Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence/Molobo

Reasons why the list was attractive as base for discussion or why there is no atmosphere of friendliness and encyclopedic content writing
They are several reasons why the list was attractive as base for discussion which result from flaws of Wikipedia structure. The very structure provides no protection against incivility, persistent intimidation by other users, or constant attempts by single minded users to introduce Nazi or Nazi-influenced scholarship into wiki masquerading as reliable sources. Despite the claims that Wikipedia should be ran in a friendly and encyclopedic atmosphere almost nothing is done to create such a situation.

Incivility
For instance; using Nazi slur for Poles- „banditen” by Skappord against other editors. spricht schon Bände Corrected per Future Perfect at Sunrise translation as  you can't really blame them for it; they were indoctrinated like that right into the 1990s, so it's difficult for them to assume a neutral perspective"-even though several editors Skapperod is debating were not Poles, or not living in Poland during their education(for example they lived in USA or Canada).

Campaign of intimidation against users working on Nazi and Polish-German related articles
Skapperod constantly engaged in attempts to own Nazi and Polish-German related articles in attempting to silence other users with different views by constantly reporting them to admins:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Persistent edit warring on Polish articles
Example:

Skapperod made numerous reverts(>3R) day by day through May 6 till 25 in order to push a German nationalist version of the Polish name or to remove Polish names Despite this behavior he instead reported others (see above) for alleged violations of Wiki rules.

Disregard for community consensus to use Polish city's official sites as source on information about their history
Attempts at forum shopping:

Community consensus against supposed rejection of Polish sources: 

And second time: 

And third time: 

Ignoring the results: 

Introducing publications of Nazi Germany's Reich Ministry of Propaganda in 1934 as reliable source on Polish-German history
see thread Nazi Publication as source of information regarding Polish German history ?

Portraying Nazi Germany's propaganda as a reliable source on Wikipedia
[

Trying to ban scholarly research on Nazi atrocities in Poland from Wikipedia
After I wrote that most available research on Nazi atrocities in Poland comes from before 1989 (I write this in a page of a user Skapperod engaged in dispute and quickly reported to ANI), and expanded articles on Nazi atrocities using a 1987 book, Skapperod almost instantly started a topic on RS demanding Wikipedia-wide ban of all Polish publications published...before 1989 Take note that no objection was made by user Skapperod to use of Nazi propaganda publications earlier.

Removing information about the Nazi genocide
Skapperod’s removal of information that Nazi's committed genocide and mass murder



Concealing identity of right wing extremist author who wrote for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal ?
Here[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Possible_BLP_issue] Note words „A booksearch has not turned out any matches of the subject's name and right-wing exremism”

Follow up research by others revealed books and publications showing that the person in question published in Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal, and is mentioned as a far-right-wing activist.

Describing people supportive of former Nazi regime and responsible for ethnic cleansing theory as „respectable historians”


The list includes, for example, Werner Conze, who advocated "dejewification" of territory occupied by Nazi Germany and its colonization by Germans

Conclusion
“Assume good faith” does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. I can understand one mistake where a Nazi influenced research was given as source, but when this happens several times, when information about Nazi genocide and repression is being removed, when author writing  for major Holocaust Denial magazine is portrayed as a reliable historian-I can't assume AGF anymore. Unfortunately the present atmosphere of Wikipedia is such that one can't oppose this in a way that will not lead to intimidation of the person reporting it. If civility and reliable resources were to be enforced on Wikipedia then I would not considered the list as typical. As above samples of much wider behavior show, editors are intimidated and insulted and defend themselves constantly rather then write content

Encouraging content creation, discouraging edit warring and wiki-lawyering
I advised editors to engage in content writing and expansion of articles. In the real archived emails you will find a sentence that I can freely quote:

''One advice I have to offer is that discussing, wiki-lawyering leads to immense stress-it's way more satisfying to create content ! For example I did go away from wiki to library and wrote article based on books, only then returned.''

Providing a pool of experts for source gathering
The list provided a number of scholarly experts on various subjects who could be called on to look for sources. There were requests for sources, which were answered. In all cases this happened without the problem of the discussion being derailed by somebody being incivil or pointing to some discussion on AE in attempt to silence the user.

Providing a watch for vandalism
The list provided an opportunity to watch for vandalism such as attempts to introduce Nazi propaganda literature into article about causes of World War 2: 

Desire to write content rather then take part in constant disputes on Wikipedia's non-article pages
I am not good at Wikipedia politics. Let’s be honest here and speak openly; a lot of things on Wiki depend on social skills and ability to present your case. I am an expert on history and books, not on people. It is easy to attack me in a way that I don't know how to respond to. I would feel a lot better if Civility on Wiki would be respected and a lot more time could be spent on articles rather then administrative pages.

Conclusion
Administrators should look at long term consequences of any sanctions, and the essential effects the list had - positive. It was an attempt (and parts of the emails will show that clearly) as an effort to write a better, well sourced Wikipedia articles that would be NPOV. If Radek will give me permission I will quote his emails about need to focus on that. Was anybody banned due to the actions of this group ? Was any Wikipedia article hurt by its actions ? Was there a problem with incredible amount of propaganda being pushed in certain areas of Wikipedia? Who supported reliable modern accepted sources, rather then publications of Nazi Germany, for example ?

Update
While I did notify other users about edits which I viewed as harming Wikipedia's content, I do not recall calling for outright reverts, I did call for content creation as means to ensure NPOV.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex statement about my alleged involvement against Russavia
I am surprised that Alex in his statement denouncing the alleged hunt for Russavia mentioned me as the most active. I hardly mentioned Russavia at all, besides one email that I know of, which was made after I noticed he was banned. I am left to wonder why Alex decided to portray me as one involved in the Russavia's ban at all. I do understand that my name draws attention to certain editors, and one off-wiki forum I noticed commented that this was probably done simply to draw attention to the case

Alex's claim of alleged stalking of Russavia and “1500 mails about Russiavia”
To be honest I didn't even know much about Russavia before this case opened. I noted he was in disagreement with some editors, generally uncivil and I informed others when he was banned. But I never engaged in any kind of stalking or hunting him down as alleged by Alex. Also to me the only kind of “conflict” with an editor is both concerned with content creation and solved by content creation. I never proposed any “dirty tricks” on the list towards normal contributors-I always urged content creation and expansion of articles as a way with dealing with POV edits. My criticism was in regards to Nazi resources and blanking of information.

Regarding to canvassing and vote stocking allegations
As I understand canvassing and vote stocking requires editors of uniform view with friendly relation to each other. As the evidence in real archive will show there was no uniform view and not only members disagreed with each other on several topics, but there were sometimes insults flying around between members of the list which required moderation :)

Despite Skapperod's claim, I am not blocked at Commons nor ever was
I am not blocked at commons. So Skapperod's allegation that Radek proxied for me there is simply both untrue and simply irresponsible

Regarding contact with other editors
None of the editors EVER proxied for me. From the beginning every editor that I was in contact with made a statement that they would always review any source or information I would provide and change it so that he can truthfully say he can stand by their edits. Any glimpse into the REAL archive will show that not only was this the standard procedure but also I also insisted that any changes and reviews would be made. Can Skapperod's show us what damage was done by actions he alleges?

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Piotrus sourcing an article about Nazi politician
I provided online, available sources to editors. After a review Piotrus decided to include them in an article. I noted that now the template for an unsourced article probably isn't needed. That’s all.

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Jacurek's expansion of an article about a Nazi activist responsible for plans of ethnic cleansing
I provided available sources from the internet to the list, and included some text for review by the list members. A discussion followed, after which editors discussed the article for several days and then decided to expand it with resources with any changes they saw fit.

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Radeks expansion of legal definitions of post-1945 international law
I warned several times fellow editors not to engage in edits on that article due to heavy pov fighting and disruption that goes on there. However I also noted that I am willing to provide any sources and information that might be interesting. Radek used one of them after the usual review and making of changes which he saw fit.

Regarding Skapperod's accusation that Tymek introduced other description of poster then user Matthead's
This was an insertion of an image uploaded by Matthead with his own POV commentary. It was presented as original description, included in the source, by Skapperod and others. I pointed out the origin of the description and lack of source.

Throughout the debate Skapperod's claimed the description by Matthead was original, tag teaming with Herkus Monte to reinsert the false information

The "commons description" was created by Matthead and was not the real description of the picture as was claimed by Skapperod's and his tag team.

Skapperod's accusation against reverts of a long known IP vandal (most likely Helga Jonat-banned user by Jimbo Wales at 2002 )
The edits of this IP vandal are nothing new, he started with the same bizarre and non-sourced extreme POV claims several years ago and is for all likelihood the proxy of H Jonat-a banned user from 2002 with the similar views and  editing style. This IP vandal has been active for years but due to changing number of his IP nothing was done to stop him as he can't be traced. They are numerous examples of reverting his edits by users also from outside the list, so it had little to do with his treatment.

Kołobrzeg
I noted that several edits of Skapperod's concealed deletion of material on Polish history. I provided sources for editors to consider and sent them over for review and to have them make any article based on them as they see fit.

During the discussion I noticed that Skapperod repeats his claim that Polish cities official websites can't be used as source on information on those cities, despite several discussion's where the community disagreed with him after he tried to remove Polish sources from articles about those cities:.
 * 
 * 
 * 

Responce to Future Perfect at Sunrise
I logged to Wikipedia yesterday to see what's going on and to edit some of the text I entered. No less then six hours later Future Perfect at Sunrise posts how I falsify evidence based on the fact that I didn't immedietelyedit what he demands on my talk page. Perhaps he should be willing to give others time to review what was posted and respond in timely manner ? This kind of agressive and incivil behaviour is what damages Wikipedia.For the record I am reviewing the information he provided along with dozens of others. I do not concentrate my life only on Wiki so it will take time before I respond to everything.--Molobo (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I responded as requested.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
I think that in all case of "coordinated warring" admins will find out that the "edit war" actually was improvement of the article-with new references and expanded information. Sometimes this included pointing out or removal of Nazi or Nazi-influenced information. What damage was done to Wikipedia by those actions I ask. Can anybody point some articles harmed by mentioned activities ?Molobo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Responce to new statement by Skapperod/allegations that my posts are fake
I don't think discussing how to properly write a RfC is against the rules. And since nothing ever came out of it it had no consequences. As to claim that it was fake ? What exactly was ? Diffs which I sent in email for review are easy to check, none of them are faked. True I misinterpreted German die Bande with the word Banditen(and I apologise, but think that explainable mistake), but that doesn't change the context of the sentence which according to Future Perfect at Sunrise claims other editors are you can't really blame them for it; they were indoctrinated like that right into the 1990s, so it's difficult for them to assume a neutral perspective"-something that seems an incivility to me.

Giving links to his own statements about others as evidence
''In the Piotrus2 Arbcom case, Molobo had badmouthed me and another user in a similar way with out-of-context "Nazi" quotes. The faked nature was revealed in the course of the case eg here and here.'' I am surprised by this action and hope admins notice that in this case Skapperod has given links to his own statements as...evidence that he is saying the truth. The other link is a statement by other user engaging in similiar edits as Skapperod and claiming WW2 started because Poland mass murdered thousands of Germans. I don't think that's a strong "evidence".

False claims of associating Skapporod with the Nazi
The claim that RFC was result of SPI against me is wrong, the proposed RFC and some action regarding Skapperod was debated earlier among fellow editors(I don't think it is against Wiki rules), due to long term problems with Skapperod's behaviour(non-RS pushing, and ownership of articles to forward a one sided view, as well as blanking of information about Polish history in Polish-Germany history articles )

If Skapperod feels he is wrongly associated with Nazis, then I believe end to pushing forward Nazi imagery, or Nazi based information and sticking to Reliable Sources would be the solution. Note that Wikipedians not being members of the list were also critical of using Nazi source[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#InputIf the above description of this work is true, and I have not seen anyone challenge that, then this source is clearly not reliable for describing Polish German history. Certainly, better, neutral sources can be found for this subject. Antelan 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Trying to follow the long arguments above has given me a headache, but I will say this: Nazi propaganda is of absolutely no use as a source, either on its own or to corroborate other sources, except as a source of what Nazi propaganda says. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)].] Also any reading of the mailing list will indicate Skapperod was not seen as Nazi.

Example of said behaviour-pushing forward Nazi imagery
Here Skapperod attempted to push forward Nazi propaganda image and title as accurate description of events in 1939, and repeated attempts to remove information about Nazi origins of the image 

Conclusion by third party: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bundesarchiv_image_captionsI was going to post a rebuttal to Skäpperöd's strange WP:SYNTHESIS conclusions, but Molobo sums it up quite nicely. They're just captions. They aren't necessarily reliable for anything other than that somebody wrote those captions. Those don't prove facts, and certainly they do not proove propaganda. We need real sources for any of these.DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)]

Attempting to claim that the Nazi picture shouldn't be described as Nazi because it is stored by Bundesarchiv [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloody_Sunday_%281939%29&diff=prev&oldid=259500140''Bundesarchiv and Bundesarchiv caption however is not a product of Nazi Germany. You find the the caption given by the Bundesarchiv (not by the Nazis)'']

Despite the fact that the Archive quite clearly states: Federal Archive describes pictures - where available - with the original text

I am certain that without such behaviour Skapperod won't have to worry about being associated with Nazis. Not that I do-time and time again, I have reasserted that he represents different then Nazi ideological outlook.

Claim that Skapperod files complaints due to harrasment were rejected by Wiki administration
After several examples of Skapperod filling AE and ANI reports to people he was engaged in content disputes his demands were rejected with a warning to stop using AE as way to push forward content  ''This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. Sandstein 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)''

Skapperod's going against Gdanzig rule, despite claims of supporting it
Despite Skapperod's claims that he respects Gdanzig rule, he actually largely ignores it, for example years before German rule Germanised versions of Polish names are used: 

Also note that while the rule writes:For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, throughout the articles of Pomerania, majority of names are given by Skapperod in Germanised form, ignoring the pre-German period(in the article alone, 9 mentions of Germanised name of Kolobrzeg are used rather then one for example). Also Skapperod actually claims there is no period where those locations were not sharing German history, which is why probably every mention of Polish city is followed by giving it a Germanised name in his articles(if Polish name is used at all-even before German rule). A clear violations of the rule, he claims he was protecting by numerous s reverts a day in the article mentioned. However Skapperod himself claimed completely other rule when reverting stating "I wish I was a bot" when adding Germanised version of the name to the article.

Actually admins should look at the community consensus patricipants as Skapperod asked
Regarding Skapperod's attempt to ban official information from Polish cities on their history in wikipedia's articles on those cities: They will find that people opposing Skapperod were in fact not part of the list, and even included German users. For example: user Knepflerle for example ''Wrong again - you are repeatedly missing a very fundamental point of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Sources are not rarely "unreliable" or "reliable" per se. They are unreliable or reliable for providing a given piece of information. Read WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts very carefully. Is this website a reliable source for the history of the village? Well, it's hard to say without much more knowledge of the writers and historical methodology followed. However, is it a reliable source for how the town's administration have chosen for their town's history to be portrayed in a public forum? Undoubtedly. The fact that your historian's views differ from those that the town publically associate with itself is notable and begs questions. We're not here to comment on the merit of these views, we're here to report notable views and who holds them. Tell the reader what each source says and who says it. Knepflerle (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)''

Also Radek who rejected Skapperod's proposal also during another of several attempts by Skapperod to push this forth, was not on the mailing list at the time IIRC.

Nazi source data used by Skapperod and difference between showing Nazi data as Nazi data rather then as a non-attributed fact
Despite Skapperod's claim, the data didn't "turn not to be a Nazi information". It actually was based on Nazi census made in 1939 on occupied Polish territories. As to Skapperod claim that I introduced Nazi information. Sure I did-by directly attributing it as Nazi census, rather then presenting the results of it as fact without attribution. I think that's an obvious difference between writing for example "On German territories taken from Poland there lived 4 milion Germans and 1 milion Poles" and "After Nazi annexation of Polish territories Nazis made a census according to which the population counted 4 milion Germans"(just an example of difference that I am presenting).

Removing data about Nazi genocide and atrocities
This removal of whole chapters regarding nature of Nazi atrocities and genocide as well as expansion of information wasn't done in reaction to SPA.

As to Skapperod's statement "he wasn't aware he uses Nazi source"
I can only ask-how can one use a source not reading it ? Did the date didn't invoke any suscipition of the conditions of publishing. Did the publisher being Reich Ministry of Propaganda didn't evoke any second thoughts ? Did the defence of Hitler of the book, sentences of how Germans are superior culture to others in Europe didn't seem to indicate non-RS ?It was published in 1933. Its title is longer and translated as History of robbed German territories. Poles and Balts in their war against German people. Which has obvious bias and indicates POV. Didn't several statements praising Nazi movement seem wrong ? Several racist statements against Poles for example on page 25 like "Poles hate Germans because Germans are good workers and disciplined while Poles are culturally inferior and unable to create anything" ? The fact that page 93 calls Poles barbaric ? Or that on other page the region of Poland is called "more German then Polish" or that on page 273 the author states that Nazis want peace with neighbours of Germany ? Or that on page 279 the author states that Nazis thanks to determination found a way to end suffering of Germany ?

And if Skapperod wasn't unaware then how does he read his sources ? And of course he was completely aware he was defending Nazi imagery in other places, Heinz Nawratil-a far right historian elsewhere, and so on.

As to accusations of being called a Nazi-simple read of the mailing archive and statements here will show otherwise
Since Arbcom reads the mailing archive it will be clear that nobody called Skapperod a Nazi, nor did he here. It will be clear that Skapperod was described as highly biased German editor with pro-nationalistic German bias but not a Nazi, and it is quite clearly stated that one doesn't have to be Nazi to have such views. In fact this was stated earlier but time and time again is used by Skapperod as certain procedure to present himself as victim.

Nobody described Nawratil as Nazi
Re "Concealing identity..."'': calling a living lawyer a Nazi in mainspace w/o RS backing that up is a no-go, and I was not the only one who thought so 

Nobody called Nawratil Nazi:I wrote Concealing identity of right wing extremist writing for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal ? Note the manipulation of what I actually wrote. Nobody described Nawratil as Nazi before as well, despite Skapperod's claims. That is an easy to check falsehood. Also the BLP noticeboard agreed with his description being sourced as far right despite Skapperod's claims, just click on the link''Ok. It looks to me like there's clearly enough sourcing to label him a right-wing extremist. I don't know if there is enough sourcing at this point to label him a holocaust denier. It may make more sense for now to just quote him directly JoshuaZ (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC))]. Note that far right and revisionist does not mean Nazi, there are many ideological movements and people that do not have to be Nazi despite being far right or revisionist.

Nobody hijacked Skapperod's account to write about Conze as one respectable historians among other things and "trap him"
Nobody hijacked Skapperod's account to write about Conze as one respectable historians, Nawratil as respectable lawyer, book from Nazi Germany praising Hitler as reliable source, or defend Nazi imagery titles. Skapperod is doing it on his own. If he would use neutral and RS sources he would not be conflict with several editors on Wikipedia, non only including members of the list. There would be no "trap" to speak of if Skapperod would not over and over again tried to present non-RS sources are reliable and extremists as respectable authors(the the latest attempt that was discovered involves using as source an author crticised by his own University as biased and polonophobic --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Skapperod as a Nazi
I don't see Skapperod a Nazi. I consider his edits more in line with outlook of nationalist conservatism in Germany, biased towards Polish, Czech history, but quite openly condeming Holocaust of Jews. That doesn't change the widespread insistance of of using Nazi or nationalist sources in description of Polish-German history and tendency to own articles in order to remove any information not fitting the "German-only" POV. Note that the mentioned Nisko Plan, does have its own particular problems such asclaiming that Nazis first sought terrritorial resolution of "Jewish problem"(which is incorrect in view of Jewish massacres of 1939 war), or giving undue weight to revisionist theories, while describing Jewish Ghetto as "Jewish quarter". But I never had any issues with Skapperod writing about Holocaust-his edits regarding Polish history are problematic. Skapperod has repeatedly tried to claim that he is attacked as Nazi, but that has been time and time again denouced by people he was in content dispute with, he really should stop it. And of course, if he would stop using such non-RS sources there wouldn't be any problem.

On Deacon/Calgacus
Since my comment on desysoping Deacon was mentioned, I believe a larger context must be presented.

Deacon is the same user known as Calgacus who in the past was in conflict with Polish editors and used insults in discussions such as:
 * contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them
 * calling Polish spelling in Wikipedia Polish nationalist masturbation

those events and conflict with Polish users were not discussed during his adminship bid due to name change later(people didn't knew that Calgacus didn't leave but changed his name to Deacon). Once I realised I considered it unfair due to his ongoing conflicts. I believe people could have reacted differently to his admin bid knowing his histroy of conflict and remarks he made. I proposed asking for review using this information.

I am of belief that it would be right thing to do, as of now Deacon is openly considering Wikipedia as battleground and using insults against others: in any case I'm tired of battling eastern European nationalists and the moronic admins who help them

All of the above links are workable and can be checked.