Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Halibutt

message: 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)
replies: text: And what is your problem here, Matthead ? --Lysytalk 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 | talk  03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Matthead

message: 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 | talk  04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from project to discussion page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia: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 | talk  16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Move on 

message: 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 | talk  16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few? You mean few hundred thousand? (Halibutts Mainz-Aachen-Dresden campaign alone consisted of couple hundred edits). Back catalogue and reactions to it speak for themselves. // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | talk  17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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 | talk  19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 | talk  19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 | talk  20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | talk  21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 | talk  21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 | talk  14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on outside view by Irpen

message: 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, DurovaCharge! 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | talk  15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Attempt at positive commentary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethnic jokes