Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Molobo

Is this RfC valid?

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC:

• For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

• A user RfC is part of the dispute resolution process. Its purpose is to help you to resolve the conflict.

• RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you. The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

There are User:Alx-pl and User:Thorsten1 signed under the evidence. Are we going to be shown that User:Thorsten1 tried and failed to resolve the Pawelka dispute with Molobo, or we may delete the RfC?--SylwiaS | talk 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This RfC is not just about "the Pawelka dispute", but about Molobo's overall POV-pushing behaviour, which many editors have considered a problem for months. As you know well (or could easily find out), I have been discussing this with Molobo many times. The "Pawelka dispute" is just the tip of the iceberg; Alx-pl could have chosen from dozens of similar cases. I suppose he chose the Pawelka case because it shows Molobo's disruptive editing and discussion style in a nutshell. Dismissing the RfC as "invalid" because there was only one person to enter a debate about a person as obscure as Pawelka is ridiculously transparent. [refactored by Alx-pl, --Thorsten1 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]] --Thorsten1 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I am really short of time at the moment, so I apologize in advance for any delays in replying, --Thorsten1 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that RfC is a part of Wikipedia policy, and as such should be observed by all parties involved equally. It’s bad enough that you have singed yourself under the evidence. But well, in case you don’t understand it, you cannot demand that it will be used to your advantage only because you feel that you are better than Molobo. If you want the policy to be applied to Molobo, you cannot violate it on your own. If you disagree with the policy, you should rather try to change it before acting against it. I hope Alx-pl will ask for deletion of the RfC. BTW I didn't comment on the validity of this RfC earlier, I simply asked, so your comment was rather misplaced. I am not surprised however, you were keen to share your opinion about me long time ago.--SylwiaS | talk 01:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Aranda56 moved the RFC to the section with approved RfCs. I asked him some time ago to clarify that. Alx-pl D 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SylwiaS: I really have no clue what exactly you are accusing me of. Which "policy" are you referring to? "It’s bad enough that you have singed yourself under the evidence." Why is that "bad"? I was involved in many of the discussions with Molobo listed as evidence, on article talk pages, my talk page as well as his own talk page (although he tends to remove everything I post there). Molobo's behaviour in discussions on Anti-Polonism, Erwin Rommel, Wisława Szymborska, Partia Demokratyczna - demokraci.pl is cited as evidence for this RfC. I was actively involved in all of these and more, and I witnessed first-hand Molobo's stupendous unwillingness to accept any wording other than his very own, even though initially I naively went to great lengths to reach a compromise: Just have a look at our protracted exchange on Roman Giertych and Talk:Roman Giertych, where he complained about the "homosexual lobby" and insisted that the quotes around it be removed etc. ...

With very few exceptions, I have been passively following all other disputes cited as evidence, too. I see absolutely no reason why I should not certify the basis for the dispute as presented by Alx-pl. Or is there any rule that says that in order to certify it one must have been actively involved in every single skirmish with the accused user? If so, yes, I confess I did not care enough to comment on Molobo's opinion of Pawelski. Mea culpa!

"But well, in case you don’t understand it, you cannot demand that it will be used to your advantage only because you feel that you are better than Molobo." Do I feel I am "better than Molobo"? This strikes me as an odd question. All I would commit to is that the overwhelming majority of editors are less blatantly political and less confrontational than Molobo, and that I think this majority includes yours truly. Of course, you are entitled to disagree with this.

"If you want the policy to be applied to Molobo, you cannot violate it on your own. If you disagree with the policy, you should rather try to change it before acting against it." I would, if I only knew which policy you are referring to.

"BTW I didn't comment on the validity of this RfC earlier, I simply asked, so your comment was rather misplaced." To be precise, you asked: "Are we going to be shown that User:Thorsten1 tried and failed to resolve the Pawelka dispute with Molobo, or we may delete the RfC?" As you could perfectly well establish on your own that I never "tried to resolve the Pawelka dispute", I think I was fully justified in reading your question as an inverted statement ("User:Thorsten1 did not try to resolve the Pawelka dispute with Molobo, so we may delete the RfC"). If this was not what you intended to say yesterday (even though you are saying it clearly today), please accept my apologies for assuming bad faith.

"I am not surprised however, you were keen to share your opinion about me long time ago."' Sylwia, let's be careful not to overestimate our importance for each other. I know far too little about you to form any opinion about you as a person, and I daresay it must be the same the other way round. --Thorsten1 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Might I also point out that when a dozen+ editors show up to endorse various aspects of an issue an RfC has proven that it was needed to begin with. This "thrown out on a technicality" argument is just the sort of talk flim-flam that frustrates so much with Molobo and his reactions here hardly reflect well on him. Here's a thought: how about Molobo address the accusations on this RfC and actually show a desire to improve his behaviour? Marskell 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, just read the rules of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC, I think they are clear enough. As to "I know far too little about you to form any opinion about you as a person, and I daresay it must be the same the other way round." I am very glad to hear it, I'm only sorry that you had voiced your opinion about me yet during my first weeks on Wiki. But I'm still glad to hear that you don't do it any more.--SylwiaS | talk 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is about Molobo, not about me. Nonetheless, I am, of course, prepared to apologize to you if I said anything rude. Before I do so, however, you should try and be a bit more specific instead of making vague allusions. My talk page is always available to you - I do not tend to delete unpleasant posts. --Thorsten1 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never stopped by an RfC that doesn't actually violate the letter of the rules to some degree, particularly "the same dispute with a single user." Don't miss the forest for the trees here: people have repeatedly tried to talk to Molobo and wound up regretting it. The idea that this should be discounted without confronting a mountain of legitimate criticism is senseless. Marskell 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have, and it seems that it is the main factor that must be fulfilled to have an RfC approved.--SylwiaS | talk 01:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Circles and circles I guess, but what is your suggestion? That fifteen odd people endorsing complaints should just be shut down? The Rudy W. thing is relatively specific but I have seen Ghost in the Machine, Nightbeast, Alx, myself etc. etc. attempt to reach compromises with Molobo on other issues to no avail. If anything, this RfC is long over-due and I'm suggesting that arguing technicalities rather than confronting issues (either Molobo himself or proxies) will do little to improve his standing if this moves further. Marskell 07:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ghirlandajo 10:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been discussing this with Molobo many times. Thorsten's one of first comments: [1]

Says he scented me right.

Further comments:

[2] as a student of journalism and communication you should be able to, actually. But wait, I forget that at your university (?) fides comes first, and ratio second... ;-) Accusess me of being part of movement made by extremist priest in Poland

Further comments: [3] do you ever read papers other than, say, Nasz Dziennik? Nasz Dziennik is an extremist newspaper.

Futher comments:

[4] Molobo, your opinions are so cliched and your arguments so utterly simple-minded that I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these days you turned out to be some clever Polonophobe's sock-puppert, created for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sheer backwoodsness of Polish editors... :D

Further comments:

[5] Śpij dobrze, biedactwo! Translation from Polish "sleep lightly poor thing".

Further comments:

[6] Over the last few days I have observed, with increasing concern, the doings of a new editor calling himself Molobo. Apart from being unable to write a single grammatical sentence, he seems to be ridden with every kind of "Ciemnogród" xenophobia you can think of;

And so on.This unfortunetly presents a typical reaction to any edits that the user disagrees with.I certainly apologise to anyone that feels badly about my edits, and I am willing to engage in discussion or apologise if I were wrong.However I would like to say that user Thorsten should first reflect on his style of wrtiting and types of discussion he engages in before talking out of position of authority on civil behaviour.

Also Indeed it seems that the RFC doesn't not fulfill the criteria required. --Molobo 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sylwia and Molobo, you are both misled regarding the objective of this RfC. It is titled "Request for comment/Molobo", not "Request for comment/Rudy Pawelka" for a reason. Alx-pl has listed several behavior problems commited by Molobo throughout a number of articles, not about the contents of a particular one, as you seem to assume. And, as Marskell has correctly pointed out, the largest number of participants have endorsed the view of such disruptive attitudes. Even Halibutt and Piotrus, who happen to be closer to his personal views due to their nationality, agree that he presents an attitude problem in which he must start working now. I personally hold the conviction that Molobo is a person of great intelligence, and I praise his will stated above to discuss and apologise. However, until I see this generally expressed will in action and take the step to actually apologise to those he has offended, I cannot happen but to be sceptical about his expressed intentions, based on his previous conduct and the fact that he has never recognised being wrong nor apologised before (to the best of my knowledge). Thus this RfC is perfectly valid and there is no way it should be deleted, unless the expressions of the vast majority don't count. Alexbulg 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexbulg, I am very glad that both you and Molobo seem to be ready to cooperate together. However, it doesn't change the fact that I am not misled regarding the objective of this RfC. If you read my post at the top of the page, you'll see that the rules referring to RfC/User Conduct (not RfC/article etc) say clearly that at least two people should try to resolve without success the same dispute with a user before he is brought to RfC. It doesn't mean that Molobo was right or wrong. It only means that this RfC was made too fast, before other means were undertaken. From the evidence it's clear that many people disagreed with Molobo on many things, but it's not clear that they sufficiently tried to resolve their problems before making the RfC. Also Thorsten1 signed himself as a user who tried to resolve the Pawelka dispute, which is not true.--SylwiaS | talk 00:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sylwia, note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Molobo#Description, which is supposed to state the definition of the RfC subject dispute, does not mention neither Rudi Pawelka nor any particular article. It is only the evidence section that refers to particular articles and formulation/content disputes which are different from the subject dispute. Alx-pl D 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Also Thorsten1 signed himself as a user who tried to resolve the Pawelka dispute, which is not true". I signed as a user who certifies Alx-pl's description of the case, having been actively involved in several of the cases he cited as evidence. I think I have made that perfectly clear here (first two paragraphs). In particular, I have never implied that I "tried to resolve the Pawelka dispute", as you claim. It is you who misinterprets "the dispute" as "the Pawelka dispute", when in fact it is a collective term for a large number of sub-disputes with Molobo, of which the Pawelka dispute is only one, just als Alx-pl explains above. You do not have to agree with my assessment of Molobo, but please stop misrepresenting what I say or do. This is unacceptable. --Thorsten1 13:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I’m not misinterpreting anything, I just read. Please, check what you have signed. There is:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (where the Pawelka case is cited as an evidence)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

And from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC:

Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours.

Marskell was signed there too, and he moved his signature [7], you should do the same if you endorse Alx-pl’s summary, but don’t claim that you were trying to resolve the Pawelka dispute.--SylwiaS | talk 15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to believe that your point is becoming more plausible by repeating it over and over again. You insist that this RfC is specifically about the "Pawelka dispute": "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (where the Pawelka case is cited as an evidence)". However, the case is cited as just one piece of evidence among many - as Alx-pl, the author of the RfC, has made perfectly clear above. It is not defining for the RfC, which is about Molobo's overall conduct.

One can only speculate that the reason why you are so stubbornly concentrating on the "Pawelka dispute" is that it constitutes a particularly marginal issue about an obscure person few people outside Poland have heard of, and thus allows you to deemphasize the amount of criticism that Molobo's contributions have provoked from editors from many different countries. Since he appeared, he has alienated dozens of editors in dozens of conflicts, although there is probably no one who was involved in every single of them. (I suppose that I am one of those who come close to this dubious ideal.) To demand that an editor who confirms the basis for a user-conduct RfC must have been involved in every single sub-issue is absurd and makes the whole concept of an RfC pointless. I have not bothered to count the incidents, but it may well be that I argued with Molobo even more often than the initiator of this RfC, Alx-pl, did. With all due modesty ;), if I am not entitled to support Alx-pl's painstaking effort, then no one is - which probably is what you have been driving at all the time...

As for Marskell, he has explicitly contradicted your interpretation of the RfC being strictly about the "Pawelka dispute", so it is either ignorant or intentionally unfair to present him as a key witness for your point now. --Thorsten1 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)