Talk:Gustl Mollath

Awesome
Thanks Übungsblatt-hakase :3 & 141.22.12.124 :) --92.194.2.225 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"That guy"
You want to translate that German fraud into english. Well go ahead then. The truth about the Hypo Vereinsbank and Hypo Real Estate cannot be disguised for very very long any more. --87.160.225.63 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sampler with further links
- links to early findings of further web research results, the link is leading to a dated version of the de.wikipedia.org article discussion just for the case this article paragraph is missing in one of the later versions

- “Legal Scandal in Germany – Whistleblower Imprisoned in Forensics Since Seven Years” - this link to a text entry in English is quite fresh according to search results showing up, it seems to have been published yesterday (at least, according to a search engine)

- [http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/nach-zwangsunterbringung-in-psychiatrie-bayerische-staatsregierung-reagiert-im-fall-mollath-1.1534477 Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), November 27th, 2012, article in German. "Bayerische Staatsregierung reagiert im Fall Mollath", an article by Mike Szymanski and Olaf Przybilla]. Translation of the title: "Bavarian government reacts in the Mollath case" (it's not easy to translate the Staatsregierung, because Bavaria is a so-called "Freistaat" ("Free State of Bavaria"), but to be honest, it's just simply a Land, a Bundesland in Germany. So, it's called "Staatsregierung" in the title, but it refers to a "Land" in Germany, not to a state as it would look like if the words would be translated verbatim) - anyway, Mr. Horst Seehofer from the Bavarian CSU (there is only one CSU, the Bavarian, it's a poltical party, conservative) got active in the case. There might be reasons to observe the results attentively and with due scepticism, since Horst Seehofer is famous as one of the formerly very eager defendants of Guttenberg.

- regarding reactions on the political arena: the Bavarian Pirates decided on November 21st, 2012 to vote for a dismissal of the current Justice Minister in Bavaria, Beate Merk: "Die Mitglieder der Piratenpartei Bayern wünschen sich den Rücktritt von Justizministerin Dr. Beate Merk, dies hat eine Befragung der Mitglieder mit Hilfe der Liquid-Democracy-Software PirateFeedback ergeben." - "The members of the Pirate Party Bavaria call for a resignation of the Justice Minister Dr. Beate Merk, this is the result of a survey processed with the Liquid-Democracy-Software PirateFeedback." - "call for"/"wünschen sich" is not easy to translate, since verbatim would be that they "wish" her to step down, but it's actually a call for a resignation. - an early voice who raised attention at the case Mollath in the Pirate Party Bavaria was Patrick Linnert on November, 15th - Germans were commenting the current development since November 23rd with sentences like "Pirates finally woke up, Greens (Green Party in Germany) and SPD are still in snooze modus and the Left (die Linke in Germany) is sleeping the sleep of the just" (links to the proof can be given, it would be some twitter tweets with a number of retweets) - 2 Pirates visited him on Nov 27th, they write about this visit here

- currently [Nov 27th], a certain comment on a regional newspaper website is getting attention online, hinting at the very high probability of this case having a wider range than just Bavaria

- if anyone absolutely needs to see the Springer medium article [in the WELT], then ok, it's this here, nov 26th

- on November 27th, Heribert Prantl writes in the SZ about the implications of the "Paragraph 63" for the German law §63 StGb (StGB stands for "Strafgesetzbuch", the german criminal code)

- telepolis/heise.de on Nov 28th writes that Greens and SPD are blocking the installation of an investigation committee in the Bavarian parliament. The Freie Wähler (a party in Bavaria, "Free Voters") have presented an assessment by a lawyer from Hamburg that is mentioning, that "dass Mollath in seiner Strafanzeige jedoch nicht nur die Namen und Adressen von 39 Zeugen und tatverdächtigen Anlegern nennt. Hinzu kommen Firmennamen und Decknamen von Schwarzgeldkonten." - "that Mollath mentioned in his filed charges not only the names and addresses of 39 witnesses and suspect investors. Moreover, there are names of companies and code names of black money bank accounts." The Freie Wähler want an "Untersuchungsausschuss" [investigation committe], but they need enough voices for that and according to the article, SPD and Greens behave surprising.

- this was published on Nov 22nd - Augsburger Allgemeine - a lawyer is now filing charges, too: a lawyer filed charges in Munich. The lawyer's office confirmed an article in the Suddeutsche Zeitung about that. He filed in the BY prosecution dept. Munich - unlawful detention, groundless suspicion and assumed further illegal activities, charges directed against all personnel involved in this detention case.

- according to the newspaper "tagesspiegel" on Nov 28th 2012, Beate Merk sees even now still no reasons to rethink her position about this detention case

- the guardian reports about the case on November 28th, 2012: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/gustl-mollath-hsv-claims-fraud German man locked up over HVB bank allegations may have been telling truth. Gustl Mollath was put in a psychiatric unit for claiming his wife was involved in money-laundering at the Bavarian bank. But seven years on evidence has emerged that could set him free] - by Kate Connolly

- '''Nov 29th. 2012' (the day after the HypoVereinsbank raid, see chapter below.'') - among many other media reporting today (there is for example a more readable TS/Tagesspiegel article today, can be linked later) - among many others, the Handelsblatt published an article about the case - HypoVereinsbank: „Whistleblower in der Klapse, Bankster unbehelligt“ and there is a Süddeutsche article that will need to be built into the main article, some lines will have to be quoted, since the case develops now. It's this one: Süddeutsche Zeitung: Mollath wäre unter Auflagen zu neuem Gutachten bereit - and there are some news from the Landtag. nordbayern.de, today, according to the page it was published at 3pm CET Fall Mollath: Landtag verlangt Aufklärung (also for the article)

- superfresh right now (nov 30th) - also needed for the article: Süddeutsche Zeitung: Reaktionen auf Fall Mollath - "Herrn Mollath und Frau Merk umgehend entlassen" - a summarize of readers' reactions

and [http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/gustl-mollath-merk-will-fall-mollath-komplett-neu-aufrollen-1.1537990 Gustl Mollath - Merk will Fall Mollath komplett neu aufrollen. Gericht überprüft Mollaths Richter] (Süddeutsche, also nov 30th) - quoting (on the same day, Freitag, Nov 30th) the following article of the Nürnberger Nachrichten, visible on nordbayern.de, also Nov 30th: Ein Anruf bei Finanzbehörden stoppte brisanten Vorgang - quotation from that one: ''"Wie Behördenkreise gegenüber unserer Zeitung berichteten, dauerte es keine drei, vier Wochen, bis die Finanzbeamten das mehrseitige Material abhakten und sich nicht mehr weiter damit beschäftigten. Das habe einen besonderen Grund gehabt, sagen intime Kenner dieser Vorgänge. Es habe einen eindeutigen Anruf aus der Justiz gegeben. Der Mann, also Gustl Mollath, sei nicht klar bei Verstand. Man müsse ihn nicht sonderlich ernst nehmen. Und so geschah es auch. ... In den genannten Behördenkreisen wird der heute pensionierte Richter Otto Brixner als jener Anrufer genannt. Er war es, der Gustl Mollath dann zwei Jahre später aufgrund eines entsprechenden Gutachtens in die Psychiatrie einwies, wo der Nürnberger bis heute sitzt. Während der Verhandlung 2006 hatte Brixner dem damaligen Angeklagten Mollath zum Teil lautstark und drohend verboten, sich über die Schwarzgeld-Geschichte weiter auszulassen."'' - the fact about the loud shouting judge, shouting in the court at Mollath to finally shut up about these black monies, was a topic in a SZ article linked above, too - there are witnesses. And now it is revealed that this judge called the tax authority and advised them not to take Mollath seriously. So, the investigation by the tax authority was closed quickly, too - in 2004. The tax authority is where Mollath's charges landed after they were ignored and laid ad acta by the Bavarian prosecution department in 2003.

(last highlighted media coverage from Nov 30th 2012) from a number of media reports, taking just 2 last ones, (update: ok, 3) to be built into the article: Bayrischer Rundfunk/ARD.de: Fall Gustl Mollath Justizministerin reagiert auf Druck (BR loses contents really quickly, so it will be needed to observe this one and maybe quote and link it when it's clear this one really will be archived) - tagesschau/ARD Bayerns Justizministerin reagiert auf Druck - Fall Mollath wird neu aufgerollt (hm... so far, did not observe links to the tagesschau break, just sometimes the page looks different when you revisit later due to contents, links to further reports added, can be quoted and linked) - and SPIEGEL Fall Gustl Mollath - Gefangen in weiß-blauem Filz (article by Conny Neumann)

--Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

HypoVereinsbank raided on Nov 28th, media reporting on Nov 29th
alright, now the news are rushing in:

- Nov 29th, 2012, 9:15am CET The tagesschau/ARD reports about a "Großrazzia" (big razzia) in the HypoVereinsbank - in the headquarter in Munich and in 12 further buildings.

- Nov 29th, 2012: The SZ article quoted by the tagesschau: SZ: Schlag gegen die HypoVereinsbank

which is also quoted by the SPIEGEL, same day:

- SPIEGEL: Fahnder durchsuchen HypoVereinsbank

plus:

Reuters -- taz -- Frankfurter Rundschau -- derStandard (Austria) -- ... and of course many more.

-

Süddeutsche one day after the media rush re HVB-raid: Nach Razzia bei der Hypo-Vereinsbank: Die Spur führt in die Schweiz (Nov 30th, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions
Question to wikipedia: does a cathegory "Whistleblower cases" already exist? It should be there, actually. Together with a number of cases that one could think of in this moment. Is there such a cathegory already? If yes, could it be moved there by somebody having the authorization to do that? My trial to find a fitting 3rd cathegory ended up with a bot note in the article history asking whether I am a human being. Think I am, but one that is obviously not yet allowed to click a button but was not informed about that in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahoy User:Zwozwölf1121-3, I just heard about Mollath the first time today from a Facebook posting, and find the situation very interesting. Thank you for putting so much effort into spreading the word to the English wikipedia. You mentioned German wikipedia would autoblock someone if they quoted someone saying "I'll fuck him up"? But there is the situation with the youtube link in the English wikipedia... Have you tried using something like youtu.be? I'm pretty certain an article like this would have been marked for speedy deletion on the German wikipedia before anyone had much chance of filling out the article, so I hope this one will turn into a good one. As for a translation of "Ich mach den fertig", said by somebody in an angry mood, and meaning to neutralize somebody, "I'll fuck his shit up" is a bit too strong, and "I'll mess him up" is maybe a bit weak. 128.237.250.34 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * the link that the bot reverted was a link to a recording from the Bayr. Landtag, Dec 2011. it was there in order to give the source for the time statement in the article sentence. there was and still is no issue with links like that in the German wikipedia, so I was a bit confused when I saw the bot note. yes, let's hope this article can develop further. of course, the other source links will also be format aligned in the next time, as soon as there is some time for it between the news.

but coming back to the youtube question... Germans will start in 2013 to pay 18 EUR per month [currently this is 23 USD p.m.] for the public news network ("Neuer Rundfunkbeitrag"), it will be a payment now regardless of whatever - everybody, meaning now indeed every single household. for some people, this is some money and it still is not absolutely sure whether they will finally have some archive platforms that will make direct linking on pages like wikipedia possible. currently, only some contents land on the "mediathek" (you could translate it as something like "mediadesk") server spaces. lots of contents are sometimes regarded as "news of yesterday, so irrelevant" (an occupational disease in the media, I think). sometimes it is needed to link to an alternative link that has a chance not to turn to a broken link so fast. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gustl-mollath-und-die-hypovereinsbank-weggeraeumt-und-stillgestellt-a-868445.html claims the person who wrote the affidavit was a friend of his ex-wife. The comments in "youtube hbOz5HQWQoM" mention that he is a dentist who was a friend to both of them. 128.237.250.34 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * he is interviewed in the mentioned report mainz (there are two interviews linked in the article, or should be, hope they both still are. one is an interview with Beate Merk, linking to the full version and the 2nd one is to a report about the case itself. the report about the case contains also an interview with the person who signed the affidavit. he is introduced in min. 1:00ff, a friend of the former couple. the affidavit is the topic in min 5:55ff. you will find it when following the link in the External Links section. The quotation itself, for the former wife's sentence referenced in the article (that was quoted in sev. newspapers also), is mentioned in the report in min. 2:40ff. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Article not an orphan anymore
The article is not an orphan anymore, fresh news today about the big raid in 13 buildings of the HypoVereinsbank added here (the HypoVereinsbank article) - (and here's the link to the archive version in case something unexpected happens to the HypoVereinsbank article). Who could delete the orphan article note from the article? Am I allowed to do that or will the bot say no?

He should be also added to this list, but this can be done only by somebody being more experienced with wiki editing than me. No idea how to use the form yet. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scandalous behavior of German WP editors protecting the criminal actions of Beate Merk
Several edits trying to purvey the truth about this f..ing criminal and corrupt bitch were reverted by German WP Gestapo wankers. You are asking for donations for WP, which is protecting this unbearable person? My f..ing ass!!! WP is a useless piece of %§&/%§!!!!
 * this topic is now, which is definitely a positive development, widely discussed in the media. So of course, there are many sides now, on de.wiki too, interested in beding this topic into their own desired direction. The most sad part currently is, I'd say, the fact that the article seems to repeat the structural motive of the judgment/sentence 2006 - in order to declare charges referring to black money transfers as nebulous talking by a confused person, you need to make him a confused person. Best way to do so is to highlight personal details that are able to distract from topics that might be dangerous for the people involved in those transfers. Only a detailed investigation will be able to show how many persons who were in fact involved in the transfer cases as clients of the former Mrs. Mollath or the cooperating HVB bank personnel were also involved in the case itself. There is for example a Dr. Wörthmüller who was the director of the forensic dept. in a clinic (Europakanal) - 2004 - and whom the court (judge Brixner) ordered an assessment from. Dr. W. takes three long months to finally decide that there is a conflict of interest, a friend of him being a client of the former Mrs. Mollath. You can find these details on the chronology of the supporters web page, here is just a snap shot of a discussion about that, taken in a time when this part of the dicussion was spotted. Since even on the article discussion page of the german wiki deletings were observed for some time, this snapshot was taken.

In general - well... the German wiki is currently known in the press as a page having some difficulties, indeed (see taz1 and taz2 as an example - there is a paywall on the taz page that you can close when you click on "Nein, jetzt nicht"). Not absolutely sure how the current issues can be solved there, but I spotted in the comments under the taz1 article linked above two direct links that make a bit nervious. It seems indeed that the German wiki currently has a tendency to have no issues with developing to a private Genealogy page for the military nobility. And I think the person who wrote the comment is right - t.h.i.s. personnel really does have own servers for detailed Genealogy pages. And the German history has issues enough with installing assumed thousand years old military history, which is probably what the comment "von Cach bis Cäsar - könnte ein paar Server mehr kosten" seems to be hinting at, but it's just how I read it. On the other hand, I have observed articles about (multi-)cultural topics vanishing so fast that you could think the administrators really invented the time machine already. But - it's just a private view, based on what I have observed and read online.


 * Her name is Merk (not to be confused with Merkel), I typo-edited your paragaph title line now.

--Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

'''Germany has no guaranteed freedom of speech. As we all did in the case of info about China, for example, help spread truth and information without German censorship everyone, please.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.44.251 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * thats not correct. we do have the 5th article in our GG (Grundgesetz, our german Constitution-Substitute (actually it was supposed to be replaced by a real constitution as soon as germany would have been reunited)), prohibiting censorship. But reality sometimes differs. The main problem here isn't german law (not even german courts, though they do play a role in the case as a whole): its german wikipedia. I've gone through this: there are some serious censors active there, especially left wing activists, so to speak, erasing all the lines they dont like, killing of all accounts that do "promote" unwanted views (I was practically called a nazi (what basically 'allowed' them to strip me of all rights of free speech - just like calling someone a 'communist' in McCarthy's America), because I wanted to clear up the definition of "xenophobie" (xenophobia) for its false derivation!). German Wikipedia is heavily bugged with those fascists! (yes: fascists! - theres no better way to describe those inhumane dishonest violent tactics!)
 * Btw: the start of this english article does seem a little onesided, too, giving way too much room for the assumption, that mollath was rightefully put into psychiatry...
 * but the statement "Germany has no guaranteed freedom of speech", is just bullshit! - inform yourself/dont spread lies, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.124.187 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: stop the rumor mill
(re section above here) Please stop the rumor mill, will you? - As far as I can see it, the quarrel on the talk page of de.WP was about violations of de:WP:BIO (WP:BLP) which by policy and for legal reasons warrant immediate deletion without further discussion. Nothing obscure about that. - And one thing more: contributors on de.WP first had to rebut a request for deletion of the article, put a lot of work into it and are now working on the improvement of quality issues. --46.115.87.108 (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the article discussion page will definitely be better off if we keep it to the topic [discussion of the article on en.wiki) - however, just to reply in a few short words - the history of the article on de.wiki began with a fight for its very own existence. As far as I was able to recollect the information, there was a first de. article about Mollath deleted before the current article showed up. The current article again also quickly received a deletion request. The person requesting deletion was not a registered user [request by an IP], the first reason mentioned was breach of privacy rights. This was quickly proven as wrong given the media coverage and the simple fact that Mollath is turning to the public himself incl. the disclosure of legal documents involved. However - the discussion about the deletion was still not stopped then - some wiki users then jumped in, claiming that the article/case is not relevant or that, since it is dealing with reactions by B. Merk, should not be on wikipedia because "wikipedia is not a place to fight political fights". There was a large majority of other users demanding the article to be kept and demanding an end of this discussion which they perceived as (quotation) "embarassing for wikipedia", so finally the deletion discussion [re the entire article...] was stopped. (The link to this deleting discussion should still be placed on de.wiki, on the article discussion page there, so you can freely check these statements.) Deletings on the article discussion page, on the other hand, included also links, like e.g. links to articles written by members of the Pirate party who started to care for this case from Nov 15th on.
 * Deletion of links to Pirate blogs: a case of "WP:BIO"? - Hardly. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting case. Terrible article full of bias and poor language that reads like a conspiracy activist homepage. To wit, there sure seems to be a scandal here... but wiki isn't the place to fight that battle. I have rewritten it for a neutral point of view and removed all the original research and off-tangents. In particular, this article isn't about Ms. Merk. Remember, wiki policy is to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage. Original research is against wiki policy. 80.187.103.29 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your rewrite. Now enWp has a much better article then deWP has.
 * (Since this is a complete rewrite, the older history may be cutted off.) --Itu (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cutting off history...". Thanks for reminding me, it's a long time since I read that book. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources and references for the paragraph "Turn in News", sentence starts with "The so-called "turn in news" is however..."
B. Lakotta replies to critical voices http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/spiegelblog/fall-gustl-mollath-beate-lakotta-ueber-die-zweifel-an-der-opferrolle-a-873836.html

She responded to: http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/fall-mollath-alles-nur-heise-luft.html

http://blog.delegibus.com/2012/12/14/fall-mollath-wenn-die-welle-des-journalismus-bricht/

Her article was also critisized in http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/8/153373

Her reply to the 4 parts written by the retired chief prosecutor is awaited.

internet-law replied to her reply on http://www.internet-law.de/2012/12/spiegel-autorin-antwortet-auf-meinen-blogbeitrag-zum-fall-mollath.html

there is also carta.info: http://carta.info/51989/gustl-for-help-darf-man-den-fall-mollath-allein-der-justiz-uberlassen/

In the meantime, many media proceed with reporting, not really provoking readers to see a "turn" on the media landscape.

Like, for example http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38228/1.html

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/chronologie-zum-fall-mollath-schwierige-suche-nach-der-wahrheit-1.1542305

And others.

Asking for the clarification what the actual role of the following person is
Please see here - what actual role does this person have? I see vanishing information. --Guestreader (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of missing information in the article
Aside of the fact above, there are further - many - missing informations in this article... - I was not able to compare older versions if it always looked like this, but if you ask me: currently, this article resembles more a Swiss Cheese than a text. More missing (swiss cheese holes) than information.

Btw another one [of many] missing references:

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2012/12/03/la-banque-allemande-hypovereinsbank-soupconnee-de-fraude-fiscale_1799066_3234.html --Guestreader (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The complete German article is also a swiss cheese but it looks like a perfect article.--84.159.243.167 (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

20. and 22.12 SZ
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/verteidiger-im-wiederaufnahmeverfahren-rechtsanwalt-strate-vertritt-gustl-mollath-1.1555167 (another quote that is missing in the article although somebody already wrote an article sentence about it.)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/psychiater-im-fall-mollath-gutachten-aus-der-ferne-1.1557448 Title: "Gutachten aus der Ferne" (Przybilla vs. Lakotta) --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Turn in news reporting
What is this section all about? Fringe press comments, guessing, sensationalist news coverage, spindoctoring, background analysis - or what? And did that have any impact on public opinion or brought important developments to the case itself? - No test editing in articles, please (use your WP:sandbox instead). --46.115.53.63 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 major german newspapersarticles =/= "Fringe press comments".
 * Semi-protection now recommended, that may help to keep the conspiracybelievers with their "public opinion" away. --Itu (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Just could not make any sense at all of what this section says or wants to say. It's as simple as this, and that's all there is. Nothing about your (the editor's) intentions. So please clarify your information, provide good sources, and please don't misuse edit summaries for personal attacks. Maybe it came from heat and fervour, but it's not the polite way and it is against the rules. --46.115.53.63 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly IS the information?? - And I must say, after these reverts, calling me names and all the rest: That is NOT the way things ar done here, Herr Itu! --46.115.53.63 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Some home truth ...
There is some hidden text in the sourcecode of the article  . Absolutely no need for a thing like that. Usually the spirit of the english WP is cooperative and always WP:AGF. So nobody who can provide any important and meaningful information will be bullied away just like that (WP:BITE). And the working atmosphere is friendly and wellcoming. That is the advantage of people of a world language who are used to listen to people from everywhere around the world. (That fellow Albert Einstein had quite a heavy accent, didn't he?) There are lots of templates available for piecemeal improvements, like Template:Copy edit for this instance (and nothing to be ashamed for that).

When I started here, I was always very pleased to see someone else ironing out my minor glitches of style, spelling or whatever might have been the case. And when looking at it, I saw that my contributions and my expertise were well received, appreciated, and I saw it as a compliment. The english WP had formed me then and was my home base.

Now things have changed. I'd tried for some time during the recent days to instill that same good spirit to the german WP as well, but to no avail. They are too stubborn, too single-minded and basically too cynical. And I can't take that. It all ends up in quite a useless waste of time and effort.

This onesided attempt of a dialogue (right above here) was kind of a scientific experiment, that proves me right to quit WP for good. - Before, I had some hopes left, but the outcome is unambiguous, the evidence is irrefutable. --46.115.55.196 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

POV additions
User:Hans Haase, you are well known as the main author of the corresponding German article, and you are well known to have a completely biased view of the matter, the same as reflected in your German article. Please don't do the same with this article, which is already POV enough by calling Mollath a "whistleblower" (in fact, all that can be said objectively is that he is a psychiatric patient whose case is debated in the media, mainly in a political way). The sections you inserted share that bias by omitting important facts. For example, you don't mention a lawsuit which decided that it was illegal to fire Mollath's wife. --rtc (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No way! Mollath's wife was sacked within the affair. She was a part of unfaithful operations against the bank. Within the affair 3 laws were violated and the bank's internal work policies hurt. She was affected in the affair is known, only. There's no closer role known. But she has transfered money several times. When Mollath knows and named secret accounts, also collected receipts as well, these accounts have been opened. Where the money came from is no single word about.
 * The „false friend“ word „Whistleblower“ has a nearly different few in Germany where whistleblowing is poor covered by law due lobbyism. The result is death end of the whistleblower's career. Mollath's business did not achieve earnings covering the expenses. He was supported by his wife. So her income covered the expenses. --Hans Haase (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This lawsuit of Mollath's wife was against to fire her instantly, but her job ended. In Germany compensation payment for work over many years is not ununsual and enforcing a compensation by lawsuit is successful often. --Hans Haase (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your answer again confirms how obvious your bias really is. Please stay away from the article. Your edits are in conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Thanks. --rtc (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you are seizing the article only. You have removed facts like the primary source: The bank's review report no. 20546 as the very best document of the references. Simply this move shows your target of contribution. --Hans Haase (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for some narrow exceptions (which do not apply here), primary source material must not be used. It constitutes original research and is prone to synthesis, see also WP:PRIMARY. Further, this specific material is in conflict with the requirement that sources must be reliable, which internal company reports do not qualify as. --rtc (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Special Audit Report No. 20546 (de: "Sonderrevisionsbericht No. 20546") has been published by the TV Magainz Report Mainz on Germany Southwest Broadcast Südwestrundfunk (SWR) on their webpage together with the copy of the magazine's report video. This is a valid source. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (WP:PRIMARY) --rtc (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I refered a SECONDARY source. The Bank has created the report an gave it to the people from the TV magazine. So they have reviewed it by their TV report in the magazine and pubished it. This is not a blog. This is the Broadcast stations website. So we have a 2nd source: created by one and reviewed by others who did research in the case. The researchers have published it. So we meet the WP policies.
 * The WP:BLP is also not affected. Everything can be found in the newspapers. Mollath himself talks to the public to have them know the case and his situation. Simply read the German artice with a translator e.g. google. And if you don't trust, read the references with the translator. The German article is blocked for 2 weeks due WP:WAR. We have some lobbyism or involved editors who do not contribute, but just delete. I am not focusing on a special issue or point of view. I am just collecting the information in the article. Hans Haase (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You cite a primary source (an internal report of some bank) and draw your own conclusions from it. This is in conflict with WP:PRIMARY. It is completely irrelevant who leaked it and what website you took it from. The same is true for the fact that a TV magazine reviewed it before leaking it. That doesn't transform a primary into a secondary source. It would be okay to describe and cite the TV magazine's review. Do not make your own judgement on the primary source. I have been explaining this to you for weeks and can only suppose that you ignore it on purpose. The German Wiki article is blocked because you are edit-warring in quite the same manner as here. You fail to recognize Wikipedia's principles and policies, which state clearly that you possess no ownership of articles that you once created. --rtc (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the emergncy brake, too. So what would you do to come up with this information? The document is all but not wrong. I provides trustable information. --Hans Haase (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All has been said, no need to repeat. Comply with the policies, let other users edit, abstain from editwarring. --rtc (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no shortage of newspaper sources on this fellow, there are no need to use primary sources nor opinion pieces like blogs. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What kind of show you are putting on here. Everybody knows who user rtc really is and for whom he does work and is also paid. The case of Gustl Mollath is just the Top of the Iceberg belonging unbelievable things which have to do with far more than only plain whistleblowing. Everybody with an awakened mind is capable to see that in the argumentation of user rtc something big big big is lerking in the cupboards. So anyhow I am writing this down because they did try doing something like this with me as well. And it also happened in the so called BRD GmbH still beeing owned by France, America, Russia and England. And I sign with an open IP so that everybody is capable to see from which exact area that does come from. User rtc is only here for avoiding to get the article in a direction which is not wanted. It's not conspiracy or supremacy but he is one of the tools for the well prepared plan of a New World Order.--84.159.235.154 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha --DrLee (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhh a funny guy wanna take the mickey out of me. Very very funny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect --87.156.86.207 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Martha Mitchell effect
http://blacklistedwikii.e/index.php/Gustl_Mollath

I really think that it is necessary that the truth will arise on the horizon. But this truth does hurt.--87.156.89.58 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is close to WP:TF. First the Martha Mitchell effect in German popular knowledge is not very common. It may have occured cause the forensic psychiatrists had no or no official knowledge in Mollaths talk about money shifts was true. One of the psychiatrists denied to investigate Mollath and declared himself for biased. --Hans Haase (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really mean targeted flagging. English for de:WP:TF is WP:OR. Hans Adler 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath speaks and writes on his behalf
2011-12-20

Gustl Ferdinand Mollath Zur Zeit gegen meinen Willen im BKH Bayreuth, Nordring 2, 95445 Bayreuth

Zu Behauptungen von:

* Frau Staatsministerin Dr. Beate Merk (CSU) * Herrn Abgeordneten im Bayer. Landtag Jürgen Heike (CSU)

z. T. wiedergegeben in der Süddeutschen Zeitung

Richtigstellung:

1. Ich habe immer bestritten meine Frau mißhandelt zu haben.

2. In der Verhandlung am 08.08.2006, die zu meinem Freispruch führte, habe ich gesagt, daß ich mich gegen Angriffe meiner Frau gewehrt habe. Das heißt, ich habe mich vor Angriffen meiner Frau geschützt!

3. Auch eine Geiselnahme hat nie stattgefunden!

4. Warum hatte die Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg-Fürth die angeblichen Mißhandlungen erst mit einem Strafbefehl nicht höher als 1.000,– € ahnden wollen, um somit keine Klage vor Gericht erheben zu müssen? Als ich diesen Strafbefehl bekam, war ich entsetzt. Hätte ich den bezahlt, wäre es zwar zu keiner Gerichtsverhandlung gekommen, aber ich hätte wohl zugegeben, was ich gar nicht getan hatte! So bezahlte ich nicht. Daher kam es zu dem Gerichtsverfahren.

5. Meine Frau behauptete in ihrer Anzeige ich hätte Schußwaffen, obwohl ich nie welche hatte! Dazu gab es, ohne Vorwarnung, eine Hausdurchsuchung, im Februar 2003. Zwölf Polizeibeamte wühlten, von früh bis zum Nachmittag alles durcheinander. Selbst Wandverkleidungen wurden herausgerissen. Gefunden wurde nichts! Trotzdem blieb meine Frau glaubwürdig.

6. Die Anzeige machte meine damalige Ehefrau, zusammen mit ihrem Liebhaber, Herrn Martin Maske,[1] damals Direktor der Hypo Real Estate (HRE) bei den Justizbehörden in Berlin. Die HRE ist eine Abspaltung des Immobiliengeschäfts der HypoVereinsbank. Sie ist bis heute ein Finanzierer großer, auch staatlicher Bauprojekte.

7. Meine frühere Ehefrau Petra Mollath hat nach meiner Inhaftierung Herrn Martin Maske geheiratet und heißt nun Petra Maske.

8. Mir ist nichts geblieben! Nicht einmal die persönlichste Habe. Nicht einmal ein Bild meiner Mutter hat man mir gelassen.

In bald sechs Jahren Haft in diesen angeblichen Krankenhäusern habe ich Viele kennen gelernt:

* Mehrfachmörder * Kinderschänder * Kindermörder * Betrüger * Drogenhändler * selbst einen Nekrophilen (mißbraucht Leichen) mußte ich ertragen.

In sechs Jahren hab ich Keinen kennen gelernt, dem gar nichts blieb!

9. Um Aufklären zu können, wo meine Habe blieb, wandte ich mich mehrfach an den damaligen Innenminister Dr. Beckstein (CSU). Dieser antwortete nie. Ich bat den damaligen Landtagspräsidenten Alois Glück um Hilfe. Der gab die Sache an den Landtag weiter. Erst dann gab die Polizei, unter Dr. Beckstein, einige wenige Auskünfte.

10. Es deutet alles darauf hin, daß meine – dann schon lange von mir geschiedene Frau – illegal durch die Polizei geduldet, Zutritt zu meinem Haus erhielt und nicht nur weitere Beweise zu ihren strafbaren Tätigkeiten vernichtet hat, sondern gleich meine gänzliche Habe!

Alle meine Bitten um Hilfe, alle Anzeigen dazu, werden abgelehnt und eingestellt.

So ist nicht nur meine Gegenwart und Zukunft vernichtet, sondern auch meine Vergangenheit. Schlimmer noch, ich werde zu einem wahnsinnigen Monster gemacht.

Ich bitte um Unterstützung zu einem rechtsstaatlichen Wiederaufnahmeverfahren, wo die ganze Wahrheit an eine breite Öffentlichkeit kommt und am Ende ein objektives und gerechtes Urteil steht.

Vielen Dank.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

gez. Gustl Ferdinand Mollath

Quelle: http://www.gustl-for-help.de/gegendarstellung.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.243.68 (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC) --84.159.243.68 (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mollath a different way
http://www.blacklisteddatde-wp.de/index.php/Gustl_Mollath

Perhaps some people want to read something different about Mollath. Here you go. --87.156.86.199 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably this is why your non-notable link is not listed in de-wikipedia, where you are banned indef. --Izadso (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * and once again for Manfred: here you go and secondary your one-man-show-wiki is no source at all . Read it carefully. --Izadso (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Manfred Riebe wants his own wiki linked here. FYI: His site is on the spam-blacklist on de-wikipedia since october 2010 here. He is blocked indef in de-wiki. On his talkpage he does not respond, so I delete this link one more time. Next time I will report this as vandalism. --Izadso (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever serves you best.--84.159.243.167 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is WP:SPS, givin the case of Mollath a closer look, there's much false information. But, until Mollath the been released, there was a delay from 2012 to 2013. Within this time another illegal performed handling of baverian justice expired its statute of limitations. Mollath had lost his home. Germany is known for paying low, late or no indemnities. Mollath's indemnity might not cover his real losts and burden. Here's no real and verifyable information about due the Germany understanding of privacy. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Another person whos name was hidden in the news, declared to be sued for €250,000 due a ciation of one of Mollath writing. This understanding of privacy excluded the sued person from being listed the article. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gustl Mollath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130619170908/http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/kultur/index.jsp?rubrik=5676&key=standard_document_48342409 to http://www.hr-online.de/website/rubriken/kultur/index.jsp?rubrik=5676&key=standard_document_48342409
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411012005/http://www.gustl-for-help.de/download/2003-2005-Mollath-Dokumente.pdf to http://www.gustl-for-help.de/download/2003-2005-Mollath-Dokumente.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310070043/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-generalstaatsanwalt-nuernberg-100.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-generalstaatsanwalt-nuernberg-100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102214336/http://www.br.de/franken/inhalt/aktuelles-aus-franken/gustl-mollath-vorwuerfe-100.html to http://www.br.de/franken/inhalt/aktuelles-aus-franken/gustl-mollath-vorwuerfe-100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118030337/http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/kontrovers/121114-kontrovers-mollath-100.html to http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/kontrovers/121114-kontrovers-mollath-100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516123256/http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/abendschau/justiz-mollath-pschiatrie-100.html to http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/abendschau/justiz-mollath-pschiatrie-100.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202034045/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/gustl-mollath-justizministerium-102.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/gustl-mollath-justizministerium-102.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130002137/http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-vorwuerfe-staatsanwaltschaft-100.html to http://www.br.de/nachrichten/mittelfranken/mollath-vorwuerfe-staatsanwaltschaft-100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A vision for dealing with this topic
I'm a German but have my wiki-home here at the English Wikipedia. (27,000 edits since 2007; just back from a 4-year wiki break; never ran for admin because I didn't want confusing extra buttons – if I need an admin job done, I know how to ask). I am familiar enough with the German Wikipedia to know that there are significant cultural differences.

I also followed the Mollath affair very closely from when it first became publicly known until a year or so after Gustl Mollath was released. (Obviously there wasn't much public information at that point.) Of course I did not root for Otto Brixner. However, due to my (at least attempted) practice of WP:WFE on contentious articles, it may feel that way to some of you if/when this voice is otherwise underrepresented.

I can see that there is a lot of drama around this topic at the German Wikipedia. I would like to help that we don't get the same situation here.

Some things from the top of my head that will almost certainly be relevant and may be surprising to editors coming from the German Wikipedia:


 * It is not customary here to do large amounts of content work on the talk page. Especially for the biography of a living person this is highly problematic because it makes any violations of our WP:BLP policy very easy to find from the subject's article. The alternative is for one editor to make a subpage in their user space and invite the others to cooperate there.
 * If a person is notable only for one event, it is customary here to name and organise the article after the event, not the person. See WP:BLP1E. In the case of Gustl Mollath this rises the question whether this never-ending affair (as it felt at the time) should be considered a single event. I admit it may be a borderline case, but I tend towards thinking it is.
 * Much more clearly, the subject of the related article Otto Brixner does not seem to satisfy our general notability guideline WP:N. He certainly does not satisfy WP:JUDGE, and the only thing he is notable for is having convicted Gustl Mollath. This makes him a case of WP:BLP1E. In his case, we can see why this rule exists: Either we write excessive details about his career unrelated to the Mollath affair, possibly hard to source but in any case not very interesting to anyone. Or we don't, and the Mollath affair gets excessive weight in his biography.
 * The German articles already contain a lot of detail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every scrap of information that has been published anywhwere. I don't think it is excessive as it is right now, but it really shouldn't be much more. For English speakers the entire topic is generally of less interest, so they will be better served with a shorter account that people will actually read.
 * For the reasons stated, I think it would be best to merge the two articles Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner into a single article entitled "Gustl Mollath affair" or similar. This will also reduce the danger of anyone being accused of libeling Brixner – hopefully without having to tone things down unreasonably.
 * If things should go seriously wrong during work on this topic, please note that on the English Wikipedia, blocks are intended for persons, not accounts. If your account is blocked, you are not allowed to create a new one or edit while logged out, and if you already have a second account, you are not allowed to use it even for the most innocuous and uncontroversial edits. Let's hope that this will not become relevant, although given the topic this will probably require a lot of restraint from everyone.

I am prepared to help with getting a good and stable article (or articles) into the English Wikipedia, and to hopefully get it to Good Article status (see WP:GA). Here is why I think that's a good goal:


 * I think this is an interesting topic that deserves to be more widely known.
 * The goal of Good Article status tends to mitigate conflicts a little bit because both sides are part of a team that fights against the intricacies of the Good Article process.
 * The GA version is usually one that both sides are proud of. In case conflicts flare up later, it is a good version to revert back to while sorting things out.

OK, this was a big wall of text and probably quite unexpected. Now I'll try to shut up for a while to see what happens and give everyone a chance to be heard in this section. Hans Adler 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * thx for your commitment in this case. I fully agree to your suggestion. I think it will be important -as has been pointed out at deWP several times- to note, that it wasn't Brixner who sentenced Mollath buth a chamber of at least 4 judges. Brixner was only presiding this chamber but wasn't even the rapporteur who drafts the verdict. Anyway I think that the suggested article Gustl Mollath affair or something like that would be the best solution. Since I have not had any experience with the English language for years I do not feel capable to write such an article für enWP but I could give some advice and hints. --Domitius Ulpianus (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)