Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

Another black book?

Halibutt, I assume that this page is intended as another Black List started by you. Was not experience with the first one enough for you? If you persevere in keeping this slur online, I'll have to apply for RfC today. --Ghirlandajo 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ghirlandajo, this is a place I am keeping your edits for the RfC I'm starting on you today. BTW, if you were brave enough to call all Polish contributors Polacks and defend your offence, I guess you will be brave enough to face the consequences. Hopefully. Halibu tt

On the other hand, I wonder what User:Ghirlandajo/Mirror is. Care to explain? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read summaries in the history. This was intended as a mirror to User:Halibutt/RfC after he had kept it for days, ignoring my repeated protestations. Nowadays, it is kept for historical interest, to help me in starting RfC against every user mentioned therein in the nearest future. --Ghirlandajo 08:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead, start and RfC. I am sure the RfC will have a field day with the 'evidence' you found :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Polack"

For the record, "Polack" was used universally in English where "Pole" now is by academia and the media, having quite recently fallen into disfavor in such circles. In common speech, in the US at least, it persists. Of late, for whatever reason, some Poles (not a very complimentary-sounding ethnonym, if you know the various definitions of "pole" in English), or Polish (not "polish") people feel it's offensive, (why, I'm not exactly certain...the Polish word it came from after all, like the Spanish polaco, is polak). The assertion that Ghirlandajo's insistence upon using "Polack" instead of "Pole" is antypolonyzm looks to me like an assumption of bad faith, which seems to spur a lot of the gripes brought against him in this RfC. That said, some (although not all) of the "attacks" do seem to indicate that Ghirlandajo should probably consider more carefully what he says on talk pages and in edit summaries. (No, I'm not saying I'm a model to be followed, so don't bother attacking me. Resist the urge...) Tom e r ^talk 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive terms per nationality#Offensive terms for the Poles: [1], [2], [3], [4]... Halibu tt

Isn't polak the Polish word for "Polish man"? How can it be offensive? — Monedula 07:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained by me before. I applied the term but once, to a character living in the 17th century, when Shakespeare wrote that Hamlet's father "smote the sledded Polack on the ice". Having discovered the word in the List of ethnic slurs, I apologized for it. Mr Halibutt, on the other hand, habitually refers to Russians as Russkis (which is as strong a perjorative term as Polacks or even stronger), and, when pressed, wouldn't concede that the name is improper: Those darn Russkies simply did not speak English well enough to name their armed forces properly.... This is pathetic: Russkis is alright, but Polacks is unacceptable. Polish editors may call Russians whatever names they like and Russian editors should not only be silent about that but apologize incessantly - that's Mr Halibutt's position in a nutshell. --Ghirlandajo 10:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Rusky (Roosky) is alright. Long live rusky yazyk! Everyone should have more respect for one's own language (especially Mr. Halibutt). — Monedula 11:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Polack" nor "Russkie" is terribly offensive per se, at least not in modern American English. On the other hand, both can be somewhat cringeworthy when used by clueless but well-meaning outsiders, usually in the context of blue collar humor. Like other ethNically flavored terms, you are probably better off avoiding them if you don't know the other party really well and can predict his/her reaction. Ahasuerus 13:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be offensive or not, depending on the context and intended usage. As Ghirlandajo used it in edit summary in his edits immediately following Halibutt's adding the {{totallydisputed}} tag to the article, I have little doubts on his intentions. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with you. It is offensive and sad, on the other hand, when a person who likes to allude to Russians as Russkis, starts to cry murder and vociferates for days when another user calls a 17th-century personage a "Polack slayer" in an edit summary, especially after the latter protests his innocence and retracts his statement. Physician, heal yourself, as our ancestors used to say.--Ghirlandajo 14:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the links I've found (and provided above) suggest that the term Pollack is as offensive as nigger or yid. But note that the whole Polack issue, while offensive and sad, is but one problem on the list. Halibu tt 14:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, "Polack" is not nearly as offensive as "nigger" or "kike" ("yid" is a bit obscure). Someone of Polish descent may jokingly say "Hey, so I screwed up! I am a Polack!", but it's hard to imagine the other two terms used in a similar context. Ahasuerus 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any term is only as offensive as the people referred to are ready to be offended. — Monedula 16:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any term can be offensive if it's intended to be by the person who uses it. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it cannot. If nobody notices the offence, the speaker's intention fails. — Monedula 07:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker fails, yet his intentions remain offensive. But, with all due respect, I think we're going astray with this discussion here. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ahasuerus. Personally I don't think Polack is is that offensive, but nonetheless it is listed on the Offensive terms per nationality page and should be avoided. Besides, Ghirlando has indicated that he is offended by other users using terms from the Offensive_terms_per_nationality#Offensive_terms_for_the_Russians section, so I think that Polish users have the right to feel offended when he uses terms from Offensive_terms_per_nationality#Offensive_terms_for_the_Poles. Still, it is really a minor offence and one can argue that he might have intented it as a joke or was unaware of its negative connotations. I certainly don't hold this single reference against him. But the rich evidence of his other offences listed by Halibutt below is much more worrying, as it represents a rather shameful pattern, IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I don't think the single word is any issue here, but the whole conduct of Ghirlandajo, and primarily his attitude towards the other editors. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to Ahasuerus' comment on nigger - perhaps Pollack is a tad similar. I've heard afroAmericans referring to themselves as niggaz, yet you wouldn't call one of them as such.

Sure, but in case of "nigger" the "familiarity threshold" would be vastly higher in mixed company, presumably due to the vastly more complicated history of race relations in America compared to the relatively peaceful history of "ethnic Catholics" in the country. And, um, yes, this is getting really really off-topic :) Ahasuerus 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes from low self-esteem. Looks like one is ashamed of being Polish. — Monedula 09:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is adding new evidence after the RfC started ok? Halibu tt 07:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You might want to note that it was added after the RfC was opened, however. Tom e r ^talk 07:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Someone at the main page proposed a mediation. While generally this might be a good idea and indeed Piotrus started one (though with little success so far), I believe this case is rather ineligible for mediation. The problem is that for mediation to appear we should have two conflicting sides and a possible compromise in between. And what would be the possible compromise here? After two months of hard work of mediation committee we could agree that I'm not a Polack but a half-Polack? Or perhaps that my arguments were not idiotic but half-idiotic? Or perhaps that AndriyK is not a zombie but half-zombie? Sorry, but I see no place for a compromise here as there can be no compromise. Either we stick to the rules of civility or we don't. There's little place for mediation here. Or am I missing something? Halibu tt 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Halibutt...I'm not going to budge an inch on the "Polack is an ethnic epithet" business, because I live in the midst of the largest Polish expatriate community in the world, and unless you're telling "Polack Jokes", none of them take even the slightest offense to being called "Polak". I'm not going to go out on a very narrow limb and say that Ghirlandajo has been an editor of impeccable character, nor that you should be ashamed of yourself for not feeling privileged to have worked with such a sparkling clean editor as Ghirlandajo...my comments above should make clear that I don't think either party in this dispute has clean hands... That said, I do feel like this RfC is just a bit premature, because I feel that you haven't exhausted lesser means of dispute resolution before bringing what is, essentially, a content dispute, to the level of an RfC...when what you bring as evidence against Ghirlandajo is character assassination. Your conflicts have to do with content, yet your accusations have to do with character. Something here does not compute. Tom e r ^talk 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for character assassination, you may want to take a look at Halibutt's talk page, where Halibutt and his friends teach me good manners in the following terms:

Everyone knows the proper name to call them is Cossacks. Though some here in the States prefer to use "Russki Sons-A-Bitches", since the Cossacks were largely Ukrainian after all and one must avoid collateral damage when using nationalistic slurs. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Hey, I thought the Poles INVENTED vodka, and the Russkis just copied it. Sca

I know how difficult it can be for reasonable people with a good sense of humor to deal with unreasonable ones who have none. BTW I find it particularlly funny how he [i.e., Ghirlandajo] accuses you of sicking Molobo on him, as if Molobo were some sockpuppet. The Vodka must make him paranoid too:> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

This is a habitual mode of discourse between the Poles when referring to Russians and when not using Polish, which is their preferrable medium of communication between themselves in this English-language project. --Ghirlandajo 11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, as far as I know neither RDH nor Sca are Polish... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by his scandalous behavior, RDH is. As for Sca, he states on his user page that "I have lived in Poland" and accompanies his assertion with pictures from Gdansk. --Ghirlandajo 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His behaviour is scandalous, therefore he must be Polish. Are you sure you are not commiting some form of logical fallacy here, Ghir? Not to mention being impolite again?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Ghir, Petya. Please learn to write my name correctly and then we will talk. --Ghirlandajo 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections are in order here, Ghir. First this is YOUR Rfc NOT mine. Second, I'm not from Poland nor of Polish extraction. Iam, in fact and through no fault of my own, an American...Specifically a Southern American (Howdy Y'all!). Not to be confused with a South American and certainly not with a "Yankee", or Northern American. I do, however, have a number of Polish friends online and off, one of whom happens to be Hallibut. Another, Piotrus, has offered to make me an "Honorary Pole" and after reading your bigoted comments about and out of context quotes from me above, I think I'll accept:). Please explain why my behavior is anymore "scandalous" than yours? I go to my friend's talk page to wish him well and see what he was up to, and I find what sounds like an ultimatium and declaration of war on him from you. So, of course I come to his defense, and I tried to do so in a light-hearted way, in some slight hope of MAYBE defusing the situation in a more diplomatic manner. In contrast to the humorless, jackbooted, COSSACK tone of your messages. Your behavior on Halibutt's Rfa alone is cause enough for this Rfc, in my opinion. Tfa SHOULD NOT be a Trial by ordeal nor a place for petty, personal grudges to be aired. For example this comment you made to another one of my friends there-Wiglaf, although you are the least neutral admin known to me and I would certainly oppose your own nomination to admisnhip. Although in this case, I believe your comments helped to sway Wiglaf over to my side in Supporting Hal...So perhaps I should thank you for them:). In fact if you were not such a prolific contributor, and fellow Molobo fighter (which you would have seen if you'd bothered to really read my talk page) I'd gladly join my "Polack" brethern in this Rfc against you. It is a pity such obvious energy and intellect must share headspace with such a confrontational and unpleasant personality. I do not wish to revive the Cold war here with you, Ghirlandajo, but before you decide it should be otherwise, please take care to remember the outcome of the last one. Good day, sir --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we successfully convince this generation of 25 year old Russians that the Cold War was a conflict between Russia and the West, then it won't be, in all likelihood, much of a victory, but rather another "twenty year truce". On the other hand, if we make the (perfectly valid) case that the war was fought over totally different issues, e.g.:

freedom to form voluntary self-governed associations like this one, or
freedom to diagree peacefully

and was won by a motley crew which included people like Vladimir (and Nicolas) Nabokov, Sidney Hook, Arthur Koestler, Czesław Miłosz, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and thousands of other unlikely warriors, well, that would be a different story. Ahasuerus 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomer, as I mentioned in the statement of the dispute, this one is not about article content. It's fully and entirely about user conduct, that is incivility, assupmtions of bad faith, offensive tone and language and so on. The only major content disputes with Ghirlandajo I had were at Ostashkov (and I used the talk for settling that - with success, I believe) and History of Belarus (where again, the whole matter is being settled at the talk page). I see no need to settle those problems through RfC and it was not my intention. It's not about "who is right over XXX issue in ZZZ article", it's about "is it right to assume bad faith and call other wikipedians names".

As to this RfC being premature, as you put it... perhaps you're right. However, I was not sure what more could be done to change Ghirlandajo's behaviour and decided to ask the community for comments, perhaps someone else might have a better idea than me. Halibu tt 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation by Bonaparte

If you think is a good idea I can help you guys. -- Bonaparte talk 17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Lysy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop Piotrus from spamming

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)" [5][reply]

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)" [6].[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I wonder why would you like to post messages on talk pages of Russian users ? What would be your purpose of doing this ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Halibu tt 11:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Inactive? Archive?

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)[reply]

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 ([7], [8], [9], etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]