Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus

message: 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)
replies: text:  Is this kind of comment really the way to resolve this problem? I hardly see how further driving Ghirla into a corner will benefit anyone. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't comment in the space reserved for other people's comments except to endorse.  --Ideogram 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  rest of deleted convo, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose that I know Ideogram better than you do. Furthermore, while you are known for encouraging trolls, I am known for exposing them for what the are and eliminating Wikipedia from this stuff (see the anti-troll barnstar on my user page :) That's what makes a difference between us. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by Ideogram - discussion

message: I think that the page needs tweaking.  What looks like a statement by Calgacus seems to have been added to an endorsement section.  I don't want to wade in and tweak things myself, but figured I'd mention it here so that someone else can fix it.  There are also sections that seem to have been written in the first person, but it's not clear who wrote them.  
I'll probably also post my own statement, but I need to spend some time reading the rest of it first. --Elonka 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I pointed that out to Calgacus and he replied he is ok with moving this - will you? I prefer to limit refactoring by myself to the bare minimum here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I think I got it...  I'm not sure about the headers though.  I don't spend a lot of time in RfC-land. --Elonka 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: ====Outside view by Goodlief====
I signed the first outside view because it is true. I signed the next because... it is true.
The RFC is not neutral at all; so I will not read it. 
As Elaragirl had once stated: "[you] two have let your personal frustrations affect your ability to interact with one another." End your war with each other because quite honestly, neither of you are going to win-- you both lose. This debacle cannot get any wider; a debacle is a complete collapse or failure, and you have both failed to work together. Shame on you two, but it's ok. Now kiss and make up, please.
RFC are not meant to showcase private wars publicly. Goodlief 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samir, he was blocked 48 h for RfC trolling. I think this has nothing to do with our particular RfC, so I moved your comments to talk. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs.  -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling moved from main space 

message: I signed the first outside view because it is true. I signed the next because... it is true.
The RFC is not neutral at all; so I will not read it. 
As Elaragirl had once stated: "[you] two have let your personal frustrations affect your ability to interact with one another." End your war with each other because quite honestly, neither of you are going to win-- you both lose. This debacle cannot get any wider; a debacle is a complete collapse or failure, and you have both failed to work together. Shame on you two, but it's ok. Now kiss and make up, please.
RFC are not meant to showcase private wars publicly. Goodlief 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by [[User:Goodlief|Goodlief]]

message: Peripheral to these issues.   registered 24 hours ago and appears to be trolling WP:RFC -- Samir धर्म 06:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samir, he was blocked 48 h for RfC trolling. I think this has nothing to do with our particular RfC, so I moved your comments to talk. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs.  -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by [[User:Samir (The Scope)|Samir]]

message: Comment w/o endorsement. Like where else would have you signed? Am I right you were yawning when you signed? Dr. Dan 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to Darwinek's endorsement by Dr.Dan

message: There are two points I'd like to address in my reply to mikkanarxi. First, it's interesting to see how my calling Ghirla 'a problematic editor' is labelled 'slander' and 'enormous character assassination'; but his calling my actions harassment, tedious editing, spamming, character assassination, abuse of admin powers, suppor of trolling, name-calling, hypocrisy and vandalism (all words from his opening statement of this RfC) is ignored. Perhaps it's just me, but the pharse 'double stadnards' seems appopriate; that said I can agree with mikkanarxki that putting me and Ghirla on a common ground seems a tad strange...  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing you, not ghirla. Also, he is not "calling your actions", he is accusing, with quotations. As an admin, with certain powers you surely have to see the differences, otherwise your judgement will be quiestionable and questioned.  `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say you are abusing admin rights. I admint, there is a hair splitting between the "wikipedism" wikipedia:Rogue admin and "admin being a rogue", i.e., an "admin being a bad guy". Also please notice the word "accusation" in the phrase. In other words, again, this RFC is duscussing your behavior. And my phrase is in the context of an attempt of turning tables, resetting the focus to Ghirla, which is a deplorable tactics of defense. And a smiley is not an answer either. `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikka, it's impossible to discuss my actions without looking at Ghirla's; especially as most of his 'arguments' are about me waging 'an anti-Ghirla crusade'; I believe this RfC would be rather moot if I could not address such concerns. Besides, I am not an RfC expert, but during his own RfC, most of Ghirla's arguments centered around the behaviour of others, particularly, Halibutt - it's a shame you did not comment there to condemn such tactics there... As for his quotations, well, if anybody follows them  I am sure they will reach the same conclusion as K. Lástocska did - i.e. that most of them don't support Ghirla's interpretation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Mr. Lástocska's opinion is far from impartial. Several months ago, I saw him engage in Russophobia on WP:FAC and told him so. It is sort of cheap to cite established Ghirlaphobes as neutral observers. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ghirla, is this  the WP:FAC to which you refer in your allegation?István 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirlandajo, if you believe you have so many opponents intent on making your life miserable that they merit their own name ("Ghirlaphobes"), I urge you to review WP:CABAL and to consider examining your own behavior. Appleseed (Talk) 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appleseed please, denying that there are Ghirlaphobes on board, is like saying that Piotrus is not the self-appointed "leader" of the non-existent Cabal. Dr. Dan 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean that the supporters of this RFC are Piotruphobes? :-) Appleseed (Talk) 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure some are, while some genuinely take issue with P.P.'s actions and lack of neutrality in his capacity as an administrator, and have nothing against his persona. I truly think that the issue of his being an administrator and his related behavior in that capacity, has a lot more to do with this RfC than most Ghiraphobes will acknowledge, ever. Dr. Dan 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the looks of this RFC, the major complaint isn't anything Piotrus has done, but the ongoing bickering between him and Ghirlandajo.  The rest of it is just the same old complaints from the usual "Piotruphobes", few but vocal. Appleseed (Talk) 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am lost, please clarify - you belong to Ghirlaphobes or Piotruphobes?. Thanks. M.K. 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, the argument "He pissed on the carpet, so I can do the same" is a no-go. I didn't comment of Ghirla's RfC because I was up to the eyebrows in shit from our Romanian colleagues at this time. Still, on some other occasions I did comment that Ghirla has to cool down. I am not going to search for quotes mong my 60K+ edits, since it is not me who is being discussed here. `'mikkanarxi 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Riiight, a year old unblocking which had nothing to do with Ghirla... this is 2006, not 2005, Mikka. Do you have any 'abuse of admin powers' issues from this year, or any specific example of my behaviour from the last few months you want to discuss, or are we going to turn this into 'once upon a time, you made a mistake, and I will remind you of it till the stars go cold'? :)-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not provided any recent examples because I don't see you perform any administrative actions, in general. They are limited to rollbacking edits of those users you are in conflict with. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not provided any recent examples because there aren't any, despite how many times you will claim otherwise. Anybody can review both my contributions and my logs. Looking at the days before you filled this RfC (i.e. before the 12:14 6th December), you can see I used rollback several times reverting vandalism: 03:42, December 6; 17:45, December 5; 17:44, December 5; 13:02, December 5; 12:44, December 5; 01:20, December 5; 01:15, December 5... none of those rollbacks was against you, and no matter how often you will repeat that I use rollback only on you it will not make it true. As for admin logs, on the Dec 5 I deleted two articles (redirect and speedy); none created by you. I am afraid the 'real' evidence does not back up your claim of 'Piotrus anti-Ghirla crusade' - as can be seen by anyone who looks at the diffs you provide (when you provide them).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't feel too bad.  Ghirlandajo flings accusations of Russophobia rather easily (, , , , ) and hence I do not believe he takes them very seriously.  Why, he even believes User:M.K, his partner in this RFC, is a Russophobe as well (you can't help recognziing M.K.'s Russophobic hand in this article). Note that this does not prevent him and M.K. from being friends. Balcer 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, why Piotrus did not recruit me. Double standards? M.K. 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  lol. --Beaumont (@) 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. feel refreshed? M.K. 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to mikkanarxi comment

message: Per RfC customs and rules, long comments and questions should be started on talk, to prevent main RfC page from turning into a discussion page. I have moved a newly started discussion here, with a note in the relevant place to inform a reader that there is a debate on talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that you refer to the first nomination of the History of Solidarity. By claiming that Piotrus "kept his poise under undue provocation", do you mean his lengthy harrassing of our FA director that followed? --Ghirla -трёп- 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is about as far from harrassment as Mexico is from China. — Deckiller 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. And giving the harrassment label is just another example of his typical attitude that I described above... --Beaumont (@) 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree--that wasn't harrassment, that was discussion. That's what civilized people do when they get into disagreements. e.g. "please explain your reasoning", "I'm trying to understand my own POV", etc. A request for someone to explain their reasoning is not a challenge, it's a request for clarification so the parties involved could come to some consensus.... K. Lástocska 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this represents a common tactic used by Ghirla - calling non-controversial edits harassment, vandalism, trolling, character assassination. I strongly urge people to follow the diffs he provides and see for themselves if his accusations are backed up by them. As I said in my reply: unless you take his word for it, his 'evidence' does not support his accusation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ghirlandajo, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to start an RFC and then complain when the comments disagree with yours?  Also, why does it matter that some of the editors are "from Eastern European countries formerly dominated by Russia".  Is there now a multinational "anti-Ghirlandajo cabal"? Is everyone who disagrees with you a "Ghirlaphobe"? Appleseed (Talk) 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether I've spotted admin abuse or not is immaterial. I have spotted unfortunate behaviour on both sides. The fact is that neither of you is 100% innocent, and you both ought to step back and make peace. Be men. Biruitorul 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biruitorul, Sir, did it ever occur to you what the remark, Be men, sounds like to a woman? Please be a little more circumspect in the future. Dr. Dan 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but two cents from Ms. Lástocska, it didn't bother me at all, I completely understood what he meant. He meant "be men", as opposed to "be whiny little boys", or "be half-civilized apes". I seriously doubt there was any gender discrimination implied. :) K. Lástocska 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Ms. Lástocska. Dr. Dan: If this dispute involved two women, or a man and a woman, I wouldn't have told them to "be men", so your question is purely academic. If it's all the same to you, I will unhesitatingly continue to associate being a man with courage, decency, stoicism, and a willingness to move past petty grievances. I will continue to champion this traditional view of masculinity at the expense of those who seek to wreck it. Biruitorul 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, lighten up! Ms. L, what's wrong with whiny little boys? B., as a man it's delightful to know that you will champion "traditional views of masculinty". Let's just keep women out of burqas, in the meantime, unless it's voluntary. Dr. Dan 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And let's also be careful about setting up straw men. If the word "Western" wasn't implicit, let me make it explicit: I will continue to champion traditional Western views of masculinity. I do expect women to dress modestly, but not to veil their hair (unless in church). Biruitorul 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And that should be the end of it. I agree 1000% - even, sadly, reluctantly, as I, an inveterate reactionary, am dragged into the 19th century - with #6. Biruitorul 07:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear Hear!! News flash: Hungary and Romania broker peace treaty between Russia and Poland!! Or better yet: News flash: warring Wikipedia editors decide to grow up and quit sniping at each other, PLEASE.
PS Biru, don't worry about it, the 19th century wasn't all bad. :) K. Lástocska 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope I'll survive. I may even do some good, like hold Karl Marx hostage until he changes those foolish notions he's planning to publish in a little book with Engels (a capitalist par excellence, I might add). Biruitorul 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just getting further off-topic now...IMHO Marx wasn't the problem, he made a few good points, the problem was what Mr. Lenin and Mr. Stalin did while purporting to be "socialists." But that's entirely beside the point. :) As long as you're in the 19th century, say hi to Franz Liszt for me will ya? K. Lástocska 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ideas have consequences, and it's better to fight insidious ones in their embryonic forms. Marx surely laid the groundwork for what was to come, even if, having died 34 years before the Bolshevik revolution, he was not directly responsible. Hitler too didn't emerge from a vacuum - others (Wagner, Spengler, Nietzsche) contributed to his ideology. But don't worry, I will say hi to the Liszt fellow, and I'll also try to persuade the Russian Tsars to abandon their autocracy - God-given though it may be - in order to save themselves (and the 20th century). Biruitorul 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I do agree. :) Have fun! (egad, I love Wikipedia...)K. Lástocska 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - and I might add, we've moved past Chekhov into Samuel Beckett. Biruitorul 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absurdism--definitely.  Next stop, Havel? Or are we wandering even farther afield? :) K. Lástocska 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward Albee, perhaps? Obviously, this area isn't my strong suit; I'm shocked enough as it is by Georg Büchner and his audacity at using proletarian heroes! Biruitorul 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and it's even less my strong suit--I'm a musician, for heaven's sake...back to Liszt anyone? :) PS Piotrus, sorry for hijacking your RfC, on the other hand I think it deserved what it got. :) K. Lástocska 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, Biruitorul, do you still need that wrench? Dahn 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Dahn, but it's been in places I'd rather not think about. Keep it as a souvenir. Biruitorul 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Ghirla to István endorsment of Biruitorul

message: Outside View by Mikkarxi
...
P.S. On a personal note: I have removed from my watchlist all Polish Moldova/Romanian related topics because these two communities have almost religious, aggressive intolerance to other's point of view, and their administrators do nothing to calm/neutralize their most ardent warriors, and in my age I have to watch my health. Mikkanarxi 7 Dec 2006
Users who do not endorse this summary
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)
replies: text: Lysy, please, were you sober when you posted this? Mikka's comment was not nationalistic (1st falsehood), nor was it against Poles and Romanians (2nd falsehood). Why try to stick in this false and inflammatory POV into this mess? No surprise that Beaumont should per Lysy it either. What's "surprising", is that Piotrus didn't attempt to show some neutrality, or better still, chide you for your remarks. Then again, this entire RfC is all about that lack of judgement and neutrality. That's what the Molobo mess was all about. And when Halibutt called Zivinbudas a "Brudas" on Piotrus's talk page, there was no, HEY! Not on my watch! HEY! Not on my talk page. Is this a "sufficiently" neutral admistrator? Maybe that's the real "Crux" of the matter. Dr. Dan 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, indeed Lysy. Whether Mikka's opinion that the subject matter is relevant or needed, or your opinion that it is not, was not my point. And I too still stand by my position that Mikka's comments were not 1. "Nationalistic", 2. "Against" Poles and Romanians. Retractions are becoming harder to get these days. And as for the other issues like "Brudas", neutrality, or the possible "Crux of the Matter," nothing from Lysy? Dr. Dan 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Dr. Dan to Lysy (and Beaumont and Piotrus) not endorsing mikkanarxi 

message: This RFC is practically missing the evidence of any serious attempts to resolve the dispute. Without it the RFC seems kinda trolling itself. --Lysytalk 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Appleseed (Talk) 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what are we all going to do to fix the problem? Guy (Help!) 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 

message: I suggested it earlier today on Mikka's outside view. After you resign your "controversial" adminstratorship (the heart of this RfC), you can run again. This would be in the best traditions of democracy. See recall election. Since there is little doubt that your behavior and activities on Wikipedia have been fair, within it's guidelines, and altogether exemplary, you will be reinstated "carte blanc", forthwith. Probably by a landslide! Nothing to fear, since even those who might not have voted for you in the first place can now see how indispensable and precious you have become to us. Then your detractors will have to recede and shut their "yaps", and you, Prokonsul, head up high, visor open, will rise above the fray, wearing or not wearing the župan (as you wish), and can continue to put the notion of any so-called Cabal to bed, and champion and unblock your favorite "editors". Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Dr. Dan 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm aside, I think that a "vote of confidence" (or not, as the case may turn out to be) is a decent solution, but I would suggest: rather than having Piotrus resign and then run again , there should just be a vote on whether to let him keep his admin powers or to strip him of them. One thing to decide is, would it be better to have a "parliamentary vote" (i.e., have just the admins deal with it) or a "plebiscite" (anyone and everyone votes). I favor a plebiscite myself, but it's up for debate. K. Lástocska 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a big red box on my user talk page states, I belong to the :Category:Administrators open to recall - unlike, let me point out, either of the two admins who question my fitness as an admin (mikka and JzG). I find that somewhat amusing :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about the big red box,  are you ready, and should the vote be done by the House of Commons or the House of Lords?. Dr. Dan 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Do you even have to ask? Sejm, of course. But I will settle for a sejmik, if I must.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then--election, anyone? K. Lástocska 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, sigh back. Even in my satirical question, I get a satirical reponse (po Polsku) on the English Wikipedia with Sejm. Why didn't you offer impalement instead? According to Jerzy Hoffman's movies, that was another po Polsku method of resolving these kinds of issues. No? Dr. Dan 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of thought that was more of a Romanian specialty....and what kind of response besides satirical do you expect for a satirical question? K. Lástocska 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yuck! Looks like we're one up on you there! Gross, now we're comparing national mass murderers...let's change the subject...K. Lástocska 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't bring up the subject initially, and I graciously agree to change the subject. Biruitorul 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant no insult at all to Romania, I was just being, well, satirical. :) K. Lástocska 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up a garland of garlic and a crucfix just in case. Now regarding a vote, think very carefully about this. If one side or the other doesn't have the votes, fugetaboutit, otherwise let this "plebscite", end this conflict once and for all. Are we ready? Dr. Dan 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiquette dictates that, once a certain number of colons is present, none ought to be present; columns one word long are difficult to read. Hence, Dr. Dan, you will please refrain from advising what I should or should not be taught, if it's all the same to you. Biruitorul 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Krys, I agree, but this whole thing went outside the boundaries of reasonableness a LONG time ago. K. Lástocska 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you have the right to change your mind, Latoschka, but what is it? Election or not? Dr. Dan 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it's "Lástocska", and second of all I didn't really change my mind. As I read it, Krys said that Piotrus shouldn't have to bother with this whole "vote of confidence" thing. In a perfect world he shouldn't have to, but this is Wikipedia, and it's probably the only solution that could put a lid on this issue for a few months, at least. K. Lástocska 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! Sorry for the typo, you're so strict. Now I am glad that I put up the garlic and the crucifix afterall. Dr. Dan 23:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, knowing how you are about typos....K. Lástocska 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have just corrected the typo (like I would have done), and have Balcer jump on you, instead of me! Dr. Dan 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a good idea, per KPbIC. Appleseed (Talk) 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this idea is better. We should listen to what the arbitrators say. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirlandajo, it looks like your diff has nothing to do with my agreeing with KPbIC's statement. Appleseed (Talk) 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So that my position is not misunderstood here. I made my suggestion to Piotrus, because he asked everyone for suggestions. Frankly, many of those clammoring for his head should be very careful with this "possible" referendum. Personally I think there is a much greater likelyhood that he would not only survive such a vote, but that he would be in a stronger position to continue in the manner that many of you dislike, after it was over. Something to think about. Dr. Dan 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it can turn out in very unpleasant situation. But I still think that leaving position as admin and testing yourself can be step towards solution. But yes Piotrus should decide, and as we can see new initiative, lead by Guy, arose. M.K. 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, something to think about..  --Beaumont (@) 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let Piotrus make that decision himself. Waving a magic wand, and believing that your opinion is the best answer to this problem is not a really positive idea here either. Perhaps Piotrus has the same opinion of my President vis a vis his opponents, and "wants to bring them on". p.s. Beaumont, what happened to your "yup"? Dr. Dan 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather explore first whether these two long-standing and highly respected contributors can bury their differences.  Wouldn't you?  Guy (Help!) 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to Question by Piotrus

message: Piotrus, I have a couple of questions for you.
# Do you see why Ghirla feels there is a problem, that is, having read Ghirla's statement are you now able to understand this from that perspective?
#:I'll be brief. Ghirla does not take well to criticism, and tends to interpret any disagreement with his POV as an 'Ghirlandophobia, Russophobia, trolling, etc.'. I have often disagreed with Ghirla in the past, and I have criticized not only his POV but his uncivil edit summaries and talk; this behaviour seems had led Ghirla to conclude that I am a 'Ghirlandophobe' engaged in a 'anti-Ghirla crusade'. To be fair, in a few cases I have lost my temper and my edits were less then constructive; I believe that such cases were very few, no more common then any other non-saint admin or user is entitled to throughout years on Wiki, and none has been repeated once proven controversial. In any case I have apologized for any such behaviour, and am ready to apologize if any 'forgotten' cases are brought by, as it is expected in a discource between civil editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for Piotrus

message: Ghirla, I have some questions for you.
# Do you see why Piotrus feels there is a problem, that is, having read Piotrus' statement are you now able to understand this from that perspective?
#: I think it is clear for everyone involved that Piotrus feels that there is a huge problem for extremist Polish editors because they are not allowed to push anti-Russian POV in Russia-related topics, as was the case before I came to Wikipedia. I don't speak about Poland-related topics: although I know they are a mess, I hardly ever encroach on this mined ground. He knows that it's quite impossible for him to claim that Russia appeared in the 18th-century and spread other nationalist legends, until I am around. That's why he haunts me on Rus' Khaganate, Khotyn, WP:ANI, and wherever else he may spot my edits and clamors for them to be reverted and for myself to be blocked from editing. His staunch assertion of self-righteousness above only served to obfuscate the situation from neutral observers. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for Ghirla 

message: I find this entire RfC incredibly painful to read. While Ghirla is often a touch rough around the edges, I challenge anyone to look at his incredible contributions and tell me that he is one of Wikipedia's most important editors and contributors. Piotrus is also a voluble sort, and is quicker to anger or take offense, and has made prodigious contributions to Wikipedia as well.  
I propose the following steps to try to form some sort of compromise position to exit this RfC before it gets to ArbCom. I would like to see an attempt at a resolution taken. I am not a mediator -- I'm just some newish user. I don't support either side because the only "side" I can see here is fratricide -- of our community, of two good men. 
===The problem===
Ghirla takes everything personally. 
Piotrus dismisses almost everthing Ghirla says.
Both are hot-tempered.
===Specific Suggestions===
Ghirla should refrain from editing Polish articles, especially Polish articles that touch on Russia. Looking through history, it's pretty hard to find anything that would require collaboration between Polish and Russian editors in most of the articles you edit.  I didn't say meddling, I said EDITING. You should block yourself from even touching them. If you find something wrong, get another editor to fix it. 
Piotrus should refrain from editing Russian articles, especially Russian articles that touch on Poland. He should also refrain from trying to fix articles that Ghirla works on. 
Both people need to seriously ask themselves why they are fighting over this. You haven't made a single honest effort to really talk to each other. You're talking at each other. You're talking at issues and disagreements you have. Your nations aren't bickering like this, so why are you? 
There shouldn't be any remarks and asides in foreign languages regarding the other editor. There shouldn't be nitpicking edits to slap in cite tags, or tensely terse exchanges of venom at each other. Ghirla has to admit that he often lets his temper get the best of him, and that he has gotten out of hand with civility (admittedly after provocation). Piotrus cannot simply dismiss Ghirla's statements, or assume that Ghirla must be wrong.
If you don't both stop funneling anger at each other, you know what will happen? You'll both do something stupid and get banned. Some stupid vandalizing idiot will ruin your articles, and the entire scope of Russian and Poland related articles will become a vandalized warzone between bickering camps. I beg you to give this stupid fight up before it really, really hurts our community. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This solution would take two people who make great contributions to Wikipedia and attempt to solve the problem by ... restricting their ability to make those contributions.  This does not make any sense to me.  Besides, the histories of Poland and Russia are too closely intertwined to be separated.  Poland was dominated by Russia in one way or another for 260 of the last 300 years.  This solution would essentially ban Piotrus from writing about Polish history of the last 3 centuries, precisely the area where most of his high quality, FA level contributions have been.  Balcer 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: edit conflict - Balcer said most of what I wanted, but here it goes. What to do with articles that are as 'Polish' as they are 'Russian'? Ex. Polish-Soviet War, or to take more recent examples, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) or Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars (which despite the name has quite a lot to do with Poland). Or Soviet partisans in Poland, to take an older example (I can provide scores of others). And what about articles that are more general but still important to the history of both nations (ex. Khotyn, or World War II)? As I wrote above, and as I believe Ghirla agrees, most of our edits have nothing to do with each other. But when we meet, it is rarely on a 'Polish-only' or 'Russian-only' article, but on such articles. I am sceptic about a solution which would forbid us from creating valuable articles - despite various conflicts, I have no problem with Ghirla writing an article like Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), and I believe there is nothing wrong with myself writing ones like the first four I mention in the first sentence of this post - in the end, please note that Wikipedia benefits from my contributions on this theme, and by and large community, including most Russian editors, have no problems with my contributions to this area.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First attempt at some coming together by [[User:Elaragirl|Elaragirl]] 

message: Ghirla should refrain from editing Polish articles, especially Polish articles that touch on Russia. Looking through history, it's pretty hard to find anything that would require collaboration between Polish and Russian editors in most of the articles you edit.  I didn't say meddling, I said EDITING. You should block yourself from even touching them. If you find something wrong, get another editor to fix it. 
Piotrus should refrain from editing Russian articles, especially Russian articles that touch on Poland. He should also refrain from trying to fix articles that Ghirla works on. 
Both people need to seriously ask themselves why they are fighting over this. You haven't made a single honest effort to really talk to each other. You're talking at each other. You're talking at issues and disagreements you have. Your nations aren't bickering like this, so why are you? 
There shouldn't be any remarks and asides in foreign languages regarding the other editor. There shouldn't be nitpicking edits to slap in cite tags, or tensely terse exchanges of venom at each other. Ghirla has to admit that he often lets his temper get the best of him, and that he has gotten out of hand with civility (admittedly after provocation). Piotrus cannot simply dismiss Ghirla's statements, or assume that Ghirla must be wrong.
If you don't both stop funneling anger at each other, you know what will happen? You'll both do something stupid and get banned. Some stupid vandalizing idiot will ruin your articles, and the entire scope of Russian and Poland related articles will become a vandalized warzone between bickering camps. I beg you to give this stupid fight up before it really, really hurts our community. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Suggestions

message: :This solution would take two people who make great contributions to Wikipedia and attempt to solve the problem by ... restricting their ability to make those contributions.  This does not make any sense to me.  Besides, the histories of Poland and Russia are too closely intertwined to be separated.  Poland was dominated by Russia in one way or another for 260 of the last 300 years.  This solution would essentially ban Piotrus from writing about Polish history of the last 3 centuries, precisely the area where most of his high quality, FA level contributions have been.  Balcer 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: edit conflict - Balcer said most of what I wanted, but here it goes. What to do with articles that are as 'Polish' as they are 'Russian'? Ex. Polish-Soviet War, or to take more recent examples, Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) or Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars (which despite the name has quite a lot to do with Poland). Or Soviet partisans in Poland, to take an older example (I can provide scores of others). And what about articles that are more general but still important to the history of both nations (ex. Khotyn, or World War II)? As I wrote above, and as I believe Ghirla agrees, most of our edits have nothing to do with each other. But when we meet, it is rarely on a 'Polish-only' or 'Russian-only' article, but on such articles. I am sceptic about a solution which would forbid us from creating valuable articles - despite various conflicts, I have no problem with Ghirla writing an article like Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), and I believe there is nothing wrong with myself writing ones like the first four I mention in the first sentence of this post - in the end, please note that Wikipedia benefits from my contributions on this theme, and by and large community, including most Russian editors, have no problems with my contributions to this area.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: We're just going around and around and around in pointless circles, like a malfunctioning satellite orbiting a dead planet. Piotrus, Ghirla, I BEG you, stop rehashing everything the other has said and done in the last year, stop taking everything personally, stop believing in cabals and conspiracies. Agree to forgive (if not forget) past transgressions, agree to assume good faith, agree to maintain a calm and civil working relationship. I don't expect that you will ever actually like each other, but I do expect that both of you are intelligent enough human beings and responsible enough Wikipedians to END this stupid war, here and now, once and for all. For your own sanity, for our sanity, for the good of the whole project, STOP! K. Lástocska 04:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I have time, I will finally post my outside view to this order. --Irpen 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Myself included. I have no problem with a truce, as this entire mess is and was never started by me. Commenting on Ghirla's controversial edit is not my idea of a 'fun time' - believe me, I will be more than happy not to comment on his edits, if there is no need too...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: for PP to refrain from unblocking short-term blocks that other admins have placed - I have managed not to do it for about a year - I think I can manage one more :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: István, your bogus Cato quote cracked me up! :) Biruitorul, I came up with a similar idea recently (in the aftermath of a dumb Hungarian-Slovak squabble), since this time of year seems a good one for peace treaties and general goodwill. :) In my imagination it was called the Christmas Day Accords, and it was essentially a general treaty intended for all warring factions on Wikipedia: Piotr and Ghirla, the Hungarians and the Slovaks, Labour and the Tories, pro-Bush and anti-Bush, etc. In essence it would say simply: we agree to put past conflicts behind us, we agree to always assume good faith, we agree to work productively and civilly with people whom we do not agree with as well as with our allies, we agree to maintain a high standard of professionalism, maturity and respect....etc. Of course the treaty would be ratified on Christmas Day--who knows, maybe they'd make a movie about us someday... :) K. Lástocska 19:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is anyone else as sick of this as I am? 

message: As there might not be enough space for this on the main RFC page in the section Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus#Outside view by Raul654, and since clearly Ghirlandajo is not entirely happy with the opinions expressed there (as evidenced by his unsigned edit of a comment by Piotrus that I reverted), I would like to offer him an opportunity to explain himself here.  Now I myself believe things are clear: Ghirlandajo accusations of harassment have been completely debunked, and now an apology from Ghirlandajo is in order.  Such an apology would go a long way towards restoring some decency to this RFC process.  So far Piotrus has apologized extensively for his minor misdoings, but we have not yet heard a single acknowledgement of any wrongdoing whatsoever from Ghirlandajo. However, it is possble that I am missing something in this whole picture. I look forward to Ghirlandajo's explanation.Balcer 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'd also like to see him reply to Beaumont suggestions in the #Alternative solutions. I have agreed to the proposed solution there... but we need 'two to tango'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anyway we could get Ms. Lástocska to exlain what you mean by tango? Can Mieczyslaw Fogg's rendition of "Ostatnia Niedziela" be the song used, if you agree to tango? It has both Polish and Russian renditions. Dr. Dan 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. If you insist...the expression "it takes two to tango" is a very common one in English language, although perhaps slightly archaic by now. In this context it means that Piotrus cannot resolve this dispute on his own, Ghirla must also contribute to the peacemaking and diplomatic process. Perhaps in this case it takes two to mazurka, or trepak if you wish. Myself, I would prefer a csárdás, but I don't suppose anyone cares. K. Lástocska 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, back. I know what "it takes two to tango" means in the English language. I wanted you to interpret what P.P. meant by it (as you were courteous enough to do when he made his ethnic slur against Ghirlandajo). You just may have to do some more interpreting for us. Dr. Dan 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sarcastic comments get sarcastic retorts, deal with it. K. Lástocska 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, ditto. Dr. Dan 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Ghirlandajo

message: This is going round in circles.  Elaragirl's comments above are right on the money, and both warring parties have chosen to ignore them.  So, do we take this to ArbCom or what?  Or are Ghirla and Piotrus eventually going to accept that they are both here for the same thing and learn to get along?  Because I really don't see much evidence of that at this point, we've had long enough for some evidence of willingness to compromise to come up, and it hasn't as far as I can tell.  Guy (Help!) 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, JzG. I have replied to Elagirl's comment. I have replied to yours, to Beaumont and to comments by others who want to reach a solution. I have offered to work with community to rech a solution and replied to every question and proposal above (and below). We have however questions outstanding for Ghirla in the section just above this, and in quite a few others, including in some comments and outside views in the RfC. It is not my fault that Ghirla fails to reply and - so please don't say that 'both parties hav chosen to ignore' something or refused to show 'evidence of willingess to compromise'.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, sorry, I was getting frustrated reading the Talk and missed the progress on the main page.  If both you and Ghirla will endorse RDH's proposal on the main page, and a small cabal of admins (self included) will volunteer to act as moderators to whom violations can be reported, I'd say we can look at finally putting this behind us. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right 

message: :Note: see also clarification of some terms at User_talk:Piotrus#Proposed Injunction.
I, Piotrus, tentativly support this proposal (especially the enforcement part), but it needs to be hashed out - and preferably combined with #Alternative solution solutions proposed above. Issues that need to be addressed:
# The two parties shall agree to refrain from editwarring with one another for at least two months. Since we are not admins, WP:WW is not applicable. Of course we want something before the existing WP:3RR, so let's define what. Can one of us revert anotheer once? Twice? Or not at all? Will revert after a day count? A week? Can we notify others that we think an article needs attention and a possible revert?
# During this period, both parties shall also refrain from making any unsolicited edits to their talkpages or other userspace.. Works for me, I have seen just about enough of that. 
# Both parties shall refrain from any behavior which may be regarded as stalking or harassment of the other, in any space.. While this would I assume cover this, that or that, how do you define stalking or harassment on article's talk and edit summaries. Let's take the most recent examples: Talk:Treaty_of_Polyanovka#Canvassing_by_Ghirlandajo: Balcer and Appleseed felt Ghirlandajo has acted in an incivil way in approaching this manner. I agreed. Ghirla's only reply was to remove my comment with an offensive edit summary. I'd like to see a solution that would not only address such removal and edit summary offences, but would prevent him from being offensive at talk in the first place (i.e. please note this reffers not only to 'Ghirla shall not offend Piotrus' but 'Ghirla shall not offend anybody'). In other words, I'd like to see WP:CIV very strictly enforced - if one of us offends another user, please seriously deal with that. If not, the situation will go on (Ghirla being uncivl, editors complaing Ghirla is incivil, Ghirla complaining editors complain, RfC somewhere along the way...)
# Implementation would need to specify where can we report perceived breaches.
# Once again, I'd like to merge this with solutions proposed by Beaumont, which should also be enforced.
All right, I believe we are getting somewhere with those proposals...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the 'other side' continues to refuse to participate, I think we should consider looking at this ArbCom case. I think a similar solution can be applicable here, and as a sign of goodwill and compromising gesture on my part, I repeat I am willing to get binded by the same restrictions as Ghirla (i.e. civility parole), if a community thinks we this is would be appopriate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily endorse Kusma's clarifications. On implementation I was also going to suggest one or more admins whom both parties trust. And I like the idea of a 24 hour RR, much better than mine for edit warring. no comments on noticeboards at all, may be a bit too restrictive for our two outspoken gents, but it more than makes up for it by being simple.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, but if you take You should not comment on each other's actions at all. If the other's actions are bad, other editors will notice in time. The Wiki will heal itself. literally, how are we supposed to report each other if they made the 'forbidden edit'? There should be a place we can ask the 'neutral admins' to review edits we find disruptive, otherwise nothing will change - we will both go on complaining about each other, annoying ourselves and others...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be dealt with as a matter of implementation as well. If either of you feel the other has done something which violates the injunction (including 'forbidden edits'), then bring it to the neutral admin(s) attention. If they cannot decide, they would at least be able to summon "fresh eyeballs" to look in on it. The wiki should then heal itself, once it knows where the booboo is located:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  There is no rush. If some backwater article happens to say that all Russians/Poles are EVIL SPAWNS OF SATAN for 24 hours, perhaps it's because no one is actually reading the article over that 24 hour period? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No matter how backwater the article, an error should be corrected ASAP.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Outside View and Proposal by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 

message: I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Piotrus and Ghirlandajo, on the basis of this thread on WP:PAIN: .  More of the same, in other words, and no sign of it ending. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, why the hell did you have to go do that?! Especially since we are so close to finding a resolution here. Thanks for the WP:SNOWballs :(--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I have to agree with JzG here. After Ghirla's withdrew from the discussion here, no matter how good a solution we could have designed here, it would need ArbCom enforcement anyway. I think we can still draft a proposed civility parole and other suggestions for the RfArb here, so all is well, I think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust you and Ghirla to keep to any agreement made here, much more than I do the sitting ArbCom not to render a decision which would only make things worse.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was a rushy decision. But I hope it will work. Per R.D.H.: I hope ArbCom will not make things worse.--Yannismarou 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the problem is that Ghirla can hardly be expect to keep a decision we make without him here - and I don't see him contributing to our discussions here (not suprising, considering his withdrawal notice above). Only ArbCom can force people to accept decisions; in the end, RfCs are nothing but large mediations - and mediations will not work with only one party talking.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prokonsul, Ghirla has endorsed the proposed injuncrtion after clarification by Kusma and I. So no further discussion with him here is needed...the RfAR even less so.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we indeed seem to be making good progress lately, particulary at User talk:Durova/Mediation where Ghirla wrote: I don't object to a civility parole which is the essence of my request. With this behind us, I guess the main problem is the devil in the details - however I hope this can be worked out in the next few days, and indeed, the need for ArbCom seems to have diminished.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to stop 

message: Thank you, István, for this suggestion. As much as I appreciate your effort, I am afraid it is too limited in scope and too impractical (in letter, not spirit) to solve this issue (no offence). Too limited, because it does not address the biggest issue (from my prespective, of course): incivility by Ghirla directed not only towards me but also towards many other editors. From the discussed solution, only full civility parole seems to address this sufficeintly. Impractical, because this would require both of us to check if the page we are editing has been edited by the other one in the last 24h. First, I believe 99% of the pages we edit have not been edited by the other one recently, thus we would be forced to do a lot of unnecessary checking. Second, because often we interact peacefully - making changes, but not actually warring each another (adding ilinks, expanding, etc.). Thus this would discourage both of us from making varuous useful non-conflictng edits. I believe that your idea has been much better expressed by the above proposals which suggest a ban on reverts of other's edits - those are the root of the content issue, and much easier to prevent (to prevent reverting one another one has to simply not revert :). In either case, let me stress that it is the civility, not content issues, that are the main root of the problem - but again, thank you for your suggestions! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe a 2RR over a 24 hour period. would be more workable for you both? Wikipedia is a HUGE place, afterall, surely the two of you can arrange it to avoid one another 90+% of the time:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds quite reasonable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One note: please check RfArch (for example) to see that the problem (incivility) is not limited to P-Ghr interactions only. Thus a solution that would address the entire problem is much more useful for everyone then a solution that would address incivility directed at me only (I can live with it; there are editors who left this project because they couldn't).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your perspective, your wish to see every one of Ghirla`s transgressions redressed, maybe even exercise his right to vanish, but I do not.  I would not argue with you that he hasnt barked at others all too often, but 1. you and he are the subject of this RfC, and 2. Nobody here (who has accomplished anything) is completely innocent of stepping on toes, or having them stepped upon and the majority of Gh`s crankiness seems to me mostly garden-variety, and, also IMHO someone who is a star producer should be afforded an extra bit of leeway.  What you read as "spirit" in the original post is not just empty rhetoric but a concrete proposal to limit the scope (on this we may respectfully disagree) of sanction and to explicitly keep the whole affair in perspective - it has also galled me (a little bit) to see discussion descend (at times) into snippy gossip by those who have accomplished much less than the objects of their gleefully feigned outrage ("I am shocked, shocked to see incivility on the wikipedia, you cad...").  It also reminds me that perhaps those in the English speaking world may have a different threshhold of "incivility"... lucky you (pl.). István 13:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to write a lengthy response to Istvan's proposal, but it seems Piotrus has already underlined the basic problem with it. If we adopted that solution, Ghirlandajo would still be able to offend me, slander me, blackmail me, and use all his usual tricks on me, just like he's been doing for the last one or two years. So far nobody was able to stop him from that and I believe it's high time we found some solution. Adopting Istvan's proposal would surely limit Ghirla's assaults on Piotrus, but he's by far not the only person targeted. //Halibutt 23:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Outside View and Proposal by István

message: ===by Piotrus===
:I usually find RfC a waste of time, as they don't solve anything (there is nobody who has the power to issue binding decision of even summarize). I am positivly suprised that this RfC has acutally led to some constructive comments and solutions; however it still lacks a summary. This is an attempt by me (a biased party, of course), to provide one.
:I have compiled some numbers at User:Piotrus/Sandbox/RfC numbers. In summary, 40 inviduals took part in those discussions. 8 (15%) supported Ghirla; 20 (38%) supported Piotrus, 24 (47%) were mostly neutral.
:Desysping myself has been raised by several users, but was rejected by majority. Not a single user has taken any formal action to recall me that I am aware of. Most of the solutions discussed and supported by the majority were centered around a civility parole and our purposeful avoidance of editing the same articles and particulary reverting each other.
:The issues discussed here have led to two new WP:DR procedures:
:*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla (currently on hold as priority has been given to
:*User:Durova/Mediation where we seem to be making progress (we reached an agreement about 1RR on articles we edit, Ghirla seems to have withdrawn part of his accusations including request to desysop me and has agreed to civility parole). As currently Ghirla is taking a wikibreak the mediation is also on hold.
:Finally, I would like to thank all who took (considerable, I'd think) amount of time to read through various comments and evidence, and offer their thoughts as well as help mediate and suggest how we can solve this problem. I feel that your input and support has been crucial in convincing Ghirla to voluntarily accept civility parole in mediation.
:This RfC has been archived on 22 January. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This RfC has been archived again on 15 February (no activity occured other than discussion below).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: When RfCs are archived (like this one was), they are considered closed. See also note at the top of this old RfC I am sure you are familiar with. Please don't edit this RfC main page, but you are welcome to start another one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I rearchive it. There has been no discussion nor comments for close to a month, Ghirla who filled the RfC has agreed to solve the issues in mediation and/or ArbCom. Please don't disrupt this page but if you think there are unresolved issues, do feel free to start a new RfC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then you should have been here to raise those issues a month ago. The Ghirla-related RfC has ended. You can start an Irpen-related one, but don't disrupt this one. Your revert warring on that page is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving: 1) 'If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.' - no comments for almost a months, no Piotrus-Ghirla related incidents for that period as well 3) 'The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.' - both mediation and ArbCom have superceeded this RfC. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That you will attempt to hijack the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute into something completly unrelated, just as you tried to turn Piotrus-Dr. Dan dispute on RFI into 'Piotrus is evil and tries to block all his opponents'. Please start a new RfC if you want to discuss other issues, this is not 'pernement page to file complains and grievances against Piotrus'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing comments

message: :I usually find RfC a waste of time, as they don't solve anything (there is nobody who has the power to issue binding decision of even summarize). I am positivly suprised that this RfC has acutally led to some constructive comments and solutions; however it still lacks a summary. This is an attempt by me (a biased party, of course), to provide one.
:I have compiled some numbers at User:Piotrus/Sandbox/RfC numbers. In summary, 40 inviduals took part in those discussions. 8 (15%) supported Ghirla; 20 (38%) supported Piotrus, 24 (47%) were mostly neutral.
:Desysping myself has been raised by several users, but was rejected by majority. Not a single user has taken any formal action to recall me that I am aware of. Most of the solutions discussed and supported by the majority were centered around a civility parole and our purposeful avoidance of editing the same articles and particulary reverting each other.
:The issues discussed here have led to two new WP:DR procedures:
:*Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla (currently on hold as priority has been given to
:*User:Durova/Mediation where we seem to be making progress (we reached an agreement about 1RR on articles we edit, Ghirla seems to have withdrawn part of his accusations including request to desysop me and has agreed to civility parole). As currently Ghirla is taking a wikibreak the mediation is also on hold.
:Finally, I would like to thank all who took (considerable, I'd think) amount of time to read through various comments and evidence, and offer their thoughts as well as help mediate and suggest how we can solve this problem. I feel that your input and support has been crucial in convincing Ghirla to voluntarily accept civility parole in mediation.
:This RfC has been archived on 22 January. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This RfC has been archived again on 15 February (no activity occured other than discussion below).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: by Piotrus

message: There is no such thing as an official closing of RfC's but if there was one, I would have placed this closing on hold pending the outcome of Piotrus/Ghirla case. Also, if Piotr's endless attempts to seek blocks of his opponents by various ways not end, I will add a new entry to this RfC. --Irpen 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When RfCs are archived (like this one was), they are considered closed. See also note at the top of this old RfC I am sure you are familiar with. Please don't edit this RfC main page, but you are welcome to start another one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I rearchive it. There has been no discussion nor comments for close to a month, Ghirla who filled the RfC has agreed to solve the issues in mediation and/or ArbCom. Please don't disrupt this page but if you think there are unresolved issues, do feel free to start a new RfC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then you should have been here to raise those issues a month ago. The Ghirla-related RfC has ended. You can start an Irpen-related one, but don't disrupt this one. Your revert warring on that page is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving: 1) 'If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.' - no comments for almost a months, no Piotrus-Ghirla related incidents for that period as well 3) 'The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.' - both mediation and ArbCom have superceeded this RfC. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That you will attempt to hijack the Piotrus-Ghirla dispute into something completly unrelated, just as you tried to turn Piotrus-Dr. Dan dispute on RFI into 'Piotrus is evil and tries to block all his opponents'. Please start a new RfC if you want to discuss other issues, this is not 'pernement page to file complains and grievances against Piotrus'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By Irpen