Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This RfC is closed. Do not add more comments to it. Fred-Chess 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

[edit]

User:Ghirlandajo is a great guy. Many of his articles make me think that he is a valuable and needed contributor. He contributed to plethora of articles, starting dozens of them and fixing dozens of others. However, at the same time he is not a good wikipedian in that he does not feel any sense of community. Rudeness, offensive language, judgmental tone or calling names are his daily modus operandi and such behaviour seriously disrupts Wikipedia.

After Ghirlandajo's recent comments at the article talk pages and my own talk, I lost all hope and decided to start this RfC. I know no way to make him start respect other contributors and work constructively without making all sorts of offensive remarks. Perhaps some other member of the community might help here.

Note that I'm not mentioning the violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability or WP:CITE as I'm personally engaged in conflicts over merithorical content of several articles with him and I'm definitely not the person to throw the first stone here. Also note that I don't think blocking Ghirlandajo would be a good option. After all he is a valuable wikipedian (at times at least) and such a blocking would, IMHO, not make him change his ways.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]
  • Calling names, ad hominem attacks and usage of offensive language
    • Calling Poles Polacks [1]
    • When asked to apologize or stay on topic, he replied with [2]
    • Offensive language [3], "zombie", revert zombie, [4],
    • Suggestions of being intoxicated by obscure Polish hack writers, ignorance, ad hominem arguments, calling the arguments of the opponents slurs and hysteria, offensive language, ethnic slurs... all is there, in one edit diff. Also, bizarre accusations of some sort of conspiracy [5]
    • [6] [7] if this statement is a personal opinion of Halibutt, Molobo, Rydel, and Co, you may continue gaping at your cheap Polish propaganda booklets about alleged Russian massacres, which I daresay are "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia" as well
    • ad hominem attack , later even strengthened; rvv a revert maniac: can't we block him?, [8], [9]
    • [10] racist ethnic generalizations and accuasion of incivility on behalf of the entire Polish nation
    • Removing Belarusan spelling from Belarusan articles and putting Russian spellings instead. For example, [60] - he removed Belarusian spelling from an article about the most famous Belarusian woman and re-instated Russian spelling of her name, with the following comment: "Belarusian spelling is as pertinent as swahili". The same happened with Usiaslau of Polatsk and Euphrosyne of Polatsk (removing the Belarusan spelling with the comment: "outlandish spelling corrected").
The below edits took place after this RfC has started:
Latest allegation debunked on Adminsitrators' noticeboard. --Ghirlandajo 15:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, please recheck the math. There were no 3RR in this case. --Irpen 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, this is not a 3RR violation. I apologise for this confusion. The edits are nonetheless disruptive, and Ghirlandajo latest revisionist statements are really eroding all credit he might have had with me before.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it's good to see you finally admitting that you indulge in slandering me on the Administrators' noticeboard. What is really offensive is your annoying comparison of the Holocaust with execution of several thousand Polish officers, which comparison is a form of Holocaust Denial in itself. I still await your and Balcer's explanations and apologies on the appropriate talk page. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  2. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement
  3. Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  5. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  6. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]
  1. By Halibutt: I initially planned to start this RfC earlier so I left this note [66]. After receiving [67] this semi-conciliatory message I responded with [68] and [69]. After three days he responded with [70], which I assume means "no".
  2. By Piotrus: [71], Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Help_teach_civility_and_avoid_revert_war ([72])
  3. By Lysy: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Halibutt 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --rydel 12:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Bonaparte talk 16:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Czalex 19:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Based on my few observations of Ghirlandajo's work, he strikes me as a knowledable editor; and potentially a major assest to the English Wikipedia, given its woefully disproportionately small community of Russian contributors. But as Piotrus and Halibutt clearly demonstrate, Ghirlandajo needs to work on civility and compromise with users coming from different national perspectives, particularly and especially on articles related to Russian-Polish relations, if he is to become a helpful user. Halibutt's description above is totally on target: "User:Ghirlandajo is a great guy ... a valuable and needed contributor. He contributed to plethora of articles, starting dozens of them and fixing dozens of others. However, at the same time he is not a good wikipedian in that he does not feel any sense of community." 172 04:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I would like to point out that 172 was recruited by Piotrus, who posted a misleading and POV-phrased announcement advertising this inane RfC on 172's talk page, notwithstanding my previous protestations that such shameful tactics are inacceptable.--Ghirlandajo 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked the edit and there's nothing misleading nor POV-phrased there. --Lysy (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Being a good author is no excuse while other people are abused, they lose their time in explanation and their will to contribute because they can face attacks and hardly anyone will protect them not to mention poor Wikipedia's image. I know sth about management and in "real world" such people are fired or given a post where they have in fact as little power and contact with others as it's possible. And there is certainly no excuse when someone is writing on controversial topics where any consensus is fragile and co-operation hard to be developed. I was one of many people attacked personally by Ghirlandajo and I have seen a number of complains and warnings just within last few weeks. He has his mission and IMHO far too often ignores people and facts. aegis maelstrom δ 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I didn’t have the pleasure of contributing to articles together with Ghirlandajo. The only exception may be the Operation Wisła article, where he provided some changes that I approve and appreciate. Also from other users, many of them already signed on this page, I know that he’s a very knowledgeable editor. However, I cannot approve the many offending comments he uses to leave. Even though I know that they are not meant to myself, I still read them like that. I tried to explain to him earlier that his comments may be read as offensive even by uninvolved editors, but I’m afraid that it didn’t help. I strongly believe that Wikipedia may be edited without unfavourable remarks to editors of other nations, and I sincerely hope that Ghirlandajo may alter his behaviour.--SylwiaS | talk 15:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fragment my commentary from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK User:Ghirlandajo is very intolerant to opinions of other editors. He often offend them. Here are several examples of Ghirlandajo's comments to his edits:
  • (rvv attack by Polish Mafia :)))
  • (rvv a new attack by banderovtsy)
  • (rvv foolish ukrainization of russophone towns)
  • (rvv idiotic Moldovan nationalism)
  • (rvv a new piece of polish idiocy)
  • (stop pushing laughable nationalism, or you will be banned)
  • (rvv islamic propaganda)
  • (rvv a lunatic vandal)
  • (rv edits by another Polish zombie)
  • (rv moron who was blocked yesterday but returned)
  • (rv demented racist who was blocked yesterday but returned)
  • (rv shameless POV-pushing by a banderovets)
  • (rv a revert maniac)
He called me "banderovets" (a very insulting name given by Russian nationalists to Ukrainians). His edits contain a lot of POVs. User:Ghirlandajo makes a large number of reverts calling edits of other users "vandalism" and very rarely discuss the disagreement on talk pages. Particularly he intolerant to new editor. When new users come, they run into the boorishness of User:Ghirlandajo and obstinacy of User:Irpen, see that any constructive work is impossible, and finally have to give up, or get engaged in edit wars like AndriyK. --Yakudza 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ukrained 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) See also the latest case over Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005[reply]
  2. Valuable editor, but that's no excuse to spread xenophobic and anti-Polish views. What the hell did Poles to you or your nation? I am not and have never been citizen of Poland but I can remember many things why Poles don't like Russians. But I can't find one single issue why you should be so malevolent toward Poles. - Darwinek 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

As was previously remarked by an uninvolved editor, against the background of Halibutt's recently failed RfA, in which he holds me responsible, user:Halibutt and his habitual supporters - User:Piotrus, User:Lysy, User:Molobo, User:Space Cadet, and User:Aegis Maelstrom (who all coincidentally happen to be Polish :) - initiated a revanchistic campaign to persecute, bully, slander, and (if possible) to oust me from editing Wikipedia. They know me for the only Russian editor who contributes regularly on Poland-related topics nowadays, therefore, considering a Russophobic penchant in many of their articles, their ambition is easy to understand.

Mr Halibutt's anti-Ghirlandajo campaign started with his controversial comments on Russophobia, in which he declared that everyone who speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha should be considered Russian. I found this abuse of ethnic stereotype alarming and voiced my opinion during Halubutt's recently failed RfA, which I opposed. Mr Halibutt explained his position to the effect that he didn't mean any harm, and his explanations were accepted by me as genuine. On this event, Halibutt openly assumed my bad faith and during my edits of History of Belarus about a week ago labelled the Russians as "vodka pissers" in an oblique comment similar to the one he had been constrained to explain before. As I was the only Russian anywhere around and the comment was evidently addressed to me, I asked for an apology but was flatly refused.

Unlike half a dozen Polish editors who went through my 17,000+ edits to pick up a dozen summaries quoted above, I have neither time nor energy to go through Mr Halibutt's 16,000+ edits in order to prove my point. But even his comments in discussions where I took part form a pattern of ethnic slurs and quite nasty behaviour:

As for another plaintiff, User:Piotrus, I didn't know him that well before his frantic spamming campaign to promote Halibutt's RfA. It was at that time that I was scandalized to learn (from other user's comments) that Piotrus unblocks trolls pushing extreme pro-Polish POV on regular basis. It was him who repeatedly unblocked Halibutt after his 3RR violations, thus spawning admin wars. His abuse of admin powers is accompanied by threats to block myself for editing the page in a style not to his liking, gratuitous name-calling of his opponents, arbitrary deletion of redirects, copyright issues, and other actions that warrant defrocking. Particularly pathetic are his yesterday's uneffectual attempts to slander me in a 3RR violation. It's enough to compare my block log with Mr Halibutt's (and I never was blocked for a 3RR violation) to see who is a real revert warrior here.

In other words, the Polish editors have the full right to call the Russians whatever names they like and behave themselves as they please, while the Russian editors should not only be silent about that but apologize incessantly - that's the position of my Polish opponents in a nutshell. The case is old enough: Physician, heal yourself, as our ancestors used to say. Although I appreciate opinions of other reputable editors as regards my edits, I consider Halibutt-Piotr's anti-Ghirlandajo crusade ill-conceived and ultimately pointless. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Other accusations are based on my harsh treatment of User:AndriyK, User:Andrew Alexander, and their trollish company who had started unprecedented revert wars, involving renaming and moving about dozens of articles, copyvios, and rigged move votes. They were the first to declare me, Mikkalai, Ezhiki and other prolific editors opposing their destructive policies "adolescent gang", "Russian mafia", "revert maniacs", etc., so my response was, in a sense, strictly symmetrical. If there's someone sympathizing with their cause, he is welcome to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, where the dispute is being resolved at the moment. --Ghirlandajo 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to the response

[edit]

The truth speaks for itself. I'd just like to ask the readers of the above to follow the links and see the real edits in their entire context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Halibutt 10:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

[edit]

I see that one of the certifiers of this RfC has posted a Request for Mediation. Has Ghirlandajo responded to the Request for Mediation? I think that mediation would be a good idea.--Robert McClenon 01:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the mediation to stop the revert war at History of Belarus. The revert war stopped on its own (because Ghirlandajo gave up) and no mediators have gone involved so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Robert McClenon 01:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jkelly 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now involved in the mediation process to the page of History of Belarus for solving some punctual issues. It is related to some of the reverts made by User:Ghirlandajo. I will add my opinion soon. Bonaparte talk 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Bonaparte, but Ghirlandajo has not agreed for mediation, so I'm afraid this is pointless. --Lysy (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I take it his objection to Bonaparte as a mediator is rather... strong.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of approch is not good for anyone.-- Bonaparte talk 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Michael Z.

[edit]

In my first encounter with Ghirlandajo about 1-1/2 years ago, he struck me as very rude and opinionated, although knowledgeable. It took me many months to realize that he is often an excellent contributor, and is actually able to collaborate pleasantly with other editors when he doesn't disagree with them, or when he chooses to stay out of a dispute. He has a strong point of view which can precipitate disputes, but I don't think POV is a problem (we all have them). He and I have disagreed, but we have also been able to get past that in other situations. But typically, his reaction to anything he disagrees with is somewhere between mildly unpleasant and downright offensive, even to new Wikipedia editors. I can see where this dispute is coming from, and it's unfortunate that Ghirlandajo won't simply be more considerate in his mode of discourse. —Michael Z. 2005-12-7 01:04 Z

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. - Bonaparte talk 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While it's not a requirement that every editor is polite and cultural, Ghirlandajo's aggressive edits and rude comments are extremely counterproductive for other editors. This said, I don't believe it is something that could be solved through an RfC as it seems to be rooted much deeper. --Lysy (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Michael Z.'s summary is also quite fair and on mark. Ghirlandajo is knowledgeable and often an excellent editor. It is no problem in and of itself that he is opinionated; every other editor who has co-signed or signed this RfC is equally opinionated-- including myself. However, Ghirlandajo should to learn from the examples of users like Michael Z., Piotrus, and Halibutt, who are as persistent as any editor but never standoffish. On a personal note, I've had strong disagreements with Michael Z., along with the the two co-signers of this RfC. Because of these experiences, not despite them, I know that they are exceedingly tolerent toward users with other perspectives, and consistently polite and friendly. They really are willing to work with Ghirlandajo. I strongly encourgage Ghirlandajo to reach a sort of detente with them. 172 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Ahasuerus

[edit]

A few points of reference for any editors not familiar with the background of this RfC:

  • "Numerous episodes of Russian-Polish relations" are controversial almost to the point of belonging on Wikipedia's List of controversial issues (History)
  • The current state of Russian-Polish relations varies from "bad" to "very bad", which can't help but affect the climate in this corner of Wikipedia
  • The parties involved in this dispute are mostly Polish and Russian
  • User:Ghirlandajo has been involved in editing some of the more controversial articles covering Russian-Polish history, e.g. Talk:History of Belarus and Talk:Katyn massacre, [80] and [81]
  • The articles and discussions referred to above didn't always follow the preferred NPOV format ("Polish sources [82], [83] and [84] say X while Russion sources [85] [86] and [87] say Y") and the POV disputes escalated to the point where Ghirlandajo wrote on his Talk page (December 5, 2005):
As is quite clear to everyone watching the revanchist persecution of me by a gang of Polish users, your primary aim is "to make me reconsider my membership in this wikipedia", as you asserted it above. Very well. I;m already thinking about leaving this project in disgust. Go on with your disruptive activities, and you will get what you crave for.

Ahasuerus 16:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

Added by Irpen 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC): Please note that this space is for co-signers of the Ahasuerus' statement. Counterstatements belong to different sections. Please move it there. --Irpen 22:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Comment on #Outside view by Michael Z.

[edit]

Let me politely disagree here. I brought my good-willed apologies to Mr Halibutt on *three* occasions, the last time just five days ago (see his talk page), and every time he bit the hand that I extended towards him, openly presuming my bad faith and preaching me in a judgmental tone: "You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please". After that, not only did he maintain a confrontational tone, but advised me to reconsider my membership in this wikipedia. What is particularly sad, he refuses not only to apologize but even to acknowledge numerous insults and personal attacks directed to me: "No, Ghirlandajo, we were not both bad tempered. You were. Accusing me of insults when there were none will not change that". Having said that, the only person who refuses to co-operate there is Mr Halibutt. --Ghirlandajo 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ghirlandajo, but saying that you're sorry and then continuing to offend me does not add to anyone's credibility. My comment you mentioned above explains that pretty clearly. The other comment above should also be quoted in full, not the way you make it. I didn't say You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please, what I said was I consider your comment on my talk page a step in a good direction. Whatever be the reason behind it, it shows at least some will of improvement. Because of that I'm not going to start the RfC right now and will wait for what happens next. You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please. If your behaviour is really likely to change I'm going to forget the whole issue. Does this seem fair to you?, which puts it in a slightly different context, doesn't it... As to my alleged offenses - so far you failed to provide any diffs and links or any of my statements that were clearly meant as an offence. As I said several times, I don't believe there is anything I should apologize to you for. Finally, I started this RfC to discuss your behaviour, not mine. I believe a decent step for you would be to fill in the response field above. By the way, when you call someone a vandal, POV pusher, ignorant, zombie, sockpuppet hysterical troll or paranoid, it's rather clear that the intent is not as friendly as you stated on my talk page. Halibutt 08:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe in my good intentions, why do you stalk me constantly asking for apologies? When I bring the required apologies to you, your next edit is usually to accuse me of bad faith. I've seen quite enough of this already. If one looks at your own allegations above, you never quote my comments in a context. Halibutt, I never called you vandal, zombie, sockpuppet, hysterical troll, or paranoid, so you may relax. The comments were addressed to those who deserve it. Also please remark that this page is not intended for talk. If you wish to dicuss anything with me, please contact me on my talk page. --Ghirlandajo 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo&oldid=1080959926"