Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:01, 6 November 2006

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 01:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

• Halibutt (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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 Misplaced Pages 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 (later he deleted this message 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 , , . This behaviour by user:Halibutt caused outrage among contributors, , . For such misbehavior user:Halibutt received an official warning 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; . (for full investigation on this issue please see – ). 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 . 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 , . User:Halibutt has stated, that he founds disruptive behavior refreshing 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 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. delivering offensive remarks regarding Lithuanian language
2. using article main space.
3. using the notice board.
4. using the notice board.
5. disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
6. disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
7. disruptive behavior during the sensitive vote
8. using the notice board and article space .
9. "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. official warning due to ethnic jokes.
2. remark to seek solution.
3. failed dispute resolution on local Conflict resolution board.
4. failed to acknowledge his misbehavior on article talk page.
5. discussion on contributor's user:Halibutt talk page.
6. restoring of misleading statements.
7. protesting the removal of his misleading contribution.
8. discussion on user:Halibutts behavior.

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)
2. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Lysy 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.

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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...

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and so on. The more diffs the better, but a single one would do. //Halibutt 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 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. //Halibutt 13:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Response by Space Cadet

The so called "disruptive behavior" is just simply an effort to establish consistent rules across the Misplaced Pages 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by Piotrus

In the past few weeks Halibutt has indeed done several edits which were counter-productive; I (, ) and several other editors have criticized him for strange naming of a page (). 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 Misplaced Pages 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' () 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

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

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 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Kusma (討論) 07:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. //Halibutt (not sure if I should endorse anyone's summary, but what the heck) 08:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

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. 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.

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. Halibutt promptly blanked the warning and claimed within eight minutes of that blanking that I had failed to reply at all. 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)

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. 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. Durova 17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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 and then posted a lengthy response. Durova 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 09:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Alex Bakharev 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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.