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: 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

• Halibutt ( talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:Halibutt has engaged in activates which violate several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Fore some time user:Halibutt during his contributions was making insults and jokes towards ethnic names. At the beginning, these activities were limited to talk pages [1] (later he deleted this message [2] without a proper apology). Ethnic jokes caused a lot of tension among different contributors and disrupted normal work. Later situation worsened even more – these jokes regarding ethnic names transferred to the articles main space and notice boards [3], [4], [5]. This behaviour by user:Halibutt caused outrage among contributors, [6], [7] [8]. For such misbehavior user:Halibutt received an official warning [9] and user:Halibutt was obliged to make an apology. Instead of apologizing for making ethnic jokes, user:Halibutt came up with excuse that he did not new conjunction in Lithuanian and did not know what is a proper way to add suffixes, while before this event User:Halibutt quite emotionally demonstrated his skills in adding same suffixes – Viljamas Šekspyras; Lešekas Mileris; Andžejus Leperis [10]; [11]. (for full investigation on this issue please see – [12]). These examples perfectly illustrate that distortion of ethnic names occurred not because user:Halibutt "did not know what proper suffixes to add" as he tried to explain this incident before [13]. After these undisputed facts were brought to light user:Halibutt was asked once again to make proper an apology, but user:Halibutt refused. Such action caused dissatisfaction among other contributors [14], [15]. User:Halibutt has stated, that he founds disruptive behavior refreshing [16] and that is rise the most concern - is the promise to carry on with it.

After these incidents, disruptive behavior of user:Halibutt continued. Quite recently during the vote on very sensitive article, user:Halibutt launched the disruptive campaign [17] [18] [19] trying to gain support for changing the Jogaila article name from Lithuanian to Polish.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [20] delivering offensive remarks regarding Lithuanian language
2. [21] using article main space.
3. [22] using the notice board.
4. [23] using the notice board.
5. [24] disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
6. [25] disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
7. [26] disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
8. [27] using the notice board and article space [28].
9. [29] "ethnic jokes" continue.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:Civility
2. WP:Point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [30] official warning due to ethnic jokes.
2. [31] remark to seek solution.
3. [32] failed dispute resolution on local Conflict resolution board.
4. [33] failed to acknowledge his misbehavior on article talk page.
5. [34] discussion on contributor's user:Halibutt talk page.
6. [35] restoring of misleading statements.
7. [36] protesting the removal of his misleading contribution.
8. [37] discussion on user:Halibutts behavior.

Addendum by User:Ghirlandajo

I would like to highlight Halibutt's proclivity for using ethnic slurs. It is no secret that Halibutt kept a particular Black Book to slander non-Polish editors but was constrained to delete it after having been pressed by other editors on his RfA. A characteristic instance of his attitude towards editors from other nations is his comment on Russophobia, in which he declared that everyone who speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha should be considered Russian. After I pointed out to him that such comments are not appropriate in Wikipedia, he 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. It was at that period that Halibutt started to call me "Gyrandol" (a Polish word for "chandelier" and perhaps for something else). Despite my protests, this continues for a year now.

Other problems in my lengthy interaction with Halibutt include the following. He is prone to using judgmental tone: "You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please". He has an annoying habit of deleting comments which don't suit his view from the article's talk, in despite reiterated remonstrances on their author's part: once, twice, thrice. When I referred him to our basic social policy in my first comment on this page, he attempted to litter my talk page with highly offensive and incivil insinuations and still goes on repeating that "he was a target of a personal attack". Also during the present discussion, Halibutt demonstrated his lack of sociability by unleashing a campaign against User:Durova whose warnings he tacitly deletes from his talk page. Gratuitous accusations of lies and ready assumption of sock puppetry have been also recorded. All in all, Halibutt's actions form a disturbing pattern of behaviour. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. M.K. 22:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Lysy ^talk 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I have suggested M.K to file an RfC but I do not support the above summary which describes the problem in a very limited way, imo. reply
4. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) I did not want to enter this discussion, but this latest incivil edit persuaded me that the problem will not solve itself. reply
5. Juraune 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Even the remark of Halibutt's response 1 is an ethnic offence right there: However, after 3 minutes I decided that perhaps sarcasm is not the best way, especially that some of our fellow Lithuanians might not catch it. Adding Lithuanian names to prominent Polish people in English Wikipedia "just for fun" is making the efforts of people working on encyclopedia articles a futile exercise in correcting the information entered by someone playing a role of a Circus Clown. reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. TheQuandry 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Response by Halibutt

First of all, the user to start this dispute has been engaged in a campaign of slandering my good name for quite a while now. No wonder he decided to finally take it here. After all I have been asking him to provide some backup for his accusations or withdraw his offensive remarks for roughly a month now [38] [39] [40] [41]...

Now on to collected evidence.

1. is by no means an offensive remark towards any language. I thought that the Lithuanian name for that guy would look like that. The comment was intended to be a sarcastic remark directed at the articles on Wawrzyniec Gucewicz and several others that have recently been moved by Lithuanian editors to their Lithuanian names despite the fact that Lithuanian names were not known to the people in question. However, after 3 minutes I decided that perhaps sarcasm is not the best way, especially that some of our fellow Lithuanians might not catch it - and I withdrew the remark altogether. There was no offence intended nor was there any offence committed. I checked with my Lithuanian friend living two clicks away and she told me that the -as suffix has got no derogatory meaning in Lithuanian at all. But even knowing that the entire campaign is completely absurd as both me and M.K. know that there is nothing offensive in that name, I extended my hand and apologized to all those who might indeed feel offended. What else could I do?
2. was indeed disruptive. As disruptive as moving the article on Wawrzyniec Gucewicz to a modern Lithuanian title, but indeed two wrongs do not make a right. I got carried away, I apologized and promised not to do it again.
3. reporting a page on notice boards is not a crime, is it
4. as above
5. discussing a move is not a crime either. I strongly believe that the rules of Wikipedia should apply to all - equally. If we move the article on Władysław II of Poland to his native name of Jogaila, we should also consider moving other such articles as well. Anyway, using the talk page and discussing content-related issues is by no means disruptive.
6. as above
7. as above
8. ...and? What's exactly disruptive about that edit? There was no article back then and I wasn't sure where I want the one I was writing to be. As soon as it was ready I replaced the redirect to an empty space with a [ proper article. What's exactly wrong with that?
9. No ethnic joke here either. Lithuanian language commonly changes native forms by adding suffixes typical to Lithuanian language. Lithuanian form of William Shakespeare is lt:Viljamas Šekspyras, Lithuanian form for Andrzej Lepper is lt:Andžejus Leperis, Lithuanian form for Kazimierz Leski is Kazimieras Leskis. As simple as that.

So, in other words, most of the "evidence" does not hold the water. The single example that does - indeed unrelated to any ethnic slurs - has been around for 3 minutes before I removed it myself, out of my own free will, before anyone even noticed it.

By the way, as we're discussing my alleged disruptive behaviour here, I would like to ask M.K once again to provide any diffs and links supporting his accusations towards me he's been airing for quite some time. As I already noted several times, a single diff would do. A single proof that I ever committed an ignorant insult towards Lithuanian nation, that I pursue a mission of not allowing anything Lithuanian in Wikipedia, and so on. The more diffs the better, but a single one would do. // Halibu tt 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Now before more people waste their time on your humble servant, let's focus for a second on the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute":

1. Note that Alex changed the warning [42] as soon as he realized that there is no "ethnic joke" there. Because there was none.
2. completely unrelated to the issue and certainly not an evidence of M.K trying to settle the problems he has with me
3. Again, truth speaks for itself. It was ME to try to settle things with M.K, not the other way around. How could that be seen as an evidence for M.K trying to seek resolution, when in fact it was him to boycott it?
4. Because there was no misbehaviour at the said talk page. As simple as that. But even then I did offer sufficient explanation to all the people involved, including Lysy, Alex, and all the Lithuanian editors.
5. Point number 1 repeated...
6. Hmmm... I urge everyone interested to check who is the person to do that revert :D (and do it immediately after I was called a troll in an edit summary). Just follow the link provided and check if it indeed was M.K's "evidence of trying to settle the dispute" :D
7. Asking why was the link I provided removed is not disruptive. Removing the link with offensive edit summary is. But still, how is that related to trying and failing to resolve the dispute?
8. Did I take part in that private chat on Piotrus' talk page? Nope. Does it qualify as trying and failing to resolve the dispute with me? Nope. // Halibu tt 13:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Appleseed ( Talk) 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Response by Space Cadet

The so called "disruptive behavior" is just simply an effort to establish consistent rules across the Wikipedia through a very useful tool of Reductio ad absurdum. Why should a Polish King get different treatment than the Empress of Russia? Because he was Lithuanian? Are we being chauvinistic here? Are we going to let the number of Google hits take priority over common sense? I hope not! Space Cadet 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by Piotrus

In the past few weeks Halibutt has indeed done several edits which were counter-productive; I ( [43], [44]) and several other editors have criticized him for strange naming of a page ( [45]). However such an edit is an exception to the rule; and starting an RfC based on on this one case seems to be a major 'overkill'. Halibutt is a very civil editor, and uncivil edits by him are few and far between; most of the edits mentioned by M.K above are misunderstandings and bad faith interpretations - for example, the (single) edit M.K mentions as 'causing a lot of tension among different contributors and disrupted normal work' was self-reverted by Halibutt within 3 minutes, and occured on a rarely edited page. I have problems seeing how such a small and nonvisible edit could cause so much trouble - unless it is being advertised all around the Wiki and used to demonize a particular editor. The official warning which M.K notes Halibutt received was soon judged too strong and refactored by the admin who gave it out in the first place. While I agree with M.K. that Halibutt's apology for this signle comment was half-hearted at best, in this edit he offered to talk about the offending edit and apologize if his offense is elaborated upon (as I wrote below in that thread I myself would not find such an edit offensive); again, this doesn't sound like a basis for an RfC. His refusal to apologize for what he considers he didn't do is understandable, although personally I do think that saying 'sorry, I didn't knew it was offensive but if you think it was, I am sorry' would solve a lot of trouble. Again, I'll note that an RfC to demand an apology for a single comment that was not intended as offensive and was refactored within 3 minutes is an overkill. Interpretation of this edit as a proof that Halibutt enjoyes disrupting Wikipedia and plans to do it in the future seems like an assumption of bad faith, given both his previous good record (Halibutt has been a well respected editor for several years) and the fact that there is no evidence to support such a claim; Halibutt has not carried out any similar edits since he wrote this on the 19th October. The 'disruptive campaign' ( [46]) during a vote is nothing but; it contains no references to Lithuania (thus it is about another subject matter than the one indicated in this RfC) and besides, while I don't think it was a particularly good strategy (an annoucement at WP:NC would be enough), I don't think trying to attract neutral editors (not involved with any side, but involved in discussing complex names of royalty) classifies a disruptive behaviour. Therefore it is my opinion that starting a RfC based on a a single edit self-reverted within 3 minutes and a misproper naming of another article is certainly overkill. In my ending note I'd like to take this opportunity to illustrate how Halibutt has been constantly insulted and provoked by several other editors: being called a troll, being called an 'egomaniacal trolls feeding on attention, being called a xenophobe, being called a troll by the very person starting this RfC. It is their behaviour which should be subject to RfC scrutiny, not Halibutt's.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Appleseed ( Talk) 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Response by Appleseed

Halibutt is a prolific and respected editor, and this RFC comes as a surprise to me. After reviewing some of the relevant talk pages, it appears that he went to great pains to cooperate with others on the articles in question, but was driven to distraction by a few editors' evasiveness, insults, and groundless accusations. Even then, his only mistake was creating the redirect, as he quickly reverted himself on any undiplomatic comments. Regarding the Jogaila vote, I see no problem in soliciting the opinion of other editors on the talk pages of other monarch articles. In fact, this is something Halibutt should be commended for, and it contrasts sharply with the real spam campaign *on user talk pages* that occurred during the vote that resulted in the article being moved to Jogaila. The fact that Halibutt is being attacked for this constructive approach to resolving the Wladyslaw II Jagiello/Jogaila impasse is very demoralizing.

All said, I think this RFC is frivolous and counterproductive, and it worries me that a great editor might be discouraged from further contributions.

And by the way, what's with referring to Halibutt as " user:Halibutt" multiple times in the description? Is that supposed to be some sort of veiled insult? Appleseed ( Talk) 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Inside view by Lysy

The summary presented in the description of this RfC is only the tip of the iceberg. There's been a much more extensive (and lame) conflict between a number of Lithuanian and Polish editors that best manifested itself at Talk:Jogaila and Talk:Laurynas Gucevičius (both articles were renamed to Lithuanian names and the Polish editors unsuccessfully attempted to move them back). The disputes there resulted in at least two Lithuanian editors quitting wikipedia (one luckily returned), both pointing to Halibutt as the reason for their leaving. Eventually, Lithuanian editors started to see Halibutt as the cause of all the evil and, probably not deliberately, engaged in a black propaganda campaign against him. These two major and other minor conflicts developed into a personal conflict of Halibutt and M.K, the latter being often supported by several other Lithuanian editors, including Encyclopaedia Editing Dude and Dr. Dan. M.K had repeatedly introduced provocative comments or accusations to the contentious articles' talk pages. I suggested that they better filed an RfC if they had problems with each other, instead of poisoning already difficult and tense content disputes. Unfortunately, neither of them would let go and instead they continued to provoke each other which escalated the conflict further. Halibutt insisted on M.K presenting diffs to support his accusations or apologizing and M.K was not willing to do either. I'd best characterise M.K's behaviour as "provocative" and Halibutt's as "stubborn". Eventually the provocations succeeded and Halibutt made a couple of trolling edits ("Eustachiusasas Tyškievičiusasas" which was not nice but minor, and "Slavomiras Borevičius" which was silly), both described in the summary. Halibutt got drifted away around October 18-20 but realised this, apologized for both, and did not repeat it since. Starting an RfC based on this two weeks later seems a little late and pointless. Still, I think this RfC can be useful if it could put an end to the Halibutt vs M.K conflict, which I consider harmful, as it tends to reappear every now and then in different places, and gets other editors involved. It should be also noted, that because of his involvement in a number of other controversial articles, and his habit of assuming a firm position, Halibutt has a history of conflicts with other editors, who at an opportunity would routinely support his opponents. Finally, I am disappointed with the way Halibutt apologised for his "Eustachiusasas Tyškievičiusasas" comment, which in my opinion was not sincere. On the other hand he never received the desired apology from M.K either. -- Lysy ^talk 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

1.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Kusma (討論) 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
3. // Halibu tt (not sure if I should endorse anyone's summary, but what the heck) 08:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
4. -- Beaumont (@) 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Appleseed ( Talk) 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Olessi 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Inside view by Renata3

I was about to ignore this RfC as just another lame way to regurgitate the same words of love in both directions. But then Durova and Alex really surprised me. I did not expect that anyone else would notice anything about Halibutt but his "prolific and exceptional" contributions that, according to Alex, have earned his right to be unpunished.

But at least two people did notice something else about him, some things that are almost impossible to prove by a set of diffs. And that's his stubbornness. As witnessed many times on talk pages he will drag the argument ad nauseam. The most probable outcome is that the other side will just simply let it go and give up, and say "whatever, it's not worth my time or energy." If the article presents something Halibutt does not like, he will resurrect old talk pages over and over again, held votes over again. And he is proud of his mission.

But that's not the end. Combine the above stubbornness with his strong opinions, and you get a deadly mix. He himself admitted hatred towards anachronisms. He has pro-Polish biases. He has anti-Lithuanian biases (What I said is that it was a culture and language used by peasants, in the middle of nowhere). He has anti-Russian biases (Those darn Russkies simply did not speak English well enough to name their armed forces properly...). He has anti-German biases (point on Nazi Germany). <add others to the list as you see fit>

And when you combine strong opinions (on sensitive subjects that others will not agree with) with determination and stubbornness, not being able to let it go and just simply move on… you get, well, Halibutt. So the conflict is far more than just M.K. vs Halibutt or Lithuania vs Halibutt. It spans over many years, nationalities, and different editors.

I say kudos to M.K. who finally got the guts to stand up and don't just chicken out the way myself, Lokyz or DeirYassin did. This is the fight that's been overdue for over a year. Renata 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

• Agree absolutely.-- Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: discussion (including long endorsments) moved to talk per rules of RfC that discussion should take place at talk page, not in endorsement/responce sections.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Agree. Renata said what was on my mind too. I have experienced several times that Halibutt turned constructive discussion into endless futile exercises by personally offending editors and writting offending remarks about prominent Lithuanian people. It happened in Laurynas Gucevičius article, which was never renamed illegaly, as I started it and I know it very well, it happened in Antanas Baranauskas article, and in Konstantinas Sirvydas. Sorry for not having the time right now to point to more precise places where it happened. Juraune 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Durova

User:M.K wrote to my talk page to inform me of this WP:RfC. [47] This editor comments that I suggested it, which is a slight misreading of my comment at WP:PAIN. Actually I had suggested an article content RfC for the dispute between this editor and Halibutt. Halibutt posted to that board a few days ago with a complaint about M.K, which I concluded was primarily a content dispute that did not merit action as a personal attack. [48]

What I found odd - indeed troublesome - was Halibutt's persistence. The Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard has a limited purpose and Halibutt's request fell outside its parameters. This editor offered no reason why dispute resolution might not be acceptable. I offered several specific and appropriate links. Given Halibutt's experience as an editor, it rather surprised me that Halibutt had not already tried at least one of them to resolve a dispute that had simmered since midsummer. Instead Halibutt extended the PAIN thread until it included what I cautioned was a thinly disguised personal attack agaist M.K. Even this did not discourage the subject. Halibutt continued to post in increasingly rude and sarcastic terms until another administrator deleted the entire PAIN thread as irrelevant. Then Halibutt resumed it on my user talk page and insisted that I had somehow failed to answer a question even after I had explained the matter so many times that I took the unusual step of adding a WP:POINT warning at Halibutt's talk page. [49] Halibutt promptly blanked the warning [50] and claimed within eight minutes of that blanking that I had failed to reply at all. [51] Under the circumstances that is difficult to construe as anything less than a brazen falsehood with an added claim that I somehow lack qualification to leave a warning message on a user talk page. (Final reply and complete thread here). Actually I can do considerably more than warn: I am an administrator.

That was not a continuation of any previous conflict. Prior to this exchange I had, to the best of my knowledge, no interaction with Halibutt at all. I refrain from weighing the overall merits of this request for comment yet, having read more of Halibutt's user history, I cannot characterize this as an isolated incident and I have no opposition to a user conduct RfC.

If I were to summarize my impression of Halibutt in one sentence, that sentence would be: What part of no don't you understand? Durova 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Update Halibutt has returned to my user page to insult me again. Highlights from his latest post include dick, fuckhead, and I'll think twice before I trust your judgement in the future, given your recent trigger-happiness. [52] Under the circumstances, considering that I have not even confirmed the basis for this RfC, my actions have been anything but trigger-happy. I consider this baiting. I have left a final warning on his user page citing WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. [53] Durova 17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Halibutt has removed my final warning from his talk page with the comment, rm another threat; I don't respond to blackmail, threats or unfounded accusations [54] and then posted a lengthy response. [55] Durov a ^Charge! 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: discussion moved to talk per rules of RfC that discussion should take place at talk page, not in endorsement/responce sections.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Some editors have doubted whether I understood Halibutt's question. The query seemed odd when he first posed it so I read his user page and browsed his edit history. From this I concluded that he probably is, as he claims, a university student in Warsaw. As such, I initially read his statement as hyperbole and responded to it in that vein. I was slow to respond to the literal text of his question because it was implausible that an editor who had even fundamental understanding of Polish history could confuse Polish nationalism with Nazism - and Halibutt's demonstrated knowledge of the subject was extensive. My own background is adequate to make that determination: I hold a degree in history from an Ivy League university and have have read at least a portion of the relevant material in German. Durov a ^Charge! 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. There are some serious behavioural problems which need addressing. Persistence and stubborness are laudable only as long as they don't violate WP:DICK and WP:POINT. In the present case, they are becoming disruptive. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Alex Bakharev 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Errabee 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Renata 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
5. "What I found odd - indeed troublesome - was Halibutt's persistence." Hit the spot! -- Irpen 08:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Some real issues here, I agree. Durova is as evenhanded as they come, and when you go out of your way to pick a fight you are in violation of WP:DICK. -- Shrieking Harpy ^{Talk| Count} 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
7. totally agree -- Jadger 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Alex Bakharev

Halibutt is an extremly productive editor, He contributes enormously to Wikipedia and our duty is to provide safe and comfortable settings for his work. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a collective work, people with different point of views are trying to edit articles so to achieve the NPOV result with due representations of each view. This work inheritently require some readiness to compromise or even readiness to agree to disagree on some decision and move on. I fail to see this readiness in Halibutt's edits. He is very persistent (somebody would say stubborn] and able to transfer every small point of disagreement into a huge problem that takes hostage not only Halibutt's time and energy but also the time and energy of dozens other editors. I really dread that in fifty years time in 2056 we will sit in out retirement villages and have 500th voting on the main title for Jogaila article and the correct name for the Laurynas Gucevičius.

Another difficult feature of Halibutt's personality seen e.g. in the story of Halibutt's exchange with Durova is his inclination to what we call in lesser honored editors WP:TROLL#pestering - repeating multiple times questions the he himself knows (or could easily find) the perfect answer of. E.g. I bet he knows wheat types of personal attacks are acted upon in WP:PAIN, if he does not know, I sure he could figure it out himself just by looking through the history of the page. All that disrupt other editors from their work (and obviously took time and energy from Halibutt himself). This causing frustration in other editors especially Lithuanians who have to work together with Halibutt on almost all historical articles. Some of them left the project. This causing frustration in Halibutt himself (who, according to Piotrus, is on the brink of leaving the project).

What I like even less that this frustration goes from the talk spaces into the main article space. All these asas titles and redirects while may appear funny to Halibutt are obviously offensive to Lithuanians. They are also formally Vandalism. I gave a final warning to Halibutt and then edited the standard {{seriously}} template to make it little less threatening. I still want the joke to stop and very disappointed that they are continued [56]. Nobody in their right mind would want to drive Halibutt from Wikipedia but we do not want to drive away the Lithuanians as well. Something should be done. Alex Bakharev 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Sums it up for me// Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Errabee 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Renata 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
5. -- Irpen 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Iulius 08:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Irpen

I thoroughly agree with the Alex' statement above. But I would like to emphasize some things. This RfC, IMO, have started off the wrong foot. Not that Halibutt is a problem free editor (not at all, see below), but it concentrates on civillity, while the latter is not the biggest problem of Halibutt. I will not repeat what's said above by Alex about Halibutt's commitment and importance of such committed editors to be able to contribute. Suffice is to say, that were this an RfArb, I would have strongly opposed any measure that would lead to his block no matter how much of Halibutt's unpleasant behavior I had to take personally.

But the main issue here is not civility, but content disputes even if we pretend otherwise. At a different time and rather long ago, I told the very same thing to Halibutt who were on the "accusing" end of a different dispute at the time. We should not present much more important issues, which are the content disagreements and handling them, as the discussion about the manners (unless manners are totally horrible, which in case of Halibutt is just not so.) I requested from all sides (including from Piotrus) multiple time to stop attempts to hide the frustration over content disagreements into an easy path of switching to civility discussions. Now I request this also from Halibutt's Lithuanian opponents.

What makes Halibutt difficult is not the civility issues (in which he is by far not the worst one). His occasional total loss of ability to control himself (like the recent incidents with WP:POINT edits in connection with Lithuanian names or a very similar long ago case of a strange spree of WP:POINT adding Polish names to the German cities), is while annoying, but a rare event and is not the biggest problem either. The biggest problem is his strong Polonophile views, their endless propagation into his edits, and, most importantly, extreme stubbornness and total inability to compromise on content (really the biggest thing), combined with the patience to go at incredible length in meaningless discussions at talk pages, driving opponents nuts in endless circles but not giving an inch on the content, unless forced by 3RR restrictions or lack of time to pursue the discussion further but never because his opponents' arguments convinced him. What makes things worse is that Halibutt receives a semi-automatic support from Piotrus, who goes at length to defend him, even when his actions are indefensible, except in a few truly exceptional cases.

Having been taken a lot from Halibutt, I still voted and commented at his RfA to his favor. Having been taken even more from him since that time, I still think that so productive editors should not be driven away from the project. Having been known him for long enough, I see no chance that the problematic side of Halibutt will ever improve. In view of all that, I see no choice for us all but to keep taking him as he is. He will not change but if he leaves, it would be a pity.

Many people advised him to take a Wikibreak. As an alternative, I suggest writing an article or two on some totally non-controversial topic. Say Warsaw Bridges or Warsaw mansions, review articles about his native city. That's exactly what I did in similar situations and my frustration from UA-RU-PL disputes helped several such articles (I hope not too bad) to come up or be expanded. Actually we could all use occasional breaks from politically loaded histories turning to arts, lives, towns and villages, whose Wikipedia coverage needs as much improvement as the coverage of Katyn Massacre, Murder of Lwow professors, Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers, Massacre of Poles in Volhynia and other such articles who tend to give rize to too many raw emotion. So, could we have an article about, say, Ostrogski Palace? -- Irpen 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Lysy ^talk 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
2. More than anything, he should learn how to compromise... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Spot on. Errabee 11:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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.