Select Page

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 13:24, 26 April 2025 (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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

User:Piotrus is an active editor and administrator of Wikipedia. He contributes extensively, but unfortunately many of his contributions are marred by what I regard as severe bias, particularly in favour of lamenting the "massacres" and the "betrayals" or extolling the bravery and the refined culture of the Polish nation at the expense of their neighbours. It is all black and white there; nuances are summarily dismissed as relics of "Soviet", "Russian Imperial", "Putinist", or "Nazi" propaganda.

That this attitude is quite uncompromising may be seen by taking a look at the archives of Talk:Jogaila, to name only one problem article. Piotr's intense concentration on historical Polish traumas made his manner of editing tendentious par excellence. He would often pounce on some seemingly random topic (for instance, Russian Enlightenment or Slavophile) with the object of giving undue weight to the Poland-related details or the Polish vision of the events. This would be fine in a normal context, but Piotrus is able to function above the level of the usual extremist editor by (ab)use of his administrator privileges and by calling on a significant group of like-minded, fellow Poles, whom he recruits to his causes (Molobo, Halibutt, Space Cadet, Lysy, Appleseed, Balcer, etc). I have tried to stand up to him, but this has only led to harassment and bullying. I feel I have no choice but to present the case here, because otherwise I fear that I may be overcome by Piotrus' hate campaign against me.

This request for comment addresses an especially disturbing side of his activity. His behavioural problems have not been scrutinized by the community before, with the exception of their brief summary here. I'm not qualified to examine Piotr's antics with regard to other wikipedians with whom he is continually in conflict; therefore I will limit my statement with a survey of his attacks on myself.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Harrassment and character assassination

Piotr seems to have started his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade in November 2005, when I emphatically opposed his friend Halibutt's RfA for reasons elucidated by User:Wiglaf here. By way of revenge, these two Polish wikipedians launched this notorious RfC against myself. It is notorious because Piotrus (and Halibutt too) never failed to bring about this RfC in any content dispute with me (and even without me) in the space of a year that passed since then: check Talk:Katyn massacre, 1 February or Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth, 10 February or Irpen's RfC, 23 June for a few samples.

Piotrus enjoyed invoking that RfC so much that he started to spread it from our mainspace disputes to public noticeboards, frequently even without my knowledge, just by way of advertising how bad Ghirlandajo is:

I even recall several instances when Piotrus would resort to this sort of harrassing when disputing the merits of a DYK nomination with me on T:TDYK (I can't spot the diffs now, the high traffic page being updated so often). In the course of this year, the "compromising" link was spammed by Piotrus to talk pages of innumerable administrators, in order to undermine my credibility. His other favourite ad hominems are constant appellations to my block log, a sad evidence to the inadequacy of WP admins. The latest sally happened just two days ago and he shows no signs of ever desisting from this practice:

Few people addressed by Piotrus know that during this year the contents of the RfC were already twice examined (and ultimately rejected) by ArbCom. At least that did nothing to deter Piotrus from harrassing me with that wikilink. His behaviour is curiously reminiscent of User:Bonaparte (now permabanned) who simply pasted the entire content of the RfC page to any dispute he was involved with me in order to question my judgement. By application of these tactics, Piotrus and Bonaparte created sufficient negative attitude towards the rude guy Ghirlandajo that one stray admin finally blocked me without bothering to look into the matter, just citing a myth of Ghirlandajo's long-term incivility. The notorious RfC was once again used to incite that block. Just a day ago, Piotr attempted to repeat the same trick on the same board, probably hoping for another rapid block, but other admins prudently ignored this latest outburst.

If Piotrus could characterize his rather mild dispute with Elonka back in June as his character assassination, how should I classify the whole-year-round crusade against myself?

Accusations of vandalism and abuse of rollback

Whenever Piotrus is involved in a content dispute with me, he starts loudly accusing me of vandalism. He even invented a separate section at the top of the Polish noticeboard, called "articles vandalized or in need of attention", which effectively serves to attract other Polish editors to the articles edited by myself at the moment. At one point he proclaimed there that every article edited by myself is in effect vandalized but was warned to retract this statement. He then called my edits "V-word" (i.e., vandalism). These behavioural problems are by no means limited to his attitude towards myself as a pernicious vandal. Here's another example when Piotrus eagerly calls "a vandal" his long-standing opponent in a content dispute.

As a result of this dismissive attitude to his opponents, Piotrus developed an annoying practice of rollbacking their edits: "I have full right to rollback those of Ghirlandajo's edits which I deem as vandalism". Actually, I don't know under which circumstances and for which merits Piotrus was promoted to administrators. With the exception of wheel warring, his administrative actions are unknown to me. And, as far as I can recall, he never uses rollback for reverting vandalism, but reserves the button for content disputes only. With me, it happened for the first time here. Then the practice became regular: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Since WP:RV classifies Piotr's routine abuse of rollback as "slaps in the face of good-faith editors", I pointed out to him that I am offended by his misuse of tools. As he declined to revise the practice, I brought the issue to WP:ANI. Nobody bothered to reprimand him there and I was forced into using rollback as a means of self-defense. In June, User:Dmcdevit finally noticed the problem and persuaded me to desist, warning Piotrus as well.

Spamming and canvassing

Every content dispute with me is accompanied by Piotr's efforts to escalate the conflict by canvassing supporters on the Polish noticeboard: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]... The tactic eventually spread to other regional noticeboards and became a regular feature of them all.[citation needed]

A much more disturbing element of Piotr's "warfare" is his habit of spamming talk pages of wikipedians he thinks he can trust in order to recruit supporters on WP:RFA, WP:RFC, or WP:FAC. I first witnessed such massive campaign during Halibutt's RfA and it was extensively discussed at the time. Then it all repeated during my own RfC, when Piotr enthusiastically advertised it among my one-time opponents: AndriyK, Sca, 172, and R.D.H.. I denounced the practice of such "calls to action" and asked him to stop a year ago, but it still continues unabated.

Pet trolls and wheel warring

Piotrus is known for his patronizing attitude towards nationalist trolls, such as User:Molobo (currently blocked for a year) and User:Bonaparte (currently permabanned, see here). His calls to action, illustrated above, were usually addressed to Molobo, a tireless revert warrior who could quickly turn any article or talk page into a mess. When either Molobo or Halibutt were blocked for breaking 3RR, Piotrus would immediately unblock them, thus precipitating admin wars: see Molobo's block log and Halibutt's block log.

I would not say much about Piotr's wheel warring, because it was widely condemned here. A couple of excerpts will suffice:

  • "Piotrus unblocked Molobo a total of 4 separate times, removing blocks by 2 different admins" (User:Ral315);
  • "I find it very disconcerting that we have an admin going around, reverting blocks of other admins (Chris 73, Wiglaf), apparently because he is in league with the user in a content dispute" (User:Dbachmann);
  • "I am officially disappointed in the administrators involved" (User:Kelly Martin);
  • "I can't imagine any reason why anyone who would use their admin powers with such disregard would deserve our confidence" (User:Dmcdevit, who also condemned Piotr's abuse here).

Although no action against Piotrus was undertaken at the time, he did not dare to undertake further wheel warring, but vocally defended Molobo during the numerous 3RR blocks that followed:

Since I publicly decried Piotr's patronizing attitude to trolling and revert warring, he started to compare me with his pet revert warriors, belittling my integrity and arguing there is no material difference between me and Molobo: "I certainly don't see that Molobo is a 'general disruption' any more than Girlandajo is" and "personally I think Ghirla is even more disruptive in this reverts then Molobo: I have never, ever, seen Ghirla provide references", etc. See also this offensive comparison last December. He was urged to stop this baiting both by myself and by neutral observers. Nevertheless, when I was labeled a "hating racist" by User:Jaakko Sivonen (now blocked) several weeks ago, Piotrus again tried to make it appear on WP:PAIN that we are involved in some sort of content dispute and put us on an equal footing. There were objections that this qualifies as deliberate baiting. The admins preferred to believe Piotrus and the report was dropped.

Name calling and incivility

Piotrus and other Polish editors have a habit of passing communications in Polish language, so that they would not be comprehended by me and other interested observers. In these messages my name is ridiculously distorted as "Gyrandol" (a Polish word for "chandelier" and perhaps for something else). I repeatedly protested abuse of foreign languages in the project and raised the issue on WP:VPP. Nevertheless, gratuitous name calling continues: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]...

What is particularly sad about the situation, such secretive communications often mask banal incivility. In this recent message, Piotrus says: "If we speak about Ruskies [an ethnic slur], there are a couple of nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet, so we have the constant Cold War with them". Needless to say, Piotrus forgot to apologize for using ethnic slurs in the project. I don't know whether he intends to be as incivil in the future, since he refuses to discuss these xenophobic statements.

Agitating for blocks of opponents

With such background of name-calling and ethnic slurs, Piotrus hypocritically attempts to use WP:ANI or WP:PAIN as an arena to gather more disgruntled Ghirlaphobes and to incite a block of myself or his other opponent on the grounds of purported incivility. On many occasions, I saw him urge Halibutt or some other Polish editor to submit a report to these high-traffic noticeboards, in order to divert me (or another wikipedian) from productive editing and create negative publicity around my (or his) name. At least once his strategy proved successful and he managed to have me blocked by a passerby admin, when I copied verbatim a joke aired for days on WP:RD/H. As usual in such cases, he provoked a third party to submit a report against his opponent, which she promptly did, for reasons I would not enlarge upon here. (Compare his yesterday's communication to the same person for some context).

After institution of WP:PAIN, Piotrus attempted to use this board for posting fraudulent reports against his long-standing opponents in content disputes, hoping to elicit a quick block. When refused, he would harrass a responsible administrator and question the purpose of the noticeboard.

In the recentmost case, Piotr's strategy was finally exposed. At first he refused to discuss the disputed point on talk page, silently removing my additions to the article as "Soviet Union propaganda" (although I provided numerous academic sources proving that unification of Ukraine and Belarus as a result of the 1939 Soviet invasion is not a "propaganda" but a stern fact and that this fact clearly deserves mention in the article Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)). After his repeated assaults, I reverted him with the summary "rvv", because his uncooperative behaviour seems to have approached our definition of vandalism. As a sidenote, I have been repeatedly reverted (when not rollbacked) by Piotrus with the same summary (see above). That very day, his friend User:Darwinek reverted my edits as "vandalism" and his behaviour was fully endorsed by Piotrus. However, in my case, Piotrus seized on the opportunity and started a new campaign to have me blocked for "egregious incivility":

Conclusion

As a result of Piotr's (and Bonaparte's) disruptive campaigning on all major noticeboards of the project throughout the year, I was subjected to unfair blocks, so that my block log has been turned into a mess. More importantly in the long run, I was effectively ousted from editing Poland- (Belarus-, Lithuania-) related topics, as that editing experience became simply unsupportable for me. I just do not have enough time to follow Piotr from one noticeboard or user talk page to another on which he slanders my name. As a result of my having moved on to other topics, Piotrus "commended my behaviour" on WP:RfAr and proclaimed that I "laid low" all this time (to borrow his own phrase). Having recently attempted to neutralize the mind-boggling POV of Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and facing his increasingly aggressive behaviour on WP:ANI and WP:PAIN, I am persuaded that his ways have not changed at all. Wikipedia for him is not an encyclopaedia but a battleground.

As was nicely summarized by another Polish editor, User:Elonka, "some of his actions have not been setting good examples of Wikipedian behavior. He engages in name-calling of other users, belittles other people's criticism, frequently makes changes to Poland-related articles without consensus, or, he starts a discussion on a confrontational topic, and then declares his own "consensus" on it, when in reality, the only consensus is from... other Poles". Piotr's other behavioural problems include fraudulent 3RR reports against his opponents, arbitrary deletion of redirects he does not like, copyright issues, etc, etc. I urge other wikipedians to elucidate these aspects of his activity in the project.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:CIVIL
WP:NPA
WP:AGF
WP:REVERT
WP:WHEEL
WP:NPOV
WP:SPAM
WP:POINT

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}

  1. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. M.K. 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (participant of the newest events)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. `'mikkanarxi 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A fair characterisation of the dispute, as seen from Ghirla's perspective. It doesn't actually matter if it's 100% accurate in objective terms, what matters is that the behaviour of a small group of Wikipedians, with Piotrus in the vanguard, has driven a knowledgeable and conscientious contributor away from articles where nationalistic bias is inherently likely and requires constant review and frequent correction. These people need to learn to tolerate their differences. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) per JzG. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I fully endorse this RfC. The type of behaviour displayed by Piotrus is unacceptable, whether or not an editor differs in opinion from another, to actually use nationalist bias to drive another contributor away is wrong in all cases. Rarelibra 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Piotr's behaviour during RfC

Since this RfC started, a couple of commentators came up with the idea of a ceasefire. As may be seen from my edits, I generally complied with this, as I hold very little interest in what Piotrus does, as long as he does not slander my name on every public board and user talk page. All this time, Piotr was busily bulldozing user talk pages with "requests for input" along the lines of: "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comment on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc. If someone found some basis in the dispute above, he would pop up on their talk page complaining: "I wonder why you so completly support Ghirla's side of my RfC", "for each slight I might have done - after being provoked by his much more incivil comments - he has done hundreds", etc. I don't know how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as unseemly and incivil, so I was forced to defend my name on several pages, but generally determined not to react to provocations of this sort.

As a result of Piotr's activities on the Polish notice-board and user talk pages, the RfC has been plagued by clouds of his meatpuppets, which induced me to warn that his impunity would cause the level of his aggression towards myself to soar. Indeed, yesterday we witnessed a new relapse into his usual ways. I was editing Khotyn, an article that was formerly steeped in heavy Romanian nationalism, when I noticed that, instead of discussing his grievances on the article talk page, Piotrus spams users pages of Romanian wikipedians asking to "double check" Ghirla's edits which "look highly POVed": If you know who'd be interested in this, please let them know, etc. Such behaviour is the reason why one can't run away from Piotrus to other topics: even when they have nothing to do with Poland, he still needs to prosecute myself there. Since this behaviour continues even during this RfC I don't dare to hope that it will cease after the scrutiny of his conduct is over.

I was still hoping that it will be the end of his assaults for the time being. Not at all. There have been concerns on the talk page of this RfC about the quality of Piotr's FAs and shady ways that resulted in their promotion. In the middle of the discussion of how the promotion of his latest featured article was effected, Piotr appeared on Rus' Khaganate (which was a FAC at the moment), edited by me and User:Briangotts, and started to sprinkle "citation needed" templates there and opposed the article on that ground. Such aggressive spamming of "citation needed" templates was practiced by him before and was specifically condemned by a sitting arbitrator. Parenthetically, the article has 74 inline citations, which is more than most featured articles do. When I pointed out this to him, Piotrus accused a fellow admin, Briangotts, of vandalism for removing the spammed templates and went to complain to the user talk page of an administrator who runs WP:PAIN. I removed his incivility from Briangotts's page per WP:RPA but he started to revert war about this. Following a pattern of his edits discussed above, I now expect him to pop up on WP:ANI requesting for blocks of myself and Briangotts...

In a nutshell, the last week demonstrated who is following whose edits on unrelated topics, pursuing his WP:POINT campaign in Wikipedia. Whenever I try not to notice Piotrus, he will still follow my edits with the aim to provoke and then to complain on public boards how terribly he was offended. I don't know why he does it, as he knows too well that his every attempt to set up a coalition against myself tends to escalate. What does he try to prove (and to whom) when he thanks me for "proving his point" on such occasions? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second addendum by User:Ghirlandajo

I continued to follow the advice of most non-involved commentators and meticulously withdrew from Poland-related topics, until I discovered that Piotrus and his minions were plotting to have an article on a Russian location to be moved to a Polish name all that time. When I commented that "I view any attempt to render the names of Russian locations in Polish as deliberate provocation", there arose a crapfest. This induced me to check the contributions of Piotr's associates and I found that some of them seem to be editing Wikipedia specifically to harrass myself and to make my wikilife as miserable as possible while this RfC is still in progress. It is pathetic to see Piotrus pontificate among them (in Polish, of course) how best to push their agenda across Wikipedia.

Just a quick note on this - Piotrus and the one of the aforementioned minions (User:SpaceCadet) came after me today when a user (Pmanderson) contacted him regarding something that occurred in the past. This displays the 'bully' type of behavior that is not acceptable and mentioned several times throughout this RfC. Rarelibra 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I decided to keep away from this mess and continued my work on Russia-related articles. Among other things, I split Muscovy into Grand Duchy of Moscow and Tsardom of Russia, which I proceeded to expand significantly (without ever mentioning Poland, I suppose). That provoked such ire of Piotrus and his minions that they harrassed me for hours on multiple notice-boards, from Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Mess created, help needed to... you guessed it... Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial_moves, demanding that the move be reverted and discussed with them first! Need I say that no neutral observer bothered to comment on the latest trollfest? How can I edit Russia-related article, if Piotrus and Co monitor my contributions and either openly interfere with it, or proceed to forum shopping on higher-traffic noticeboards? Their behaviour is so predictable as to make any further comments and revelations utterly pointless. That Piotrus, Beaumont, Appleseed, and Balcer continue to harrass me even while this RfC is in progress, makes me feel very pessimistic indeed. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Response by Piotrus

Well, let me start by saying that I consider all of the above accusation bogus, but I do admire the effort Ghirla and M.K. went to - this is a splendid piece of propaganda. Now, let me address some of the main points they raise:

  • severe 'black and white' etc. pro-Polish bias: while I admit I am not neutral (per WP:NPOV, nobody can really be), I am well aware of my bias; it doesn't seem to usually affect my contributions as the 13 featured articles I mostly wrote have been accepted by the Wikipedia community (and then there are 6 others FA I helped with, several GA, and the fact that virtually none of articles I have craeted or significantly contributed to has a long-standing NPOV tag). Second, I am not afraid to write about 'darker side' of Polish history - for example, I wrote articles on Stanisław Grabski, champion of polonization (another article I contributed to, and by expanding sections, not censoring them), or on May Coup.
  • the second para of the description is particularly ridiculus. Thank you, Ghirla, for bringing the mediation case, I planned to do that anyway. The user who first accused me of 'abuse of admin powers' (User:Elonka) has apologized to me and the mediator assigned to the case pointed out early that I have not abused my admin powers, and your comment on that page was a personal attack. As for the accussation that I am 'calling on a significant group of like-minded, fellow Poles', the issue was addressed by the mediation, in which your only comment was the above-mentioned personal attack; the mediation also showed that, suprise, there is no cabal and accusation of its existance are rather offensive. Thus your attempt to build your case on this mediation, showing old arguments which were later rebuked/withdrawn/apologized for by the editors involved in this mediation (as anybody who looks at the latest diff can see) is as I said ridiculus. On the side note I should point out that if you have a problem with me, per WP:DR you should try mediation first before RfC - although considering your behaviour in the one I tried (mentioned above), I can see why you decided to avoid asking mediators for help (as I doubt any would seriously consider your 'case').
  • thank you for pointing out your RfC. It, as well as many other things, speaks for itself. I will however add that your accusations of 'revenge' are contrary to WP:AGF and seem like a personal attack.
  • and yes, I see no reason why we should not mention this RfC or your very enlightening block log (did I already said that many pages here will speak for themselves?) on relevant pages (i.e. where your behaviour is discussed, as is often the case). To call it character assassination is a joke, both because it is not my intention, and because your actions, Ghirla, have 'assassinated your character' long, long time ago. And I'd very much like to see diffs to back up this statement: the contents of the RfC were already twice examined (and ultimately rejected) by ArbCom. As far as the 'myth of Ghirlandajo's long-term incivility' goes... well, it's a 'myth' that even ArbCom shares'.
  • the idea that a separate section at the top of the Polish noticeboard, called "articles vandalized or in need of attention" would be dedicated to you is amusing - while you are a problematic editor, Ghirla, I am sorry to say you are not the only one out there. Your edits often border on vandalism, as has been pointed out by other admins; and I do admire your attempt to note nobody objected to my actions on ANI and that Dmcdevit warned you to stop impersonating admin rollback power. As for myself not using rollback for anything but reverting Ghirla, well, my contribs are just a click away :)
  • 'Spamming and canvassing' - informing interested editors or boards of relevant matters is perfectly in-line with our policies (what are the noticeboards for if not for notifying watching users about such issues)? I also see nothing wrong with me asking others for opinion (I don't believe that I am 100% right).
  • Regarding pet-trolls (personal attack anyone?) and wheel warring: I admit I was somewhat out of line in that incident, as was User:Wiglaf (who is no longer an active editor), although as you pointed out I have not engaged in admin wheel warring since, I was not blocked for that, and not only I but User:Wiglaf were reprimanded by the community (actually some of the comments you cite above were reprimands of him, or us both, not just of myself). To end this particular complaint of yours, thank ou again for admiting that 'The admins preferred to believe Piotrus and the report was dropped.' Score one for the cabal again? :)
  • Name calling like refering to this edit as 'lie' (or 'denial')? Try again, Ghirla. As for calling you Gyrandol, I apologize if you found it offensive - but it's just a nickname, no different from you calling Halibutt 'Hali' ([26], [27], etc.).
  • Since you put so much effort into describing the 'latest case when I attempted to have you blocked', anybody is welcome to examine the links themselves. I still cannot find any 'numerous academic sources' proving your edits that I reverted (once they were added, I expanded the relevant sections, while you continued to delete my edits - Balcer's edit summary sais it all as far as I am concerned). I do find it interesting that you seem to pick up diffs of relevant discussions most supporting your case instead of pointing out that when the relevant discussions ended my actions were far from condemned - for example, JzG apparently agreed with me that the thread has the right to say on ANI - although I will take this opportunity to note I am very disappointed with how this issue was handled (report removed from PAIN on the basis that 'DR may be a better solution' and my enquiry into why if it is personal attack it is not handled on PAIN being censored...). Score one for the opponents of WP:NPA here, I guess :(
  • Just to take one more of your so-called 'evidence' appart, let's take a look at arbitrary deletion of redirects he does not like: it was deleted per consensus on RfD (and was supported by most editors on talk page). But of course for Ghirla it's an example of how I abused my admin powers... *shrugh*.

Well, I believe 1h spend replying to this RfC is enough. It is my ending statement that Ghirla has no case and instead this RfC is nothing but - to use Ghirla's own phrase 'harrassment and character assassination' - little different from similar tactics employed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt. 99% of his 'evidence' is basically examples of when he was condemned for his behaviour and instead of apologizing he started attacking the people he offended in the first place - thus in fact most of that 'evidence' would be more fitting to RfC:Ghirla 2 then here; the remaining 1% when I have indeed erred, like in the case of unblocking Molobo, is an 'exception to the rule' (all humans err) and I have apologized for such mistakes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. It is a deeply boring case (Ghirla vs. Piotruś) which is not going to be resolved, ever. I suggest you both calm down and sign some peace treaty :). But honestly, after spending 30 minutes reading this, I must sign here. - Darwinek 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Beaumont (@) 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --K. Lástocska 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Appleseed (Talk) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After further investigation and having read Piotrus's post on the talk page, I'm going to add my name here. --Folantin 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Balcer 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Well, I must say that "Ghirlandajo's long-term incivility" is not a myth invented by Piotrus, as Ghirla wants to present, but the reality which I witness. --KPbIC 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Tankred 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. logologist|Talk 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC). It's a shame that talented editors like Piotrus must divert their efforts to defending themselves from harassment such as this.[reply]

Please note I have wrote a long post addressing many other issues raised in outside views that I did not address above at the talk page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I cannot endorse this as a summary from Piotrus' point of view, as I have with Ghirla's, because in it Piotrus asserts that Ghirla has no grounds for complaint, and I cannot support that assertion. I see fault on both sides, and Piotrus cannot go on pretending that his actions are not problemtic - enough other people have said they are to indicate that it really is time he sat down and thought long and hard about how to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view

Intside view by M.K (talk · contribs)

I have sign on Ghirlandajo statment, but I have duty to express some thoughts as insider too. Concerns raised about user:Piotrus’ behavior is far more reaching when only between Ghirlandajo and Piotrus. Sadly, I had opportunity to witness Proconsul`s misconducts directed not only towards Ghirlandajo, me, but as well as many more contributors. And scenario is quite same – fierce unfounded accusations of incivility gain and again he continues and continues. No need to talk about article content,nothing, just accuse somebody, with whom you dot agree, of bad faith, incivility etc. It is quite handy weapon in Piotrus hands. Isn’t it? And to support these accusations he ignores obvious facts, just to seeks his “goal”. And in the moment of truth when neutral contributor intervenes all these similar accusations had been rejected and even more -pointing the truth behind. Probably normal contributor would stop, but not the Proconsul Piotrus! It looks like such events only stimulates him to find new target, now the “bad” one is neutral contributor – [28] and he would not let it go easily. What is the most striking is as an administrator with a almost two years of history I believe I can recognize trolling when I see it, well probably administrator with almost two years of history can't spot his own misconducts, because well, it is trolling conducted by Piotrus. Sadly this is not the isolated incident at all. Piotrus could raise real moral standards by showing such examples by himself personally and acting as real moral authority. But no, Piotrus is not the moral authority. Quite recently he conducted quite nasty attack related with particular group, using one of the sneakiest ways - camouflaging in his native language. Call me old fashioned, but I deeply convinced that contributor holding position of administrator should not intervene in any such behavior, even more administrator has to demonstrate example of contributions and behavior to rest of us, unchallenged contributions! Sadly these vital traits Piotrus do not hold. I also find very troubling that Proconsul in his defensive speech made appeal to the user:Halibutt (well known Polish POV pusher, who has his own RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt also, and he is Piotrus friend ) case. Concerns raised by various editors in Halibutt`s case like user: Alex Bakharev, user:Renata3, user:Irpen etc. does not prevent fierce defence from Piotrus. And yet again lack of moral authority. And POV pushing from Piotrus and his friend Halibutt are too well know to speak about them broadly (something similar). And yet again lack of moral authority from Proconsul. M.K. 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary:

Addendum by M.K (talk · contribs)

I observe the newest situation and the conclusion is one – conflict is not declining, but contrary – it depends. Some evidence provided by Ghirlandajo in his addendum blanks to the newest “examples” such as Talk:Muscovy (Grand Duchy) and [29]. I am afraid conflict would not be solved by “peace pacts” or appeals for Christmas - wake up people! This is prolonged conflict involving many sides and many different contributors; I will say that this conflict was not mastermind by side which I represent. I will tell you unknown part of conflict, which involves this particular user:Piotrus supported by his friends. Lithuanian contributors and Lithuanian related articles suffered quite in the same style as it was presented here, yes maybe it is less documented and less known, but the facts remains and they are ugly. This conflict acquired most ugly face – from mocking national language (specialist of this area - user:Halibutt), training massive sock puppet assaults during the votes [30] (unchallenged specialist of this area – User:Logologist and his recruits User:KonradWallenrod, User:Mattergy, User:Anatopism), twisting and distorting historic facts. And this is done only for one purpose – to push the right “truth”, Polish “truth”. Do not be tricked that this is the small and temporary misunderstandings, actually the situation is so intense that contributors leaves Wikipedia, because they can’t stand continues assaults. I will stress highly respected contributors leaves Wikipedia! And what so called administrator Piotrus did when such crimes took place? Oh, he did a huge work…saving his friends “lives” and trying to pretend that everything is ok! Yes maybe such type of situation is over – [31] and [32] (quite same scenario, a?). I somehow missed Piotrus` actions when he so “precisely” applied Wikipedia rules to others, that I thought maybe he also make some moves, for instance when, sock puppeteer User:Logologist accused neutral contributors of sockpuppetry [33], [34] So, there was Piotrus? Somehow I did not remember that he ever ran to ANI or PAIN for Logologist case, passionately arguing about Logologist misbehavior. Anybody? This is no surprise that this particular contributor Logologist supporting the “right” side now during this RfC. Pay back? That about the case when mocking of national language took place? Does the case was taken to any board mentioned above by particular user. No. Or maybe situation when original research was conducted by Halibutt provoke taking some actions? This situation is most interesting because contributor challenged Edmundas Rimša. Do you feel the power - established Ph.D Edmundas Rimša, who’s expertise seeking a nice bunch of foreign states, was challenged by unknown to the rest of the world contributor, who from Latin scored B!! You can imagine that would happed if such “research” was made by other contributor – most likely, as history shows, all public boards would be spammed by Piotrus with messages about original research warning. But in this particular situation nothing happed. Why? Good question. And this is not the end! When abominable practice of ethnic jokes continued and even emerged in mainspace [35], author of this “contribution” was warned by another administrator and you know that happened? Actually Piotrus was the first who ran to the admin and asked for reconsidering the warning [36]. Maybe to some this “history” will look in different colors now. Lets talk about different issues, for instance about referencing articles. Quite recently Piotrus made this [37]. Just wondering why this source was wrong? Because it was not in EN? But quite a lot of refs are not in EN, and why such articles as Armia Krajowa (IMO, one of the most POV`ed articles in Wiki) uses Polish and why in this case Polish sources are not removed, I believe quite many parts of it can fall under "definition" - weasel words? And why suddenly such need to “neutral” phrasing here, please note the sentence is with EN reference. Answer – because it needs to mask historic facts, which are not pleasant to Polish contributors, particularly Piotrus. And the same stories continued round and round, involving different contributors, states, but only Piotrus' behavior and contributions remains the same. We need to do something with this editor and fast! M.K. 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wrong again, Piotrus. Is that how it works? Logologist, endorses you and the summaries supporting you. And that gives you great satisfaction! Pity, his sockpuppets can't back you up in this mess. But you can take comfort in knowing if Molobo could endorse you, he would be another vote endorsing your endeavors on English Wikipedia, Dr. Dan 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't understand why Piotrus derives such satisfaction from "endorsements" by a group of his seasoned minions. His latest ad hominem outburst below made me sick. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very easy to explain. They derive the same satisfaction by endorsing each other, that they do, by giving each other "medals" on a continual and regular basis, for their "contributions". Dr. Dan 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

  1. Wow, I have to say I never thought something could top the opening of this RfC, but you have done it :> Unfortunatly I don't see what it proves other then that you have a very strong POV, you disagree with me on a lot of content issues, and your grip on the evidence is very similar way to Ghirla. Just looking at your opening 'shot', i.e. Talk:Muscovy_(Grand_Duchy)#Moving_the_article and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial_moves, we can see what? Two discussions where (at the moment I am writing this reply) three editors support me, and one Ghirla (statistics not that different from the voices in this entire RfC, for that matter). Alas, the fact that your original statement has not been endorsed by a single user since this RfC started two weeks ago speaks for itself, I don't predict your addendum (or any other that follow) will receive a better score.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Outside view by Ideogram (talk · contribs)

I am quite certain nothing will come of this RfC. Ghirla's credibility with all steps of the dispute resolution process is quite low. --Ideogram 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Ideogram 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Goodlief 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No real desire to resolve the conflict. Just bickering, will lead nowhere. --Lysytalk 00:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Appleseed (Talk) 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It seems to me that this RfC is coming to a large extend out of a desire to get even. The desire has been fulfilled. No further actions necessary. Move on. --KPbIC 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As I wrote above, I have doubts about intent and evidence presented in this very proceeding. But I still hope something good will come out of this... maybe the hatchet can be buried somehow.-- PiotrKonieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. logologist|Talk 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  8. --Beaumont (@) 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Right on target. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commented in talk page.

Outside view by Calgacus (talk · contribs)

I have had run-ins with Piotrus in the past. My problems stemmed from my naive and rather clumsy intervention in the Jogaila article. Here Piotrus treated me, I felt, rather rudely; being naturally abrasive myself ... it went from there. The sudden appearance of lots of Polish users attacking me at the same time led me to the Polish wikipedian's notice board. There I discovered Molobo, Piotrus and others were using it to concentrate support for revert wars. Regarding me, I was being referred to openly in a negativel manner I did not appreciate, in both Polish and English (though not by Piotrus). I felt the noticeboard was undermining the integrity of wikipedia, and I made an effort to counter this noticeboard's power by several means. Since then, perhaps owing to the intervention of Elonka and exit of Molobo, Piotrus' behaviour has been better and the Notice Board no longer functions so much in the same offensively partisan manner. Piotrus and I do not regard, I hope, each other as enemies any longer.

However, I do not edit eastern European articles as extensively as wikipedians like Ghirla. There is a real issue here. Ghirla has been victimized by many of the Polish users on wikipedia. And I say "victimized" merely because there are more of them than he, and they have establshed between them an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust. The enmity is deep rooted, and his Polish "enemies" have the numerical power to make him suffer more than he can return. Ghirla is, however, certainly one of wikipedia's most important content contributors. Piotrus has a similar status. This problem can perhaps be solved by an effort at reconciliation. Both users are reasonable enough to establish a relatively cordial modus vivendi. I hope they would do so. As Ghirla is blatantly no POV pusher, it could be helped if Piotrus would distance himself and cease protecting extremist users such as Molobo and Halibutt, who are more often the cause of Ghirla's run-ins with Piotrus than anything else. It could also help if both Ghirla and Piotrus had arbitrators they could consistently turn to during the inevitable content disputes that arise from certain sensitive eastern european articles. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. That's it in a nutshell! Dr. Dan 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Catchpole 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Giano 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sounds familiar to me.  Matthead discuß!     O       02:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

  1. Personally I feel it is myself who was victimized in those conflicts, not the other way around.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with Piotrus. logologist|Talk 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Elaragirl

After losing almost a good 20 minutes of my life reading this back-and-forth saga, I can't really say that either party, Piotrus or Ghirla, have acted in a manner consistant with civility. There seems to be a very long standing conflict here, between two talented, skilled, authoritative editors with long and impressive contribution histories. The level of histronics and bile displayed on both sides is enough to make even me step back, and I'm pretty damned incivil. I can only strongly suggest that you both remember this is a Request for Comment, and that you both try to find some sort of common ground to work from to resolve this debacle before it causes wider acrimony between you, and between anyone else who feels compelled to take sides. Both of you have acted inappropiately. Both of you have been goaded by the other. Can't this all just stop? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Goodlief 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Addhoc 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --yandman 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Endorse. No one is going to "win" here, no one deserves to "win" here. Further recriminations are completely pointless. Moreschi 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --I also endorse this view, as I agree with it and also because my neutrality has been called into question....K. Lástocska 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Deckiller 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Most of this could be avoided if the editors simply agree to stop commenting on each others every action. Shell babelfish 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Let's get some wikilove flowing, not wikihate...Antimatter---talk--- 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Chris 73 | Talk 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by `'mikkanarxi

Even in this page in the answer Piotrus cannot help but slander Ghirla, stating as a matter of fact: "while you are a problematic editor, Ghirla," ...etc. Ghirla generates a huge number of top notch texts. Of course, his sources (and texts) may have russian bias, and among hundreds of his excellent edits one may find a couple of "problematic", but this enormous character assassination by Polish wikipedians, includig admins, went way over board.

Putting Piotrus and ghirla on a common ground kinda "you both calm down", "reconciliation", etc. is an attempt to drag a red herring here. We are discussing an accusation of an admin (!) being a rogue. Turning the accuser into a defendant is a deplorable practice.

Since Piotrus seems to genuinely fail to understand what's all this about, I suggest to suspend his amdin's rights to give him some time to refresh some basic rules of the game. `'mikkanarxi 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a personal note: I have removed from my watchlist all Polish and Moldova/Romania-related topics because these two communities have almost religious, aggresive intolerance to other's point of view, and their admins do nothing to calm/neutralize their most ardent warriors, and in my age I have to watch my health. `'mikkanarxi 17:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I especially appreciate mikka's summary, because he is more experienced and prolific editor than all who posted on the page taken together. I am indeed sort of offended by those who try to close their eyes to admin abuse and reduce the problem to the Polish-Russian relations. There is a substantial difference between me and Piotrus: he is an admin and admins are supposed to answer to the higher requirements of civility and integrity than we mere users. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thanks, Mikka. Yes, it looks very much as if Piotrus in particular is reacting to Ghirla largely on the basis of generic ill-feeling between national groups. This is completely inappropriate, and the way he has single-mindedly pursued Ghirla instead of simply agreeing to differ gives credible grounds for questioning his ability to be neutral. I am not one for calls to remove the sysop bit from people, but this really does call into question Piotrus' critical judgement of his own biases. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. M.K. 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mikka's analysis is correct. One way this matter could be resolved is by having P.P. resign, and run again in a new vote. If he succeeds and wins, his opponents should shut their yaps. If because of his supposed activities the consensus defrocks him, then the matter will at least be played on a more level playing field in the future. Dr. Dan 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Errabee 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with the sentiment behind these resolutions, although I think suspending Piotrus' adminship may increase the general air of antagonism here. Piotrus need to learn greater tolerance of the views of others, if this does not happen, then suspend him - perhaps he could be monitored rather than initialy suspended. Giano 07:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

  1. Constanz - Talk 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The nationalistic comment above against Poles and Romanians is inacceptable. It's neither relevant nor needed here. --Lysytalk 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per Lysy --Beaumont (@) 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Appleseed (Talk) 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But Ghirla is a problematic editor. That's the point. Piotrus is not. --KPbIC 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Replied on talk to the issues raised here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The comment on Polish and Romanian Wikipedian communities is totally unacceptable and disgraceful. - Darwinek 10:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I will not endorse any statement which seeks punitive action against Piotrus. Especially not this one--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. logologist|Talk 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Olessi 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by K. Lástocska

I agree with Darwinek that a peace treaty is definitely in order. :) I have had very limited contact with either of the combatants here, and I am neither Polish nor Russian, so I think I come from a pretty neutral perspective. ;) I looked through some of the examples Mr. Ghirla provided of the supposed evil nationalistic POV of Mr. Piotrus, and found most of them to be harmless. For everyone's consideration I would like to simply and neutrally say this: Piotrus is Polish, so it's not surprising that most of his (huge!!) contribution would be Poland-related, and it's also not surprising if he might sometimes have an unconscious bias, no one can be completely free of bias about issues and/or countries close to their hearts. And I can say the exact same thing about Ghirla: he is Russian, so it's not surprising that most of his (equally huge!!) contribution would be Russia-related, and it's also not surprising if he might sometimes have an unconscious bias, no one can be completely free of bias about issues and/or countries close to their hearts. :) However, in reading this page and a few others that I found through links on Ghirla's examples, I must say I am dismayed at the large amounts of accusations of extremism, nationalism, trollism and other nasty things coming from Ghirla. I don't want to really "take sides" here, but I am bothered by Ghirla's frequent and severe incivility: that is no way to resolve POV disputes, it only makes things worse. And while it is not my intention to say that Piotrus is completely blameless in this dumb little war (since he's not entirely), my immediate impression is that Piotrus is generally a civil, responsive and hard-working Wikipedian (please note that in the above respone, he admits to his errors and apologizes.) So, mainly because of the civility issue, I feel I must sign here in neutral and non-partisan support of Piotrus. (Egad, I feel like Switzerland. :)) But yes, again with Darwinek, PLEASE sign a peace treaty, guys, for the good of Wikipedia and the sake of everyone's sanity! K. Lástocska 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Beaumont (@) 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Constanz - Talk 07:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mieciu K 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 100% support. --Lysytalk 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep, really truthful summary. Historians are people with good memory. That's a problem. :) It's hard to develop a relationship keeping in mind all the bad things your opponent did in the past. What may work is a fresh start from scratch. As the peace treaty, make a mutual agreement not to recall the issues of the past. --KPbIC 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A very 'on spot' analysis from an editor I never met before.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Well said! Really, this is a witch hunt. logologist|Talk 20:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with KPbIC that a peace treaty or truce is vital. Olessi 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Biruitorul

I'm not going to take a stance here, as I try to avoid making enemies. I can say that one word sums up this situation: sad. Sad because you're both normally excellent contributors and you have to waste time on this sort of Wikidrama. Now, I think it's fair to say that the root cause of the bad blood between you two is the fact that you are Polish and Russian, respectively. If both of you were Poles or both Russians, I doubt we'd be having a discussion. I'm aware of the history between your two countries, but that doesn't justify such conduct here. In fact, when you act with incivility, you make your countries look worse in the eyes of uninvolved contributors. Speaking as a Romanian, I've worked here quite well with Hungarians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians, all of whom are (to one extent or another) traditional enemies of Romania. Yes, Hungary treated Romanians in Transylvania quite badly. Yes, Bulgaria occupied Bucharest in WWI. Yes, Ukraine holds chunks of territory I think rightly belong to Romania. Does any of that matter here? Not one whit. More pertinently, are individual editors personally responsible for these things? Of course not. Please keep your feud out of articles and preferably out of talk pages if avoidable. If you really want, you're free to set up a Polonopedia or a Russopedia with all the POV you desire. But not here.

Just one question, Ghirlandajo: why the scare quotes around the words "massacres" and "betrayals"? Katyn, for instance, was a very real phenomenon for the many thousands who had bullets fired into their brains by the Soviets. The betrayal, too, was real, although this is more debatable, but it's clearly a noteworthy historical concept. And Poland is, like Russia, a very brave and refined nation. Of course admitting Katyn comes at some expense for Russia, but you don't deny genocide, you admit it, punish the guilty, and work for reconciliation. The fact is, Russia and Poland have very much in common and it's a shame they can't each make some concessions to the other and have a healthier relationship.

In the name of God - a God in Whom, if I'm not mistaken, all three of us believe, and Who tells us to "love one another" - stop! If you must, edit articles on Latin America or Africa for a while. Biruitorul 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Strong support. Excellent post as usual Biru, couldn't have (and didn't) said it better myself! K. Lástocska 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I don't know all the details of this dispute but I have serious concerns about any WP editor who would place the Katyn Forest Massacre in scare quotes. Whether an editor happens to be a nationalist is one thing; what really counts is whether they can maintain the standards of objectivity necessary for producing this encyclopaedia. --Folantin 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support The label "sad" is understatement - like two people who are otherwise OK but cant get along, like ex-spouses in who's inane squabbles you really dont want to get involved ...but a forced moral equivalency is not correct here - this mud doesnt stick 50/50. To keep positive about it, Piotrus behaves correctly in those instances where I have had involvement - indeed admirably in one case (failed FAC) where he kept his poise under undue provocation. I'm happy to put my two cents in for his defense. István 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - this is indeed a clash of titans. I consider both users excellent contributors, and working with them was sheer joy. I think wikipedia will meet problems were it to lose contributions from either of them. I could not have possibly looked into every example cited by Ghirla, but I'm sure that, if mistakes were made, a neutral perspective can be shed on all articles - speaking abstractly, a massacre is a massacre (defining it as such should cause no problem, not even of neutrality - unless we fall into the "how many stones does it take to make a pile of stones?" argument; inventing one should be a problem, and something tells me it is not the case here) while matters of "betrayal" can simply be presented as "he said she said", as long as the he and she are notable (and something tells me they are). Judging by his contributions, Molobo is not really an asset on wikipedia - and it seems that Piotrus has agreed with this; however, the Russian side of the matter has also blossomed hit-and-run editors, and so has every national "subdivision" of wiki (at no point should one editor answer for another); I can point out several admins all over wikipedia who have not been discredited by openly supporting trolls, and I'd say Piotrus hasn't really done that. We have all been counterproductive at least once (the one instance where I have seen Piotrus acting like that was on T:TDYK, where he successfully promoted an article that was not compliant with requirements - but I have always considered that a mere mistake). The accusation of canvassing also seems unfounded - Piotrus looks to be expressing a personal belief, and not calling on anyone to agree with him (sure, he may have a group of sympathetic editors, but so does every admin, whether he wants to or not). I also don't buy the reference to "ethnic slurs", although I would feel frustrated if my nationality would be weighed in when it came to my edits (which does not imply that I endorse those particular edits); as I see it, Ghirla has done the latter just now (the comment, moved to the talk page, regarding the ability of Eastern European editors in Russian-occupied countries to opine neutrally on issues such as this one, which is IMO equivalent to the allegations that Russian editors are communists). I stand firmly by Birutorul's call to deescalate the matter. Dahn 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. While Bruitorul's summary has its own merits that I support, I appreciate very much the comments by Istvan and Dahn. In particular, Dahn's elaborated comment could be a separate outside view that I'd endorse. --Beaumont (@) 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Piotrus is one of Wikipedia's most brilliant and productive editors, both in the Polish and Slavic domains as well as in the broader world sphere. On those rare occasions when he may have expressed himself somewhat immoderately, it has as a rule been after protracted, unreasonable diatribes by demagogs who seek attention for themselves and their biases in this way rather than by making positive, informed contributions to the common encyclopedic effort. logologist|Talk 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Different POVs. I see no real will to resolve the conflict on either side. --Lysytalk 00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

  1. Apart from Mikka, JzG, and Calgacus, all other users who have commented on this RfC so far are newbies, mostly from Eastern European countries formerly dominated by Russia. Judging from their comments, they have little understanding of what's going on between Polish and German/Russian/Lithuanian editors and (unlike Piotrus) I actually hear their names for the first time. If their interactions with Piotrus have been uniformly positive, good for them. What is objectionable, is that they fail to distinguish admin abuse from content disputes and basically hijack the discussion of Piotr's incivility to discussing content. That Biruitorul (who has slightly more experience in the project than the others mentioned above) seems unable to spot admin abuse is particularly frustrating, given his ambitions to become an admin. I emphatically object to placing me on the same footing with Piotrus. First of all, he is a sysop, while I'm not, so there is no comparison here. Secondly, I never called him names (let alone despite his protests), I never passed secretive communications with other editors in Russian language, I never agitated for Piotrus to be blocked on public boards, and I never encouraged the activity of edit-warring trolls as a sort of ram to push anti-Polish POV. Those who fail to see the crux of the matter should understand that their comments don't help to defuse the situation. On the contrary, they may encourage Piotrus to increase his level of aggression against myself. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that several of the above posts are discussed at talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kusma

I am not interested in discussing the epic history of this conflict here, which has guilt on both sides. I am more interested in whether there is a way to end this conflict (part of the endless Eastern European Edit War, in which also other long-time good content contributors such as Halibutt and Irpen have taken part). I had hoped that both sides would be able to assume good faith again after Molobo had been blocked, but that did not work. I would recommend that Piotrus and Ghirlandajo stop commenting on each others' actions for a while. That would include Piotrus not posting everything Ghirlandajo does on the Polish noticeboard, and Ghirlandajo to stop accusing our Polish editors of cabalism. Both sides have been making unnecessary snide remarks about each other that should have better been avoided. While Piotrus' comments seem to me to be usually less sarcastic than those I often see of Ghirlandajo or Halibutt, they don't serve to defuse the situations. Anyway, I don't see how desysopping Piotrus is going to help. Piotrus has long ceased to use his admin tools in a problematic way, and I don't think he'll unblock Polish edit warriors any more. A desysopping would be a pure punishment, hurting Piotrus' ego by taking away his shiny badge. Will that do anything except make Piotrus bitter?

So if I am to suggest something, I would propose a ceasefire agreement (the voluntary version of an interaction ban): Piotrus and Ghirlandajo should stop commenting on each other, and stop drawing attention to each other's edits. There are enough other editors who will notice whether one of them has used biased sources in an article or used peacock terms in a T:DYK nomination. As both of you are obviously not going to be banned from Wikipedia at this point, you either need to assume good faith with each other or at least minimize the friction generated by not assuming good faith. I think ignoring each other would be worth a try. Kusma (討論) 10:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this suggestion:

  • Absolutely. It is highly unlikely that Piotrus would ever be desysopped for this anyway, and there is plentiful evidence of fault and bad faith on both sides. It is long past time for these two prolific and generally excellent editors to bury their differences or simply leave each other alone. If they can't, I see no option but ArbCom, who may have a creative solution to the problem. Anyone who wants to waste several more months of the community's time on a dispute in which both parties provably do know better is welcome to go down that route. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but ... as an attempt to discuss the problem with Piotrus soon involved people other than Piotrus and I, who evidently have Piotrus's (and presumably Ghirla's) talk page watched, the scope of the problem is rather wider than two (or three if we count Halibutt) editors. So, I agree, but the problem is of broader scope. The solution is the same though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big step in the right direction, And in complete concord with my proposals below. Well stated Kusma!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olessi 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sure. On a side point, would people stop creating "users who don't endorse this summary" sections, it says on the main RFC page not to. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Errabee

In September of this year, a (now rejected) RfAr was launched against Ghirlandajo. Around the same time, a number of pro-Polish and/or anti-Russian edits were made, e.g. concerning the Anarchist League of Ingria. I spoke out in support of Ghirlandajo, and Piotrus, with whom I had never spoken before, decided it would be best to ask other admins to reprimand me(which nobody did btw) and he threatened me with a RfAr [38]. He didn't consider to talk to me in private why I felt the way I did, but went straight for the attack. I don't think this is behaviour exemplary of an administrator. Now I'm not out to get the sysop bit removed from Piotrus, but I do think Piotrus needs to realize he should set an example. As this was my first run-in with Piotrus, he didn't leave a particularly good impression with me. Errabee 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Piotr's behaviour in certain situations is indeed very predictable. For instance, two hours ago I said in my addendum that pretty soon we'd see Piotr forum shopping on WP:ANI. Indeed, two hours passed, I open that page and see this. His strategems never change. Sigh... --Ghirla -трёп- 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary:

  1. It is clear from the diff that Piotrus is not threatening you. Rather, he is saying that he expects the community to bring you before ArbCom if you continue making offensive comments. Appleseed (Talk) 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If Ghirla can endorse or disagee, let me just sign here with a note that anybody can read my comment and Errabee's one which preceeds it and decide if my complain was valid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. logologist|Talk 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Outside view by Raul654

Piotrus asked me to comment here, in my capacity as FA director. I certainly feel no harassment coming from Piotrus, nor do I suspect him of sockpuppetting, and I think any claims to that effect are patently false. Raul654 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - In addition to the above, I'd also like to mention that I think Piotrus has done an outstanding job writing featured articles. It's not an easy job, and we simply don't have many people who take it upon themselves to do it. And for that, I'm grateful for his work here on Wikipedia. Raul654 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I wholeheartely agree that Piotrus is not harrassing User:Raul654 at the moment. Neither anyone suspects him of sockpuppetting, to the best of my knowledge. Any claims to that effect are patently false and have nothing to do with the basis for this RfC. What concerns me is that he still continues to solicit anti-Ghirla support from various editors (or "asks them to comment here", to use Raul's wording). This does pertain to this RfC and is most annoying. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am glad this has been cleared up. I am also glad that Ghirlandajo wholeheartedly agrees. Could he now apologize for making his false allegation that required Raul654 to step in and clear things up? Balcer 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thank you, Raul, for speaking out. The claim Balcer refers to is also repeated in this section and debunked there by several other editors. It is a perfect example that certain claims made in this RfC need to be taken with a gram of salt. Or a ton, preferably.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That's right. --Beaumont (@) 08:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hear, hear! logologist|Talk 09:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Preach brother, preach!:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Yannismarou

First of all, I must say it is difficult for me to fully comprehend the backround of this conflict, because there are so many links and sub-links that I get confused. I spent about 30 minutes to read this page and I only got a superficial idea of the overall problem. I decided however to comment, because I was also unintentionally involved in the last phase of this controversy, commenting FA Rus' Khaganate (an excellent article, co-written by Ghirla).

Making an introductory comment, I would say that I agree with a comment of another user that a reason (major or minor I do not know) of this unfortunate outcome of the Ghirla-Piotrus relations are the long-standing tensions between Russia and Poland, and, as a result, between Polish and Russian Wikipedians. There are bad memories and different prespectives of particular historical periods and events. Being a Greek and having in mind similar "tensions" between Greek and Turkish users, I can understand how easily disagreements could be derailed to "wars". The problem is however that the tensions with my Turkish friends I have in mind never became so grave; this indicates that, in this particular case, the temperament of both users involved plays a major role.

I will say a few words about what happened in Rus' Khaganate's FAC (according to my IMO): Piotrus added some [citation needed] and objected; an objection (though minor) which was excessive for me, taking into consideration the fact that it was based on just 3 missing citations and no other major reason. The objection and the use of [citation needed] made Ghirla furious, who responded in a strong but civil way to Piotrus. Mikka unjustifiably reverted Ghirla's comments and then I added my comment; at this moment realised the magnitude of the Ghirla-Piotrus conflict. For this particular "incident" I can make the following remarks:

The use of [citation needed] is an established and common practice in FAC, FARC and FAR. When I asked an independent review from User:Yomangani of El Greco he added in the article three [citation needed]. I felt grateful to him, because these assertions needed indeed citing. I must also say that when I started reviewing articles in FARC, I was not using these tags (I still regard them as ugly as Ghirla does), but I was criticized and I was asked to use them, because they are helpful for the editors - check the FAR of Vulgar Latin! Thus I do not understand why Ghirla reacts in such an excessive way, when he encounters these referencing requests (as he did in James Joyce's FARC, when I added 8-9 [citation needed]). Piotrus had also added such a tag in Demosthenes, but I did not react in this way; I just added the requested citation! Should I threaten Yomangani with ArbCom, because he helped me improve El Greco?!! It would abviously be outrageous! I think Ghirla should reconsider his stance on this particular issue. My conclusion is that by addind these referencing requests in Rus' Khaganate's FAC Piotrus did nothing wrong. His objection might have been excessive, but it was still actionable. So, I can't find here anything justifying his desysopping.

Generally speaking, I think both Ghirla and Piotrus have offered a lot to Wikipedia. Ghirla is one of the most active editors, with a long history in the encyclopedia; he has added numerous new articles and initiated valuable content improvements in other article. During the last month, some of his contributions attain FA status, which is something laudable. On the other hand, Piotrus is a major FA force, and a prudent FAC reviewer; I do not know well the other aspects of his activities. I think the major problem here is that both editors have a "hot temperament", which often results in ill-considered actions and responses (I know this attitude, because I'm also "hot temperamented"! Do not have the illusion that I am a model Wikipedian!!). I often see from both sides threats for ArbCom procedures (towards one another and towards third parties), brusque wordings, ill-grounded accusations. For instance, I do not see any vandalism by Ghirla, despite such previous allegations by Piotrus. At the same time, I do not think that the meat-puppeting accusation against Piotrus is strong; we do not have the right to victimize anybody, because other people agree with him.

I do not think that I am capable of proposing a particular way out of the present tense situation. We have to do with a skirmish, which can be resolved only if both parties manifestate their willingness to resolve it. In any case, I believe that a first step should be the avoidance of threats and of ill-tempered reactions. There are ways we can resolve owr disagreements here, besides ArbCom and Rfcs. Through dialogue and compromise, let's say. But such an attitude presupposes the re-evaluation of our bias - in this case of our nationalist bias - which is a tough task. As far Piotrus' desysopping is concerned, my oppinion is that there is not a strong case for desysopping or even suspension of administrative rights. Piotrus might have commited some minor and limited breaches of his administrative rights in the past, but I do not think that these breaches (if we accept that they are indeed breaches) are serious enough to justify the proposed measurtes against him; measures which have a stigmatic character besides their punitive and precautionary purpose. I do not think that a distinguished Wikipedian like Piotrus deserves such a stigma, unless there is uncontested proof against him for major wrongdoings (sock-puppeting, vandalism etc.), which I do not see here. I have not read Ghirla's Rfc, but I'm sure that he also did not deserve similar punitive measures. Users like Piotrus and Ghirla should be respected, lauded, treated with gratitude and used as as models to emulate; not punished or humiliated. Such conflicts between this kind of users are unfortunate, but should not shadow their history and their immense contributions to the Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. These are some thoughtful observations. However, to understand this conflict, you really do have to follow those links and sublinks. Once you do, you may be surprised to find that they don't always support the argument and are just there to look convincing to the casual observer such as yourself. Only then will the picture become clear. Appleseed (Talk) 15:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly agree with Appleseed's remarks. Dr. Dan 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I find this a generally even-handed evaluation of the situation. I'd like to remark that I support removal of gratuitous citation needed tags when they are applied to over-referenced articles so as to constitute tag trolling. As for your 8-9 tags on James Joyce, the article was not over-referenced at that point, so I just added requested citations, as you probably remember. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is indeed an even-handed eveluation of several aspects of this RfC. However I do find it puzzling how Ghirla above can endorse statements like 'Piotrus did nothing wrong' or 'there is not a strong case for desysopping or even suspension of administrative rights', though, which seem contrary to all of his other statements here and or talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It's a fair cop:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View and Proposal by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

This is only the latest sad manifestation of an ancient conflict. One which is rooted deeply not only in the personal histories of these two great editors, but in the histories of their two great countries as well. It is long past the point where appeals to WP:AGF, or other such mantras, would do any good. We cannot, therefore, dare to hope for a peace treaty, but we can certainly try for a truce...a Détente. Towards this end, let's pretend here that I actually did get elected as an arbitrator (this requires quite a stretch of the imagination, but please indulge me:). You, as two of Wikipedia's finest, no need to pretend about that, bring your conflict to me seeking some just resolution. It falls to me, then, to grant you both an Injunction. The terms of which are as follows:

  • The two parties shall agree to refrain from editwarring with one another for at least two months.
  • During this period, both parties shall also refrain from making any unsolicited edits to their talkpages or other userspace.
  • Both parties shall refrain from any behavior which may be regarded as stalking or harassment of the other, in any space.
  • Violation of any of the above terms will result in the tightening of this injunction to restrict either party from working on any article currently being edited by the other for a period of four months.
  • Failure to abide by this term will result in the offending party being blocked for from 24 to 72 hours.
  • Further violations will lead to greater penalties being imposed.
  • This injunction shall be automatically renewed unless both parties demonstrate they can behave towards one another with civility and good faith.
  • This injunction comes with no return guarantee.

Piotrus, you have repeadedly shown great charachter in acknowledging your mistakes and learning from them. Ghirla, you have shown a great capacity to forgive, which is honorable and commendable. I'm not asking you to shake hands here, merely to demonstrate once more those qualities and virtues we all know you possess. Endless arguements about past wrongs do nothing to improve the present or future. In the meantime, Wikipedia needs you both! Now gentlemen, do you find these terms acceptable?

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I wrote it didn't I?!:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. K. Lástocska 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. If both parties will endorse this, I would suggest the RfC can be closed. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A step in a right direction. Disclaimer: we are refining this at talk - I think it doesn't go as far as it should in the form presented above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I support the ethos of Ghost's message but not the so-called "injunctions". Why am I supposed to not "make any unsolicited edits" to my own talk page or user page? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are of course free to post to your user talk page, but not to Piotrus', and vice versa. Please re-read the injunctions assuming this and consider endorsing them. Without assent to the injunction, your endorsement does not close the RfC per JzG's closure suggestion. Kusma (討論) 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given Ghost's recent explanations on talk, I agree to these injunctions, with the only exception of the arbitration pages where currently I have to converse with Piotrus out of necessity. I hope that the arbitration won't last long, though. If the arbitration is accepted, then I understand that the injunctions will become invalid :( --Ghirla -трёп- 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ghirla (and Kusma as well:)!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes please. Anything less than a block-enforced injunction seems not to work. If no agreement can be worked out here, the case should be taken to RfAr so the time wasted will at least produce something that can be enforced. Kusma (討論) 17:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Olessi 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. That sounds like a possible solution -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View and Proposal by István

As the RfC winds down, please consider these three points:

1. Perspective - The most remarkable aspect of this RfC is that the two involved are such extremely productive contributors of very high quality material to Wikipedia. It must be utterly galling to them reading their actions and intentions being interpreted by those who have yet to make such a contribution (self included). Any result of this RfC should include explicit recognition of their value to the Wikipedia, which far exceeds the present disruption.

2. Scope - The conflict lies almost exclusively with each other. There is not a problem of misconduct or hostility except when the other is involved. Thus, sanction should not exceed the scope of PP-Ghirla interaction, i.e. admin tools should not be curtailed.

3. Sanction - The purpose of sanction should simply be to put distance between the two for a period of time. Here, less is more: I propose that one does not edit a page edited by the other within the previous 24 hours. This is completely objective and verifiable (evidence is on the history page). Infraction brings a 24 hour ban. This should run for 1 month. Such an injunction does not require the two to interpret adjectives (e.g. "uncivil", "unsolicited") and is thus unlikely to become basis for yet another RfC. (Perhaps such a Wiki "restraining order" could be coded as a useful tool, something for feuds between otherwise normal editors).

In summary, enforced distance seems appropriate as neither will back down alone. All who care about the Wikipedia (i.e. enough to be involved here) should celebrate, not impune, the constructive contributions of both PP and Ghirla and hope that both editors begin again to produce, unencumbered by this running feud, for a long time to come.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. István 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC) - (I wrote it). Merry Christmas and its back to vacation now...[reply]
  2. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Well Stated! Merry Fishmas to all![reply]
  3. K. Lástocska 21:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC) yes, definitely agree, and much better stated than that wiki-suicide I just posted on RfA...Boldog Karácsonyt kivánok! Now back to Wikibreak/hiding.[reply]
  4. --I am really disappointed with what's going on wiki these days and try to shorten my time here, but this statement is definitely worth endorsing. Ghirla -трёп- 06:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse first and third part, oppose to the second (see talk - I believe others are involved in this as well).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View and Proposal by Matthead

When editing Polish/German issues, I crossed swords with the numerous Polish editors (which turned out to be not that numerous in some sad cases, I have to add), yet also managed to step on Ghirla's foot once or twice. As everybody, I do respect their valuable contributions, but I frown upon the conflicts which they apparently can not avoid, as these have a rather big and ongoing impact on Wikipedia. The main difference between the two, which seems unfair to me, is that Piotrus has as many "moons" as the big and cold planet Jupiter, which he guides into the right "orbit" and occasionally supports with his admin powers, while Ghirla looks more like Venus to me, hot tempered and bright, but without a single permanent follower I know about. It's hard to understand for me why a controversial figure (see the Molobo unblocks) still has admin status, and suggest that Piotrus voluntarily limits/suspends/terminates his rights, and also reduces his interaction with other users of the same nationality, as the often-discussed "Polish cabal" can be perceived as a problem even without him. Choosing to do so might look like a defeat for Piotrus and hurt his pride, but I think he would earn a lot of respect from everyone for pledging to keep himself out of troubles and focussing on content in the future, much more than he can by dragging this RfC on in order to aim for an acquittal. In addition to that, the proposals by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) and Istvan above should be accepted by both, except Istvan's point 2), as I disagree that the problem is limited to PP-Ghirla interaction, and that admin tools should not be curtailed.

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.

Closing comments

This dispute was subsequently taken to arbitration; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. --Muchness (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.