderstanding; Durova seems to have completly missed what you wrote from the very start and you are both now operating under assumption of bad faith. So I suggest you both stop it here unless one of you can go back to the first comments and see if they can be refactored to remove any misunderstanding.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Inside view by Renata - comments
Renata - few points of order. 1) Halibutt, the anti-Lithuanian boogeyman, supported your RfA. I wonder why... 2) DeirYassing leaving Wikipedia had nothing to do with Halibutt, AFAIK. 3) The examples you use to show his 'biases' are rather weak, although Halibutt never claimed to be the mythical NPOV entity some of other editors I have seen around here think they are... All things considered, I am quite disappointing in the tone of your comment (again): 'This is the fight that's been overdue for over a year'. Wikipedia is not a place to fight. Period.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently the fact that I'm anti-Lithuanian does not have to be proven. I've been asking for some back-up for such accusations for months now and what do I get? Accusations of being stubborn. From my perspective it's the people who cast empty accusations that are stubborn in repeating them without a single proof, but that's another side of the story.
 * But let's again think of the links Renata posted:
 * Talk:Antanas Baranauskas, Talk:Konstantinas Sirvydas and Talk:Laurynas Gucevičius prove my stubbornness in requesting references. That's right. What's wrong with that? Is that worse than being among those who push their POV yet stubbornly do not provide references when asked?
 * what does Talk:Jogaila prove - I don't know.
 * Resurrecting old talk pages is nothing wrong. And especially so in the cases you mentioned. And especially so in the case of Jogaila, where it has been decided by a VOTING to resurrect the chatter if a month passes. Why don't you blame all those who voted to postpone the discussion by 1 month as well? And holding a formal WP:RM is IMHO better than moving the article against consensus and against all rules, as has been done. But go on, blame me for that as well. I should've moved the article myself and ask for its protection so that my POV prevails (as did the Lithuanian side) instead of holding a formal WP:RM. That would certainly be better both for me and for the wiki. Right?
 * You bet I'm proud I proposed so many compromises while none was accepted. That's exactly why I wrote this. What's wrong with that? Is that a worse approach than the one you adopted? Should I simply state that Because of Renata and her extreme nationalism I can't force my POV, which is why I quit, as you did? Sorry, compromise needs both sides. You can't live with it - your problem. I will continue to look for it and I'm pretty proud of it.
 * Sure I hate anachronysms. So what?
 * Anti-Lithuanian bias? Where exactly? I don't like Lithuanian ultra-nationalists just like I don't like Polish, Russian, German or any other ultra-nationalists. But why exactly do you think I favour Lithuanians over any other nation? Because I ask questions over and over again? Because at times I know enough sources to defend my POV while people whose POV I try to limit do not? Sorry Renata. You're extremely biased towards Lithuanian POV, I might be biased towards Polish POV. What makes the difference here is that I was using talk pages and trying to come to some common NPOV with you and yours. You went another path and decided to blame me for not allowing your POV to prevail. But this still was a content dispute, no need to accuse me of fancy things.
 * Anti-Russian bias? You must be joking... Just insert any other army into that statement, and it would still be equally sarcastic- and equally right. Perhaps you didn't notice, but in that particular discussion Russia was not the important part...
 * Anti-German biases? Oh, another lie by Renata... Care to provide any proof?
 * On one thing we agree: Kudos to M.K. who finally managed to drive me nuts and make me loose my temper after more than a month of damaging my good name everywhere he saw fit. And kudos to Renata as well.  // Halibutt 17:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Because at times I know enough sources to defend my POV while people whose POV I try to limit do not". You must be kidding. How are your sources that I have asked you to provide, on your original research on Gucevcius fathers surname (Masiulis) are doing? Came up with any yet? // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, posted it where appropriate some half a year ago. And how are yours on Gucewicz ever using his Lithuanized name? Found any?  // Halibutt 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you post one source (your translations, interpretations do not count) that reads Masiulis surname as Masul here, because I don't see it there. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from project to discussion page
Note:Discussion started by other users posting large endorsment comments or repying to them moved per rules of RfC that discussion should take place here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely. That's a very fair assessment of Halibutt's activities. Although the guy repeatedly advised your humble servant to reconsider his membership in this project, I share concerns of those who are afraid to drive Halibutt from Wikipedia. If we don't have our daily supply of articles about fearless Polish colonels and lieutenants, it would be a pity indeed. However, we can't ignore the fact that his incredible stubbornness and continuous tendentious editing drive many editors (including myself and perhaps Renata) from editing a wide range of subjects about the history of Eastern Europe. For my own part, I try not to edit articles frequented by Halibutt, because I have neither time nor energy for endless and unprofitable discussions with a person who never concedes his errors or delusions. -- Ghirla -трёп- 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Erg, if me and Ghirla can agree on something, then the world must have turned upside down... or, maybe just maybe, truth has been spoken... Renata 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And note that, when you called me a dick, I did not litter your talk page with incivilities and went on to complain about "being a target of a personal attack", like Halibutt did, when simply referred to our basic social policy. That's what makes a difference. -- Ghirla  -трёп- 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Erg, indeed. Big deal that you and Ghirla agree on something. What has been the most upsetting development in this latest joke is this un-holy crusade created by user: Dr. Dan and user: Ghirlandajo. Mimicking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact these two have worked relentlessly against Poland. I will present evidence to this effect shortly. 66.99.19.130 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, please consider registering first. Anonimous comments on such touchy issues are not regarded well, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Move on
As Alex wrote "Nobody in their right mind would want to drive Halibutt from Wikipedia but we do not want to drive away the Lithuanians as well. Something should be done". Now, let's discuss what can be done to bring the situation back to normal. The RfC will be just waste of time if it does not help us out. What can be done so that Lithuanian and Polish editors would get back to editing harmoniously, without enmity feelings and without focusing on fights over name-pushing. I've been around for some time and have seen that both Polish and Lithuanian editors were able to agree on compromise on many really delicate, difficult and POV-dependent issues, but, amazingly, the biggest problem seems to be the naming. The RfC only confirms this. As the recent Jogaila vote has shown again, there is a clear divide line. The last thing I'd like to do is to discuss "Jogaila" here, but let's use it as a convenient example. No Pole supported the "Jogaila" version, no Lithuanian or Russian editor supported "Jagiello". It's either Jogaila or Jagiello, there's no compromise version like "Jagailla" or "Jogielo". It seems to me that part of the problem is with Polish editors not being able to understand how important the language is for Lithuanian identity. They think it's similar to how Polish language is very important to them. But if they have agreed to use German names in "Polish" articles, than why now the Lithuanians insist on using Lithuanian names only in "Lithuanian" articles ? This is something the Poles cannot understand. The other half of the problem is the Lithuanians not being able to explain why "Lithuanian names only" are so important to them. Maybe it's obvious to them but not to everyone, that all modern Lithuanian identity, the culture, the historiography and the nation has been constructed around the concept of Lithuanian language. The language is the very base of Lithuanian identity and this cannot be taken lightly. It should not be frown upon, and certainly not mocked. This explains why the apparently harmless language jokes are taken so seriously by Lithuanian editors. Unless we recognize that nations have their histories defined differently, and neither definition is "better", and Poland and Lithuania are no exception here, we will continue the trench war forever. Once we accept this, we could be moving on to finding a technical compromise on naming issues. But again, this is only possible if we are aware of our differences but respect each other. --Lysytalk 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lysy for explaining the issues surrounding L. language; I am sure that few (including myself) realized it was such a delicate isssue, and if Halibutt could sincerly apologize for his few transgressions against it that would certainly be a good step. However, with all respect for Lithuanian language (which is quite fascinating, and I'd love to see that article on FAC some day), culture, history and it's editors, this is English Wikipedia, where we should treat all equally. As I pointed out during the begining stages of WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution, we all have to swallow a little pride and admit that other cultures have influenced our owns; there are no good reasons to grant any group exception. Our goal here is to build a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia, not a politically corret one that will make some editors more happy. It's users, not editors, who must be our primary concern.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And again I have to agree with Piotrus here. While there are people out there arguing that wiki is inconsistent, I myself am a democrat and believe that the same rules should apply to all. That's the easiest way to achieve some balance.  // Halibutt 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was not clear enough. The bottom line of my message was supposed to be that understanding the background of other editors would help avoiding certain behaviours and would make collaborative editing easier. I don't think this contradicts the statement that "users must be our primary concern". I think the nuances of such sensitivity should be particularly easy to understand for Polish editors, who are often surprised when being accused of nationalistic behaviour themselves. --Lysytalk 18:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on outside view by Irpen
That's a suprisingly fair overview with good recommendations for future action. The only reason I decided not to endorse this view is that I do not think Halibutt's 'stubborness in content editing' is a serious issue. Yes, in the period of 3 years or so he has been blocked twice for violating 3RR. That's not a spotless record, but it's not a record of a highly problematic user, either. And certainly he has a strong pro-Polish POV (which however does not equal anti-Russian, anti-Lithuanian or anti-German POV automatically as some suggest); but as WP:NPOV states, there are no neutral editors, all of us have various POVs. Certainly Halibutt engages in long debates on talk pages, but as Irpen notes, with few exceptions he is civil; and if he is indeed stubborn and refuses to compromise - he is not breaking any policies by sticking to his views, as long as he observes 3RR, CIV and other policies, And I'd like to see some proof for this stubborness - particularly in the matters of Polish-Lithuanian relations; Halibutt has not only contributed to many articles about Lithuania (like Jogaila, for a good example) but in the particularly heated discussions about Laurynas Gucevičius he was a strong proponent of the 'Polish-Lithuanian' compromise, while it was users like M.K who wanted solely the Lithuanian, not Polish version. Halibutt is not a perfect editor, but there are others who are much worse; wasting time debating few bad edits Halibutt made in his 3+ years on Wiki is really not a good way to spend our time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Few? You mean few hundred thousand? (Halibutts Mainz-Aachen-Dresden campaign alone consisted of couple hundred edits). |the Back catalogue and reactions to it speak for themselves. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We were discussing incivility here. Yes, once Halibutt violated WP:POINT, which cost him a few hours of being blocked and several votes in his RfA, which he lost by few percent (71% when 75% or 80% were needed, IIRC). I always said that loosing one's temper is not worth it and will be dragged out and pointed to years after it happened, especially on Wikipedia, whose perfect archives make it particularly easy. Your point being in showing this one and a half year issue?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Point? Point is clear. Pattern of behavior. Trollish behavior to be exact. Yesterday Mainz-Dresden campaign, today Borevicius campaign, tomorrow something else. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So we have two examples out of 26000 edits. My fault. I should've been a POV-pusher, it would've cost me less time and less nerves. I should've been moving articles around without a single hint at the talk pages, just following what my POV tells me. That would certainly be better for the project. Right?  // Halibutt 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"So we have two examples out of 26000 edits" How many of 26000 edits are |the campaigns like this], revert wars, circular discussions, I bet it can be counted as well, but I'm too lazy to do this. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the only one I am aware of, and as you indicate yourself, the only one you are aware of. But you are perfectly happy to assume bad faith and accusse Halibutt of 'Trollish behavior'. I am afraid this phrase characterizes better your campaign of throwing unfounded accusations. I could use your logic and instead of seeing your single block for 3RR violation as an exception to the rule; I could start calling you 'revert warrior'. Of course this would be incorrect and incivil - but this is exactly what you do to Halibutt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee "unfounded" and | this in one section. And I'm afraid phrase Trollish behaviour is exact definition for | this. And I'm afraid you can't blame M.K. for | this, because he was not around back then, I guess. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you will mention the same link, it is only one argument from over a year ago, to which I already replied. One is not a thousand, and if I count correctly this raises your case to an average of slightly above one controversial action of Halibutt per year. Thank you for proving your case invalid :> PS. I could also argue that 'per edit', you have more controversial edits than Halibutt. A weak argument, but just as good as yours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I will not play your find a hidden diff game, it is boring to me. | This speaks for itself. The fact that you "replied" to it, does not make it go away. For you maybe my case is invalid. But for me, not having a habbit of feeding trolls with barnstars, is clear that people do not go on rampages like this, unless they are trolls by nature.//Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For me it is clear that a new editor who has yet to make a major contribution to this project and who calls a much more experienced one (author of many a FA, GA, DYK and such) a troll should think twice in the future before insulting anybody again. In the past week, you have two minor content edits and majorotiy of your edits seem to be related to this RfA and to the anti-Halibutt campaign (every 10th edit of your past 40:, , , ). Just today Halibutt created two uncontroversial articles (Złota kaczka, Ostrogski Palace). Say what you want, I think it is clear who is closer to trolling here. Please heed my advice: more content edits, less accussing other editors of trolling, would make your intraction with other editors much easier.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So if you preffer to change the subject from the one that we have, it is fine with me. You gave me an advice, and I'm very greatful for it. I see you are quite an expert in user history analysis, so maybe you could give me one more advice - you see one Wiki admin made ethnic slur recently, and I'm having hard times finding apologies for this behavior. I am pretty sure it must be somewhere, but I simply can not find it. Any tips on that? Thanks. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you make sure you are not guilty of similar offences (like, oh, let's say accusing others of trolling), aplogize for any instances you might have been incivil, and than think if your time is better spent on going through user histories and looking for that 'one in a thousands edits' they might have erred and wasting hours of their time discussing it - or perhaps you should think about contributing to creation of encyclopedic content instead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee Piotrus. Serfdom was abolished years ago. You're living in the past, let it go, man. This isn't XIX century Manchester, nor Ford T conveyer belt. And you're no Henry Ford, to be frank. So stop acting like Nike sweatshop super in Honduras, please. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt's behaviour seems to be contagious. It is deplorable to see the proconsul stooping to incivility in the discussion above. Although I have been for years subjected to personal attacks by some of the participants in this discussion, yet I winced at Piotr's recentmost outburst of incivility on WP:PAIN, where he appeared several minutes after myself, accused me of stalking (sic!) and compared myself with User:Jaakko Sivonen (a self-professed "Finnish nationalist", currently blocked) who had labelled me a racist (something which Halibutt did in the past, though). I'm fed up with this incivility and leave this (and that) page in dismay. -- Ghirla -трёп- 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to provide any diffs to your accusations? Where was I incivil above and where on WP:PAIN did I accusse you of stalking? Where did Halibutt call you a racist? I did indeed comapre you to Jaakko, as you were both incivil and have been blocked in the past for incivility; you both should stop such behaviour - although looking at your post above I don't think you will. Nonetheless this has nothing to do with Halibutt's RfC (although it would fit into yours).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read the link you are in habit of advertising, you would see how your friend modified this comment to accuse me of racism. I don't speak with you until you apologise for incivility, trolling, and casual accusations of stalking on WP:PAIN, however. All the diffs are there. Good bye, Ghirla  -трёп- 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are trying to argue that your post saying 'incivility is a national feature of the Poles' was not offensive? Good luck. Although after the discussion of your more recent offences I would agree it is not a racist remark, but 'just' an ethnic slurr. Not that it makes your position any better, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I wonder, how does this dispute help us address the RfC issues ? Is finger pointing any useful indeed ? --Lysytalk 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at positive commentary
Halibutt does have a long history of positive contributions to Wikipedia. Sometimes a fresh perspective is useful so I'll offer mine. The particular perspective I have isn't neutral - maybe I caught him on a bad week - but my cards are already on the table.

The common thread I see between my own interaction, other criticisms on this RfC, and his adminship bid from last year looks like a pattern I've seen before in other people outside of Wikipedia. Tell me if this fits.

Some of life's actions are one up-one down situations, such as a game of poker. One party wins and others lose. Everybody deals with that to some extent and there are considerable differences in how far people extend that thinking into other parts of their lives. Any professional athlete has to think that way a lot because that's their job, but a schoolteacher's job isn't structured that way: everybody wins if the whole class learns a day's lesson.

Wikipedia is structured more like the schoolteacher's job. If all the editors on a page are dedicated and collaborative then they could produce a featured article together. They might have differences of opinion on different parts of the topic, but they "win" together without designating anybody else as a "loser".

I've responded to article RfCs for nearly a year and now I'm active at WP:PAIN and WP:RFI. Often the problem that turns a collaboration into a dispute is when editors view the page as a one up-one down situation and try to "win" against each other. Any victory in that situation is usually pyrrhic because the article languishes during the battle and both sides get wounded. At the end one side might get the page they think they want, but that page probably isn't as good as it could have been: some typos go uncorrected, some citations don't get added, and sometimes the "winner" is too exhausted to finish editing.

The impression I get is that Halibutt would get a lot more accomplished if he cut down on these micro-battles. It's okay to say, "Oops, my bad" now and then or "Did I go overboard?" In fact, pretty much everybody needs to say these things sometimes (myself included obviously). If you can parse the expression, not saying them doesn't mean anybody's fooled about those things needing to be said. In fact it can cost far more in reputation to refrain from those small concessions because, to most people, a lot of the situations that Halibutt tries to win shouldn't have become win/lose propositions at all. That's what I read between the lines in a lot of the oppose votes at his RFA.

Maybe I crossed a line when I dealt with Halibutt. I got a couple of criticisms for it so I posted a query to WP:AN. The only response was Halibutt's so I don't really know. It would be a rare person who didn't get carried away once in a while. One of the things I look for in people is a willingness to learn and change. We all make mistakes. What I want to suggest - both to Halibutt and to his supporters - is to step back from the microproblems and look for a larger picture. This doesn't seem to me like "Poland v. (name the country of your choice)" It's too much framing of "X v. Y" that's the problem here.

If you find a way to get around that dilemma I think WikiProject Poland will get a lot more FA's onto Wikipedia's main page. If you find a way around that dilemma I think Halibutt would become an administrator if he still wants it. Respectfully, Durov  a Charge! 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are quite correct in this general summary. Just one small correction: WikiProject Poland per se does not really exists, but as an unofficial WikiProject - i.e. group of editors clustered around WP:PWNB - we have featured more than 20 Poland-related articles. I strongly believe that featuring articles is one of the most important goals on Wikipedia. We did offer help woth WikiProject Lithuania and there was discussion of working together on some articles (Barbara Radziwiłł was provisionally selected), but those constructive talks got nowhere as most of editors seem to be bent on accusing the WP:PWNB crowd of being part of a 'Polish cabal' bent on 'vote rigging' and 'destroying Lithuanian culture'. I look forward to the day when such attitude is forgotten and WikiProject Lithuania concentrates on featuring articles. Our offer to help still stands, and judging from evidence Halibutt would be happy to help, too. If we could turn this 'finger pointing' into a collaborative attempt to improve Wikipedia's content, this could yet become a victory for Wikipedia and for us all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sound advice, not for just for Halibutt and his supporters, but for everyone involved in this RFC. Let's not forget that several of Halibutt's detractors have had RFCs of their own.  Can't we all just get along? Appleseed (Talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic jokes
Not understanding Polish or Lithuanian, I don't quite understand why the 'ethnic jokes' are offensive. This is not intended to offend anyone, I'm simply seeking to better understand the situation so I can better comments. It seems to me that Lithuanian's feel Halibutt is making fun of the Lithuanian language by saying this is how something would sound in Lithuanian even though it isn't but that's all I understand at the moment Nil Einne 07:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)