Misplaced Pages

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that I will either:

• seek community approval of my adminship through an RfC; (no consensus = no change)
• choose to take the matter to ArbComm;
• resign my powers and stand again for adminship;

at my discretion

• once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria
• and the matter concerns my admin powers rather than a non-admin editing concern.

1. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
2. My "good standing" criteria include

a) the requirement that if the user is calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least a week.

b) the requirement that the user should be neutral towards my person. This means that if a user is or has been involved in a DR procedure with me as a party, I doubt that user is neutral and I reserve the right to not count this editor as "an editor in good standing" in this case. Hint: it's easy to find a neutral party, like mediators - if you can convince them you are right...

c) I reserve the right to impose additional criteria in the future.

Prodding List of... article

I do not think that you should be prodding List of... articles as you currently are doing. You tried to mass AfD them, and that did not work; nor was there consensus that it was a good idea. Nowhere have I seen evidence of consensus being reached that the deletion is a good thing. I think you should seek to get some consensus before engaging in this exercise. At the moment it appears to be your personal opinion that there's something wrong with these articles; you look like you're rampaging through Misplaced Pages without giving a second thought to other people's opinion.--Tagishsimon (talk)

Yeah, I've read more now & see slightly better where you're coming from. The UK list does seem to be actively maintained. Can't speak for others. Let's see if they get deprodded; I'll stand on the side-lines. --Tagishsimon (talk)

style="position

Your use of HTML "style="position" (I think) is causing me some problems with the display of this page. — The Storm Surfer 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Halibutt

Certainly I have, how else could I have come up with an average of 6 edits per day? Over 180 edits in April, more than 150 in May as of today. I admitted it was (much) less than he was used to. Maybe this qualifies as limited involvement, but certainly not as loss of an active editor, which I feel misrepresents the facts.

BTW, you still haven't removed your request (and optionally sort it out and move it into the Workshop area). M.K. has already made one proposed finding of fact (although it lacks diffs). Errabee 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a matter of interpretation. Halibutt has had periods before when he was even less active than he is now. And I've taken the worst month of 2007 to calculate the average. January amassed to 377 edits (12/day), February 286 (11/day), March over 245 (8/day), and May is up again (wrt April) with 7/day.

As for refactoring your statement: the point is that evidence has to be supported by facts. Your request/solution is your opinion on how to proceed, and cannot be evidence. You're quite right that ArbCom should make their own decision, but then I wonder why you've placed that request in the first place? Errabee 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how I should read this statement of yours on my talk page:

We have already fixed part of the problem: I am not aware of any conflicts along the lines Ghirla-Polish editors since the end of the previous year

Could you please elaborate on what has been fixed? If you mean that Ghirla has limited his involvement as well, I consider that as much a loss to Misplaced Pages as you consider Halibutt limiting his involvement. Errabee 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is very telling. Many people consider Halibutt to be as rude as you perceive Ghirla to be. Your answer would be comparable that they say that M.K. has fixed part of the problem, which would be just as inappropriate as your answer is. I'm beginning to doubt very much whether I should indeed stay out of your arbitration case, because this is really not acceptable. Errabee 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? How are *we* baiting Ghirla to change his behaviour? No, I definitely feel you've crossed the line here big time. Errabee 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this discussion - and since Halibutt is one of the very few Eastern European editors who's rubbed me the wrong way I'm probably the right person to say this: I can read Piotrus's comments on this topic at face value and in good faith. This doesn't look like a deliberate attempt to bait anyone. Durova 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Polish copyright discussion

At commons. What do you think? Also: here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented. User:Zscout370 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: I don't usually follow replies on other user talk pages; in the future note if you want me to be aware of a reply, please copy it to my talk page. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Grr...I forgot, sorry. User:Zscout370 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 28 May, 2007, a fact from the article Air Force of the Polish Army, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/Skartabellat

"just google" is hardly a serious answer as far as peculiarities of the Polish history, unknown to the world, and even to the Poles themselves are concerned. I would say "just read" Henryk Samsonowicz's article on Polish skartabels. Or any book on Polish nobility that would clearly cover that topic :-). "De" in Polish surnames is not French. It's Latin. Just read any medieval or early modern sources on Polish nobility. There is plenty online. Try http://teki.bkpan.poznan.pl . Show me any Polish lord called "Voivod" :-). Wojewoda OK. But not "Voivod". However, in official Latin documents of the Polish state these dignitaries are constantly named "Palatinus" and their areas "Palatinatus". Also current Polish historians use "Wojewoda" and "Palatyn", or "Wojewodztwo" and "Palacja" as synonyms. Thanks for managing the page!

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Vilna offensive

Alex, Piotrus, consider this. Both of you are administrators and you both should know better than revert warring, right ? --Lysy 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regina Neighbourhoods mediation

Thank you for your comments, it seems that I have been directed to several pages but have not received any aid in my plight. If you could be so kind as to direct me to the proper resource for settling my dispute. However, the dispute at Regina Neighbourhoods involves the validity of statistics that I have proposed be inserted into the article. If you could either, mediate the dispute or ascertain the validity of my proposal or direct me in the proper direction, it would be greatly appreciated.--207.81.56.49 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I feel that the statistics meet all the requirements that I have been directed by yourself. They are crime statistics from the local police force and are therefore verifiable and primary sources. I also thank you for your direction to register but at this point, I fail to see the purpose due to the disputes over content at Regina Neighbourhoods. If this can be settled in a fair and equitable manner, I will register due to having confidence in Misplaced Pages . If they can not be dealt with in this manner, I see no reason to go through the hassle of registering, as I would be unable to contribute. Once again, thank you for your advice and hope that you may help me find a resolution to this issue.--207.81.56.49 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics questions

Piotrus, below is the thread I moved from the article's talk to yours since this is too far from the topic at hand. I would appreciate receiving finally a truthful answer. The original thread is moved unmoderated. --Irpen 06:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Observer

I was asked by one of the parties in this article to view this article. So, please tell me what seems to be the major sticking point? Thanks. User:Zscout370 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did the whoever asked you used IRC or whatever, I wonder? Anyway, your feedback would be welcome but it is impossible to summarize a sticking point in a few words. Please read the talk above and see the article's history with the revert war Piotrus waged during his own arbitration. --Irpen 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because IRC is the quickest way to get to me and I generally leave that open even if Firefox is closed. Anyways, I'll review the information and see if I can help yall out. User:Zscout370 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believed Zscout370 would be an acceptable neutral party already familiar with parts of CE/EE history, I contacted him. Do you have a problem with me asking for a neutral party intput in our latest quagmire?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, while the lead image might not be an issue, but if I read this correctly, the image should be in the public domain in Poland, since it is 70 years since it was published. User:Zscout370 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer Piotrus' question, the proper way to ask for a neutral input is article's RfC. I don't mind requesting Zscout to look individually, since I know him for a good guy but as a matter of principle I object to out of band communication on Misplaced Pages conflict related matters for the sake of transparency. There are very few incidents when out-of-band communication is warranted and those usually involve privacy issues, dangerous vandals or some sort of emergency. Content dispute is not an issue of this sort. Piotrus' using IRC to get a hand from David Gerard, otherwise non-interested in articles at all, who suddenlly came bashing at Piotrus' arbcom and later, of course by accident, happened to block another editor with whom Piotrus had a conflict, Piotrus' sending out emails aimed at derailing another RfA has become all too common and I happen to think that acting behind people's back is unethical. When I will be asking for Zachs' opinion about some article, I will do so at his talk. That said, I would welcome his non-involved opinion on the matter. --Irpen 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine Irpen; I have worked with you before and I hope we get similiar results as we did elsewhere. User:Zscout370 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your unprovable accusations of my misbehaviour are a sad violation of WP:NPA, but I think I am getting used to that. The fact is that I wanted Zach's opinion ASAP, since the sooner we would get neutral editors to mediate, the lesser personal attacks - or accusations of thereof - we would see. Bottom line is, there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and I don't remember you complaining when the two of us were discussing some other editors face to face during last Wikimania (I am just sad that what looked like good understanding we have reached then seems now completly forgotten).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, about my "unprovable" accusations, your resorting to out of band makes them indeed unprovable except through circumstantial evidence, but it is strong enough. But let's just make it all easier for all of us.

• Did you talk to David Gerard over IRC before his sudden appearance at your arbcom with a diff to an obscure message I left at another editor's talk asking him not to revert war with you and to stay out of your way? I am asking since DG never makes any of substance edits or does anything substantial content-wise, he never before interacted with me or that editor, he is at IRC 24/7 and this happened right after you asked for access to IRC? This is my line of circumstantial evidence. Please just say I am wrong
• After hanging around at #en-admins did not you see a chatter there about Errabee's position on Fairuse and that's how you found out about this RfA?
• Following that, did not you send emails to several users with a link to a several month-old diff edit made by Errabee?
• Is there any connection between your IRC activity and the fact that DG soon blocked your content opponent for a month?

As for our talking in person, unlike your persistent refusal to answer questions asked to you repeatedly, I not only freely admit it, but I immediately made it know to the subjects of our conversations about that discussion. I find nothing shameful in that discussion and I can repeat in public everything I said in private at that or any other time. Can you do the same? --Irpen 05:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of "there is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications" is unclear to you? You are trying to create a controversy where none should exist. To clear up your misuderstaning, let me illustrate with an example. How would you feel if I gave you a detailed list of questions about what you smoked or drank tonight, accompanied by a haughty lecture on how editing Misplaced Pages while not completely clear-minded is a bad thing. I think you would be outraged, and rightly so. I will of course not do that because 1. it is none of my business. 2. there is no Misplaced Pages guideline whatsover regulating what one does while editing. My own willingness to give a detailed discussion about my substance intake tonight would not make my point any stronger here. Balcer 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, what I drink or eat is unrelated to the editing, to canvassing people to vote to derail someone's RfA, to help in revert warring, to ask a known problematic admin to block your opponent and do so at the channel where the abuse is known to be rampant or to ask the very same admin to post something to ArbCom that would help, like a request for a thorough review of Irpen's editing pattern. (How did it go, btw?) As for lack of rule, I agree, but this is about ethics not rules. Ethics are not encoded in the legal codes, neither they can be encoded in policies. But let's see whether Piotrus will ignore the questions again. --Irpen 06:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I completly agree with Balcer, and I consider your inquisition a gross violation of both good faith assumption and normal right to privacy, since it matters so match to you, considering my respect to you for our 2+ collaboration on Wiki, I will give you the answers - even through, as Balcer points out, I am not obliged too by any law, policy or even decency (instead, your questioning of my private conversations is certainly impolite, and questioning my right to have them, downright insulting). I'd be happy if you'd treat this post as a token of good will, and decist from challenging my good faith in the future.

• I mentioned my ArbCom on IRC channels several times asking for advice, this can be confirmed by many users, including some ArbCom members themselves. I received some helpful and public advise on technicalities, much more than through traditional ways (which is almost none). If I ask on advice on wiki, I may get it after days, if ever. When I ask for it in IRC it is likely I will get it in seconds. That David chose to offer his opinion, quite unfavourable of you, was of his own free will. Until that time I was not familiar of any bad blood between you and him. That said, I am afraid he is right: for many months now your behaviour towards me has been getting worse and worse, today's your claims of falsification are a prime example of that. Your apology would go long way towards proving DG wrong.
• I found out about Vlad's blocking recently when I glanced at his talk page; I had no idea DG was blocking him but on that note I completly endorse that block; I certainly have not seen or participated in any IRC-related discussions regarding his block.
• I found out about Errabee's arbcom by following contributions of some of our common friends - but I see nothing wrong if I were to learn about it on IRC (alas, I hadn't). As far as fair use stance goes I actually support him on that, and stated this publicly both on IRC and (somewhere...) in wiki space.
• I think I was the first Polish editors to comment on Errabee's adminship, but I think it was Lysy who brought the link in question up on the voting page (interestingly, he voted in support). Please note I tend to chat to dozens of wiki editors interested in matters ranging from Poland to sociology, on and off wiki, via email, IMs, IRC and occasionally even face-to-face (including with you). There is no Wiki rule discouraging use of off-wiki communications, and what I talk about is private. I have my suspicions about what and with whom you and some other editors who tend to be critical of me talk about, up to and including my recent ArbCom, however I don't intend to pry into that, spy on you or challenge your right to discuss things in private. I consider the right to privacy to be one of the most important parts of our civilization, and barging into the private realm - by individual or government - a serious crime. This is all I intend to say on that matter. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I hoped to either get answers to the questions asked or not get answers at all. Instead you respond and not answer questions at the same time.

• David certainly did what he did on his own will. What kind of opinion he gave about me is something I care least. David is one of two-three main IRC-figures and they know my opinion about that medium as I have made it quite public. I was disappointed to see your joining the channel, but there is nothing I can do about that.
• The question remains who brought him there, who brought the diff to my edit at Vlad's talk to his attention and was not it you. What was meant by "a thorough review of my edits" is a question to him. In fact, I feel sorry for David and his friends that they have nothing better to do with their time than running "thorough reviews" of other editors. They are neither first, nor last who follow my edits. I feel nothing but pity towards my stalkers and I welcome all their attention.
• As for the diff DG showed, you can certainly give that diff to ArbCom, there is nothing shameful in telling an editor to cut on revert warring and stay out of your way. I have no idea about any bad blood between me and DG personally. I don't even remember ever talking to that fellow since we are at totally different places. What I do, is writing articles, what he does is chatting at IRC and he has yet to make any content contributions, at least in several months. So, there is no room for interaction or conflict between him and myself.
• My main question about Errabee was whether it was you who sent messages about his RfA to Polish users off-wiki. It was not Lysy who brought it to PL board. No one brought it to that board before I did after I realized that the off-wiki campaign is being run.
• There is nothing secretive in my communications off- or onwiki on wiki-matters. I never say anything anywhere that I would feel ashamed to repeat in any public venue. I would tell to go to hell to anyone prying with info about my personal matters, family business, health, etc., but I am quite open about any wikirelated matters I am involved with. I was asked about that in the past and I always gave truthful answers. --Irpen 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinsk massacre

(You wrote)
Try to engage your adversaries at talk, be mindful of WP:3RR. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. Mordoor broke the 3RR rule being the last editor to that contentious paragraph. That’s why I stopped and was just about to report him but you beat me to it with your friendly warning. I don’t know how it works, but I’d rather ask you than to talk to strangers. Why is he rewarded by breaking the rule? --Poeticbent  talk  23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reward other than a report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But first read the WP:3RR carefully. I think you both broke the rule, you should both stop, apologize to each another and try to reach a compromise. PS. I am not reporting either of you, but treat it as a warning not to engage in revert wars. They rarely help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by 3RR reward is the fact that at least temporarily his version with his number of victims sticks, and my careful approach does not, even though the "300" number is not supported by his new reference either. The same thing happened with the Krakow pogrom, with Mordoor's persistent promotion of inflated numbers to the point of sheer fantasy. I’m tired of having to deal with this sort of thing. --Poeticbent  talk  23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Check WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody wins by reverting, everybody has to compromise and consensus needs to be reached. As I trust TTyre uploaded the document in good faith, I also believe that wikisource has the real thing, and I can't help you in this case: I agree it needs to be verified, but I also don't see the reason to remove all references to it. If you think specific references violate our policies (see particulary WP:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources), please elaborate on that on talk. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the article states: "The American mission led by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. published the Morgenthau Report on October 3, 1919. According to the findings of this commission, a total of about 300 Jews lost their lives in this and related incidents." At the time when I removed all references to that article, no other proofs of its authenticity were provided yet. It looks better now, so I don’t mind the change, but the quoted numbers are still up in the air. However, I’d like to leave it up to you from now on. --Poeticbent  talk  00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From the report

Within the boundaries of Congress Poland only 18 Jews lost their lives, while in the whole territory now controlled or occupied by the Polish Republic the grand total of deaths from excesses in which antisemitism was a factor has not exceeded 300.. Again I agree completly a source of the text is needed, but that's were the number 300 comes from, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I can't find the text online other than in snippet view of Google Print, but checking selected parts seems to verify them: , .-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The report has been proven to exist, which is fair, but the only source for the number of dead victims set at “300” is the text at wikisource.org slated for deletion because of its total lack of verifiability. So, why exactly is my warning tag no longer needed? Apparently you agree with Irpen’s decision, or do you? Because I don’t. Nevertheless I don’t intend to go even near that article anymore. --Poeticbent  talk  03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with him, but you could certainly use a break from it. Check this for a verification for 300.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. That looks better. I’m glad to know the report by Morgenthau does exist in its original form and that it has been confirmed through internet sources other than the text at wikisource.org slated for deletion because of its lack of verifiability. At the time when I placed the {{Not verified}} tag at the top of the page there were no alternative links there confirming the existence of the report at all. Nevertheless, my tag was not about the report, but about the claims made at Pinsk massacre, based on that orphan. Since then, a lot has changed. Apparently I challenged other editors into doing more legwork, only to their own benefit. --Poeticbent  talk  04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

An excellent idea;!!DGG 06:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 31 May, 2007, a fact from the article Supraśl Lavra, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Non-free use disputed for Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cover patriotsandtyrants.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tnx

Czesc Piotrus and thanks for your welcome message! I apologize for the lateness of this reply but I am still figuring out my way around wikipedia and havent had a lot of time to do so this month because I was actually in Poland visiting my relatives.

I appreciate your invitation to help and your advice.

Dziekuje,

Onlywithcitations 03:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Railroadtyccon3_screen2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Morgenthau report

I have left my comments on this page: Talk:Pinsk_massacre#Morgenthau. Let me know if I need to dig deeper into the source of this document. --Ttyre 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure it was an electronic document I have accessed online through a local library. I was planning to visit that library during this weekend and will check for the Morgenthau Report source as well. --Ttyre 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matysiakowie, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

user's privacy

As per your claim of being such a proponent of privacy that you even refuse to answer very serious and relevant questions about your wiki-related activity, I am surprised to see your pressuring other users publicly to reveal personal information. Please desist. --Irpen 05:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider nominating Misplaced Pages:Babel for deletion if you don't like it. It is perfectly normal to ask a user to consider using a useful Babel userboxes on their userpage (and where's the pressure? it's his choice), it is completly unnacceptable to launch an inquisition into a user's private communication spreading on public noticeboards and other pages. At the very least have a decency to stop disrupting my talk page with such claims after I asked you to several times. PS. You don't have to reply.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABEL is for users who choose to post it. I don't want to delete it. Users should not be pressured to reveal anything about themselves. As for your "private" communication, I have no interest in it. As for your "alleged" communication aimed at achieving new victories in wikiwars, it is a separate issue. ArbCom will rule on the circumstantial evidence since you refuse to admit or deny, for instance, who campaigned vigorously off-wiki to derail an RfA of a respected editor and who fed #en-admins, particularly, David Gerard info about me behind my back, a forum where I could neither see such slander no respond to it. You are free to answer this any time and end the matter. --Irpen 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My post is not any pressure, it is simply informing that user that WP:BABEL exists and that s/he may want to use it. Your undoing of my message that does not concern you in anyway to another editor is a gross violation of wikicivility.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, feeding #admins IRC behind my back where I can neither see nor respond is civil because it is off-wiki and no diffs exist (and this is exactly why it was off-wiki, so that it can remain shady) is civil. Campaigning against the respected editor off-wiki emailing one link from long time ago and having no decency to at least post the diff at the board in the open (or even admit it) is civil. Pointing to you quite openly that your actions are reprehensible is uncivil. Why? Not because this is worse but because it is not behind the curtain, diffs exist and can be seen by anyone. Are you still saying that you did none of that sort? --Irpen 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read about concepts such as presumption of innocence. All your claims are based upon bad faith and not a single shred of evidence. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence is deeply ingrained in the western law. It still does not prevent another concept called circumstantial evidence which is often a basis of conviction. If in the evening the dirt was black and in the morning it is covered with snow, it is reasonable to infer that there was snow overnight even for a person who slept all night long and did not look out of the window. You could have easily said that you did not do any of this or admit to that and (if you feel ashamed) apologize. If you are saying that this is slander, you can only mean that these conclusions are false. If so, why not say this directly? Anyway, you live with your consciousness and your notions of ethics and I live with mine. I do not expect you to answer this anymore. --Irpen 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.Huh? So it was not slander. I thought so. --Irpen

I have answered you above. But perhaps you need this to be spelled out. I did not campaign against Errabee's RfA on IRC. Nor did I send any emails regarding his RfA. Happy, now? P.S. Regarding your huh: unlike you I don't see it as a good form to threaten your opponent with ArbCom during discussions. If that civility is lost on you, it's your loss.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In the "answered you above" there was not actually an answer about sending emails about Errabee. This right here is the first time you answer the question about Errabee's RfA campaign run by email. --Irpen 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BABEL Userboxes

Hi, Piotrus — no problem with the message you left. But sorry, I'm a bit leery right now to put those Babel boxes on my userpage. I used to have them, but then a rather obnoxious editor used that info to make untoward inferences about my nationality, implying bias on my part based on that, all in a rather vicious tone. At any rate, I found the whole episode quite disturbing, and took out any personal info from my userpage as a result. I know it's not the best solution, but that's all I can do for now -- I may add things back later, though. In the meantime, if you have any specific question, I'll be happy to answer it on your userpage. Turgidson 13:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask, here are the comments that I found very disturbing, and made me more leery in engaging in candid discussions on WP talk pages. I don't know how to deal with such vitriol — my tendency in such a situation is to pull back, and let go. (If you have better advice on how to deal with such things, please let me know.) As for your message -- no, don't worry, I didn't feel pressured in any way. It's only that it reminded me of that disturbing episode, which unfortunately has affected the way I think about WP. But I do agree in principle with you that having detailed userboxes is helpful to other editors — as long as they all act in good faith, which, unfortunately, does not seem to be always the case. Turgidson 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know about the block. So, there is some justice, after all! Thanks for letting me know, it's something that had depressed me for a while. And, thanks for the pointers -- I'll keep that in mind if such a situation recurs. Cheers — Turgidson 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)