Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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


[edit] Description

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

  1. Wikipedia is a genuine place to gather encyclopedic informactions.
  2. Sometimes discussion is needed to achieve a good level of balance, because a single human can see mostly his own point of view and several topics need views from various standpoints.
  3. The discussion is fruitful only when
    • the parties act in good faith,
    • the parties believe everybody acts in good faith.
  4. It is difficult or maybe impossible to belive that Molobo acts in good faith as far as finding the balance is concerned.
  5. We find this situation disturbing as
    • there are articles which do not present NPOV in our opinion,
    • the reputation of wikipedia suffers from the level of discussion,
    • lots of time is wasted on neverending and pointless discussions,
    • people lose our temper and start to be personal in discussions.
  6. We ask the community for new ideas to
    • regain belief in good faith of Molobo,
    • reach consensus for the content of the articles in which Molobo is involved,
    • get relief from the personal characteristics of current discussions with Molobo (I really regret that I used personal arguments when I discussed with Molobo. I hope that ths RFC will help me not to use them. Alx-pl D).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

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

  1. Molobo presents a clear standpoint: mainly in topics related to Polish-German relations [1], [2] [3], but also to other subjects [4], [5], [6]
  2. Molobo does not allow other people to discuss with this standpoint, instead:
    • He goes for slow edit wars (without breaking the three reverts rule),
      1. one phrase in Georg Forster [7], [8], [9], [10]
      2. one phrase in Anti-Polonism [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
      3. one phrase in Kulturkampf [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
    • He uses arguments ad personam which are either personal attacks or are on the verge of personal attacks:
      1. User:Mikkalai - [23]
      2. Non-user Micha - [24]
      3. User:Nightbeast - [25], [26], [27]
      4. User:Marskell - [28]
      5. User:Alx-pl - [29], [30]
    • He destroys attempts to find an intermediate formulation (even if the formulation presents the informations he wants to be included). A discussion on the Rudi Pawelka section in Anti-Polonism:
      • After a proposal to reformulate a section in the Anti-Polonism article [31] and
      • further discussion with a German editor to make the section to stay in greater accordance with what is said in different media (discussion between the edits [32]-[33])
      • he replied [34] in a manner which suggested that he does not allow to introduce the content which resulted from the discussion and from the sources that were presented during the discussion.
      • After a long discussion and two more proposals to formulate the section: [35], [36] that were refused by Molobo here and here respectively.
      • A refactorisation was presented with a new layout of discussion [37]
        • Here he refused one more proposal presented in the layout
        • After a vandalisation of the article by annonymous editors Nightbeast proposed in the article a new formulation of the Rudi Pawelka section [38]
        • To which Molobo responded by reverting [39] the Anti-Polonism in Germany section in Anti-Polonism to a version with no inter-heading (which served to structure the earlier discussion on the whole Anti-Polonism in Germany section)
        • And summarised the discussion here [40] (Alx so far I haven't seen any attempts to reach any consensus...).
    • He uses various ad personam arguments appealing to emotions:
      1. Anti-Polonism: [41], [42]
      2. Georg Forster: [43], [44]
    • He tries to discredit other editors by requiring them to bring opinion polls for statements that are only partially relevant to the topic (which is usually difficult to achieve as there are opinion polls only on specific questions)
      1. To a proposal to make an understandable comparison of two speeches [45] (signed) with a side remark to clarify the level of clarity ('so that everybody (even Mexicans or Canadians who do not care about Poland)') he replied [46] with
        • a demand to present polls that Mexicans and Canadians are indifferent,
        • and a comparison which is very difficult to read.
      2. To a remark with an opinion that Lloyd George is a respectable for English and French people [47] (signed) he replied [48] with a demand for opinion polls that justify that [49] and was even not convinced ([50]) by a link to BBC [51] which is far more respectable source than many other used by him (e.g. [52], [53]).
      3. He did not respond however to a proposal to present a poll concerning his point of view in a very crucial point for the discussion [54]. Still, he responded with a reference to a poll concerning a different issue [55]. He was then instructed that his answer is not to the point [56] after which he did not respond till today.
      4. He still finds the poll argument very useful when his opponents refer to common sense [57] even if the issue concerns the meaning of particular expression in English and the opponent is a native English speaker.
    • He discourages new editors from discussing issues he is discussing on by referring them to very lenghty discussions the structure of which is not understandable for anybody: [58]
    • He makes reverts with complete disregard to the logic and the content of sources the earlier text is based on: [59] (He boasted...), [60] (...with Bismarck following Forster opinion...)
    • He proposes to first provide an evidence that somebody is not racist before providing evidence that someone is [61].
  3. We realize that during the discussion the opponents of Molobo also behaved badly, but we also regard that this should not be an excuse for what Molobo does and did as his manner of discussion contributes to great extent to the mood of hostility therein.
  4. We refrain conciously from a presentation of an evidence that Molobo was the first one to start behave like this as this kind of argument will result in a neverending discussion and all the parties involved in this case showed that are able to conduct this kind of conversation.

[edit] Addendum by User:Ghirlandajo

I'd like to point out that Molobo is equally active on the Eastern front, so to speak, and his edits are equally counterproductive there. So far I've seen him engaged primarily in revert warring. To the best of my knowledge, the only article he created - Judas of Slavdom - was a deliberate spoof, about to be deleted now. The favourite target of Molobo's revert wars has been Russophobia, where he resorts to wide-scale blanking. Even after the Gdansk/Danzig vote, he enthusiastically took part in Schopenhauer revert wars [62] and, citing that decision, attempted to replace Koenigsberg with the Polish spelling Kroliewiec in the articles on 16th-century subjects, thus inducing tedious edit wars [63]. He also instigated a wide-scale, albeit ultimately pointless, revert conflict between Polish and Russian editors on Smolensk War (history). In the article on Białowieża Forest he spawned a revert war by declaring that Eltsin, Kravchuk, and Shushkevich were not "the leaders of the three East Slavic nations", because "East Slavic nations" is not a "legitimate" term but a Russian imperialistic concept. [64] After intermittent reverting, the article was left in Molobo's hands, because there are serious concerns that it should be rewritten and moved to the proper English name. --Ghirlandajo 10:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As of March 2006, Molobo's edits consist of nothing but provocative comments aimed at spawning nationalist hatred, which get reverted in no time by editors of various countries, although it takes a lot of their time. His latest strategy includes pasting enormous chunks of copyrighted material on talk pages, sometimes without acknowledging the source. His rabid revert warring concerns even long-archived and not longer active pages. I believe the case is far gone enough to be submitted for arbitration. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:NPOV
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. After a huge effort to make the dispute on Rudi Pawelka more structurized [65] and a proposal to discuss it along the new lines he presented another non-structured message [66] which was answered by a proposal to provide his own account [67] and by a more detailed answer [68]. He then completely refused [69] to take part in the new, in my opinion much clearer, way of disputing the issue and reintroduced [70] an old non-structural version of the much disputed Germany secion in Anti-Polonism. In which way he destroyed all the reference points for the previous and ongoing discussion. I asked him then in despair [71] to reintroduce the old structure to which he responded [72] as if he did not understand the point. Yet, after a clarification [73] he responded with an accusation that I defend Nightbeast, instead of the content of the article [74]. Alx-pl D 20:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Alx-pl D 08:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Thorsten1 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Ghirlandajo 10:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Alexbulg 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Chris 73 | Talk 08:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Groeck 21:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Sciurinæ 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Marskell 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Wiglaf 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Pavel Vozenilek 01:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Sadly my edits generated a lot of resentment.I am aftaid I am unable to defend myself against many people who have grown to dislike me for the information brought. I always tried to concentrate on issues of the article. Most of Alx examples come from my early Wiki use, when I was new.However I always tried to engage in discussion, and presented books, sources and articles that confirmed my edits as seen here[75], or here [76]. Also Alx-pl ignores my attempts to come to terms with users that were in dispute with me for example here[77].Yet despite this I am unable to defend myself agains a multitude of users with much better experience.Goodbye.


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

  1. --Molobo 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Space Cadet 21:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Molobo presents a clear standpoint: mainly in topics related to Polish-German relations "
    Every edit provides information that might be considered a standpoint.You are free to edit a responce and discussion in the talk page.
  • "Molobo does not allow other people to discuss with this standpoint"
    Untrue. In all three cases present a look on talk page will show that discussion was or is made, in which I used resources and books: [78]Georg Forster, [79]Antipolonism, [80]Kulturkampf
    In Georg Forster my questions why scholary work should be ignored and certain aspects of his behaviour questioned were ignored.
    In Kulturkampf a huge number of resources, books, citations were ignored, my questions remained unanswered.
  • "He uses arguments ad personam which are either personal attacks or are on the verge of personal attacks"
    1 example.I responded to a user claiming that Poles are thefs is a sad fact[81]
    2 user.A responce but to a vandal, informed him that it wasn't me who inserted information and advised him to look on talk page.
    3.1Responce to statement that stereotypes about Poles are harmless.No Personal attacks.2Asked to double checked talk page, informed about the use of stereotypes during Nazi occupation.
    3.A bit harsh I apologise but this in responce to the statement that such jokes are harmless.As a matter of fact they are product of Nazi era:[82]
    4.No personall attacks.Remainded that Black Legend is stereotype and doesn't reflect the truth, remained that three sources are now known to use the term.
    5.1 Asked why POV that is based on antipolish stereotypes should be treated as equally true with POV not based on stereotypes.No Personal attacks.
    2A harsh responce I agree maybe too harsh, but to a statement that blames WW2 on Poland.
  • "He destroys attempts to find an intermediate formulation (even if the formulation presents the informations he wants to be included). A discussion on the Rudi Pawelka section in Anti-Polonism:"
    The discussion on Rudi Pawelka isn't alive since months, and if you complain that we didn't came to agreement then I am sorry, but this is a completely different subject.Since the discussion is dead and of no influence I don't think its important.However there was a discussion.
  • "He uses various ad personam arguments appealing to emotions"
    No emotions are used in cited fragments:
    1.I see no emotions, just gave some basic facts.
    1.2 Again noted that stereotypes have led to genocide of Poles by Germans during WW2.It may evoke emotions in some people but this unavoidable. All such topics will.We can't avoid them on Wiki.
  • "He tries to discredit other editors by requiring them to bring opinion polls for statements that are only partially relevant to the topic (which is usually difficult to achieve as there are opinion polls only on specific questions)"
    I do not discredit by asking for confirmation of definate statements.If somebody claims a fact is true he should be read to confirm it with data.
  • "He discourages new editors from discussing issues he is discussing on by referring them to very lenghty discussions the structure of which is not understandable for anybody:"
    I encourage new editors to read a wealth information stored in talk, in order to avoid repeating the same discussions, which would use up time and space.This isn't necesarry if somebody reads sources, talk and links.
  • "# He makes reverts with complete disregard to the logic and the content of sources the earlier text"
    I make edits based on facts and previous data found in articles.Both examples can be easly confirmed by looking at their history and talk page.


--Molobo 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tfine80

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

I'm not willing to wade through all of this to determine if there is truly some outrageous edit in this case. However, I would like to mention that I feel that there is fault on both sides. Molobo wanted to add a Polish perspective on German history that is often overlooked. I do not believe he had any hostility but a sincere desire to describe what he felt was an important perspective. The problem often derived from the way he inserted his edits, which were sometimes awkward and unclear. And he reverted correction excessively. I feel like, in several cases, however, other editors were quicker to revert his edits than to try to reach a consensus. (Although I will concede that they tried to some degree--but, in my view, not sufficiently). However, on almost every issue involved, there is a way to phrase these questions in a balanced way. I think it is not too late to try again. Tfine80 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Tfine80 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Lysy (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. --SylwiaS | talk 15:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Halibutt 15:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Marskell

Or partly inside view because I'm referenced above. Molobo states: "people...have grown to dislike me for the information brought." People don't "dislike" Molobo because of the "information brought"—people would rather avoid him because of the stupendously frustrating manner by which he defends edits, his obstinacy when compromises are presented, and the (il)logic he employs when analyzing others' behaviour in talk.

To begin with, he's mastered bait-and-switch arguing on the Wiki. First, he'll accuse you of OR or POV (though he doesn't properly grasp the former). When this is properly rebutted he suggests a personal attack or occasionally bigotry. Here he tells me I've made a xenophobic comment. When I quite rightly observe I've done nothing of the sort he tells me to avoid personal attacks! No apology, no addmittance of misunderstanding, just bait ("you're a xenophobe") and switch ("don't insult me"). If he doesn't like a removal, well, you're a vandal. Molobo does not assume good faith—period. As for compromising on content, I don't know how considering present behaviour; he'll drop a point, wait a week, and then simply reinsert his preferred version verbatim.

If there were some admittance that his discussion manner is a problem I might be less harsh in this but I see nothing of the sort here. I have never seen Molobo admit fault. Not once. Of course, he might always be right, but judging from his talk page the vast majority of Wikipedians he encounters don't seem to think so. Marskell 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Marskell 03:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. "cite sources" is not a topic on this rfc, so saying Molobo cited his sources is dodging the issue. people have "come to dislike" him not for the sources he cited, but for the mind games he played to get his way; this may all be stale now, as he points out, and I am not aware of similar misconduct of Molobo's in the recent past, but that may mostly be because he has driven off all of his antagonists in frustration. If Molobo wants to argue that these are problems dating to "when he was new", it wouldn't hurt for him to explicitly recognize where he agrees he was wrong, and apologize. This would clear the air, and make clear in which incidents he agrees his behaviour was out of line, so people will know he does not intend to repeat it. Just saying "I was new, let's not talk about it" is unproductive and doesn't replace actually admitting fault. dab (ᛏ) 07:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Leithp (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. --Ghirlandajo 10:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Alexbulg 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Thorsten1 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Alx-pl D 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Kusma (討論) 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Agree that the controversy over Molobo is not the information he lists, but his manner of interacting with other Wikipedians. His unwillingness to compromise is very frustrating for other contributors (personal experience at Talk:Warmia). His deletion of responses during discussions (mentioned by other users) is also not recommended. Olessi 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Chris 73 | Talk 08:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Groeck 21:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. --Sciurinæ 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. --Wiglaf 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Halibutt

Molobo is a good contributor, at the same time not being a good wikipedian, so to say. On one hand he has his views and is willing (and able) to always back them up with sources at the talk pages. This is often overlooked by those who fight with him, as was the case of German 4th Panzer Division, where people reverted his - sourced and explained - edits not because they found them dubious, but because it was him to provide them. This is the good face of Molobo, the one we definitely need here in wikipedia. There is also the worse face, the one of the guy who can't stand back if a revert war occurs. Of course, it always takes more than one person to start a revert war and those who fight against him are equally responsible, but it doesn't change the fact that Molobo takes part in them.

I've been asked several times to tone him down at various points and I found out that, despite having very strong oppinions and much knowledge on certain matters (which is his advantage IMO), he is willing to use the talk and discuss things there. Most of the links provided above proove just that. Some of the diffs ([83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] and so on) are simply his voices in the dispute. As such they might be a tad too strongly voiced, but they are perfectly valid and I believe one should not take offence in them. The last link I posted above is particularily a good example of what I mean: I don't know if the anon user whose comment was removed was indeed Molobo or not, but I believe that Alx (with all due respect) took offence for no apparent reason there. Which shows yet another problem here: the reputation of Molobo seems to be so low that people see his comments as rude, POV-pushing or offensive even if they are not.

Having said that, I believe that Molobo should indeed try to be a tad more constructive in the future. By being constructive I mean working on solutions rather than ideas. If most of the comments posted as evidence would be followed by a proposed wording, I believe there would be no need to start this RfC at all. (The same applies to those who oppose him, of course). Halibutt 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Halibutt 15:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Halibutt, this is exaclty my view. Molobo in the past brought a sources I didn't know. He has wide konwledge and is willing to research more. However he has problems with expressing his views in a way that wouldn't be seen by others as offensive. Szopen 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. --SylwiaS | talk 15:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Alx-pl D 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. yes, citing sources is important, and he does that. What he needs is the ability to compromise. In many cases, his edits were rejected because they unbalanced and article to talk about Polish nationalist issues, when the article was not about Polish nationalist issues at all. This is a matter of relevance, not citing sources. If Molobo learns to compromise, and to accept the judgement of others, and to apologize if he was out of line in the heat of the moment, he could become a good contributor. So far, alas, there is little evidence that this is the way he is developing. dab (ᛏ) 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Agree with dab that relevance of the cited sources is a major problem, and endorse Halibutt's summary. Kusma (討論) 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yes. Politeness is too often a casualty in heated discussions, leading to such monstrous wastes of time as this RfC :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Totally agreed. Molobo can be a tad unreasonable if the article is about something which he obviously feels strongly about, which most articles he edits tend to be. That said, he will usually see logice, but not without putting up quite a fight first. --ansbachdragoner 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by SylwiaS

I personally never have had any problems in cooperation with Molobo. However, Molobo often contributes to articles that are in their nature controversial, and therefore I am not surprised that there are many people holding opposite views. From what I saw, Molobo tries to support his contributions with many sources, and this is certainly the best way of contributing to hard topics. If his comments on talk pages are not clear enough, then surely it wouldn’t harm if Molobo took greater effort and develop them. I would also ask him for adding (:) before his comments to separate them from comments of other users. I do not approve any incivility in discussions, and if Molobo used to be uncivil, he certainly should alter his behaviour.

I do remember Molobo’s first contributions to the Anti-Polonism article, and I also remember the many contributions and comments of other users. What was very disquieting then, was a general attitude to the article. Many users complained that the article is POV, but asked for reasons were giving responses like that they are Germans themselves and they personally like Polish people. This hardly can be seen as a serious discussion on a topic, and since the dispute was lacking sourced counterarguments and soon changed into a revert war, I asked for protection of the article. I then didn’t contribute to Wiki for a longer time, but upon returning, I noticed that the article was unprotected and the general contribution took much more peaceful direction. I attribute the alteration to good faith as well of Molobo as of other users. I myself, however, didn’t contribute to the article for months, and didn’t take part in following discussions, so I assume that I may write an outside view.

I would like to comment on the evidence of failed dispute, aka Rudi Pawelka summary. I was the one who put the disputed information to the article. What I wrote was a sourced fact. I chose to leave out however, the part referring to the eviction of former proprieties of German people in Poland. I did it on purpose. First of all, I don’t think that this is an example of Anti-Polonism, second, presenting the situation in an NOPV way would demand description of the whole problem and citation of many documents, information etc. Actually, it might very well be a material for a separate article, and certainly its place is not in an article about Anti-Polonism, unless there are people who think that the problem is a rightful justification of other Pawelka’s words (I sincerely hope there aren’t). What Axl wrote in his suggestion surely was a huge misrepresentation of the whole case, because anyone who is not knowledgeable about the situation would not be able to get the whole view from this description.

The original text was telling about Pawelka’s blaming the outburst of WWII on “aggressions” of Polish pre-war government. I do not agree that it wasn’t sourced or incorrect. Also, I do not approve some attitude to the statement in the dispute. I would like to make one point: The great majority of people living on the planet Earth does not hold anti-Semitic views, but it doesn’t mean that anti-Semitism does not exist on the planet Earth, and anyone who claims otherwise holds an anti-Semitic view. In the same vein, asking if Pawelka’s statement should be presented in the article at all, and claiming that it’s out of place because it isn’t supported by the majority of Germans is not the right attitude. As well as explaining that Pawelka wants only admittance that Poland should be partly blamed for the war. I want to clearly state that Poland never was, and never will be rightfully blamed for the outburst of the war, and every one who claims otherwise is a revisionist of history.

What I think should have been done in the article to keep with the Wikipedia NPOV policy, is adding German sources on the event. And if German media or politicians criticised this Pawelka’s statement, it should have been also added and sourced in the article. I want to add that Pawelka and his supporters by no means are representative for the whole German population. The German minority in Poland called him persona non grata. But this article is about Anti-Polonism and related incidents, not about general German attitude to Poles, or German-Polish relationship. If this dispute failed, it’s rather because of the wrong attitude to it, not because of Molobo’s not responding to it. Also, Molobo had right to reintroduce the information to the article, especially that another user erased this factual and sourced information from it entirely without even waiting for the end of the discussion.--SylwiaS | talk 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. --SylwiaS | talk 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Lysy (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Piotrus

I'll start with a disclaimer that I am a Pole. That said it will come as little suprise to some when I say that I endorse 100% what Halibutt wrote above, plus most of what SylwiaS wrote (I am not familiar with this Rudi article, however, so I am not going to comment on this). After reviewing the above evidence, it is clear that Molobo has often oversteped the bounds of civility, accussing others of personal attacks or xenophobia/anti-polonism/etc, where in fact no such offences were made. On the other hand, many other users now arguing against him in this RfC, to my suprise and disapointment have acted little better - accusing Molobo of being a 'Polish pet troll' or a "beast", removing sourced information or engaging in revert wars. There is only one solution to this:

Molobo: your opponents are not xenophobes, anti-Polites (or whatever). They may have their own national POVs - but so do you (and I). Please understand that for the vast, vast majority, including I believe all who signed this RfC against you, they mean you - or us, Poles - no harm. Don't be so defensive and don't interprest innocent remarks as personal attacks. Yes, some of them unfortunately were personal attacks or more or less unconcious anti-Polonism - but they were the minority, and for some of them their users have alreayd apologized here or there. But I repeat: most of the comments where you accuse others of being uncivil are overreactions, and this 'crying wolf' lead to many people treating you, well, as they treat you now: with resentment and suspicion. And you were as guilty as any of your opponents of being (intentionally or not) uncivil and offending. Unless you understand that your own uncivility has contributed to theirs, and created a vicious spiral, nothing will improve.

Anti-Molobos: Molobo is not a troll, a beast, or a raving ultra-Pole. He is a Polish POV-pusher, yes - just as most of you are your-own-nationality-POV pusher, just as I am a Polish-POV pusher as well, just as virtually any Wikipedian editing any nationality-related article will tend - more or less conciously - pursue certain POV, even by the very fact that they improve the content of articles related to cetain countries more then others. Your prejudice against Molobo stems from the fact that 99% of his edits concentrate on 'touchy' issues - and sometimes he has not realized that his edits or comments are hurting your feelings (or national pride, or whatever). I don't think he ever intended to offend of defame you or your countries. Unfortunately, without a doubt he has done this on several occasions. Please don't hold it against him - not everybody is a diplomat.

All of you (myself included): Just as Poles don't like to talk about Jedwabne, others don't want to speak about Nazi Germany, or Katyn, or Western betrayl, etc. Those are all touchy matters and we all get defensive when speaking about them. We should be very careful when speaking of those matters, and realize that others may and will often make unfortunate remarks or misinterpret our intentions, because we had - unintentionally - hurt them. Two wrongs does not make anybody's behaviour right - but it is so easy to assume bad intentions... I see only one potential solution: all involved parties should apologize, "shake hands" and try to work out their differences on talk pages. Perhaps some of us can meet during a Polish-German or Polish-Russian, or some other Wikipedian meeting and work out our differences face to face, see that 'that other guy' is just like you. Perhaps some of us can contact each other using instant messangers or even VoIP. But I think we should start here, now, with an apology section, which I'll create below. Very few of us have thick skin and velvet tongue needed to be perfect editors to such articles, but I am sure all of us here share one quality: we want Wikipedia to be the perfect neutral source of knowledge, and even when we stumble from time to time, we are working towards the same goal. Our German, Polish, Russian and other POVs, when combined, are Wiki's true source of strenght. You -we - are all on the same side: we are Wikipedians with good intentions. Understand that we are not perfect, learn to forgive - and apologize.

Doh. And I intended this too be a short outside view :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies due

  • I, Piotrus, apologise to Ghirlandajo for calling you a vandal in one user summary and reporting you to 3RR when you have not violated this rule. I may not agree with your POV, but you are not a vandal, and the 3RR report was made beacuse of my lack of experience with the 3RR rule. I also apologize to anybody else who might have felt offended by any of my other remarks: no harm was ever conciously intended.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologise Molobo for everything that might have hurt his emotions and feelings. Alx-pl D 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View From R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

While I agree with my friends that Molobo is not a "Troll" per se nor, as I once called him, a "POV-Pushing Balrog", his effect on Wikipedia is much the same, if not worse. The endless edit wars and resulting arguements he starts and aggravates, are major violations of the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

NPOV is not only one of the core foundations of this project, but a sort of "Holy Grail" to which we must aspire. Of course we all have POVs, without them we would be not merely sockpuppets but meatpuppets! Yet we must strive to minimize their effects on our contributions. Even when Molobo does cite his sources, and even when these sources turn out to be valid, he finds some way to "Spin" them to push his POV. This is his gift as a writer and curse as a Wikipedian. Even his supporters acknowledge his neutrality is nonexistant. And merely because others push contrary nationalist POVs, does not justify his obvious inability to deal with subjects objectively. As Piotrus said, though granted in a different context, two wrongs indeed do not make a right. It is also a question of DEGREE, and Molobo does it to a greater degree than most others. And in doing so he also creates more ill-will than most other nationalists, by violating the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

So what does he have to offer to mitigate or make up for all this? Well according to his supporters, his intentions are good. I have tried to gage his intentions HERE and engage him in a civil discussion. As you can see, the result was inconclusive. I do conclude that he is not intentionally malicious. But while his intentions may or may not be good, it is his EFFECT I'm most concerned with here. And that effect is, overall, overwhealmingly NEGATIVE. I must conclude, then, that Molobo is a clear LIABILITY to Wikipedia. His contributions, such as they are, do not make up for his costs....not even close. The vast amounts of time, effort and bandwidth spent undoing his edits and argueing with him could be spent in far better, more productive ways. This Rfc is only a small example of how much Wiki-space Molobo can consume. If I thought there was any real hope of him "Reforming" and becoming a more constructive contributor, I would not be participating in this Rfc. But he now seems to think the entire Wikipedia is a haven for Nazis and their sympathizers User:Molobo, so that hope (along with this Rfc) are perhaps moot.

In the end, as my friend and colleague Piotr pointed out, we are all flawed people trying to make a great encyclopedia together who must learn to forgive - and apologize. Most of us here have demostrated this capacity, sadly Molobo seems incapable of doing either. Plus we have better, more important, things to do than try and teach him. So if he is truly gone, then good riddance. The project is better for his parting than for his participation.

On a final note (WHEW:), I want to express my high regard for Alx-Pl, in starting this Rfc. I know you did not undertake it lightly and may not be very popular with some of your fellow Polish editors now. But you did what you knew was right and for the good of the project as a whole. That shows not only integrity and courage but it proves that some of us are capable of evolving beyond the constraints of nationalism. I SALUTE YOU SIR! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Ghirlandajo 08:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Alexbulg 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Groeck 21:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sciurinæ 17:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Alx-pl D 08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC) [this vote means that I abstain from voting on the last paragraph]
  6. --Wiglaf 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Marskell 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Thorsten1 21:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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

[edit] Response to Molobo

  • "Molobo presents a clear standpoint: mainly in topics related to Polish-German relations "
Every edit provides information that might be considered a standpoint.You are free to edit a responce and discussion in the talk page.
This was only to settle the context of the description properly. POV is nobody's fault. NPOV is also a POV. However, the relations between neighbouring nations are always delicate and require a certain amount of diplomacy. Alx-pl D
  • "Molobo does not allow other people to discuss with this standpoint"
Untrue. In all three cases present a look on talk page will show that discussion was or is made, in which I used resources and books: [78]Georg Forster, [79]Antipolonism, [80]Kulturkampf
Taking part in an ongoing discussion does not mean that you discuss things. In order to discuss things, one has to listen to what other people say and answer to their points. Here is a particular example of what I mean by not allowing to disuss and what takes the Talk:Georg Forster into account:
  • To an opinion by Kusma that linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler is not appropriate you answered that it is appropriate because Forster, Bismarck and Hitler are mentioned (not together though) in a book [89].
  • To my opinion that was supposed to settle a local standard for linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler [90] (In In my opinion linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler...)
  • you answered with [91] a very strange proposal to make things simple, instead of addressing the standard that I proposed either by a comment that you are going to look for a suitable source or by a discussion on the basis of this proposal and on the reasoning that I presented to support it.
  • On my further edits that insisted on providing a source that directly links Forster with Bismarck and Hitler [92], [93] you always avoided the real problem either [94] by pretending tha you don't understand what the word "link" means, or [95] by presenting again the same argument which was earlier addressed by me this time with a suggestion that I present a destructive approach.
That's it: avoiding to address what others say, repeating previous, already addressed arguments. This is the way you avoid discussion at the same time being a very active contributor to that. Alx-pl D
In Georg Forster my questions why scholary work should be ignored and certain aspects of his behaviour questioned were ignored.
This was not ignored. As you can see in this edit (last item), I presented a position that the references you brought should not be omitted from the article reference list and there should be pointers to them in the text. Alx-pl D
In Kulturkampf a huge number of resources, books, citations were ignored, my questions remained unanswered.
I don't follow actively the dispute so I cannot commnent on this. Alx-pl D
  • "He uses arguments ad personam which are either personal attacks or are on the verge of personal attacks"
    Response archived in the history Alx-pl D 11:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I felt guilty after writing the summary above as this required presenting some very nasty quotations. I can continue the response to Molobo only on explicit demand. Alx-pl D 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on #Outside view by Tfine80

  • Molobo wanted to add a Polish perspective on German history that is often overlooked - This is the valuable part of his contribution. No doubt about it.
  • However, on almost every issue involved, there is a way to phrase these questions in a balanced way. - I don't doubt it either. However, the problem is that Molobo defends his points in a strongly emotional and partially illogical way which looks like he is using all means to avoid reaching the compromise. Also, I can't see trace of the following attitude on his side: I don't think it is right, but you provided argument and this should go to the document. Instead, I can see many informations that I brought and sourced (eg. the information that "antypolonizm" is not in major Polish dictionaries and encyclopedias) which were replaced by Molobo [96] (with an information that it is used in a dictionary that has quite narrow impact) and commented in a strongly unpleasant way [97]. I didn't see a proposal by Molobo to reformulate this information so that it suits him, however you can see in the edit above that there was a formulation that conveyed both pieces of informations in a fairly neutral way which was proposed by me [98]. I don't assume that it was an ideal formulation and probably one could find a better one. I am only very sorry that this issue was treated in this way by Molobo and that he did not try to find his own formulation that took into account both views. Alx-pl D 09:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "on almost every issue involved, there is a way to phrase these questions in a balanced way." There probably would be if Molobo - as has been stated above - does not obstinately refuse any compromise proposals. Just look at our conflicts over articles such as Adam Michnik, Wisława Szymborska, or Roman Giertych (sorry, can't be bothered to provide diffs now, please look at the histories and talk pages). The problem is not just Molobo's POV, but the aggressivity with which he defends his frequently ungrammatical edits on articles against any, even the slightest modification. He also habitually assumes bad faith against anyone who is not Polish. To make things worse, he also tends to delete or arbitrarily modify his opponents' posts on article talk pages claiming to remove "personal attacks" (such as "one swallow doesn't make a summer"). This deters anyone who is interested, and makes compromises, although theoretically possible, factually impossible. "Molobo wanted to add a Polish perspective on German history that is often overlooked." No, he does not simply want to "add a perspective", often enough he insists on completely overturning an article's bottom-line and bring it in opposition to international scholarship. Take Konrad Adenauer or Gustav Stresemann, people usually credited for their peace-making efforts. On Gustav Stresemann, it was me who added extensive information on Stresemann's less than peaceful views about Poland - that is what you might call "adding a Polish perspective" (even though most Poles are not aware of this). Nonetheless, Molobo went ahead to rephrase sentences in order to overstate Stresemann's hostility and to present him as a warmonger, in total opposition to international (including Polish) textbook knowledge. Feel free to read Talk:Gustav Stresemann or Talk:Konrad Adenauer if you do not understand what I mean. --Thorsten1 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on #Outside view by Halibutt

User:Halibutt is hardly a person who can present an outside view of Molobo's actions. He was compromised in the past with having instigated Molobo to revert warring, asking him "to feel free to add his 2 cents" on some of the most controversial topics around. I deplore the habit of certain Polish users to keep "pet trolls" who engage in revert warring and personal attacks to further their nationalist agenda. That said, I tried to wade through Molobo's contributions and failed to spot a single constructive edit by him. --Ghirlandajo 10:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo - Halibutt 10:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, I fail to see how your rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade is linked to Molobo's disruptive policies and blankings, particularly as Molobo didn't take part in your shameful enterprise. It is worth noticing, however, that blocking Molobo (as well as Halibutt) for 3RR violations is ultimately pointless, because each time they were blocked, user:Piotrus was here to unblock them. One may wish to compare Halibutt's block log with Molobo's and try to find any difference between these. --Ghirlandajo 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I said it 100 times and I shall repeat it again. I'm not on some anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. Asking people to Be bold is not asking them to start revert wars. I equally despise all people offending others, regardless of their nationality. And I posted the link to your RfC to give some better insight to you comment, especially the pet trolls remark, as you use it quite often to describe all contributors you disagree with. EOT. Halibutt 11:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you cite any instance when I used the remark before? --Ghirlandajo 12:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There's not need to cite it as I remember your earlier "pet troll" remarks, too. --Lysy (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not decided yet whether I will say anything directly about the topic of this RfC, but I beleive that it was me who first coined the "pet troll" collocation in this conversation. I only brought that up now to free Ghirlandajo from another accusation by many of his detractors. Crusade or not crusade, that went far over the bounds. Some people feel that I have become a Ghirlandajo's advocate and to them I can only tell that he doesn't need one. He is one of the more eloquent ones himself. These several times I was just expressing my honest opinions about recent Russo-Polish edit conflicts. This ref here to the dialog between Halibutt and myself at his talk also indirectly relates to this RfC, although having occurred earleir than it was started, and to several issues raised here. --Irpen 05:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether a crusade or not, the fact is that it worked. Ghirlandajo did not offend me ever since the RfC was started, which is a novelty and a good move for me. Halibutt 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't start this over again. It was you who started the crusade when you insulted me and other Russians by calling them "vodka drinkers", "vodka pissers", "ruskies", etc. The RfC, started with the purpose of intimidating myself, died out when its inanity became clear to everyone, and with it died my tenuous hope of ever getting apologies from you. --Ghirlandajo 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, Ghirlandajo, get over it and try not to provoke each other. Maybe it's not necessary ? It's not related and is not going to be useful for Molobo's RFC anyway.. --Lysy (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Alx-pl D 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on #Outside view by SylwiaS

Your account SylwiaS presents your point of view on the content of the dispute, which probably is good for a presentation of a wider context of the dispute. It does not however address the following issues:

  • Why didn't Molobo present his own summary on Pawelka that took into account different views, but insisted on the original strongly disputed version?
  • Why didn't Molobo took part in a restructured discussion on the issue which IMHO presented clearly what were the differences in POVs?
  • Why did Molobo have to use this summary after a huge effort to make his and other edits more comprehensive?
  • Why didn't Molobo present all these issues that you mentioned in a calm and comprehensive way?
  • Why didn't he took part in this serious attempt to reach consensus with tones of sources on the topic (which included for instance on my side calming down all his opponents in this discussion)?

Let me also point out: I would like strongly to avoid the discussion on the contents of the articles in question here, as this may lead to very lenghty discussions. Alx-pl D 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Alx, I cannot answer any of your questions above. I don't sit in Molobo's head. I know some of your contributions and I am sure that you present a lot of good faith. However, I think that the evidence of the failed dispute you presented, shows not only that it failed, but also that the attitude to it was not proper on many sides involved from the very beginning. And I commented on it. That's all. I cannot comment on many other things simply because I don't know them. This was the one I knew. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I believe there is place for many opinions here.--SylwiaS | talk 16:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Sylwia. The point is that all the stuff was purely opinion against opinion stuff and in fact this means that the whole issue should be constructed along completely different lines (for instance like the anti-Americanism article) and probably the article should not mention Rudi Pawelka at all. Note however, that the position of Molobo was and is that erasing this contribution would be destruction of his and other people work. However, with a little bit of good faith on his side in what others do the issue could be resolved in the manner - his opinion against the opinion of others (with suitable sources and attribution that it is the opinion of the sources). This is how it works. We pose our opinions on talk pages, then we try to find evidence that they hold and in the case of a dispute either a stronger evidence must be found or an attribution of opinion must be put. Of course in case of anti-Polonism at that time it was very difficult to avoid dispute in terms of opinion against opinion (especially as far as the relevance was concerned), because the format of the article was wrong or at least far from the typical, non-edit-war-sparking format. Besides, Molobo was strongly opposing any proposed changes in the article format (e.g. proposed by Marskell). Alx-pl D 08:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Alx, I am very glad that you present such a good understanding of NPOV policy and the need of sourcing information today. However, I remember when one anon inserted to the very article into its first section an information about anti-Polonism in Czech and other neighbouring countries/nations, which was then double reverted by Witkacy to the previous form, and double reverted by Sciurinae to the anon’s form, which then you supported with this happy comment and a completely POV, unsourced, original research like, information. And I remember that the whole information was quite disruptive to the article and all the previous work done to it. Also, I believe, quite harmful and injustice to Czech and some other countries/nations mentioned in the section. Yet, when I asked you to either source it or delete it, you told me that you’ll try, though very likely you wouldn’t be able to find any sources, but it still should stay in the article, because there are jokes about Poles in Czech. I am very glad that this part of the article doesn’t exist anymore. However, I am surprised that you feel the need of explaining to me the NPOV policy.--SylwiaS | talk 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
To be precise, the anon insert was by me, because my session expired before I pressed the commit button (and I apologised for that on the talk page). I also immediately commented on the edit on the talk page [99] asking people to comment on that contribution (you can compare the times [100]). I understood the silent revert by Witkacy as a strong sign that it is not a good solution and I did not revert it back. Later on, it turned out that the content of the edit can be supported by opinion polls [101]. The "happy comment" I put can also be sourced by some articles by Jan Józef Lipski and Jerzy Turowicz (I can find the souces if it is really needed, some of them were even mentioned in the discussion on anti-Polonism in the last weeks). These sources however were not put into the page/talk page by me, because no one responded to my proposal even with a proposal to bring sources wrt. that except from you and you disappeared from the discussion. Moreover, the dispute went into completely different direction and presenting the sources in a proper way would require some effort (in translating from Polish). Of course, it takes time to support edits of this kind with sources, and at the time I started to be interested in the article there were quite a few places where there was no reference support. And besides this is one of the normal approaches to editing articles (the article did not have the warning message that it is not a good approach at that time). You edit first, if someone oposes that you start to find support (which I did as you can see). This is to explain my way of handling the case. If there is something wrong about it, I'll be glad to hear from you Sylwia and others.
I don't need to explain NPOV policy to you Sylwia, I just want to underline that your summary does not take into account that Molobo destroys attempts to reach NPOV formulation and normal work on NPOV. I don't comment the other issues in your summary as they are more relevant IMHO to the content of the article, and not to the point of this dispute (of course the borderline is vague, but I would not like to make this discussion a discussion on the formulations in the articles). Alx-pl D 13:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that it was you who put it, but I didn’t want to assume it, since in the article’s history I couldn’t see your name there. However, I still think it was wrong, misleading, and the source you gave doesn’t prove anything. Sympathies or lack of them to people of other nationalities do not equal discrimination, and unless we can prove that their attitude causes discrimination of Poles, they shouldn’t be in the article. Everyone has right to dislike Poles, it doesn’t make them anti-Polish. Also, adding to an article which is lacking sources, more unsourced information, hardly is a proper way of improving it.
Alx, I didn’t assume that Molobo is a perfect contributor. I saw so many unpleasant opinions and remarks about him made by other editors throughout Wiki talk pages that I assumed that his behaviour is indeed very uncivil. For the very reason I signed myself under Halibutt’s Outside View, because I worked on the same articles with Molobo very rarely, and I guess Halibutt’s experience is much wider than mine here. But, in my opinion, the evidence of Molobo flaws that you presented doesn’t prove that he is a particularly disrupting editor, or that his approach to other editors is more uncivil, than many of the editors approach to himself. I cannot also see his strong unwillingness to reach compromise, as well as I cannot see that you would be more willing to reach one. I admit that your way of discussion is much more civil than his, and there is certainly room for improvement of Molobo’s conduct. But above all, all I can see here is Molobo’s Polish POV against German POV of his opponents, and general complaint that he is the only one who cannot accept their POV. Well, he is the only one, because he was alone with his POV in those discussions. It doesn’t mean that he’s less willing to reach a compromise than his opponents are, since they all have the same common POV that stands in opposition to his. As far as the evidence goes, I cannot see a good compromise proposed either. So my conclusion is, that, at least judging on the evidence brought, the RfC on Molobo shouldn’t have taken place. Instead of that, there should be request of mediation on the article.--SylwiaS | talk 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought that it was you who put it... - these are remarks strictly out of the topic of the dispute, IMHO. I can address them either on your explicit demand on the talk page of the article they belong to or even here, but on explicit demand of others.
  • the evidence of Molobo flaws that you presented doesn’t prove that he is a particularly disrupting editor - This is your opinion. Mine is different. In order to start to talk rationally wrt. that issue I have to pose the following question: What are your standards to judge it this way? If there are standards accpted by all the people around we can start to talk rationally whether he is disrupting, how much he is disrupting and if it is something that we should accept and possibly how long we should accept this.
  • that his approach to other editors is more uncivil, than many of the editors approach to himself - This is the kind of argument I would like to avoid. If we start to justify somebody's uncivilness with the uncivilness of others then we will end up in a jungle with the law of jungle.
  • I cannot see that you would be more willing to reach one [compromise]. - Well, this is something that is very difficult to address. How did you measured my willingness and his? How did you compare that? This is purely your opinion which seems to ignore for instance the following line of facts documented above:
    • all the proposals (except your initial one) to reformulate Pawelka section were refused by Molobo (I contributed one of the proposals),
    • he did not contribute his own formulation (he only reverted back to an old one),
    • Molobo did not answer explicit proposal to provide his own intermediate formulation,
    • Molobo almost did not contribute to the reformulated format of the discussion (the reformulation of which was done by me) the intent of which was to clrarify what the differences and accordances are,
    • Molobo commented on the proposal that he does not see attempts to find a compromise.
  • But above all, all I can see here is Molobo’s Polish POV against German POV of his opponents... - I can see several misconceptions here. My POV is not German one, I am a proud Pole. My position was to work on formulations that take into account different POVs. It is obvious as ABC that from some point of view this kind of work may look as German POV when the edits concern things connected with Germany and as Russian POV when the edits concern things connected with Russia. My position was to find a solution which was acceptable to all (with the accuracy that is mentioned in WP:NPOV). That's it.
  • As far as the evidence goes, I cannot see a good compromise proposed either. - Me too. Unfortunately, after you disappeared, all the compromise formulations in the case of Pawelka were proposed either by me or by Nightbeast. None by Molobo, even though he was explicitely asked to do so [102]. That's the problem.
  • So my conclusion is, that, at least judging on the evidence brought, the RfC on Molobo shouldn’t have taken place. Instead of that, there should be request of mediation on the article. - I collected the links myself. I conciously limited the evidence to these articles, because I don't know much of the history of other ones and it is not a good idea to make people read too much as the points tend to be less clear (nota bene the number of links in the evidence is rather above the average). I also wanted to present the issues in a manner which is as much not explicit wrt. quotations as possible not to make the page drastic. If you have a dobut concerning any particular issue in the evidence I can provide more explanations (as I did for instance answering Molobo's defence above), but I need a particular hint on what's your doubt. As you can see, there are contributors who worked on different articles and they endorsed my summary, in particular Pádraic MacUidhir and R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) so the problem is more serious than you seem to suggest. This means that it is not only the matter of doing the mediation in one article. If your concern is that the decision to file this RfC was made lightly then I can answer it on demand with edits certifying other attempts to resolve the problems along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Alx-pl D 23:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Alx, please, let’s make it clear. You requested for comments, and I gave you mine. If you don’t like it, I’m sorry, it’s my comment. I understand your point of view, but mine differs. Also, all I write here is my opinion. I don’t tell any universal truths, and never claimed otherwise. One of the main things where our views differ is our understanding of NPOV policy. I disagree with your interpretation, that’s why I think that what you proposed wasn’t a compromise at all, and that you’re not more willing to reach a compromise than Molobo is. If I participated in the discussion which you presented as failed, I would strongly defend the original sentence, and the only direction in which I would agree to change it, would be adding German sources to it. Not hiding it beneath different things, or erasing it at all, what I would see as an attempt to violate the NPOV policy. That’s my view, and I know you disagree. I believe that you show a lot of good faith. Surely more than Molobo does. But I think that sticking to facts is more important than good intentions when it comes to encyclopaedic articles. Thus, I think that Molobo’s attitude to the article was better than yours, even though your attitude to the discussion was better than his.
I agree with you that incivility of others doesn’t excuse ours, but sometimes incivility or arrogance is so discouraging that we avoid participating in discussions at all. And it may be the main reason for which Molobo didn’t answer. Since he presented sources and his opponents still didn’t want to agree to put it in the article, what more arguments he could have brought? You wanted to show us that Molobo’s conduct is not always perfect, and we all admitted it, but also, we all pointed out that there are problems on the other side too, and you don’t want to see it. It’s fine with me, but it was you who requested for comments. So don’t be surprised when you receive them.
I don’t justify Molobo’s behaviour, but I also cannot be blind for behaviour of his opponents. Some comments left or linked from here as the evidence of struggle to resolve other disputes, sound very alarming to me. And although I’m sure that all the editors involved believed they acted in good faith, I cannot but see a lot of arrogance in their posts. And if I were in Molobo’s shoes, I not only wouldn’t be able to answer as calmly as he did, but I would probably turn off my computer for a week. You wrote in the description of the request that a.o. you ask community for new ideas how to “reach consensus for the content of the articles in which Molobo is involved,” and many people said that both parties are fallible here. Also, all the three polices that you listed as applicable to Molobo’s conduct, can be applied to the opposite party (not necessarily to yourself, but Molobo didn’t contribute with you only). So the half of the problem still remains. Even if Molobo comes back now, changed and all politeness, you still will not be able to reach a consensus, unless you can see the other half.
I won’t comment on anything else to abide your request and do not drag the discussion anymore, with which I entirely agree.--SylwiaS | talk 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on #Outside view by Marskell

Although I don't endorse the entire summary (which generalized a single example into a rule), in the given example it is clear that Molobo has overreacted and accused Marskell of 'xenophobia' and 'personal attacks'. On the other hand - as far as I can tell - Marskell did not reply to Molobo's comments about sources, and both users pursued a pointless flamewar. Conclusion: Molobo should think twice (or more) before making such accusations, and his discutants should try to ignore his personal attacks and reply to his more useful comments. Yes, I know it is hard to ignore such comments, and yes, in this case Molobo acted worse then Marskell - but he was not the only side that could have behaved better. Consensus must be achieved by *both* sides, you know.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, there is one problem I can see. I tried to ignore his personal attacks one way or another for months and tried to respond to his points instead to his emotions. But practically every effort to try to make what the differences were and to find a common solution was destroyed in one way or another by Molobo and resulted in another bunch of more or less personal comments. I presented only one strong case above with Rudi Pawelka. I could present several cases like the one with the presence of "anti-Polonism" in Polish dictionaries and encyclopediae above (I can make the case of Polish dictionaries more clear presenting the whole issue, but only on demand as it requires time to collect links). It is really not the case that Molobo did something wrong in one case by accident. I did not see efforts on his side to write for the enemy POV, although I tried to write on his POV (maybe not enough). Every proposal to make his own account of things and discuss this account was left silent or was answered with putting back an original much discussed version straight into the article page. He also used emotional rhetoric on everyday basis. This is my problem with him. I decided to post this RFC, because I really started to lose my confidence that wikipedia community can handle this case on the basis of a normal discussion. Alx-pl D 09:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What precisely could have been done differently there? It wasn't pointless in the sense that content was at issue. I offered a compromise and Molobo picked it apart without offering anything in return. I will grant that exasperation can lead to sarcasm in comments with him and a lot of breath was needlessly wasted, but I made a point there, defended it, and tried to offer a way forward. And it's not just there. I picked that example because it directly involved just the two of us but a glance at the archives on that talk page (and I'm sure others) is absolutely replete with Molobo having problems with nearly every person who tries to contribute--Alx's point about Rudi W. being a particularly obvious example. Marskell 21:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on #Outside view by Piotrus

There is one more thing I'd like to say after reading Piotrus' view. I agree that no one likes talking about unpleasant topics referring to their countries. Nonetheless, we still have to talk about them, and it should be done in a civil and calm manner. Please, go to articles like Massacre in Jedwabne, History of the Jews in Poland (the discrimination parts esp. before WWII and after 1989), or Operation Wisła. None of the topics is pleasant to Polish editors, still many Polish editors contribute to them. You won’t find there similar problems to those that occurred in Anti-Polonism article. Somehow, I don’t know how, it became a Polish-German thing. I cannot remember there similar problems with Ukrainian or Russian editors. Therefore, I really think that the problem with the article is much deeper than just Molobo’s contributions. Moreover, although I agree that we all have our POVs, my own experience with Molobo doesn’t allow me to believe that he’s an extremely strong, nationalistic POV pusher. Recently I had a problem with an anon editor contributing to articles about Operation Wisła on English, Polish and German Wiki. The editor is a nationalistic Polish POV pusher. A long and heated discussion followed, and Molobo’s reaction was bringing to me an article about a monument raised in Poland to memorise Ukrainian civil victims of Polish Home Army in Pawłokoma. For those who don’t know, Pawłokoma was one of worst Polish war crimes. It’s not the way nationalistic POV pushers act, is it? I really think that all the parties involved in Anti-Polonism article should calm their emotions and focus on the meritum of the article, which, I underline, is Anti-Polonism and related incidents, not Polish-German relationship.--SylwiaS | talk 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, this reminds me. Sylwia, you left this note on Molobo's talk page on 7 December: "Właściwie, to chyba się przerzucił na komentowanie tego artykułu od Ciebie[103]. [...] --SylwiaS 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)" Just to clarify, does this mean that Molobo is "Autor:jm19" from this forum? Thank you in advance for clearing this up. --Thorsten1 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: Sylwia, I am really sorry about that mess with the signature, which you cleaned up quite radically. I think it was fairly obvious, even without assuming any good faith, that I did not intend to "sign the post with your name", and a two weeks old timestamp: After all, it would not make much sense to address you by name first, ask you a question and then pretend you were asking yourself. Also, it is evident from the version history who posted this and when. I was simply editing too hastily and never noticed that your old signature from the part I was quoting had ended up where my new one should have been. Please accept my apologies for this confusing technical lapse. Now that this is (hopefully) sorted out, could you reassure my hope that Molobo and the author of the Gazeta Wyborcza forum post "jm19" are not the same person? --Thorsten1 13:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. I didn’t want to sign it for you, I think it’s understood, so I thought that it’s better to remove it. Of course, this comment wasn’t posted by Molobo, and I hope you don’t think so. Alleging it without any proof might look like a personal attack.--SylwiaS | talk 13:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks your clarifying this. I was a bit confused because you told Molobo that "to chyba się przerzucił na komentowanie tego artykułu od Ciebie" ("he seems to have switched to commenting this article of yours") and added a link to the forum post. This was at least ambiguous and could have meant that Molobo was the author of the post. You may want to provide a link to Molobo's actual post if you think it could serve as mitigating circumstance. --Thorsten1 14:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it seems I have no choice. However, I don’t really understand why you thought that I might have addressed Molobo as ‘you’ and ‘he’ in the same sentence on his own talk page. Here’s Molobo’s comment on my talk page:
Maybe it would be nice to add information from this article on modern events between Poles and Ukrainians. --Molobo 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[104]. The link he gave is not active anymore, but it linked to this article. You may also check it by clicking “Przeczytaj komentowany artykuł” (Read commented article) on the web site which I linked to in my comment to Molobo.--SylwiaS | talk 15:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I had read the article before. "I don’t really understand why you thought that I might have addressed Molobo as ‘you’ and ‘he’ in the same sentence on his own talk page." I did not say that I thought you did. The sentence suddenly appeared as an isolated part of a larger conversation, so I had no idea what the context was, and no clue who "he" was and what "he" had been doing. I simply wasn't sure what to make of the "tego artykułu od Ciebie" ("this article of yours/from you") with the forum-post link immediately attached.
I showed this to two other Polish speakers, and both immediately understood it as meaning that the person you addressed was indeed the author of the forum post you linked to, independently of each other and without any knowledge of the background. So it seems that, even on a strictly linguistic level, my question was not as absurd as you make out after all.
As for the political level, I would say that the difference between the POVs expressed by "jm19" in the Gazeta Wyborcza forum and Molobo here on Wikipedia is rather one of degree (fortunately) than of kind (unfortunately). Overall, thanks for giving us the full story, but I really do not see how the way Molobo commented on this, or the fact that he mentioned this article at all, is supposed to demonstrate that Molobo is not a "nationalistic Polish POV pusher". At best, it shows that there are even worse POV pushers out there than he is. But that is not really a valid argument in an RfC. Mimo wszystko, życzę Wesołych Świąt. :-) --Thorsten1 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL I guess that's what happens when someone overhears a fragment of conversation :) Happy Christmas!--SylwiaS | talk 15:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that I will face trying to prove that I am not camel. However I do feel that nobody should hide any misgivings of any nations, and certainly Poles beheaved badly towards Ukrainians in history.I also added information on attempts by both Poles and Ukrainians to reach forgivness for past misdeeds and reconcile with each other.[105]

--Molobo 15:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Molobo_9165.html"