Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Halibutt

edit

Final (71/29/17) ended 06:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt (talk · contribs) – I have worked with Halibutt on Wiki for close to two years now and he has always been a reliable, friendly editor. He is one of our most active editors, contributor of countless articles, images and even voice samples, founder or co-founder of several WikiProjects and a person I respect and fully trust. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, Piotrus. Halibutt 07:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong support. I am proud to be the first to support Halibutt. On the issues with which we have interacted (though I have not participated in the discussions mentioned below), I have seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics, in addition to his skills as a researcher and map creator. Even when we have disagreed (as has happened occasionally) I have found him to be both reasonable and persuasive, and have learned a lot from his points. A great candidate for a mop. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as above. logologist 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cue I thought he was an admin support! I've never had the opportunity to interact with him, but I've been impressed with many of his edits. Should make a really good admin! SoLando (Talk) 07:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support.  Grue  08:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Geoff/Gsl 08:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Geoff/Gsl 02:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support  . Wikipedia potrzebuje więcej zdolnych biało-czerwonych adminów. -   Darwinek 10:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah? Well, so's your mother! So there! — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to list it at WP:PNT :) It's basically Wikipedia needs more of talented, red-and-white admins. Halibutt
    lol. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, seems harmless enough. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems like he would make a good admin --Rogerd 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support—good contributor with a good sense of humour. —Michael Z. 2005-11-16 16:42 Z
  10. Support. Critics have raised legitimate concerns and I feel Halibutt has responded to them adequately. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have no problems with this user and the fact that he has enemies doesnt change that fact. Admin is no big deal!Gator (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Being Polish nationalist and stubborn in some cases are not very serious arguments against adminship. In my experience, he respects serious arguments. IMO he is a pretty mature person and I don't expect him abusing the privileges, which are pretty much limited and accountable, by the way. mikka (t) 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikka, de-admining someone is not that easy. I recall Stevertigo's case, for example. It's better to take care when promoting people with prior issues. --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support nobs 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) An authority in his field of concentration.[reply]
  14. Weak Support did not have to interact with him too much, but overall looks like knowlegeable user, I do feel some of his tendencies are not very good and infringe on other users, but I do not believe he will ever misuse the tools, or will he? –Gnomz007(?) 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Great contributor to Wikipedia. Appleseed 21:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. The scale of the contributions by Halibutt is quite impressive. True, he has strong views on certain subjects and some of his actions were unconventional, but this should not exclude him from adminship. If we were as a rule to exclude admins who made controversial edits, we would be excluding many excellent Wikipedians. Balcer 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I do admit that Halibutt's statements and actions left me consternated at times (esp. in the context of the VfD against the "Polish Black Book" or in several naming disputes). However, that was mainly against the background of a solid body of undisputedly constructive edits, which easily qualifies him for adminship. --Thorsten1 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's an excellent point which is easily forgotten. Surely, 16,000 excellent edits weigh up one or two bouts of being a stubborn idiot :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. There are times when Halibutt can be hard-headed during arguments, but he should make a fine admin (and if hard-headedness was a stumbling block for adminship, I'd have been de-adminned ages ago!) Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support To comment on some of the opposition, I was probably the very first active editor on Wikipedia to challenge some of the site’s "Russophobia," so I understand where they are coming from. I am not a Russian nationalist or a Russian myself (I happen to be of Polish Jewish descent). But at times I felt compelled to do so because a counter-balance was needed in order to ensure WP:NPOV, and no one else was providing it. Otherwise, "Russophobia" is always going to be pervasive in an English-speaking online community because of the legacy of the Cold War. Therefore, at times I have been in strong disagreement with Halibutt. But I was able to reach a understanding with him during our first encounter, and all of my run-ins with him since then were quite cordial. Halibutt may have a strong point of view shaped by personal and family experiences with the oppressive end of Soviet and Russian imperialism, but so what? Everyone has a point of view. Unlike the POV editors unsuited for adminship, however, Halibutt is able to work constructively with editors whose worldviews starkly diverge from his own, and he is able to compromise. There are really no compelling reasons to oppose his nomination at this time. 172 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support V1t 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Although Halibutt can be involved in disputes (see Comments below), I have confidence that he would not abuse admin abilities. He is approachable, productive, and would be a worthy administrator. Olessi 05:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Strong views, but willing to discuss, productive, reliable, concerned with the project. Selena von Eichendorf 06:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support as per 172. Saravask 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong support I watched Halibutt contributions in Lithuania and Vilnius articles and also have had discussions with him by myself. Halibutt has strong views, but discuses them and accepts consensus. Also, he is one of those who seems having strong ethics. I think he will be able to separate administrator duties from his POV, so I trust and support him. --Gvorl 08:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--AndriyK 08:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support Strong character, vivid views, good editing--BIR 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, having and expressing strong views should not disqualify someone from becoming an admin. Unless it can be clearly demonstrated such views might interfere with their fair judgement. From all I've seen and read this is not the case with Halibut. So let's assume good faith and extend the mop to this fine candidate from the former Soviet bloc:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support. What?! You seemed like one already! A committed Wikipedian, definitely deserves the mop 'n' bucket. Brisvegas 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. support, Szumyk 09:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? Or is it just "the Poles should vote for Poles" thingie? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support If anything Halibutt (and especially Piotrus) have played a role in reigning in Polish nationalism on the Polish Notice Board, by encouraging the use of English there [1][2]and moving opinions out of the project space and into talk[3]. -JCarriker 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support Berasategui 15:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support I am no longer participating in wikipedia activelly but I hope my vote counts. Halibutt adds valuable information to the site and I disagree with the accusations that his views would not permit him do adminship well, in fact, unlike some other users, Halibutt is very able to understand opinions of other people and to go to compromises. As well, he visits wikipedia often. I think he would thus do well as admin, especially if he will not try to enforce his own opinions using his admin rights; I think however that he will not, thus I vote in support of his adminship. DeirYassin 16:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment on this vote: DeirYassin is editor from Lithuania and he was involved with Halibutt for several long months in discussions about naming conventions and other very controversial topics. Even the people directly against Halibutt's bias vote for him. Just a thought. Renata3 12:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd take that comment seriously and reply to it. Me and DeirYassin were both involved in quite a serious dispute about the history of Vilnius, which is an extremely touchy subject to both Poles, Belarusians and Lithuanians. For all who would like to know I would reccomend the following articles: 1, 2, 3, and perhaps 4. Halibutt
    Cliff notes version: Vilnius was ocupied (?) by Poland in the interwar. Now Lithuania is extremely unhappy - Vilnius is its capital! Now the whole mess starts when trying to determine who did what, who broke what rules, who's guilty etc. There are some ultimatums and other very nasty political and nacionalistic stuff involved. EXTREMELY touchy subject. Another subject: Naming Vilnius Wilno, Vilnia, Vilna and so on. Renata3 02:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I have not seen his nationality cloud his judgement at all. All it has lead to is insight from a different point of view, which is needed for a true NPOV. Halibutt gets my full support. Jordi·✆ 19:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Like 172, DeirYassin, User:Anárion... Halibutt is a devoted and eager to help and discuss community member. I've observed a bit Ghirlandajo's crusade against some Polish contributors and all this buzz and I don't really get it. It's very easy to accuse someone for nationalism because we all have some cultural background but it's really hard to fight with such an accusation. Aegis Maelstrom 21:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support. Who said an admin should not have and opinion of his own ? My first contact with Halibutt was our conflict on a town naming ;-). Since then I've been meeting him frequently on many edits and respect him for his willingness to discuss and ability to reach consensus. Although he is a difficult opponent. I'm convinced of his strong ethics and am sure his adminship would be to the benefit of wikicommunity. --Lysy (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Halibutt is dedicated wikipedian, who contributed a lot of articles and is always able to reach and respect the consensus Szopen 10:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I've only interacted with Halibutt briefly, but after that experience, it is my belief that he's an open minded, well-mannered and collaborative editor. Far from pushng single minded edits, I've seen him mediate in disputes in which he could have easily sided with a particular position closer to his own personal beliefs, yet he worked hard in order to achieve consensus and a neutral and encyclopedic agreement. I believe that highly qualified and friendly Polish users like Halibutt, Piotrus, Lysy et al should not pay for the questionable activities of a few another (and very different) users of the same nationality, against which in fact they often intercede in pursuit of a true and scholar NPOV. Shauri   smile! 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. I second the comments above, especially Haukurth. --Jpbrenna 23:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Nominator continuing support. In case there is any doubt as to were I stand... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support despite there are problems but, IMO, unrelated to adminship (see my comment in the "comments" section). --Irpen 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I haven't read any of the above or below comments, but in my experience Halibutt is both thoughtful and conciliatory. He has demonstrated that he respects Wikipedia and his position in the Wikipedia community. I am certain that he would do nothing to compromise that as an administrator. I hope that anyone who votes against Halibutt based on his dealings with me will consider that my vote here is support. Nohat 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support – Kpalion (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Halibutt is a geat and very dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. I've been impressed with his work ever since I became involved in WP. He's a Polish patriot, that's for sure, but I don't think it makes him particularly biased while working on this project. He's exactly the kind of person that would make a good admin. – Kpalion (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support I read all the positive and negative comments carefully. Many suggest that Halibutt’s opinions are too strong that he could make a good admin. I decided then to check the NPOV policy and the definition of bias. Here are some excerpts:
    “The basic concept of neutrality
    At Wikipedia, the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding:
    Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.”
    And here from the Introduction:
    „The (NPOV) policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.”
    Since we all are biased in this or another way, and it’s simply impossible for intelligent, thoughtful people to have a wide knowledge on a topic and not to form our own opinion, I don’t think that it’s important how strong the opinions of an administrator are, but how willing he is to cooperate with others and come to a consensus. If Halibutt’s domain was mathematics, he would probably receive 100% support in this poll. He is friendly and helpful. Actively engaged to the Wikiproject as a whole. He devotes his private time not only to write and improve articles of his interest, but also to create maps and find information for other Wikipedians. There would be no reason to refuse him support, although we would never know how he would behave in a situation of conflict. Many people who had already given their support to Halibutt are not only people who used to work with him on common articles, but they are also the people who hold strong views which stand in opposition to Halibutt’s on many controversial topics referring to the not so easy history of Poland and its neighbors. I think it’s the best recommendation for adminship. --SylwiaS 07:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, as per Shauri. Her judgment is always enough to convince me.--Wiglaf 15:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Space Cadet 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? Or is it just "the Poles should vote for Poles" thingie? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support; I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here, assume good faith, and base my vote on his recent history. I remember the little brushfire over adding Polish names to German cities a few months ago, but when I put that incident in perspective with his extensive good contributions and obvious dedication to the project, I believe he will make a capable admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sure. – ugen64 17:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support tukan 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Nationalistic tendencies are disturbing to me, the comments from my own nominator (dab) seem especially poignant, relating to another vote I just cast. Still, support votes from many editors whom I respect lead me to support. I hope to see the candidate refrain from administrative measures in areas pertaining to his/her point of view, which has been my modus operendi here. With great trepidation. El_C 23:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. My favorite kind of editor (because it best promotes Wikipedia's purpose) is one who has a strong POV but knows how to compromise w/opponents and work toward consensus. We *need* these solution-oriented editors/admins on controversial topics. All that I've seen of Halibutt indicates he falls into this category. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Lzur 17:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Change from oppose to support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Roo72 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? have you even read all that follows below?--Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I can and yes I have – I believe that the experienced used that he is, Halibutt will be a fine admin. Can you please provide a rationale for questioning my vote? Roo72 10:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support People seem to think that if an editor merely has a POV then that automatically means he will be bias in every article he edits. This could not be further from the truth, and Halibutt is an example of why. He may want to edit something to make sure the views of his side are correctly defined, but he can still work with other people to make sure an article turns out NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Is anyone not allowed to have strong opinions anymore, or should we only have robots as administrators? I am surprised that an editor who has contributed so substantially is not an administrator yet, so he gets my full support. Gryffindor 19:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Chelman 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. From what I've seen, Support. --Lst27 [[User talk:Lst27|<font color=purple>(</font><font color=red>t</font><font color=cyan>a</font><font color=violet>l</font><font color=green>k</font><font color=orange>)</font>]] 23:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Has done a lot of good work on difficult topics. --BadSeed 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Seems to possess common sense; is simultaneously opinionated as hell and cognizant of the workings of NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. support - I realize there is bad-blood against Halibutt, and I cannot discern how much of it is deserved, and how much of it is projection. In examining Halibutt's response here to his opposition, I interpret that response as level-headed, collected, articulate and well-thoughtout. Overall, in reviewing random edits by Halibutt, I think he's reasonable and interested in the health of this project. Kingturtle 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I think the accusations of "nationalism" are overblown just a bit. —thames 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Halibutt is clearly very dedicated to this project. Wiki will further benefit from his contributions in the adminship role.--Ttyre 03:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support He's a good guy GeneralPatton 04:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - his contributions to Poland-related articles are great. Ausir 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -he is neutral, willing to discuss any changes and in wealth of information.--Molobo 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --HappyCamper 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support kjetil_r 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Andre (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support. He has greatly given insight into great articles such as that on Josef Pilsudski, and Poland in general, aside from that, he has done many other worthwhile things for the Project. Эрон Кинней 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support long time committed / clearly reasonably stable and knowlegable / has shown willingness to move towards a consensus he doesn't agree with (e.g. the proposal that Warsaw Uprising, his "baby" should be split up). He does show patriotism. Taken too far I could have some problem with that. However, after following some of the links listed elsewhere, the accusations of nationalist (==racist/xenophobic probably including anti-semitic/anti-russian in the case of a Pole) behavior don't seem to be true and I specifically reject the use of the term as close to being a personal attack. I'd ask that he avoid being the admin that acts against Russians or Germans during disputes about pages involving Poland and its historical interactions with those other countries. --Mozzerati 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think Halibutt is ready for adminship. He is a fierce Polish nationalist who takes pleasure in gratitiously bullying Russian editors. His Russophobic sentiments are too well known to enlarge upon it there. Just two days ago he declared that "if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian" (see Talk:Russophobia). I don't think it's a proper way of admin's behavior. No need for further comments. --Ghirlandajo 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What a way to take the quote out of context.  Grue  14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I'm kind of puzzled that my comment there was understood wrongly and that Ghirlandajo took it out of context and used it against me. Anyway, sad as it is, I explained the matter a bit more at the appropriate talk page, hope Ghirlandajo reads it. Halibutt
    Of course, I consider myself a new wikipedian and still don't understand many things here, but in my 15,000+ edits I don't think I ever resorted to using Russian for my comments on talk pages or playing on nationalistic stereotypes. Halibutt, on the other hand, does it on regular basis. Check the revert war he instigated on Ostashkov back in August, when I attempted to expand a stub created by him [4]. --Ghirlandajo 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I already forgot of that case. As seen in the edit history and talk page, I had a problem not with your expansion of the article, but on your deletion of a paragraph that was there. I tried to avoid the revert war by using the talk page, but unfortunately you didn't join me there... Halibutt 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Halibutt, your memory fails you again. I moved your notice about alleged massacre to the article on Stolbnyi Island, where the camp was actually situated (see the article's history). But you decided that it should be present in the article on the nearby town of Ostashkov as well and started reverting, duplicating your notice here and there. --Ghirlandajo 16:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I can't really do much to change your mind, can I. However, just for our future contacts: as to the Ostashkov camp - all is explained in the talk page of the article, take a look at it. As to my contributions - check my user page for more articles I contributed to. If you find something wrong with the article on Lvov professors - state it at the relevant talk page. Halibutt 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Unfortunately, Halibutt does have nationalistic tendencies at times, if ever so slightly. I regret to not be able to support this otherwise productive contributor.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely not. Has no respect for consensus, even when it's overwhelmingly against him. —Cryptic (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my opposition stems entirely from the dispute over Template:Support, as mentioned below; I haven't encountered him in the main namespace. While I freely admit that my own handling of the situation wasn't ideal, Halibutt's continual re-creation of the template in the face of an 80%+ decision to delete on TFD shows that it wouldn't have made any difference. —Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't make you change your vote. However, please take note that I actually acted in good faith and I was really curious why so many people delete the page instead of replying to my comments at the talk page. Halibutt
    Considering the very first edit to the talk page, where you called the deletion an "abuse [of] his or hers admin rights" [5], they probably thought it would be futile. I know I did. —Cryptic (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But they did not try, did they. Halibutt
    • Piotrus asked me to review my vote. I have. I am now strongly, unalterably, and permanently opposed. Strongly advise closing bureacrat to take note of this edit by the nominator on the administrator page of the Polish Wikipedia, look carefully at the contribution history of those supporting, and decide whether users whose sum total edits to en: have been to add pl: interwiki links and vote here truly deserve suffrage. Furthermore, nearly all of the nominators edits on en: since nominating Halibutt - about the last 75 or so - have been to spam user talk pages, soliciting support. I am thoroughly nauseated. —Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cryptic, I have no idea whatsoever why do you assume bad will of Piotrus. Contrary to what you state above, I hadn't noticed any case where he would spam user talk pages or where he would solicit support. Either I must have missed something, or you simply assume that asking to join the discussion is equal to asking for my support. It is not. What you write above is similar to one of the remarks by Ghirlandajo, who assumed that when I ask people to be bold and correct mistakes they see, I do it only to make them revert Ghirlandajo's edits. Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the editors (me certainly included) don't regularly monitor the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. The only way I and many others will find out about RFA votes involving users we are familiar with is by others letting us know about it on our talk pages. Hence, I do not understand why Cryptic objects to Piotrus notifying other editors about the vote. Balcer 17:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday I had a chance to remark to Piotrus that his POV-infested notices will end in the vote being falsificated. To be honest, I even stripped his notice of POV and put it on the talk of two or three Ukrainian editors, but this displeased Halibutt and I quit at once. --Ghirlandajo 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirlandajo, please stop it. It did not displease me, rather made me smile for a while. However, what made me laugh now is your assumption that you know better what I felt. Thanks, that was refreshing :) Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong in advertising the vote. As Balcer pointed out, not many people watch this page and so I notified many users whom I thought would be interested, and I did not limit myself to 'friends' or 'Poles'. Besides, I have never asked people to vote 'support only', I have only told them that there is a vote, sometimes adding an additional note about certain comments that they may find interesting. I see nothing wrong with my note on the Polish admins page - our small Polish Wiki community should certainly benefit from seeing how things are properly done on international scale, and we may get some interesting information from Halibutt's activity on that wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Vote discounted due to sockpuppetry. He's part of a group of Polish-nationalist POV pushers, of which the nominator Piotrus is himself a member. Note how Piotrus routinely unblocks his Polish comrade Molobo [6] - it was already a mistake to make him an admin, and with Halibutt we would see the same thing. As Ghirlandajo has mentioned below, they also frequently talk Polish with each other here on the English wiki, even though they all speak and understand English well enough. They all seem to have some paranoia that everyone is out after the Poles (see Halibutt's "How to deal with Poles"). An example of POV editing: Here he says that "Poland regained her independence" in 1989, as if Communist Poland wasn't independent. He also frequently calls opponents he's edit-warring with "vandals" (such as here where he tried to force an entirely repetitive infobox into the article). JohnSmith214 15:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't really feel a member of some Polish conspiracy. Also, I am not the author of "How to deal with Poles" (which is a joke, BTW, and I find it quite funny) and I really believe that a country that is ruled by some other state (as Poland was ruled from Moscow mostly) is not independent. For me trying to preserve NPOV is not equal to not having my own oppinions at all. If that makes me unworthy of being an admin - too bad. As to the problem Gzornenplatz had with Template:Infobox biography and his spree to delete it from all articles it was used in - I can't really say why he did that, you should ask him. Note that I ended the dispute by expanding the article. Also, the dispute over the very template was ended by a failure of the TfD process (check the relevant talk page). Halibutt 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly obvious why he deleted the template, he said so repeatedly, and I just said so myself: because it was merely repeating info from the beginning of the article. This habit of "playing dumb" that you exhibit here again is just one more reason to oppose. The point here is that you repeatedly described your opponent in a normal edit war as a vandal. Do you agree that a vandal is someone who either removes valid information or adds non-information? Do you agree that neither was done in that edit war? Is it not logical to assume that, once you call someone a vandal, you would also block that "vandal" if you had admin powers, and that you would thus block your opponents in normal edit wars? JohnSmith214 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this sockpuppet entry a good support endorsment for Halibutt. Btw, shouldn't somebody finally ad the Polish Wikipedians conspiracy theory to the List of alleged conspiracy theories? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we stop edit warring about removing this user's vote? Simply pointing out that he has no edits except to this RFA should be sufficient. —Cryptic (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an issue of counting votes. When RfAs get long and contentious people normally start moving comments to the talk page - the discussion above seemed to me like a natural candidate for such moving. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Haukurth - I've discounted the vote in order to keep a clear tally count tho. Shauri   smile! 03:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    About User:Molobo: he's member of small group of trolls and warriors that make good Polish contributors feeling embarassed. While I do not know history why he got blocked I bet it was for sound reason. I would recommend to investigate this thing deeper. Pavel Vozenilek 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The few times I've interacted with him, he's made the impression on me of being a stubborn nationalist, with a striking inability to recognize consensus. He was responsible a few months ago for bringing the Gdansk naming controversy to completely unrelated pages, such as Mainz, Aachen, Dresden, (see Talk pages) and even a large number of pages like Johannes Vermeer [7]. This was in June, but when he stopped, he did so with the threat of starting all over again ([8]), when the consensus was clearly against him. And then there's the Polish Wikipedian's Black Book, started by him, which was described by some (IMHO accurately) as a witch hunt. Eugene van der Pijll 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yowza, I didn't realize the whole Black Book thing came from Halibutt. I thought it was User:Witkacy's project (User:Witkacy/Black Book). I voted to delete it when it came to a vote there, and still oppose this in principle. Since it caused me so much consternation at the time, I would like to ask Halbutt whether he still thinks this approach will be a good idea when he is an administrator. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at it some more, and to be fair, most of the problematic contributions to the black book came from Wiktacy; Halibutt's edits seem to indicate his intentions were good. I do still think a page like that is a bad idea, but I won't hold it against him too much. Eugene van der Pijll 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Black Book was Witkacy's idea. Halibutt moved it to his mainspace deciding that it could eventually be used as a tool for education, as even Jimbo himself suggested on one of the related talk pages (I don't have the time to find the exact page ATM). And all elements that could have been deemed a 'personal attack' have been deleted from this page long time ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the black book thingie was inspired by Witkacy at Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. Nohat felt that it was offensive to him as it took notice of some of his remarks. He deleted the page repeatedly, and it seemed that he simply cannot stand Witkacy and the two will never reach any compromise. So, I joined the discussion, took the responsibility for starting the page (which was not actually true, but shhh, don't tell anyone) and tried to reach some compromise solution by mediating between him and Witkacy and trying to reach some conclusion ([9], [10], [11], [12]), after which Nohat left this comment at my talk page, moved the page to my namespace for further discussion and deleted the redirect. Since then long time has passed and I simply forgot about that page. Does anyone find this page offensive in any rate? If so, just let me know and I'll ask for its deletion, it's not needed nor used any more. And yes, initially I thought it was a good idea to avoid RfC and all that stuff. My stance was well-explained during the RfD process. Halibutt 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification -- as I said in my support vote, my experience with you is as a mediator, which can be difficult in sensitive topics, so it is good to know how this actually went down. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I joined the discussion, took the responsibility for starting the page (which was not actually true: You made the first edit of the page ([13]). Now it may have well been Witkacy's idea, but I cannot check that, as most discussion on the Polish Wikipedian's notice board is in Polish. However, I do not really find your version of the page (User:Halibutt/Black Book) offensive. User:Witkacy/Black Book on the other hand... Eugene van der Pijll 22:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my initial "Witkacy made" into "Witkacy inspired", as I don't remember who actually started the page. However, the sad page in my user space does not tell the story well since the page (back when it was still at Polish Wikipedians' Notice Board, was deleted several times and re-created from what people had as a copy. It turns out that the final version (fifth out of six, if memory serves me right) was re-created by yours truly from the basic scheme created by me. It was not me however to fill it. Anyway, I'm glad that people do not find that thing offensive. As I said, initially I thought it was a good idea to actually avoid conflicts. However, what happened to the idea is clearly visible and noone is planning to use it any more, so it's not that important any more. If any of the admins here wishes to delete it - go ahead, I don't mind. That's also the reason why I never thought of deleting it. I don't mind, which in this case means I don't care for that page. Halibutt 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. This user has an enormous amount of edits spread across the wiki, but in going over the Support Template thing I unfortunately must oppose. Re-creating any page six times (and never, apparently, going to VFU) shows very poor judgement. If there's one thing I can't stand it's calling vandalism that which isn't. This seems to be what the user did with the deleting admins who were looking at a valid G4 under CSD. I must also say the Polish Black Book is (ahem) idiotic. Marskell 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. I did go to VfU once the people who deleted the template without any comment at the talk page whatsoever told me that the fact that the situation changed and that 3 months have passed is not enough to recreate it the easy way. Halibutt
    User did indeed go to VfU after the sixth re-creation. No vote change. He should have gone there after the first one. Marskell 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I thought that the talk page is the right place to discuss things. Apparently I was wrong. Halibutt 18:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being grudging here is sort of confirming my oppose. As I say, re-creating a page six times is poor judgement. It just is, and I very much hesitate to give AfD closure and image deletion power to someone who would do that so recently and apparently unrepentently. Calling admins vandals and accusing of them of "malicious deletion" certainly doesn't help the case. Marskell 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad we won't reach a compromise here. Indeed, I overreacted a bit, but please take note that I had my reasons too. And deleting a page without discussion or explanation seems malicious to me (which BTW should clear your doubts about giving me a broom and bucket :) ) Anyway, no need to continue the discussion here, I guess. Halibutt
    Oppose. Keeping attack pages in your userspace is not acceptable. Plus the reactions above seem to indicate he has a tendency of aggravating disputes. Radiant_>|< 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Vote stricken, see below. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Cryptic and Radiant. Much too controversial to be trusted with adminship. Xoloz 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with controversial edits ? Do you think that to be an admin one has to avoid controversial topics ? --Lysy (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In my honest opinion the controversial topics need the most admin attention as they are more likely become victims of revert wars and all that stuff. What's the point of having admins who avoid pages that need the most attention? Or perhaps it's about me personally being controversial? Halibutt 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Xoloz. Maybe another time. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, per Cryptic.--Sean|Black 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, an edit summary for recreating a legitamately tfd'd template Template:Support "reinserted the template after User:ChrisO vandalized it." Calling it vandalism is just out of line, and it was less than a month ago. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained that above and I will do it once again, as apparently there is need to repeat it over and over again. It was my mistake and I admit I overreacted. I thought that stating my view on the matter on the respective talk page is enough for the others to at least take a look at it before they delete. Instead, the page was deleted without any explanation given - several times in a row. I considered this deletions malicious, as noone even tried to present me with rationale. However, I should not have called it a vandalism since that term was much too strong - and I apologize for that. Perhaps I should use something like "reinserted the template after User:ChrisO deleted it without any explanation given, with complete disregard for the talk page and for my arguments listed there". Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, I have edited with the User:Halibutt only a few articles. I found him to be a reasonable editor with some Polish POV. This is of course absolutely OK, as every human has his or her POV, and the administrators are humans. What is making me to oppose the request is his maintaining the User:Halibutt/Black Book. If a user abuses his or her priveleges as an editor by maintaining an attack page that harrases other users, then it is frightening to guess in which way he or she can abuse the administrators privileges. I think User:Halibutt should avoid harassing other users and comply with the Wikipedia rules on speedy delete and recreation of articles for at least a few months. Then I will support his nomination. abakharev 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As for harrasing and bullying other users, I may add another instance from User_talk:Knyaz: "Hi there, nice to see you here. User:Ghirlandajo is well-known already to all who contribute to articles on Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, some of his contributions are great while others show a great deal of Great-Russian view of the world. Fortunately, all of his contributions are GFDL, just like mine or yours, so correcting the mistakes he makes is really easy. Just let me know should you have any problems with that. Regards, Halibutt 12:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)" So one may understand why I don't like when they discuss myself in Polish. I don't know whether I will be able to comment on this issue again, as minutes after my vote Piotrus asked other admins to "moderate" me, whatever this is supposed to stand for. --Ghirlandajo 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirla, IMO you demonstrate kind of paranoia here. Halibutt has Greater Poland view of the world. You have Great Russian view on the world. This comes from the person's background. A rare person is free from what he was taught of what he read. Wikipedia is great precisely because it helps to produce a truly cosmopolitan view of the world, although with strong American/pokemon/sexually-troubled bias. But the numbers of Russian and Chinese contributors is growing, so relax and don't panic: Polish will never conquer Moscow again. (What I am doing here is "moderating" you, so tremble and whimper!) mikka (t) 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the paranoia is mine. Have you ever heard the Russians whimpering about Polish plans of capturing Moscow? I think it's precisely the other way. OK, I will not press the topic of their sado-masochistic concentration on alleged massacres, but do you think it is good for a would-be admin to advise the newcomers that someone's edits should be reversed? --Ghirlandajo 00:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Bravo, mikkalai - nicely said. Some biases will be seen always, mostly 'merican one. Refering to whimpering Russians =) - there is something to the point although it's very difficult to admit, I think. =] Additionally antipolonism due to the fear (Poland=West) and cultural differences (Poland=catholicism) and megalomania on both sides has a long tradition in Russia (even the great author Dostoyevsky despite (or maybe due to...) his Polish roots was obviously prejudiced). What is important, when Russians and Poles meet each other, especially on "neutral ground", they co-operate really easily. Heh, life. =) Aegis Maelstrom 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Another of Molobo's sockpuppets, with no contributions at all? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    With a one year history? Give me a break. It's longer than yours or these of many en:admins'. Well, you still may call a CheckUser to check me, although your paranoia seems to be a disgrace for me. Well, maybe I'm not familiar with en: enough, just like I don't really get how you may make thousands of edits within a month (in other way than "making up the stats"). And for your information - I haven't voted yet although I consider it as Halibutt despite his "fighter" approach in really most cases fights for the truth with strange self-made experts in Slavic cultures or European history. Greets and wish you more careful remarks. =) Aegis Maelstrom 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As to what Alex Bakharev wrote: the only thing I can do about that page is to explain once more that it was not me to move that page there. In fact it was an admin's decision and he didn't even ask me about it before. As noone had any problems with that page after it was moved I simply forgot about it. If you find it offensive - just be bold and delete it. Or move it elsewhere. As to what Ghirlandajo wrote - indeed, this time my comment is complete and not taken out of context. And I would write it again even today as I still believe that what I wrote is ok. Knyaz asked me some questions about conduct of Ghirlandajo. I greeted the guy (a new wikipedian back then), explained that he should be bold, explained that not all what Ghirlandajo does on wikipedia is as disputable as Knyaz put it and offered my help if he needed it. I can't think of any situation where such comment would be offensive to anyone. Note that I actually defended your positive contributions after reading what Knyaz wrote on my talk page. In fact, most admins I know tend to greet people in a similar way. If it proves anything, then perhaps what I wrote before is right. I really love to be helpful. It's a great feeling to know that you helped someone. The only difference between my comment and template greetings used by others is that they do not have to reply to questions asked before the greeting is posted. As to the massacre case - I hadn't noticed your comments at Talk:Massacre of Lwów professors. Don't you think that it's the appropriate page to settle the problems you have with that article? As to what Mikka wrote - perhaps Poles will never conquer Moscow again, but Polish tapestry glue already has. I wrote an article recently and it turned out that they do not produce tapestry glue in Russia any more as the Polish-made is cheaper :) Beware! Halibutt 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't try to tell me that you didn't understand about Knyaz being a sockpuppet of user:AndriyK, a notorious POV-pusher, who has been terrorizing East Slavic articles for about a month now. As he gets blocked daily for his revert warring, this guy uses a variety of sockpuppets. On that day, he repeatedly assaulted the article on knyaz but was reverted by me. That's why your encouraging of his disruptive policies and your ready offer of help seemed to me particularly offensive. I'm going to bed now and will add no further comments, so good luck with your RfA. --Ghirlandajo 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Ghirlandajo. I have no particular interest in hunting sock puppets or any other creatures. Neither his talk page nor his user page suggest that and I didn't have time nor interest in searching whether the guy I left a message to is good or bad, nice or not. I simply replied to his question and moved along to do something more. On that day, apart from contacting Knyaz, I also contacted Enlochau to find out why the Template:Support is being deleted, I cleaned up a test by an anon, expanded the article on Vorkuta, contacted Goodoldpolonius about the map I was making back then (still work in progress, sadly...) and started de-stubbizing an article on HMS Dragon (D46) (off-line, posted the following day; BTW, it still needs copy-edit. Anyone?). I also wrote one text for the magazine I work for, met my best friend, had a coffee with a girl I haven't seen in a while, attended a nice lecture on folk culture of peoples of Russia and did lots of things. All of them were more important than checking whether someone considers User:Knyaz a sock puppet or not. Sorry. Halibutt 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I usually do not interfere with the userspaces of other users by any other way as by leaving short informative messages on their talkpages. It is you who is responsible for cleanup of your own namespace. abakharev 02:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, as per Cryptic, Radiant et al. An admin must be neutral, he isn't. --Heptor 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Glad to see that he removed his Black Page. Hope this means that he is beginning to behave like an admin. --Heptor 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - he just has too strong bias. Renata3 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: (this policy) doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. (...) A great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my vote completely. I won't change it to support or neutral. I am withdrawing because I was completely impressed by the way he handles all this critisims and oppose votes. I would say Piotrus looks a little worse than Halibutt in this case :) Renata3 20:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Good editor, but better safe than sorry. Borisblue 04:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote Good editor, but better safe than sorry. That got me thinking. I don't know most of our admins (or admin candiates). Should I vote against them until I get to know them, and so object to everybody I don't fully trust? Do you really think that Halibutt would abuse the admin rights if he was given them? If you don't know enough about him, wouldn't 'neutral' be the better choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page) [reply]
    I'd vote neutral if there was an easier way to deadmin abusive sysops. But de-admnning somebody is tedious business (Stevertigo case for instance) so I feel we have to be very careful in promoting people with prior issues. I realise that, regrettably that I would be voting against a lot of qualified people, but given the damage a rogue admin can do to WP I have to adopt this "better safe than sorry" attitude. The black book seals the oppose for me. I've no idea why people create pages like that. I was in another editor's "black book" once", and it almost feels like a personal attack. Borisblue 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page) [reply]
    Halibutt has explainted at the RfA page that the Black Book was moved to his namespace by community consensus (and it was not created by him, instead, he edited it to more NPOV version). IIRC, even Jimbo commented that it may become an educational page - after some editing, which never happened, as the page was forgotten by all concerned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    Strange. Eventhough the page was not made by me, not used by me, voted by the community to stay and moved to my user space by the admin to list it for deletion, and, above all, was started as a way to avoid conflicts rather than promote them, it is still used as an evidence (?) of my (?) bad conduct. While I understand your better safe than sorry attitude and do not intend to even try to make you change your mind, I still find such an explanation strange. Halibutt 07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    I believe that Users are responsible for whatever is on their userpages. And besides, you argued for "keep" on the black book's VfD anyway, and is that not an endorsement? I don't know you at all, and if this RfA was put up before the Stevertigo case I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then the fiasco surrounding Stevertigo showed me how it was almost impossible to take away adminship, no matter how blatant the abuse. Please don't be offended by how I voted, you are certainly a good editor but I don't know you enough to be sure the "black book" stuff was uncaractheristic. Borisblue 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    I wonder if this could change your mind?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    I don't see how the diff is relevant. I know that if someone preserved an attack page against me, the fact that Jimbo commented on its talk page won't make me feel less offended. Borisblue 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    Have you read it and still think it is an 'attack page'? It was never intended as one or used as one. Community consensus was to move it, not delete. Should the fact that this forgotten and never-used page be preserved in a user namespace be a sufficient reason for the assumption that he will abuse his admin rights and (...do what?)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    Well then, if it's never used, why is it so important to Halibutt that he still insists on maintaining it despite the damage it is doing on his RfA? Just because Jimbo scribbled a comment on its talk page? And I do feel that leaving this page is akin to a personal attack. Are you saying you won't feel hurt or offended being in Nohat's position? As a close friend of Halibutt's please persuade him to delete the page- I don't care if it technically isn't illegal, it's uncivil, and unbecoming of anyone even considering to be an admin. And please don't leave me any more messages regarding the vote- I can monitor the RfA page if I need more information about the issue. Borisblue 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    I recently noticed your comment at Piotrus' page and would like to clarify a tad. The page was kept where it was not because I found it important, but as a matter of fact because I found it not important at all. And certainly not important enough as to look at it any more or as to waste time on asking to delete it. Note that there are lots of page in my user space that weren't used for ages, many of them are not needed any more. For instance, there is still User:Halibutt/Curzon line, which I last used in September of 2004, the page on User:Halibutt/Tabelka used in May of that year or User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920) (November of 2004). I never really thought of deleting them as I never heard wiki needs more space and considered them to thrown out. Halibutt 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    I'm not concerned that your black book takes up space, did you even consider for a moment how NoHat felt having his name on such a page? Why did you wish to offend and provoke him in that manner? I was on someone's "black book" once, and I know how it feels. I'm sorry, I cannot vote support for you unless you show that you become more considerate to other users in your editing the next few months. And please don't leave any more messages regarding your RfA- I will not change my vote this time. I will reconsider your case if you decide to reapply after a few months. Borisblue 03:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page) [reply]
    (Copied from Borisblue's talk page at his request; I did not want to bring it here) I thought I already explained that, but I will do it once again. I know you asked me not to post any more comments at your talk page, but I felt deeply touched by your comment on mine and your failure to understand or at least to acknowledge the real history of that page and Witkacy's conflict with Nohat, of which I'm apparently a victim now.
    It was not me to place Nohat at that page, and it was Nohat himself to move it to my personal namespace
    I did think for a while on how Nohat felt about being there, and that's precisely why I tried my mediation between him and Witkacy ([14], [15], [16], [17])
    In the latter comment I even explicitly said that I believed he should not have been listed there and that the project page was used by one of the users for his own aims rather than community's good by listing him there. I wrote that because I in fact did think for a while how did he feel about being listed there for such a non-vague thing.
    Because of my involvement, Nohat left this comment, in which he expressed his thanks to me for defending his cause and that he understood the intentions behind that page's creation
    So, basically you're holding against me what Nohat himself found as my virtue. That's why I felt your comments both on my talk page and RfA are simply unfair. And that's exactly why I decided to post this comment here. While I will not ask you to reconsider your vote, I certainly would like to hear at least some sort of explanation. You're free to oppose my nomination for any reason, but please, pretty please make this reason at least real.
    BTW, just like you, I've also been on several people's black books, be it real or imagined. That's why I thought that project was supposed to become a discussion page rather than a list of personae non gratae or anything. The fact that it evolved into something nasty was neither my intention nor an effect of my actions (as can be seen for instance in my RfD comment). Halibutt 04:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concerns are that you voted 'keep' on the original black book's VfD, and that you insisted on keeping the page on your userpage for so long even after it was costing you votes on this RfA- and in fact you are still arguing that it should not be deleted- I see this as an endorsement of your "black book". I will of course listen to Nohat's version of events, should he decide to reply. Borisblue 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I voted on keep and I don't deny it. As I explained above and in the VfD process, I believed (and still believe, to some extent), that starting a RfC or ArbCom processes every time anyone is offended basing on his nationality or background would not help anyone. It would not help the one offended as the one held responsible for the offence would either try to defend him/herself instead of simply saying sorry, let's forget about it, ok? (that's how human psychology often works) or the problem would simply escalate into a full-scale conflict, with dozens of Wikipedians attracted to it. Dispute resolution process should IMO be reserved for resolving serious disputes and not disagreements over this or that word, unrelated to article content. In fact, I find talking to people a much better solution, especially that such conflicts can be resolved by two people only. We simply thought (there was some chat about that page before we created it) that perhaps if we raised our concerns at certain place, external to both talk pages and users' pages, and tried to resolve them there, without the painful and time-consuming RfC, it would be much easier to get certain things straight. And that was the page I voted for. However, what has become of it is a completely different thing. As I noted on Nohat's talk page, I did not support him being listed there nor did I support that page being used for personal vendettas, as was the case of Witkacy using it in relation with his disagreement over the Talk:Kiev issue (whoever was right or wrong there, it should be resolved at Talk:Kiev). After the voting decided that there is no support for such a page as a community page and Nohat decided to move it to my namespace, it lost any sense as using it as part of a personal talk page would not be any different from using the talk page itself. That is why it was discontinued and forgotten.
    After this RfA was started and people reminded me of that long-disused page, I thought it would be better to leave it where it was for all to see. After all, I thought, it's in my personal webspace and people would count only my personal contribution to it (of which I'm not ashamed, I must say, and I don't see why should I be). However, various people (you included) started to hold that page against me as if I was the guy to offend anyone there or as if my intention was to create conflicts and not to resolve them. Still, I thought it would be better to leave it as an evidence that I did nothing wrong. However, after several people notified me on my talk page that the very existance of that page is a problem, I got fed up and asked for its deletion. As noted before, I did not insist on keeping it for so long, I simply lost any interest in it and did not insist on deleting it, moving it, blanking it, refreshing it, cleaning it up or on any other action. I simply left it where Nohat placed it and considered the case closed. Halibutt 06:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to point out that Nohat is supporting Halibutt's nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as per Ghirlandajo et al. Fisenko 05:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose. Nationalist POV-pushers are a disgrace and a threat to this project. The nominator has removed blocks in order to unleash one of the greatest liabilities to Wikipedia - Molobo, a troll who has alienated many great contributors from Wikipedia. I don't care in the least for Polish nationalist agendas, but I do care for the future of this project. The motivation behind this nomination is very likely the construction of a network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo.--Wiglaf 08:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Shauri has expressed her trust in this candidate I retract my oppose vote, and vote support.--Wiglaf 15:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiglaf, although you are the least neutral admin known to me and I would certainly oppose your own nomination to admisnhip, your concerns pertaining to Molobo's unblocking are legitimate and should be addressed by Piotrus et al. To quote Thorsten1 from the immortal Black Book, "Molobo, your opinions are so cliched and your arguments so utterly simple-minded that I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these days you turned out to be some clever Polonophobe's sock-puppert, created for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sheer backwoodsness of Polish editors". I have nothing to add. Please inscribe me on the Black Book. --Ghirlandajo 09:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiglaf, I have already explained my actions related to Molobo's unblocking. I'll briefly summarize it for our readers, since you seem to consider this as reason enough to object this nomination and suspect me of being a part of some conspiracy: I have twice removed blocks on Molobo put on by you - the first time I still feel I was perfectly justified in this (as you were removing referenced sections and blocking those who opposed to it on the charge of 'disruption of Wikipedia'), the second time I was not and I have already apologized for this. I know now that all such cases should be reported to WP:AN/I - as I have done almost no blocks or unblocks in my admin career, I was a bit rusty on the procedure. However, you seem to be rusty on this as well, as in both cases you blocked a user without leaving him any note, reporting it anywhere and being 'at odds' over various content edits with him. Plus, you have still not replied at WP:AN/I where questions have been posed to you regarding this matter. I think that in dealing with Molobo we have both erred equaly and I have already apologised to you for my mistake in the recent incident. Could you now elaborate more on your novel concept of 'the construction of a network of admins pushing a nationalist POV with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo'? Or maybe we should call-it for short a 'Polish Admins for Molobo' (PAfM)? Seriously, if you suspect me of such motives, you may want to consider moving to de-oping me before I carry out my sinister plan...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote must be discounted as it is based solely on the nominator, rather than the admin candidate[18]. Wiglaf, Please vote based on whether you think the candidate can be trusted with admin powers. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While I respectfully disagree with my friend Wiglaf and support the candidate, I think he has EVERY RIGHT to express his reasons for opposing. I also understand how he can view it this way. Taking up for Molobo, together with the infamous "Black book" have turned into a dark cloud over an otherwise fine candidate. And since we do not have any concensus yet on what should be done about Molobo, May I recommend, as a sign of GOOD FAITH, perhaps deleting the book? Even if, for some, that may not be enough this time. Maybe if will help "clear the air" so Halibutt won't smell so "fishy" to some if and when he is renominated:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with RDH (I've got to stop doing that ;-) - I voted to support Halibutt's nom' unaware of the "Black Book" issue; however, this "black book" is a very tiny part of his 11,000+ 16,000+ edits, the vast majority of which have been of high-standard quality. Yes, he does appear to be very strong-minded and passionate about the subjects he edits on, but he also seems to be a very reasonable, considerate individual, and I hope that those qualities (and others) would ensure that there would no misuse of admin privileges. SoLando (Talk) 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. People can support or oppose for any damn reason they choose. It is good style to give your reasons, but if you start discounting votes based on that, people will just stop doing that, voting "oppose per above" or something. If nominators are supposed to endorse candidates, it is only natural that in some cases, they will also disendorse them in the eyes of some. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I don't agree with the reasoning for Wilgaf vote, I think that unless there is a clear rule invalidating a vote based on a a voter attitude towards a nominator persona, his vote should be counted. After all, we accept votes without requiring the voter to state reasons, and Wilgaf reasoning is not completly illogical (I can imagine worse - 'voices told me' etc. :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The stricking by Matt Crypto has been removed per reasons clearly stated by all users above. It is not up to anyone but Wiglaf himself to decide whether his legitimate vote should be discounted out or not, and so far, he has not expressed intention of changing it. Shauri   smile! 02:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I know Halibutt only from the article history of the Jews in Poland that I reviewed as it was FAC. It seemed to me as I read it that it is was a non NPOV article biased in the sense that it embellished (at least within the lead section) the relationship between the Poles and the Jews. Here is a quote from the history of this article during the FAC discussion.
    (cur) (last) 22:51, 10 November 2005 Jayjg (why absurd? how would you characterize bans on kosher meat?)
    (cur) (last) 16:58, 10 November 2005 Halibutt (rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd...)
    Halibutt had reveted one of the editors' change making the lead more NPOV according to my remarks. This dispute is relative to the sentence "Still, as Poland regained independence in the 20th century, immediately prior to World War II it had a vibrant Jewish community of over three million, one of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitism, both from the government and the general population, was a growing problem." and in particular to the italicized remark. As the section of the talk page talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter shows, that was not Halibutt's first attempt to push this POV. I know that each editor and admin in particular has the right to have a POV. But this kind of nationalist POV is in my opinion clearly not acceptable. Vb 09:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit having completely forgotten about that page lately, too much happened in my life to be able to watch all the pages I wanted to. I will explain that revert (as well as a broader explanation on the phenomena of interpretation of sanitary law as an anti-Semitic measure) as soon as I have time. In short, the law was passed as the first sanitary law in Polish history. It included such passages as the obligation to build toilets in every farm (instead of using the barn - I'm serious here; BTW that's why the Polish version of john or vespasium is called sławojka, after Prime Minister Sławoj-Składkowski), the obligation to wash hands before preparing a dinner in a restaurant and so on. It also included some paragraph which were interpreted by some Jewish parties (not all of them, the Bund supported the law, if memory serves me right) which claimed that the law also prohibited ritual butchers from preparing kosher meet, as there was something about bleeding the animals. A wave of protests struck the country and the Sejm finally passed the law, but without the disputed paragraph. So, if it was the only case of government-led attempt at creating an anti-Semitic law, then it failed. That's why I believe that your statements that both general population and the government were anti-Semitic are simply factually inaccurate. Also, I reverted only once as I thought it is obvious what I meant. After that my private life problems started and I didn't have much time to contribute to it any more. I will do so as soon as I have time. Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the major contributors to the article in question, and as one of the few non-Poles who deeply engaged in the voluminous dicussion around that page, I have to say that I do not agree with Vb about Halibutt having a "nationalist POV" on this issue. If you look at the discussion page, you will find some editors I tangled with who would certainly qualify as nationalist, but Hailbutt always had useful information and discussion to add, as is clearly demonstrated in the Talk page. To judge him by a single (well-motivated and well-supported) edit that was not even part of a revert war seems very harsh. Again, I have not encountered the strong POV mentioned by other object votes, since I don't widely participate on Polish/Russian/etc topics, but, even if it exists, the History of the Jews in Poland is not the place to find it. It was my experience working with Halibutt on this page that made me support his nomination so strongly. Vb, if this is your only objection, I would urge you to change your vote to "neutral" or "support," since I really think you are misjudging Halibutt. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Having reviewed history of the Jews in Poland for FA, I'd like to support Goodoldpolonius2 above and ask you to reconsider your vote, unless you have other objections that you have not mentioned here. Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns about my vote because I really don't know Halibutt that well but if you think I am not enough experienced wikipedian or that I don't know enough Halibutt, why did Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ask me to vote? However I have had the opportunity to read User:Halibutt/Black Book before it was deleted and this has confirmed my opinion. So that I don't intend to change it. About the controversy about the alleged governemental support to anti-Semitism: In the section History of the Jews in Poland#Rising Anti-Semitism, you can read "...Polish nationalism, supported by the Sanacja government...", other things like limited access to universities and so on. I still therefore believe Halibutt's remark "rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd" is a proof of bad faith. Vb 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems absurd remark is a short form of seems absurd to me, which is quite a different thing. Also, there was no bad faith involved, rather knowledge of the subject. Apart from the sanitary law (which, as I will explain thoroughly and already explained shortly) can be treated as aimed against Jews only if you take just a tiny part of it out of context and forget to mention that that tiny part was never passed), the numerus clausus thing you're referring to is also a bad example or proof. In reality, the numerus clausus was introduced in only two universities (Wilno and Poznań, AFAIR) for a year and it was an independent decision of the universities, not of the government. After slightly more than a year it was withdrawn, if memory serves me right. Anyway, the senates of some of the universities were not the Polish government, hence I still do not find any proofs of a government-inspired anti-Semitism. So, perhaps I should've written rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems unsupported by any facts and biased instead of my rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd. I'm sorry if you felt offended by the word absurd. Finally, as to the Polish nationalism, supported by the Sanacja government quote - please take note that nationalism and anti-Semitism are two different phenomena and, while often interlinked, these are not equal. You would certainly not call a Jewish nationalist an anti-Semite, would you. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I havent felt offended by this wording. The modification you reverted was not mine either but one I suggested. However if you believe this wording does not correspond to the historical facts why didnt you begin an edit war with Jayjg. Are you waiting the formal nomination of the article as a featured article to do that. Vb
    Why did not I begin an edit war? Perhaps I thought that it's bad to start edit wars? Or perhaps this comment by the person whom I thought was the author of that edit (didn't check it) made me think that my revert was a decent move? I can't really remember. But still, I never thought that not starting a revert war might be an argument against me... Halibutt 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I finally had some time and explained why the whole anti-kosher regulations argument is completely false and absurd. Please read my explanation at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter. Also, be warned that I quote the relevant act of the Polish Sejm, which might be a tad drastic for vegetarians or people with weak stomach. For all of them - a short summary. The ammendment passed to the act on slaughtering animals was passed before the act (disputed by the Jews) came into life. It adressed all the controversies and in the final statement explicitly stated that The regulations of this act do not apply to (...)the slaughter of animals for the groups of citizens, whose religion demands special means of slaughtering.. So, according to primary sources the whole argument does not hold water. Halibutt 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. oppose per Radiant. Everybody has a pov, it is silly to require "only neutral" editors shouold be admin. However, admins need to be capable of separating themselves from theirs when acting as admins, and this is more difficult the more unshakeable your own convictions. Halibutt doesn't convince me he is capable of this. Nationalist editors are a scourge on Wikipedia, and I will only support adminship of nationalist editors who have proven again and again their above-average skills at civility, fairness, soothing effect on their more radical peers, capability of seeing the other side etc. etc. The "support template" thing alone is sufficient to show that Halibutt is not very strong in these areas. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I only wonder why do you consider me a nationalist. Apart from the fact that the very term nationalist is quite offensive in Polish, I'm type of a socialist-liberal guy, with strong belief in democracy (still) and a lot of bad feelings for any rule of any fist, which is what nationalists usually dream of. Also, I don't consider my place in the world any better for me than yours is for you. So where's the fire, if I may ask? Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced. change my vote to weak oppose then; I am not saying you are a terrible editor, but I do think we can clearly do without the sort of controversy your adminship is bound to stir up. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was not trying to convince you, I was merely trying to understand you. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. oppose per radiant. Briangotts 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding Radiant's change of heart, I still think there is too much controversy here. Briangotts 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. oppose. Halibutt doesn't seem neutral and objective, most of his editings are being made from ultra-conservative Polish poitn of view and aim at whitening the Polish nation. This is not a basis for being an admin. Voyevoda 17:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is by no means required, may I ask you to be more specific? Surely you don't find "my" article on Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV, Battle of Kircholm, Stadion Dziesięciolecia, Warsaw University, Santi Gucci, Sejny (or any other randomly-picked article from my user page) written from ultra-conservative Polish point of view and aimed at whitening the Polish nation, do you. And I can't really tell how cane you whitewash anyone with a 7TP tank, articles on Żubrówka or a stub on Žinčica... Please, diffs and links are actually helpful. Halibutt 19:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. oppose. Halibutt bullheadedly went and moved Anti-tank rifle wz.35 despite several failed attempts to achieve consensus for the move. He showed no respect whatsoever for the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure. Gene Nygaard 02:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But you should at least admit that I was the one to initiate all of the consensus attempts and it was you not to take part in most of them. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus for the move in the begining, but after some time you gave up the discussion, failed to post on a talk page for a month - even when Halibutt asked for opinons on a new move - and when Halibutt moved the page in September, you didn't object - until now. All details are on (fairly short) Talk:Kb_ppanc_wz.35. I don't see any wrongdoings here on the part of Halibutt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a requested move, declared failed on 10 July 2005.10 July 2005 Halibutt immediately tried to start a new vote, reasonably objected to by several people because it had just failed (#New voting)
    Then Halibutt commences a protracted revert war on his insistence on adding a "factual dispute" tag to the article, even though he never once claimed any dispute over any facts presented in the article; he was merely disputing the name of the article (the moving of which had already failed under the established procedures for such moves), something not appropriate for that tag.
    There was no change in consensus before Halibutt's move. There was no new request for the move, after allowing reasonable passage of time, which is one reason I did not notice it. He just went ahead and moved it, contrary to the decision when it was voted on. There was no indication of any change in my positition, and not even any new information from Halibutt. I did not object to the move in September because I was unaware of it until I checked before voting here.
    So we not only have a failed vote, a failed second attempt because it was coming too soon after the failure, and then a third attempt without even seeking consensus. Yes, Halibutt's actions in this article were very improper. Gene Nygaard 18:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As the voting is most probably over, I replied to these accusations at User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#My_RfA. Halibutt 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Between his actions regarding [[Template:Support]] (less than a month ago!) and various Polish nationalist axe-grinding over the Gdansk/Danzig notices (demonstrating a certain contempt for consensus) and the Black Book page, I gotta say no. And if it's "no big deal" to be made an admin; well, then, it's no big deal if you're NOT made an admin, ennit? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Halibutt
  17. Oppose. Halibutt is a great editor and a "reasonable" patriot (compared to many others). All the more it hurts me to see all this controversy, an enourmous handicap for a new admin. Also, he doesn't seem to have the traits an admin needs to work properly. Karol 09:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    (copied from user talk page)Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Cześć! I have no experience as an admin, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these repeating contraversies, if continued, would cloud the good things he could do with the additional functions (however small they may be). As to the traits, what I had in mind is the inability to sometimes distance himself from certain subjects and contain his emotions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's bad in itself, but ultimitely I feel it's not the way an admin should act. Karol 17:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I've been following up on the comments on this page, and I must say, my feeling has slipped from neutral territory. Enochlau 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked why on my talk page. I initially looked at Halibutt's contributions, and I thought they were fine. However, having followed the links to several other talk pages, I just feel that perhaps there are perhaps too many feathers ruffled by Halibutt, which doesn't make a good entry into adminship. Not never, but not now. Enochlau 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Halibutt is not admin material. He makes mostly good contributions, but he has also generated lots of trouble for the community by means of WP:POINT, leading to revert wars merely to demonstrate a point. I am worried about having him pushing WP:POINT with admin powers, and cannot support his adminship -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Too few edit summaries (before RfA) and even personal insults in some. For example the fact that just 3 hours before he was asked for adminship he called an anon who vandalized a Polish-related article a "moron" should not be overlooked.
    Just four days before that, he insulted for less obvious reasons a contributor to be nationalsocialistic and even to be the offspring of nazis:
    "partial revert of some Nazi POV-pushing anon. If he has any problems with the behaviour of his ancestor he should state it on the talk page".
    His Gdansk/Danzig involvement may be over for several months but to me it seems that his strong bias in Polish-related articles persists and given that he is mainly involved in such issues, I do not think that he can put his feelings of duty as an objective admin before his bias. NightBeAsT 11:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Ghirlandajo. Cadorna 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. I'm sure he would do some good work, but too many things (the support template and the "Kb ppanc wz.35" debacle in particular) put me off. Sorry. violet/riga (t) 17:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. We all have biases, but episodes such as the repeated recreation of the support template leave me concerned that the editor's strong opinions are not sufficiently controlled. I hesitate to grant administrative powers to candidates such as these, and the great difficulty in removing administrator status, recently exemplified by the still-in-progress WP:RFAr case, leave me wary. The difficulty in persuading him to delete the "black book" is also troublesome. Finally, the nominator's campaigning on the Polish Wikipedia and recent unblock warring leave the candidate without the traditional confidence usually granted by support of a long-time or well-respected editor. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I should add that it appears Halibutt is a high-quality and prolific editor, and I thank him for the hard work he has put into Wikipedia. My opposition now will not preclude me from supporting in the future should the current concerns be addressed. Deletion of the black book was a great step. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose...at least for now. I haven't had as much trouble with Halibutt as I have with a few other Polish editors (and no, I don't regard "nationalism" as the dirty word some who have used it here apparently do, I would say "Polish revisionists", not "Polish nationalists")...but I have yet to see a change in the attitudes I regarded as problematic in the fracas surrounding the Black Book fiasco...namely an unwillingness to discuss why he had preserved it to begin with, or allowed it to be preserved in his userspace, nor why he did nothing to address the concerns raised by those besmirched therein...essentially allowing his userspace to be used as a place for other users to slander editors with whom they disagreed on whatever issue, with impugnity, and without providing any recourse for the accused. Incidentally, the "Black Book", while it is no longer in Halibutt's userspace, lives on at User:Witkacy/Black Book, where it has elicited not so much as a whimper of protest from Halibutt... Tomer TALK 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ee... I didn't know this book, so thanks for the link. =) But isn't it you who is quoted there with a beautiful sentence ...Except in the minds of those poor souls brainwashed by the Polish educational system... ? You have to be really cheeky to mention this book here. First you attack personally others and than you forbid them to defend theirselves? Maybe I don't get something but this is fair? Well, existance of any black book isn't a great fact but first look at the reasons of creating it. Best regards and I hope you have changed your mind about other educational systems and ways to express your concerns. aegis maelstrom δ 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is me who is quoted there, and if you bothered to go look at the quotation in context, you would see that it was questioned at the time, explained by me, and later retracted. It was, in fact, much later that I found out, quite accidentally in fact, about the existence of the "black book". Further, if you'd bothered to look into it at all, you would know that I did not personally attack anyone with the statement, it was, rather, an expression of sympathy...and most certainly, I didn't attack either User:Witkacy, who so "helpfully" added the quotation to the smear campaign or User:Halibutt. As for forbidding them to defend themselves, nothing about the blackbook was ever designed to help anyone defend themself, it was specifically designed for the heinous purpose laid out in its very name. It has not, however, on one single instance, been used to help build understanding as it so innocuously claims is its purpose in its opening. Clearly, there's something you're not getting, since categorically no it's definitely not fair... yet you seem to be implying that the victims of the blackballing campaign are the perpetrators of some great unspeakable crime. I have not, incidentally, had any change of heart regarding the deplorable education system of Poland during the Cold War. If you bother to go back and read what I was talking about in context, however, you'll understand me when I say that I have come to understand, since I made that statement, that it wasn't the Russian communists who were solely responsible for the IMNSHO "odd" views some Poles have wrt the rest of the world. Frankly, I'm a bit appalled that you would decide use my "oppose" vote as a reason to turn around and launch an attack against me... Tomer TALK 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained the reasons behind the creation of that page both on that page itself, at its talk page, at the failed VfD, some 20 times here, at the talk page of this very RfA and on talk pages of numerous users involved, so I don't understand your argument about my alleged unwillingness to discuss why I had preserved it. Is there anything I still failed to respond to? Also, your remark that I did nothing to address the concerns raised by those besmirched therein seems wrong after I negotiated with both Nohat and Witkacy, that is the two users involved in that discussion and I felt that all issues were solved back then (and would like to thank Nohat for his support of my candidacy, BTW). Also, your remark that I had allowed for my userspace to be used as a place for other users to slander editors with whom they disagreed on whatever issue is equally wrong as the list of Nohat's comments was added there when the page was still outside of my user space, at Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. But even then I contacted both of the parties involved and tried to reach some solution on their talk pages (see the diffs and links provided above in several places). So Tom, please, you can oppose my candidacy for whatever reason you chose, but as a sign of courtesy, could you at least chose some real reason? In my wiki career I've made many bad steps, no need to invent new ones, IMO. 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    Halibutt (I'm assuming it was you who posted the preceding comment)... I am opposing for a very good reason, one which you have apparently not understood. Contrary to what you claim, Nohat was not the only person in Witkacy's nasty little project while it resided in your userspace. I was, along with I believe HKT, IZAK and Thorsten1, also added during the time it was still at User:Halibutt/Black Book. When I asked on its talk page why I had been added, TWICE, my question was deleted by Witkacy. You could have claimed you didn't know what was going on, but that was not the case, as I recall from discussion at the time on your User_talk page. When I removed the slander against me from the page twice, while it was still in your userspace, since I'd gotten no response to my requests for clarification, it was added back into your userspace by Witkacy, with your implicit approval, with the accusation that I was "vandalizing your userspace". At no point during the whole sordid affair did you attempt to engage me in discussion about it, nor have you since. You can characterize me as an anti-Polack all you please as an editor, but as a sign of courtesy, could you at least accept that I think that until you address your permitting your userspace as a place to unjustly demean me [or worse], that I can't regard you as a worthy candidate for Adminship? If you seriously want me to change my vote and/or retract any of my statements, why don't you do what the Black Book's introduction says it was created for, instead of continuing the belittling and denigration of me here on your RfA page? Tomer TALK 19:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you're not entirely right on this one. After you posted this passionate comment at my talk page, both me and Piotrus have replied to your doubts in as friendly tone as we could at User_talk:TShilo12/Archive_3#Black_books. Note that we did not address your offensive remarks there so as not to escalate the conflict. After you took your comments back and thanked me for my involvement I had a right to think that the matter is settled. Especially that soon afterwards Witkacy notified me that he has moved the darn thing to his own namespace. I had no idea that you changed your mind afterwards and had more questions to me. Could you be so kind as to post me a link to the questions I did not answer? Halibutt 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you thought I made offensive remarks, according to what it says in the "black book", that's what you should have been addressing. The page to which I was refering had very sneakily been moved by Witkacy to User:Halibutt/Black book. I don't have time to dig through ancient history dredging stuff up just to oppose an RfA. I still think you were negligent to allow a known troll use your userspace for so long, as a launching pad for slander against other editors, and I still think it was a show of bad judgment on your part to not only support the Black Book project, but to create it and then to preserve it "just in case" it got deleted. That said, I'm withdrawing my opposition to your candidacy. If you think I said something "offensive" tho, you really should address me with your concerns. TomerTALK 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll refers to Halibutt's "widening" the Gdansk dispute, but I'm not sure he really indicates scale of it. About 200 edits purporting to apply the results of the Gdansk vote (admittedly highly problematic in itself, but that's another day's work) to some pretty unrelated-looking articles, including at least one 3rr violation in the process, and ignoring repeated attempts to desist. This seems as clear an example of WP:POINT as one could wish to see (or rather, be dismayed at), and one I wouldn't care to see replicated with the use of the extra buttons. Alai 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For accuracy's sake, there were at least three 3RR violations - one at Dresden ([19]), one at Mainz ([20]), and one at Aachen ([21]). On the other pages involved, Halibutt seems to have confined himself to three or, usually, fewer reverts before giving up the attempt. For those interested, Halibutt has address his conduct on this issue on my talk page. john k 07:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote explicitly says that Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule, which was the reason why I reverted so many times. Which by no means excuses me of course. As to unrelated-looking articles, after my view of the voting was questioned and/or reverted on sight by a group of dedicated wikipedians, I concentrated on two or three instances, where I explained why I thought the Talk:Gdansk/Vote applied there at the talk pages. Take a look at Talk:Dresden to see what I mean. Halibutt 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per reasons already given. Fahrenheit Royale 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose For all the long and defensive commentaries towards oppose votes. If he can't handle criticism during an rfa, no way he's going to be able to handle all of the hassles that go with being an admin. Karmafist 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is replying to questions equal to not handling criticism? I thought the best way to handle criticism is to try to address it... Halibutt
  25. Cześć! Tak? Nie? Nie. Oppose, dzienkuje. There's more than enough evidence on this RfA alone to suggest that the user's temperament is currently not suited to admin status. Proto t c 09:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. False accusations of vandalism are unacceptable. Smit 06:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. For all the reasons given, mainly the Black Book, and also because of the many responses from Halibutt to the oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote against without being confronted. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I cannot agree with your view that my comments are a sign of my disagreement with anyone. In fact I believe that it is always better to explain my point of view because it gives everyone a chance to get to know me a tad better. They are fully entitled to vote in favour or against though. BTW, I wonder when does this voting end... Halibutt 11:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to put your adminship up for confirmation to show us how it's done? :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose votes should not be a place where people can make personal attacks with impunity and level accusations that can not be answered. If this was simply an election where people voted up or down with no comment this would be different. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Haukur! Rfa SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE TO AIR PETTY OR PERSONAL GRUDGES! Yet all too often that's exactly what it turns into. And when it does, candidates should have EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND/JUSTIFY THEMSELVES! Besides, it is a lot better than harassing opposing voters on their talk pages as some have done.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Less is more" - nice proverb, but I just don't see how it applies here. If one accuses you of something, you have the right to defend yourself, and Halibutt has done just that in a very civil manner (AFAIK). If he did not, and just ignored all the critique, I'd have probably withdrawn my nomination and opposed him myself, since it would have indicated to me that he cannot handle critique and opposition.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No (personal attack removed) Grace Note 14:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting with such a reasoning as above should not be counted, IMHO - but as I am definetly involved in this voting I will not remove it, just leave this note for the reference to indicate my opinion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotr, There's no need to defend against casual abuse or even consider reverting it. Such abuse spoils the the case of those who oppose your view more than any defence you can mount. Grace Note may have had a point to make, but the majority of 'pedians will now not just discount the vote (and it's not clear what that vote was, if anything) but will also symphasise with your candidate due to the crudeness of the attack. In other words: let those that oppose destroy themselves; if they're wrong, they will lose be default. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I honestly don't see how you can say that vulgarisms may constitute any possible 'point to make', I agree that such a crude personal attack - even less sophisticated then the one by 'JohnSmith214' sockpuppet earlier - is likely to actually have an opposite effect on the voting then the orginal 'voter' intended. I do still think such votes such be removed FROM TALLY just as the mentioned sockpuppet was - we should have some standards for civility in voting, and breaching one should disquality the voter. What I definetly din't agree with is the deletion only of the offending part, since it can now make other readers wonder what the fuss is about.--Piotr Konieczny aka ProkonsulPiotrus Talk 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotr: Please assume good faith in my edit. My point was that Grace Note may have had a point to make, but that point (if it existed) was lost by the attack and thus benefitted Halibutt. Discounting the vote (which wasn't actually made: what do you think it was? I can't tell) will be done automatically on that basis. Try to be less defensive. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Redvers: I am sure you meant well, and I am assuming good faith on your comments - I am sorry if that was not clear. However, the entire Grace Note comment, listed above, consisted of two obscenities, and qualifies more as 'anatomical improbability' then any reasonable comment. There is a difference between saying, for example 'This **** did this and this' - which while uncivil likely has a point - and saying '***-adjective ***-noun'. As for the vote, I assume it is an 'object' vote, but I am not 'defensive' here - as you pointed out, there is little reason to be in this case - I just don't want this vandalism to affect a tally.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Handling of 'support' template issue demonstrated poor judgement. 3RR violations over naming disputes also are troubling. If he keeps his nose clean, I could probably support his next RfA—particularly now that the Black Book is finally gone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I had a quick look at your contributions, and I think that they are extensive and show a high degree of commitment to Wikipedia. Also, your discussion at WP:FPC is always reasoned well. However, I'm a little disappointed in your continued use of the {{support}} template at FPC despite its deletion, your previous ignorance of the speedy deletion rules and the continued recreation of the aforementioned template (see Template talk:Support). I would also suggest using the edit summaries a little more. Enochlau 09:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah. I feel like a ping pong ball. Neutral, and I'll stay here. Enochlau 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Although I have had strong disagreements with Halibutt in the past on a number of subjects, I would be happy to support him for adminship based on most of my encounters with him. One incident, however, inclines me to remain neutral, which is Halibutt's incredibly vast violation of WP:POINT of some months ago, when he decided that he would add the Polish name of just about every German city in order to demonstrate what he saw as the absurdity of the results of one part of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote fiasco. I feel that this was a problematic display, and as such, I'm not ready to vote in support. john [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Merovingian 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I really don't know about this user - but judging by his edits he seems like an amazing individual! You might want to count this as more a neutral that is siding with support, but as I haven't encountered him before I really can't in good faith vote support or object. The fact that Piotrus nominated him speaks well for him, though. Also, Grutness seems to think he's OK, and he's a pretty good judge of character. However, Radiant is also a good judge of character, and he voted oppose. So neutral for me. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd support his request if it weren't for his bizarre Dresden/Aachen/Mainz edit war last June. Markussep 15:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not convinced. Halibutt is somtimes pushing his POV too hard... like admins on the "other side" of those "conflicts" Radomil talk 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Because of the lengthy and mature explanation Halibutt posted on my talk page, and because he requested deletion of the alleged attack page in his user space, I have withdrawn my opposition. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet he has vainly requested keeping User talk:Halibutt/Black Book because Jimbo Wales was one of them asking him to get rid of it five months ago, when it was moved there after it was deleted from the main namespace. He wouldn't even listen even with that; and he didn't even respond to those requests. It was in his user pages; it was his responsibility all the time it was there. Only the dawning realization that it is seriously jeopardizing his request for adminship finally got him to do something about it. Let's give him a while longer to show a true change of heart on these points. Gene Nygaard 03:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the Jimbo's comment there. I thought his idea might need a tad more work on, as he suggested that some education page could be good. I thought keeping the talk page (especially when the page is being brought against me as if it was me who offended anyone there) would be a fair resolution, especially for those who accuse me of being the one to "attack other users" or "keeping attack pages", since this would mean that the page in question no longer exists, while the talk page i would still be there for all to check. Halibutt 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, Halibutt has generally appeared to be a good and reasonable editor when I've come across him. However, I wasn't aware of the Black Book prior to this RFA and I think that it shows a serious lack of good judgement to have kept it on his user page. I'm glad to see it has been deleted but somewhat bemused by the way the talk page has been kept and the rather grudging manner it was done. Leithp (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I am changing my vote from Oppose to Neutral since the Black book is deleted and it appeared that he was not the main author of this item. I have read a few hundreds of the recent Hailbutt edits and they all appeared to be in quite a good faith and many show deep knowledge on a wide range of subjects (especially of European History) that would never hurt any administrator to have. He is not unlike in this regard to his major opponent User:Ghirlandajo. On the other hand I still have some rezervations about the Book history (IMHO an ideal administrator should try to eliminate such things, not to support them, especially if they come from the people of his own POV) and the history of the template - having the interests of his petty edit war over the usability of the Wiki. So my present vote is Neutral. abakharev 12:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Glad to see that he removed his Black Page. Hope this means that he is beginning to behave more like an admin. --Heptor 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral Halibutt is an interesting and very knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, I believe his knowledge to be less than balanced and his point of view to not be neutral or disinterested on issues involving Poland and its history. I won't call him a "nationalist," since he indicated above that he finds the term offensive, but he has demonstrated innumerable times a tendancy to take a partisan, pro-Polish POV, particuarly on questions involving the formerly German areas that are part of today's Poland. I'm sure he would deny being anti-German, but his own family history, which includes the Nazi death camps and the Holocaust, gives him cause to be personally prejudiced against Germans. I do think this strongly colors his judgment. If I did not have an instinctive liking for Halibutt, who in cyberspace at least seems to be a charming person, I would oppose him. But I've come to like Halibutt despite often being opposed to him on Wiki, and so I will merely voice strong reservations about giving him authority over aspects of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I have reservations about any non-native English speaker being an administrator on the English-language Wikipedia, Sca 19:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, almost everyone of Polish or Jewish descent would have someone killed by the Nazis in his family history. Are you saying that it would make any Jewish or Polish person unfit for adminship ? --Lysy (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, of course not. On one hand, anyone who is Polish or Jewish, or especially a Polish Jew (which Halibutt is), is very likely to bear personal scars or harbor emotions that would would predispose the person to anti-German views - understandably so. On the other hand, it certainly would be possible for someone like that to recognize intellectually that people are people, and to put any ethnic biases aside. However, my impression is that Halibutt hasn't entirely done that, and that however charming and intelligent he may be, he tends to view Germans - and all German influences in Polish history - negatively merely because they are German. In other words, I believe that Halilbutt tends to view all things German through the lens of the Nazi experience. Sca 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If they edited on articles related to the Nazis and couldn't keep their biases under control, then yes. I would hope that that wouldn't be the case though. There have always been issues on Wikipedia stemming from people immersed in cultures that are involved (or were involved) in conflict recently, but not everyone from those cultures has POV issues. I would advise you not to put the horse before the cart -- if someone cannot follow the rules, they don't belong here. That remains true even if there are systematic inabilities to disobey the rules that look like racism/sexism/whatever. --Improv 17:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sca might be right on my attitude towards modern Germans or he might be wrong, I don't know as I didn't think of Germany much in my life. Of course, we used to chat about a lot as it seems to be your main topic, but for me Germany is just yet another European state with some bad past. Which does not mean that I am describing modern Germany as if it was 1941 nor am I planning to whitewash WWII Germany in my articles on WWII.
    I met some great German wikimaniacs at the Usedom meeting we had last summer on their side of the border. Of course, WWII ultimately came out as one of the topics (after we all got a tad tipsy, I admit), but I didn't think much of that as I'm basically more interested in the past of Poland then in the present of Germany. Outside of the good ol' Talk:Gdańsk dispute back in the bad old times of User:Nico, I mostly contribute to articles on Polish geography, Central and Eastern European history and WWII. So, I never thought my own family's experiences might create a problem with keeping my own POV at bay there. Halibutt 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Changed my opposed to neutral, because even though his bias in his actions seems a strong argument (which might not have influenced only the opposers and unsures), his offensive behaviour seemed more like an exception. NightBeAsT 14:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. There's a lot of decent contribution from the user, but there's also a decent amount of controversy -- when people are made an admin, it should be because it's obvious to almost everyone that it should be. That's not yet the case here -- recommend coming back in a few months without having any controversy generated in the meantime and without Piotr babysitting every aspect of the nomination. If that happens, I will probably support. --Improv 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the fact that I was nominated in a bad time for me (lots of work at my job and a weekend far away from the keybord, I don't really feel like Piotrus was babysitting me. In fact I'm grateful for his hard work in attracting so much attention for this voting and for his support in the first place. But if having the nominator do anything more than just nominating is wrong, then perhaps we could state that loudly and clearly in some wiki rule? Halibutt 19:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral — I would have wanted to support, but Halibutt's occasional misconduct does worry me. I should note that I wholeheartedly approve of reasonable notification of possibly interested parties about ongoing RFAs, as I do not personally monitor the RFA page. I have seen some of Halibutt's work, and it is good, but the few controversies surrounding him are enough to worry me. Johnleemk | Talk 17:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral this time, but I may well support next time around. Halibutt is generally a very good contributor, by the nature of some of the articles he edits it is inevitable that he will attract a few critics (this doesn't bother me). What does bother me slightly is his behaviour at Template:Support, although I do understand why he did what he did. Ignoring consensus, even if you believe the consensus to be wrong, is not the right thing to do. Although people on both sides were at fault, I think this was too recent for me to support. I suggest that Halibutt comes back in a month or two, assuming he respects the rules in this time, I will be happy to support then. Rje 18:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral This candidate's answers to the stock questions are very good - I like the tone and the reasonableness implied in the answers. But I worry, given the discussion here, about the potential for the candidate to be neutral in an edit war or a POV dispute etc. If you can see this amongst the long, long list here, Halibutt, could you answer me a question? If you found yourself, for an extreme example, caught between a Russian editor and a Polish editor in an edit war, would you rule yourself out or would you get involved neutrally? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. As to the question - I must say I'm not sure, it all depends on the case we're speaking about. Generally, I believe being an admin or not should not be a factor in such a hypotetical situation and in fact admin-Halibutt and user-Halibutt would both react in the same way. If the debated case was within my interest, that is if I had enough of my own knowledge or sources to take part in the discussion, I would do it. If there was an edit war going on, I would most probably ask the people involved to use the talk page, which in most cases ends the edit war. If the edit war went on, I'd probably ask someone to block the page to let the heads cool down a bit. And whether the people involved were Russians, Poles, Zulu or Armenian American with some Na-dene ancestry does not matter much to me. Contrary to what many people assume of me, I don't really care for nationalities. If they were indeed a Pole and a Russian I believe it would make the situation much easier for me as I speak both languages. Hope that helps to make up your mind. Halibutt 19:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's reply is creditable and shows a grasp of admin issues as applied in the real world, so I withdraw my neutral vote. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Halibutt, while your comparison of Russian editors with Zulu people is certainly very flattering, it is worth noting that unfortunely you don't contribute articles on Zulu topics but prefer to write articles with a very strong anti-Russian edge. Minutes ago, you started Dubno, once again full of inflammatory wording. Also, are you really sure that blocking the page is the best way of dispute resolution? --Ghirlandajo 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I ever wrote an article with a very strong anti-Russian edge in my life. I care much about Russians, but not as much as to devote my time writing articles with an edge on them. I started the article on Dubno because User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg asked me on my talk page what that town was. I decided that starting the article would be the easiest way to respond to him and I believe that that way wikipedia simply got richer by one article on a nice town. I do not consider my vocabulary offensive or inflammatory and I replied to your allegations at Talk:Dubno, so I really don't know where's the fire. Also, I explicitly stated that IMO when there is no way to stop people from revert warring, sometimes the best option is to force them to take a deep breath and use the talk page. Halibutt 22:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't agree with you that blocking the page "is the best option", because when you protect a page written by yourself, you may perpetuate your POV phrasing for as long as you like. The article is nice and all, but it's quite annoying that in your articles Russians (or Ukrainians) always "annex" territory, while to Poland it is normally "restituted". Isn't English rich enough to eschew using the terms which may spawn edit wars? Haven't we seen enough revert warring started because of these two words? --Ghirlandajo 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I wrote what I wrote above, including the words If the edit war went on, I'd probably ask someone to block the page to let the heads cool down a bit. Asking someone to do it does not include asking myself, and there's no need to assume my bad will or intentions here, Ghirlandajo. As to the rest of your comments - I believe we should discuss it in talk page of some article, and not here. Or am I wrong? Halibutt 23:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirlandajo, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Protected page. It clearly states that an admin cannot protect the page he is actively engaged in editing, except for cases of simple vandalism. Therefore, your worry that Halibutt will write a POV article and then protect it to enforce his POV is groundless. Balcer 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral. Hallibutt does quite a bit of good work, but the Template:Support debacle and other things make me a bit nervous about his becoming an admin. I had previously abstained from voting, but having been asked to give my two cents, I can only really vote neutral on this one. Ambi 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral. While the user does have a great deal of experience in Wiki, I again see a lot of conflict here that I can't settle with at the moment. One of the functions of an administrator is to build consensus, and I'm just not quite seeing it yet. Sorry! --Martin Osterman 03:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Like Enochlau, I remember not being very impressed with your actions at Template:Support. You recteated it 6 times until it was replaced with {{deletedpage}}, called ChrisO and the other admins that deleted it vandals, and revert warred at FPC when others took the template out of your comments. That was about two weeks ago. Anything to say about this? Dmcdevit·t 09:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I was a tad enraged by the fact that, instead of replying to my comments at the respective talk page, where I explained why I believed the matter should be re-discussed, people simply deleted the page without any explanation. Fortunately the talk page is still there for all to see my arguments and... well, frankly speaking no opposing arguments. Finally, take note that during his recent RfA process Cryptic admitted that he overreacted in this case and that he assumed my bad will without looking at the talk page - which was the real problem here IMO. I consider that incident unfortunate, especially that so far I received no explanation whatsoever. Also, please take note that the article was blocked with the template after I asked for admin support in resolution of the conflict. While I don't find this resolution satisfactory and I still consider the question open to discussion, the recent deletion review pretty much ended the problem. As to my usage of the template that was under attack by people ignoring the talk page - it was not my mistake as there was no rule prohibiting the use of a non-existent template. I'd rather say it was a mistake of an admin who forgot to add the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags, which is why the {{deletedpage}} page was visible, which was not my intention. Halibutt 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a tiny bit to this. I don't care tuppence about the support template but Halibutt is essentially right that it was deleted for reasons that were balderdash. It did not cause any significant server-load and it didn't turn any discussions into votes. FPC is already vote-based, whether we want to admit it or not. That some people liked to display some silly green sign instead of a bolded Support is harmless. Using TfD to stop good contributors from expressing themselves like they wanted to seemed unnecessary and somewhat un-wiki-like to me. I can understand that Halibutt got annoyed. Sure, maybe he overreacted a bit but he's a good guy and we all have some stupid little things which we're stubborn as mules about :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, regardless of whether you or Halibutt think that the reasons were "balderdash", the community concensus reached (and as I remember, by quite an overwhelming majority) was to delete the template, and to not use it anywhere. Although this is not the place to discuss the support template, it suffices to say that any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand, and stubbornly affirming your position isn't what we're on about. Enochlau 15:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This consensus you speak of is obtained by counting votes, precisely the procedure many of the people objecting to the template were objecting to. If you read the TfD debate as a discussion rather than a vote you'll see that many of the people who say they want the template deleted cite a reason which is factually and objectively wrong - that it causes a significant server-load.
Again, I personally couldn't care less that this was deleted - I apparently didn't even bother to comment at the time even though I remember seeing the TfD. And I agree that it's often necessary to defer to the majority opinion - even when it is based on balderdash reasons :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, after I saw that there is no support for the template and my option lost the deletion review I withdrew. Indeed, as Enochlau says, any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand. That's why I used the Template talk:Support page, which cannot be said of those who deleted the page several times in a row. I wanted to start the discussion there, but there was noone to discuss it with as barely anyone joined it... Halibutt 15:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, but at the same time, writing it there was always asking for trouble - i doubt anyone has a deleted template page on their watchlist. Commenting at FPC talk might have been a better idea. And for the record, I suppose those admins were working on the basis of WP:CSD General criteria #4.
Halibutt said above: "it was not my mistake as there was no rule prohibiting the use of a non-existent template". Surely you can understand that people vote for it to be deleted for a reason; they don't want people using it. When I removed the template from your votes it was placing two huge grey boxes in the page, saying "this template has been deleted" etc. Surely you could see this when you reverted my changes? Saying that there was a mistake in coding and that those boxes shouldn't have appeared, or that the procedure for deleting the template was incorrect, is irrelevent in my view; the template was deleted and so you should not have continued to use it. Raven4x4x 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did see that and I guess you also saw my edit comments, did you. In any way, I have a feeling that if I left my votes there the way they were changed (basically, the link to a non-existent template was replaced with the content of the very template, simply copy-pasted there), it would be used as even stronger argument against me. After all the community consensus was not to have or allow to use the template, and I think people meant the template itself and not simply the address. So, replacing my not functioning {{Support}} tag with the recently-deleted template would make me even more guilty as this would mean that "it's up to me to what I keep in my comments" and the unbdisputable fact would be that I was using the template after a consensus was reached not to. So, I simply reverted my votes to the way I put them and instructed several people that the problem is with <noinclude> tags. They fixed that and the problem ceased to exist. In any way, I do not consider my usage of a link to a non-existing page too harmful. Or was it? Halibutt 13:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you had left the changed votes the way they were I would have no arguement with you whatoever, neither would anyone else. On the contrary I would have appreciated the way you had stopped using the template when community consensus demanded it, and when you saw that the template was not functioning correctly. Instead you continued to use it. That is the arguement against you. Linking to a non-existant template, when you know the template to be non-existant, seems rather illogical to me, especially the final time, where the template showed nothing at all, so we couldn't even tell what you had voted. If you disagree with the deletion by all means try to get it un-deleted, but continuing to use the template while it is deleted is not the way to go about things. Raven4x4x 01:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced. People voted against the usage of this template, so using it anyway (either by means of copy-paste or by using it from someone's own namespace) would be a simple attempt to circumvent the wiki consensus. And I'm pretty sure someone would bring it up against me just like yopu're bringing against me the fact that I did not use the template. No good solution here, is there. Halibutt 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, did you just say that I am arguing against you because you did not use the template? That is the complete opposite of what I am saying! You admit " using it anyway... would be a simple attempt to circumvent the wiki consensus." That is what I said you were doing, and that is what I have a problem with. Raven4x4x 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it! For you it would be better if I used the template, but posted at some other place (for instance as Enochlau proposed, posted at User:Fir0002/Support and not at Template:Support). For me such a solution would be similar to the problem with re-creation of a previously deleted template and would be a circumvention of the vote that wanted the page to be deleted. After it became clear thar to me that the community not only wanted the template to be deleted, but also not used at all (for various reasons like high bandwidth usage or degradation of a discussion on pics to a mere voting), I though (and still think) it would be better not to use it at all, be it by copy-paste of the template, by using a copy at Fir0002's pages or anyhow. That's why I wanted to use {{Support}}, which should do no harm to anyone, as it simply does not show at all (note that I used the link to that template in this comment alone, yet it does not show at all). Of course, as someone initially did not include the necessary tags in the deleted page, its usage resulted in some ugly boxes showing up, but you can't really blame me for that as it was not my intention to use {{deletedpage}}, but to use {{support}}, which, as I said, is harmless. Anyway, I don't use that non-existing template any more, except for one single example in this comment of mine (just to illustrate what I'm talking about). Halibutt 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd have thought that the best thing to do would be to just write support or oppose and not use any template. A template that doesn't show at all seems quite useless to me, but I'm glad that you are thinking of what is best for the page. I'm willing to put this discussion behind us, and I hope to continue seeing you around FPC. Raven4x4x 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I re-read the answers you wrote down below and I'm a little perplexed by this: "Also, for me being an admin is not so much different from being an average Wikipedian". If so, why would you like to become an administrator? Enochlau 10:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Jimbo says pretty much the same: This should be no big deal :) There are two reasons mainly. Firstly, being listed as one of the admins attracts attention of people who seek help. And I love to be helpful. Secondly, broom and bucket make your life easier when dealing with all sorts of things you do in wikipedia. For instance, one of the first long articles I prepared, the one on my home town, is frequently under attack by an anonymous user who adds a large number of links to advertisement sites. Reverting the page 4 times in a row and then asking some other person for help might be a funny relay race, but it takes a lot of time and efforts. Admins can do it much faster. Halibutt 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halibutt, I would like to point out that your habit of conversing with your cronies in Polish on talk pages is quite disturbing. It is an English project, after all, and such behaviour doesn't meet Wikipedia Guidelines. You may have noticed that Russian editors never use Russian for their talk pages. --Ghirlandajo 14:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's multiculturalism at work, and I guess if they're more comfortable in Polish, and they're contributing that's great, but it does raise questions of openness and accountability. What do others think? Enochlau 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, let us all speak our native languages on our talk pages. When I try to thread some editor's contributors and find only Polish gibberish on his talk page, I start to suspect that the Polish editors are anxious to conceal their plans and ideas from the rest of the world. And it is getting particularly disturbing when I see my own name mentioned in a Polish sentence. --Ghirlandajo 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Polish is not gibberish :) And it's not like it's a secret code either - if you really want to know what they're saying I'm sure you can find a machine translation in two minutes. Or go to a Polish IRC channel and get someone to translate for you. Correspondence in Polish on talk pages is orders of magnitude more open than any correspondence in private mail - something which our system allows and is widely used. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we use Polish a lot on our user talk pages and I never thought it was something bad. As Enochlau noted above, I think of this project as if it was international Wiki using English rather than English language wiki. In most cases we use Polish only when discussing things relevant to our current projects, while using English at article talk pages. I always thought that if anyone wants to know he'd ask. It's not a problem for me to translate anything from Polish to English or the other way around. However, if you consider this harmful, I can stop using Polish even when asking Piotrus of his personal oppinion on a map I created, as was the case of my recent Polish-language chatter with him. Would it make you change your mind? :) Halibutt 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have always valued Halibutt's contributions and trusted his edits to be in good faith. My concern regards his move of Dresden Frauenkirche and his resulting renaming of English-language churches into native names, despite going against community consensus. I have almost always believed that Halibutt would make a reliable administrator, but that one issue really puzzled me. Olessi 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. I moved the page to an English language title as in the past we had lots of problems with churches named in Polish or German (St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk anyone?). Wikipedia:Use English seemed pretty self-explanatory and binding to me. After people instructed me that they prefer the German name there and the community consensus supported the move-back, I withdrew and considered the case settled. So, the move was about my only contribution to that article in it's history and instead I settled the problem at the talk page. Was it wrong? Halibutt 00:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the initial move that bothered me. It's that you used "community consensus" to move churches to their native names, like see [22], [23], & [24]. Community consensus at the Frauenkirche talk page was the exact opposite- Frauenkirche is a rare exception based on its usage in English. "Bazylika Mariacka" is not commonly used in English, and yet was moved anyway. Regardless, I do believe you would be a dependable admin. I just would advise you to listen to the community a little more before making such edits. Olessi 05:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After some of the editors have changed their votes from "oppose" to "neutral" I started to doubt whether I erred in my harsh assessment of Halibutt's activity. So I went back to his only article which I've yet had a chance to scrutinize carefully - the Battle of Volodarka (which the Poles for the reasons obscure to me still style the Battle of Wolodarka).

I reviewed his behaviour in the discussion of Battle of Wolodarka, which happened during Polish invasion of Russia in 1919. The discussion, started by me in August 2005, is instructive of Halibutt's singular ability to work out a compromise and the civility required for an admin.

Although we all know that the would-be admin was previously blocked for breaking 3RR, which is not a very encouraging sign to start with, I decided to find out there examples of his being "able to work constructively with editors whose worldviews starkly diverge from his own" and "understand opinions of other people and to go to compromises", as his supporters say above.

When another editor - user:Irpen - asked him to provide references that the battle was indeed a Russian defeat, Halibutt cleverly retorted that the only argument to the contrary is "Irpen's nose". He then proceeded to argue for two months, citing feelings of Polish participants of the battle and summing up his position as follows: "1) One source calls it a victory; 2) You say that no source calls it a victory; 3) You lie". One may still check his message courteously entitled "Why are you lying?" on Irpen's talk page.

Particularly pathetic was Halibutt's deletion of those of Irpen's comments which didn't suit his view from the article's talk, in despite reiterated remonstrances on their author's part: once, twice, thrice.

So that's where the dispute ended after two months of futile discussions, despite Halbutt's reputation for "always being able to reach and respect the consensus", as one of his supporters says.

Sorry, I don't want an admin who regularly deletes my arguments from the talk pages and who accuses me of lying when I ask for references. As this rudeness happened just a month ago, I still believe that Halibutt is not ready for adminship. We should watch his behaviour for another month or so. --Ghirlandajo 19:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Ghirlandajo took things out of context (or forgot to mention it). Several things seem a tad notable here, at least for me:
  • It was me to start that article and write most of it.
    It was me to [Talk:Battle_of_Wo%C5%82odarka#Sources_that_support_the_.22Polish_victory.22_version provide] sources for my version when asked, in accordance with WP:CITE, while Irpen did not provide any to support his.
    My Irpen's nose remark was not made of bad faith, it's simply a calque of a Polish colloquial expression nos mi mówi, or my nose tells me in English, which could be roughly translated as I have an impression or I have a feeling. If it is taken as an offense in English - I'm sorry, it was not my intention to offend him.
    Irpen's remark that no source calls that battle a victory while I clearly provided an online source to call it a victory was not true. While calling someone who purposedly misses the truth a liar might be strong, it is by no means wrong. Of course, the source might be of low credibility, or biased, or anything, but denial that it's there while it is there is... well... not true.
    Ghirlandajo also forgot to mention that the community voting finally found my version more credible. Sure, only four people participated, but still noone supported Irpen's version. Halibutt 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen responds:

The 3:1 vote is not a "community voting", I am sorry. Be it at least 9:3, I would not have said a word, but 3:1 means nothing since it is within the minimal fluctuation from an inconclusive 3:2 result. But that's a side issue. I would encourage anyone to read that long discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Wołodarka and my recent summary of it I left at User_talk:Ezhiki#Nationalism but only to get some more input into a particular article's topic. The source Halibutt used was indeed of low credibility and I invite anyone to the talk page above to check why. I repeatedly requested for an assessment from the classical book on the topic by Davies (I don't have it) to no avail. The other academic book didn't make Halibutt's conclusion, although he claimed that it implied that. There we differed. I meant that there are no academic sources who say so and being called a liar several times drove me nuts at the time. Ghirlandajo assessment of the dispute is factually correct and nothing is misrepresnted by the lack of the context. Removal of my comments from the talk also did happen however strange it is a way to prove anything. But this is not why I came here at this time. First of all, please believe me that while I still hold a grudge on how that disputed was handled, I didn't ask anyone to bring it up in connection with this RfA.

As active editors of Eastern European topics, Halibutt and myself know each other at Wiki very well. We agreed and disagreed and a couple of times I was pretty mad, as I believe Halubutt might have been too. This conflict of ours was the last one, and we hardly discussed anything with each other after that, except of the note Halibutt left at my talk today.

However, I am voting support on his RfA as per follows. My view is that for a project like Wikipedia, having more admins rather than less is crucial. I always disagreed with those who vote oppose because of "less than some thousand edits" or "less than some number of months" or "conflicts in the past = no vote from me". To me, there are two questions: whether the person is committed and whether the candidate proved that he will behave ethically, by which I mean not to block or threaten someone with a block during the opinion conflict when the policy doesn't call for a block or calls for it only with a stretch, or unblocking trolls who go out against common "enemies", inappropriately locking or unlocking articles and other similar abuses of adminship. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Halibutt is an ethical Wikipedian, although strongly opinionated, sometimes short-tempered, stubborn and often wrong (as all of us are). His commitment to Wikipedia is beyond doubt to anyone. Hence my vote. --Irpen 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Ghirlandajo, you've asked everyone who has voted to support without giving a reason to give a reason. Whilst it is a good thing for people to give reasons when voting, there is no requirement to do so. Asking 6 or 7 times for people to do so is close to WP:POINT and you should probably refrain from doing so. To be even-handed, the same applies to people challenging those who are voting to oppose - setting upon people expressing their opinion doesn't help anyone and again comes close to WP:POINT. If everyone here would like to cool off for a bit, we'd all benefit. And, all of you, please question the ideas, not the questioner. Especially if you're replying to me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My requests are only at attempt to add objectivity and integrity to this vote. You may have noticed that I didn't spam the users' talk pages, asking them for a rationale or inducing them to vote, unlike Piotrus &Co. As I had a chance to indicate above, I don't think spamming user pages of every opponent and asking them to reconsider their opinion adds legitimacy to this vote. --Ghirlandajo 10:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thus users who don't watch this page (as most of them probably don't) will not notice your comment and won't reply to it. And thank you of accusing me and others of being a 'spammer'. Say, how many message on people's talk pages have you left regarding this voting? I did spot quite a few.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus, I don't see anything wrong in using users' talk pages to contact them. In fact I appreciate it when someone uses my talk page if he needs to attract my attention. This said I don't see how Ghirlandajo's actions contribute towards "objectivity and integrity" of the vote but let's leave this aside. --Lysy (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Firstly, I must say that I always had a problem with the difference between cleanup and expansion, as for me the easiest way to clean some article up is to expand it significantly, then wikify and add as much data as I can. For me WP:CU and WP:RFE are simply two sides of the same coin and I'm equally interested in both. BTW, the same works for other problem tags. Some time ago I noticed that many (if not most) {{NPOV}} problems are due to insufficient explanation of certain problems or phenomena. So, most articles can be NPOVed by means of expansion. Also, for me being an admin is not so much different from being an average Wikipedian in that most of us revert vandalism on the spot, either through RC patrol or watchlists. Halibutt 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Some of the articles I contributed to got featured but I must admit that I'm particularly proud of the Warsaw Uprising series. For me that article encompasses all the virtues of a good Wikipedia article: it was prepared by a large group of people from all parts of the world, it is well-sourced, as balanced as it gets, has lots of great pictures (both historical and modern), few red links and one would not find such an article in a paper encyclopedia. Halibutt
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Of course I've been in conflicts over various topics. Wikipedia is a very special place where various people and various, often conflicting views meet. It is always painful to learn that one's truth is not the only one out there and that what is obvious to me might not be as obvious to others. However, I learnt (the hard way, I admit) that a compromise can always be reached, except perhaps for very rare cases where one of the sides is not willing to accept it. As to dealing with stress - a deep breath always helps. Halibutt
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt&oldid=1250130565"