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: 11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
{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.}
(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.)
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)
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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 ~~~~):
-- Molobo 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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). Halibu tt 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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: 11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
{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.}
(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.)
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)
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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 ~~~~):
-- Molobo 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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 ~~~~):
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 ~~~~):
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). Halibu tt 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)