Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

message: If you think is a good idea I can help you guys. -- Bonaparte  talk 17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonaparte, thanks again for your offer but it has been answered already at Talk:History_of_Belarus#Mediation_by_Bonaparte. Once the memories of your trolling in Moldova related article die out rather than being refreshed by new examples, people will welcome your mediation on other East European topics. --Irpen 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation by Bonaparte

message: moved the the RfC to the talk page:
:I don't see it as an issue of Russian-Polish conflict, but the problem with Ghirlandajo's uncollaborative and conflicting conduct and lack of will to compromise. I am a Polish editor and I'm almost daily in editing conflict with Ghirlandajo, but not any other Russian editor. I have noticed that he is attempting to picture the problem of his behaviour as a more general Russian-Polish conflict. Recently he started to edit the controversial articles in an aggressive and inflammatory way in hope to antagonise Russian and Polish editors and unfortunately is quite successful in his quest. Luckily most of the Russian editor so far ignore Ghirlandajo's provocations, nevertheless I see this behaviour highly disruptive and dangerous for wikipedia. --Lysy (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lysy, let me set it clear. You've been told before that you are a nationalist editor whose edits often border on trolling. You took a leading part in my persection leading to this inane RfC and you actively helped Halibutt to prepare materials for it. You supported odious AndriyK in RfAr and ineffectually attempted to slander me in 3RR violation several days ago. Why don't you join your name to those of Halibutt, Piotrus, Rydel, and Bonaparte above? If you place your comment here, it is presumed that you support Ahasuerus's summary. Judging by your words and actions, you endorse Halibutt's summary. Please explain the controversial position of your comment. --Ghirlandajo 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have developed a serious conspiracy theory already. For the record: This is absolutely not true that I have endorsed this RfC. Neither have I co-authored it nor provided a single suggestion of evidence of your misbehaviour to the authors so far, although I've been asked to (but I'm starting to reconsider it). All this "Polish nationalistic conspiracy" theory of yours is your pure imagination. --Lysy (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to second Lysy statement. This conflict is not between Polish and Russian editors, despite Ghirlandajo attempts to portray this as such. I have worked with many Russians editors, and together we have created FA-level articles such as Polish-Soviet War or Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618). It is only recently that Ghirlandajo begun editing Poland-related articles and putting forward his revisionist campaign, and I am glad to see his support for it is so limited - although I'd have expected more Russian editors to take a clear stance and differentiate themselves from his actions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Lysy

message: Yesterday I put the following notice on Piotr's talk page: "During Halibutt's RfA, you have been informed by other editors that many of them consider your spamming of their talk pages unfriendly or offensive. Now I see you resorting to the same tactic in your frenzied anti-Ghirlandajo quest. Let me tell you that I don't think your attempts to incite more editors against me are particularly helpful to further your cause. You may have noticed that I don't ask Russian editors to comment on your shameful allegations. Please don't let your emotions to carry you beyond the limits of propriety." --Ghirlandajo 10:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding my reiterated requests to the contrary, Piotrus continued to employ his shameful tactics and posted the following misleading comment on User_talk:172: "I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this case. I am afraid Ghirlandajo is trying to create a rift between Polish and Russian editors, and if he is unchecked, it may damage all of the good will that we have been able to work out through our previous collaborations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment resulted in User:172's support of Piotr's position on RfC. For the umpteenth time, I ask Piotr to restrain himself from recruiting more supporters in his anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. Otherwise, I have to start posting similar messages on talk pages of Russian users or other editors who collaborated with me in the past.  --Ghirlandajo 09:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirlandajo, I'll add your unfounded accusation of spamming to the RfC. Leavining people messages is not spamming - not until they object, and out of over a dozen people I have left a message during   the mentioned RfA only one has objected, while several have thanked me for bringign this to their attention. You are free to ask others to see this RfC - it is not only public, but in order to work it should attract as many users as possible. I find it however very unlikely that there are many editors who would support your POV, thus it is not suprising that you want to stop the spread of information about this proceeding.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So, the diffs presented during this RfC are nothing more than shameful allegations? Ghirlandajo apparently did not call people zombies, did not use offensive language, did not assume bad faith, did not accuse people of ignorance, stupidity, hysteria, and, last but not least, he did not make racist remarks. All of the above are just shameful allegations. Halibutt 11:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about impropriety of Piotrus's behaviour and his underhand ways of recruiting adherents. Please don't change the subject. There is no need to reproduce the content of the RfC here. --Ghirlandajo 14:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop Piotrus from spamming 

message: Is this page archived? I.e. is there any rule that prevents adding more evidence and such? see this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this RfC is closed, I wonder, what has been it's conclusion? It doesn't look like recent behaviour of this user has improved (, , , etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, your passionate defence of your pal Molobo from casual offences by ruskie and german editors, your tireless campaigning in his favour, and wheel warring (when you repeatedly unblocked this archtroll after he violated 3RR) have long earned you a medal for feeding and supporting the trolls. What a pity the design has not been promulgated as yet. I can even feel your grief on the day when Molobo is eventually permabanned from editing Wikipedia (hopefully the day is near). Sorrow and pity. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirla, thank you for illustrating my point so nicely. Now, my question remains to be answered by a less passionable (and involved) contributors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Petya, please do myself and others a favour and move your habitual anti-Ghirlandajo crusade from this archived page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo, where your examples will be more pertinent. Otherwise, I'll have to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus and continue this discussion and that of your potential defrocking on that page. Please take a note that you never addressed any of my concerns voiced on this project page. Furthermore, your disruptive and frequently aggressive behaviour seems to have escalated lately, as your reiterated attempts at intimidation above clearly testify. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive? Archive?