Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive237
Rusf10
edit| Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith in other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Rusf10edit
1.June 26 Asserts, without evidence, that a living person (David Cutler) " hates Donald Trump". Also asserts that the subject (Cutler) is "fringe theorist" because "he's a professor, he's liberal, he's worked in Democratic administration". Apparently being a liberal academic automatically makes you "fringe".
2.June 25 "Drmies, is under the false impression that everything published in an academic journal must be true which is really no more intelligent than saying "I read it on the internet, it must be true"" - appears to say that stuff published in academic journal is no better than "stuff found on the internet". Again, a pretty fundamental opposition to our policy on reliable sources. 3.June 26 " You don't have any intent to follow WP:NPOV, since its clear that you here to push a certain viewpoint, so don't lecture me on policies." - Attacks other editors and ascribes motivations to them rather than discussing content. 4.June 26 Doubles down on the "hates Trump" BLP violating claim because... he looked at the guys twitter which apparently has some criticism of Trump's policies. It should be obvious that being critical of some Trump policy is not the same thing as "hating" Trump. More minor (at least IMO) but still problematic
N/A Note: @Fish and karate: despite what User:Lionelt insinuates, I don't have a topic ban on Donald Trump. User:JFG is also incorrect that I am "restricted" from that article. The only thing here is that I told NeilN, after he asked, that I'd leave the article alone for a few days. Also I have not cast WP:ASPERSIONS against anyone. I presented diffs in an appropriate forum. If you don't find these convincing, that's fine. But it's not aspersions, it's dispute resolution. You should also look at the diffs provided by User:MrX below. Note: In this diff I am pointing out that just because there is the "standard disclaimer" on the piece ("does not represent the views of blah blah blah"), that does not make it an opinion piece. Lots of peer reviewed publications have these, it's just legal ass covering. And while Newsweek may call it "an opinion piece" I was objecting and still object to the proposition that this academic source is in any way comparable to "opinion pieces" published as editorials in newspapers and magazines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
For BLP For post 1932 American politics
Here is the broader discussion. Rusf10 appears to have a... strange, idea of how academia and academic publishing works. He also appears to be reflexively distrustful of academic and scholarly sources. Several users, including User:Drmies and User:Neutrality have tried reasoning with him and explaining to him how it works, but it fells on a bit of deaf ears.
Discussion concerning Rusf10editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rusf10editThis is a waste of everyone's time and should boomerang on Volunteer Marek just for bringing this here. Is he really trying to take me to AE because I said a professor "hates Trump"? Regardless of whether or not he truly hates him, its 100% he doesn't like him, so this request is really petty. What Volunteer Marek doesn't want you know is that I'm criticizing an opinion piece being used as a reliable source. I never said everything published in an academic journal is not reliable, but an opinion piece that has not been peer-reviewed with a disclaimer is probably not reliable. Any claim that 80,000 people are going to die should obviously be viewed with skepticism. And this edit came right after VM said "And again, your comment basically indicates that you have no intent of following Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (you dismiss academic and scholarly sources out of hand)." [2], so how is what I said any worse? The reset of the diffs VM provided are even more petty, so I'm not even going to respond to them. One thing is clear, VM doesn't like his views challenged.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: In that diff, I was trying to make the point that an opinion piece published anywhere (including a medical journal) is still an opinion piece. Perhaps I could have said it differently, but this came after Drmies attacked me. Here is his comment which I was referring to [7]. Being that he is an admin, I took that to be a threat. And now he has come here and piled on even more personal attacks. Look at the diffs I posted, Drmies behavior is clearly unacceptable for an admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Consider striking your response. First as reported by Bloomberg (last I checked, that's still a reliable source) "The essay, which was not a formal peer-reviewed study" [14]. Now either you're wrong or Bloomberg is wrong, which is it? It seems to me that you are the one who chooses to ignore reliable sources if they don't fit your POV.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fish and karate, NeilN, Masem, Vanamonde93, MastCell, GoldenRing, Awilley, TonyBallioni, Bishonen, and Black Kite: I'm sorry to ping everyone again, but I really want to know how any of you in good consensus are about to let USER:Drmies off scot-free when he continues to personally attack me. Statement by LionelteditCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't Volunteer Marek banned from the Trump article? – Lionel(talk) 08:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by JFGeditContent dispute, RfC in progress, nothing to see here. — JFG talk 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC) @Lionelt: VM is only restricted from editing the Donald Trump article. This thread is about Presidency of Donald Trump. — JFG talk 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC) To admins reviewing the case: it seemed to me that AE's goal is to discuss editor conduct, not litigate content disputes. But since the discussion has evolved into an analysis of the disputed source's validity, let's take a look. Most of the comments supporting the use of this source as a credible study lean on appeal to authority: "the authors are recognized experts", "Harvard is a serious university", "JAMA is a reputable journal". Yes, yes, and yes, that is not the issue. The fundamental problem that is still being debated at the ongoing RfC and at RS/N, is that some editors are conflating JAMA as a peer-reviewed journal and the JAMA Forum, which by their own disclaimer, is only a repository for opinion pieces.[18] Special congrats to the reporting editor here, Volunteer Marek, who first seemed blind to what JAMA stated,[19] then waved it away saying "it's just standard legal-ass-covering and nothing more",[20] and finally came here while the content dispute is still in full swing to get a dissenting editor sanctioned. OK, that's an opinion piece which should have some more weight than a random blog because of the reputation of the writers, however that is still not more than an opinion piece, a fact that should be taken into account according to our sourcing policies. Usage of this particular report is problematic due to the dire consequences predicted, pinned on speculation about long-term effects of the recent relaxing of various EPA regulations. On its face, the source sounds like political scaremongering, and this is probably why it has been so much disputed, both at Wikipedia and in secondary sources. In light of this controversy, I would find it particularly wrong-headed to heap sanctions on an editor who forcefully defends one view of this study, while excusing other editors who forcefully defend the other side. Civility is not great on either side of the debate, so that AE sanctions for this reason would also be unfair. Again, that is a content dispute, let it be resolved at the appropriate forums. — JFG talk 10:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOeditAs documented in the diffs VM provided, Rusf10 has openly explicitly and repeatedly denied core WP sourcing policies and gratuitously defamed living persons whose professional work was under discussion on the article talk page. This user has failed to respond to the pleadings of numerous editors who have explained this problem and why such behavior is unacceptable. This editor has already drained way too much time and attention, and despite all these good faith attempts to redirect Rusf10's behavior, he has chosen to continue and to escalate his rhetoric. This user has rejected core WP policies and Guidelines and should be TBANed from BLP and American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Rusf10's insipid rebuke of Drmies is all the confirmation we need to know that he is unwilling to abide by WP norms in these articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) @GoldenRing: The proposed article content stated the authors' finding as such and with attribution, not in WP's voice. These are notable scholars writing in the field of their expertise. Several times on the talk page it was pointed out, this would be valid article content even if it appeared in their self-published blog. Attempts to disparage the authors as "fringe" and WP editors as dishonest POV-pushers have nothing to do with any "content dispute". BTW, I also see similar over the top interpersonal interactions in this user's history in entirely different contexts. But at any rate, with the explicit Civility Sanction on the current article, there's not much question about his violations. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC) I'm puzzled as to why the only discussion among Admins now has narrowed to the detailed wording of a prospective warning when there were many Admins considering an indefinite TBAN. Even if the latter does not happen, there's a lot of daylight between that and a -- let's face it -- meaningless "warning". There's lots of disruptive behavior that might arguably be prevented by a warning. An explicit rejection of WP sourcing and content policy cannot be changed by a warning. (cannot be changed, that is, if we assume it was a good faith statement of Rusf10's understanding and belief and not a (blockable) bad faith gaming of the discussion thread. For the avoidance of doubt, I read it as the former. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC) @Rusf10: wrote, Statement by MrXeditAs evidenced by Volunteer Marek, Rusf10 is exhibiting consensus-inhibiting behaviors described in WP:GAMING, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP. Specifically, personal attacks, filibustering, ad hominems about academic sources and similar disparagement of living people, assumptions of bad faith.
A few of such comments could be dismissed as roughhousing, but the intensity and frequency have become disruptive. In fairness, I will say that Rusf10 has made a number of constructive comments at other article talk pages. Also, there is no basis whatsoever for sanctioning Volunteer Marek.- MrX 🖋 15:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DrmieseditI'm just baffled by some editors' opinions which betray a complete lack of knowledge of how science, publishing, and peer review works. That someone could think that an opinion piece in JAMA wouldn't be vetted is amazing to me, and that this would be equivalent to "something on the internet" is ... well. So in that sense, given that kind of lack of understanding, it may well be a good idea to ban them from sensitive areas. I just looked at all the opposes in the discussion, and one or two make the argument that it's UNDUE right now (User:Markbassett argued along those lines)--that's valid. What is different for this editor is not just the empty argument (they're not the only one) but also sort of nihilism which in the end undercuts RS, for starters. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlisheditVolunteer Marek says, 'I ... object to the proposition that this academic source is in any way comparable to "opinion pieces" published as editorials in newspapers and magazines.' I looked and it is not an academic work. It's an opinion piece by academics published in the section for those in a journal. Just go read it. It is absolutely, positively an op-ed, not a science paper. The fallacy "It's in JAMA ergo it's a high-quality piece of academic research" is the same fallacy as "It's in The New York Times so it must be high-quality, secondary journalism." Publications have more than one kind of material, and an op-ed is an op-ed, an ad is an ad, a book review is a book review, and an advice column is an advice column (hint: all primary, not secondary). That an opinion piece in JAMA was vetted is immaterial; it's still opinion. NYT op-eds are subject to editorial review, too. The problem is the nature and purpose of the work. It's the kind of thing we'd use as "According to an op-ed by [Whoever], ...", iff the quotee was eminent and quoting their view was relevant and WP:DUE. Unlike some well-researched NYT op-eds I've seen, this one does not provide citations for the potentially secondary factual claims it makes, so we can't really evaluate them. It may be high-quality, but it's still primary. Both editors at the center of this are generally constructive. I'm inclined to stay out of the inter-editorial personality clash (the more recent-ish range of the WP:ARBAP2 topic area is a cesspool). I noticed at ARCA today that ArbCom is saying "Either have AE deal with this case-by-case, or open ARBAP3", and some parties lean toward the latter. I'm not sure there's much point in AE hearing mini-cases like this in the interim, but that's up to you all. This ultimately boiling down to treating an op-ed as if it were secondary science sourcing can be addressed head-on, however. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of our sourcing policies and guidelines. It's not constructive to try to bend our policies to say what they don't and fire up a huge pissing contest in the process. Just follow the damned policies. I think this may relate to a blind spot among the WP:MEDRS crowd more than to ARPAP2. It's a guideline subject to near-total control by a handful of editors and never subjected to thorough examination by the community. There's a serious conflict with policy in it which I've tried to address several times, and it directly relates to this matter: a belief that primary sources (even press releases and position statements) by respected medical publishers transmogrify somehow into "ideal" secondary sourcing. In a post today [21] at WP:VPPOL in a thread largely about ARBAP2, I explicated this in some detail – starting at "Even MEDRS has an error in it in this regard ..."). Update: Moved to essay page: WP:FMSP#MEDRS. I think this is worth RfCing, because the problems it's causing are clearly spreading from medical articles to other topics like politics.
Statement by KingsindianeditThis is mostly a content dispute. I fail to see how this behaviour rises to the level of sanctions. Rusf10 responded to an RfC and argued about the inclusion (or not) of an analysis by David Cutler. I mostly see good-faith arguments on the talk page by Rusf10. There is little or no disruption. The purpose of an RfC is to invite comments by a broad cross-section of people. This will necessarily include badly argued or incorrect comments. Claiming that a person X "hates Trump" is not ideal and Rusf10 should refrain from saying that. However, it's rather a stretch to claim that this claim is a BLP violation. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPantsedit@GoldenRing:"Peer review", like almost every other jargon term, has two distinct meanings. The first is a formal system of review by properly credentialed experts prior to publication as an article in a scientific or scholarly journal, which usually occurs in a well-defined system, with rules and procedures. The second is that someone who knows what they're talking about read it and was okay with publishing it. This piece certainly meets the second definition, and I'll eat my shoe if anyone can prove otherwise. JAMA forums and the associated blog is not a Forbes site, where any popular enough writer can write about whatever they want. Hell, their about us page explicitly states that "we have assembled a team of leading scholars" to write the articles that appear therein, and I've yet to see an article on that site that isn't on a subject the author has immaculate credentials in. While these articles are subject to the usual disclaimers ("the opinions herein are those of the authors...," the same disclaimers that cover a huge swathe of our sources), JAMA clearly directed an effort to produce these articles. They were subject to editorial oversight. Let me reiterate that last, with some relevant details pointed out: They were subject to the editorial oversight of one of the most well-respected publishers of scientific literature in the world. To refer to that as "peer-reviewed" in an offhand way is unusual, but hardly without precedent, and not even close to unjustifiable. Hell, with the phrase "Let me just say that..." Drmies was explicitly laying that out as a heuristic; he wasn't saying "this article was peer reviewed" (which is defensibly true, as I just pointed out) but "you can think of this article as peer-reviewed, for all intents and purposes." In light of that, your comments about Drmies look like a failure to AGF at best, and a blatant personal attack at worst. I'm going to give you the same advice I frequently give to brand new editors, because it seems you need it: don't be afraid to ask for clarification if someone says something confusing or inexplicable. A strawman is a strawman, whether you built it on purpose or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by DlthewaveeditWe can certainly discuss the provenance of the source, and Rusf10 makes a reasonable point regarding peer review, but this is not how we discuss sources. Statement by Seraphim SystemeditI don't think the JAMA article is the greatest source for the statement Statement by Beyond My KeneditI'm old enough to have lived through several periods of strong partisan divisions in this country, and I recognize that we're living through one of them now, perhaps the deepest one in many decades, but is concerns me that a Wikipedia editor would believe that simply because someone worked in some capacity in a Presidential administration, that automatically makes that person a die-hard Democrat, or Republican, or a liberal, or a conservative, to the extent that it totally overwhelms the credentials that got them the position in the first place.Yes, there are political hacks in all administrations, and some have more than others, but exceedingly few people in this country ever get called upon to work for the White House, and it's disheartening to think that any Wikipedia editor would believe that simply because someone answered that call to duty, they automatically chucked their learning, knowledge, good sense or morality out the window and became a blind automaton enslaved by Party dicta. Possibly that does happen to some who didn;t start out that way, but it can't (and shouldn't) be assumed that it happens to everyone, or even most of them. Just as we evaluate every source for reliability, each instance should be taken on an individual basis, determined by what is known about the person and their qualifications.To reject the views of apparently well-qualified people simply because of the assumption of bad faith based on their service in a Presidential administration or the like is simply wrong and should have no part in any discussion here on Wikipedia, where we should be (but aren't, unfortunately) above that sort of thing.So, in my opinion, if anything needs to come from this, a warning to Rusf10 that that kind of behavior is not acceptable here is that thing. Whether their other behavior is worthy of sanctioning, I have no opinion on, not having parsed the evidence sufficiently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosepheditI echo everything Kingsindian said. I was hesitant to post anything, but I do feel that what KI said is what I wanted to say, among other stuff. I especially echo his part about Drmies' comment regarding Trumpers and about the "garbage" opinion, Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by PudeoeditSince the conduct of Drmies is being discussed as well, I was put off by his response to another editor with "I hear this all the time from gun nuts" at AR-15 style rifle (June 3 2018) Gun control is another topic covered by sanctions. GoldenRing is right here. --Pudeo (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Geogeneedit"Gun nut" is a frequently used colloquialism, not a pejorative. I also think that digging an entire month into Drmies' edit history, and then complaining about something they said in a completely separate DS area, is unseemly. Geogene (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Rusf10edit
|
Dan the Plumber
edit| WP:ANEW is the right venue but I will handle this. --NeilN talk to me 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dan the Plumberedit
I asked him to revert, User_talk:Dan_the_Plumber#1RR, but he replied that "RT is not a RS". (What I can see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it has been discussed many times, it looks as if it can be used with attribution.) Huldra (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dan the PlumbereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dan the PlumbereditIf I reverted some RT report it was because it was superfluous, and not necessary. Using RT on Syria related articles is a provocation really anyhow, and hardly innocently used. On Terrorist showing up , I want to state the Wikipedia Username policy that usernames that are provocative are meant to be prohibited. The following is s serious report. Terrorist, Huldra, and your ilk, look at this report, serious report, but you couldn't give a stuff could you. Yu'r more exrcised by this here 1RR report aren't you. Scary. Statement by ShrikeeditThis is not correct forum for this complain.Its not arbcom decision so there nothing to enforce.Shrike (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KeneditI agree with Shrike, but also wish to comment that RT is not a reliable source for much of anything, considering that it's a Russian propaganda outlet. Its use should be highly circumscribed - probably only to represent the official Russian government opinion on something, as it is not an independent source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by terrorist96editHe was warned 3 days ago here [23] Terrorist96 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Dan the Plumberedit
|
Icewhiz
edit| No action. Sandstein 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Icewhizedit
Discussion concerning IcewhizeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizeditIn regards to the diffs above:
Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KeneditIt's getting monotonous, I know, but I'm commenting to point out yet again the number of AE complaints that have been filed in the last few months over the Poland in WWII issue, indicating, yet again, that admins really need to step up their game and more aggressively police this subject area, which falls squarely under ARBEE. And, once again, I renew my suggestion that topic bans for the regular combatants on both sides of the dispute would be a good start. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlisheditConcur with BMK, and think some other editors' activities in the area need some examination. Virtually every time I run across a talk-page mention of Poland, it's about continued disputation over events leading up to, during, and shortly after WWII. It's as if the place did not exist outside this time frame. I get a lot of WP:FRS invites to RfCs, and Poland shows up strangely (too) frequently, always about the same stuff, and featuring too many of the same squabblers. I'm not an editor at these articles other than gnome stuff, and don't have an opinion on the pro/con this and that stuff (it really does look hard to research with certainty, and I don't have a background in it). So, I tried to moderate, for example, at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) from 2015–2017 (archives 4–6), and eventually just gave up. I've mostly stayed away for a year-ish, so any diffs I have are too old to be actionable. Just want to chime in that the perception of a .pl-related WP:ARBEE issue is not illusory. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianeditMost of the diffs above look like good-faith content disputes to me. I haven't edited in Poland-related matters, but I have some experience with Ukraine-related matters, where the same issue of "whether the Ukrainian famine was genocide" is debated (both by scholars and by Wikipedia). Calling something "genocide" is obviously a value judgement, and scholars often disagree. The case about Naliboki should be treated as a good-faith argument, imo. Thus, I feel that no sanctions are warranted here. I would like to, however, like to say to Icewhiz that comparing the Home Army to the Nazi party is a needlessly provocative statement, and is not anywhere near the scholarly consensus. There were segments of the Home Army which killed Jews, and some which collaborated with the Nazis, but the overall stance was neither of collaboration nor exterminationist anti-Semitism. For instance, Joseph Rothschild notes: I do not have any opinion about the broader matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzeditI, too, support what Beyond My Ken has written. I used to edit articles related to Polish-Jewish history, but the recent invasion and disruption of those articles by ideological editors -- led by Icewhiz -- has driven me away from the subject area (except for undoing what I consider the most egregious excesses in POV-pushing}. It's time to start thinking about topic banning the whole lot of them. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 08:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by PiotruseditI had no time to review the diffs here. My usual attitude is that bans or TBans are not a good solution, but it's not like anyone would listen to me. Recently two editors got TBanned from this, but this clearly had not helped. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as while one of those tbans seems reasonably sound (affecting an editor who has not to my knowledge contributed much content), the other targeted one of the more prolific content creators in this topic arena, author of numerous GAs and dozens of DYKs (see User_talk:Poeticbent#Unfair_topic_ban). So it's not only that (since last year or so) we have more disruptive and battleground minded editors running loose (people who were not active in this topic arena before, and it was much more stable and less prone to appearing at AE), since the last few weeks due to one of the worst AE calls in recent memory, one of the most constructive content creators is gone - so the ratio of flame/noise to good edits has IMHO significantly decreased. None of this, unfortunately, makes me think that an ArbCom will be any less random in their judgement as AE, I am just concurring that this topic arena is overdue for its 'what a random mole' game by AE's big brother. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by François RobereeditAh, the gang's all here... The analogy of AK to Nazi Germany was tasteless, but it's pretty clear Icewhiz didn't fabricate, falsify or misrepresent any of the sources; neither was he unduly inflammatory in stating there's a nationalist component to this debate, which is both common sense and something numerous authors wrote about. It's unfortunate that Molobo would choose to file an AE where there's no policy violation, and do so without challenge or warning. Regarding BMK's suggestion: As before, I support more active involvement by admins, and oppose mass bans. Mass bans are just indiscriminate punishment, and if that's what the "community" strives for, then it has lost its right to exist. A better course of action would be if some of the 500 or so active admins we have would just grow some balls (or ova, or whatever it is that gets Wiki admins going faster than a dead yeti). Want some good places to start? I opened this DRN following community guidelines, but some users refuse to participate. If any of them reverts an edit on the relevant page, smack them with a ban. Another? Two admins refused to enact sourcing restrictions on the entire topic area; why? Honest representation of sources is such a fundamental thing in academia, I can hardly think of a scholar who wouldn't get sanctioned if they didn't do so. Why not here? You'd rather dwell on these obtuse soaps-like ANI and AE sagas against individual editors, instead of enacting major (and needed) changes to how the community behaves. If all admins are willing to discuss are editor vs. editor conflicts, then editors will naturally focus on other editors rather than on content. If admins were willing to mediate content disputes, then editors would've naturally focused on content and argumentation rather than on other editors. Piotr laments PoeticBent's ban; PoeticBent was corrupted by the system, and by refusing to engage on a deeper level than "he stole my pencil, he took my icecream" you're encouraging the rest of the community to follow in his path. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC) @Ealdgyth: Your involvement is appreciated, not least because we need more unbiased editors on these articles. Your source review was useful, and will be followed up. François Robere (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by EaldgytheditI'm entirely too involved in the subject area to act as an admin, but it's getting beyond ridiculous in the topic area. After the last round at AE, I tried to bring the discussion around to the actual article content with Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Sourcing..., where I specifically stated I didn't want to discuss who added the problem bits - that we should just concentrate on the content. Others can judge how well that went by the replies. The article was full-protected right as I was spending a couple of hours going through all the sources, so in theory, everyone should have been forced to discuss on that article's talk page - instead it appears to have just moved to other pages with the same "discuss the other editors" behavior. This attempt at discussing sources was after a long discussion on my talk page at User talk:Ealdgyth#WP:AE which rapidly degenerated. I even tried to explain how the problems were being seen by outsiders here, but it doesn't seem to have registered or been heeded. There is entirely too much discussion of other editors going on, which fuels the acrimony and thus it becomes a never-ending cycle that just changes articles but never behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim SystemeditRegarding this [37] - no, it's not "Fringey", quite the opposite. The whole thing is Lebensraum. There are multiple sources that discuss Lebensraum as a genocide, including Bloxham's Oxford Handbook [38] so calling it the "polocaust" or otherwise refusing to get the point and work with editors is part of the problem. The debate is over the term "Holocaust", presumably, but conduct on both sides is far from stellar and as long as it continues it will drown out any hope of reaching a consensus through reasonable discussion about how to best accommodate this - a solution that would probably include clearly linking to and improving other articles instead of burying and minimizing. This is where the underlying problems become more apparent. Seraphim System (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NishidanieditThere are irrational components on both sides of this, of course. My impression is that Icewhiz is seen as spending a huge amount of time and effort (some of the materials he brings up are nonetheless cogent on specific points) singularly on Jews versus (other) Poles, and seems wholly insensitive to a general overview, i.e. that the Poles experienced a level of Nazi destruction unheralded in any other area occupied by Germany; that 6,000,000 died, of which, yes, 3,2 million were Jews; that Poland, compared to many other 'Slavic' countries, both resisted German claims, was invaded, fought back, was denied an administration, and Poles were subject to the death penalty if caught sleeping with Germans, that the Generalplan Ost for postwar implementation, foresaw the deportation, extermination or ethnic cleansing (Völkische Flurbereinigung) of Polish lands of 80-85% of Poles; that no SS Polish division was ever raised, unlike what happened in many other 'Slavic' countries. Polocaust/Polokaust like Pallywood is offensive contextually (one thinks of old German stereotypes of Poles as 'pissed as a fart' (polenvoll); or polnische Wirtschaft which has the same connotation as Avoda aravit(Arab labour) in modern Hebrew, etc.etc.etc. (See, to cite just one small study - the field is far more complex than what Icewhiz makes out - John Connelly, 'Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice,' Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1-33. Poles are justifiably extremely sensitive about these, as are Jews. It is understandable that in ethnic conflict articles, partisans of either ethnos see only their national perspective, but WP:NPOV apart, solid history is not written by conducting endless negotiations between maximalist positions. It's written with a cold eye to the overall picture, and a sympathetic eye for all victims of a tragedy. Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93editPosting here because since the last AE I've discovered some content interactions I had with IceWhiz, that were minor enough that I didn't remember them earlier. I flagged the first diff presented by MLoboaccount in the previous AE discussion. However, Icewhiz acknowledged the error in page numbering soon enough, and I see no reason to believe it was more than an honest mistake. The rest of this is mostly hot air: unless there's specific history I'm unaware of, I don't see that calling someone a "polophile" is a dreadful insult, though it's not ideal behavior. Similarly, I'm not seeing clear-cut evidence of source misrepresentation (and yes, I did read the screenshots that have been presented). Unless we're t-banning a bunch of editors (and that's a solution I've supported before, and may be okay with here), I don't see a need for sanctions in this case. Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer MarekeditI was planning on filing the following evidence in my own WP:AE report, particularly because it focuses on BLP violations. But since this is already open I'll post it here. Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons Notice of DS awareness: [39] Since he got involved in editing the topic area Icewhiz has made numerous BLP violations, in particular against living historians that disagree with his POV. The sequence of events in this regard always unfolds in the same way:
Here is the list of BLP violations and historians Icewhiz has attacked:
Icewhiz writes "One should also note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of (…) publications in Poland (…) and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (…) were accused of anti-Semitism." [40] Icewhiz falsely insinuate that a living subject, historian Dr. Krajewski has been “accused of anti-Semitism”. He provides a source [41] which is about ANOTHER publication being accused of it, not Krajewski. In the relevant section, the entire discussion is about Krajewski [42], no other author or source is mentioned, so to a regular outside reader it will most certainly appear from Icewhiz’s statement as if it’s Krajewski who’s been “accused of anti-Semitism”. When confronted about this BLP vio [43] Icewhiz neither explained nor struck his comments. Needless to say, Krajewski has NOT been accused of anti-semitism (afaik). Indeed, he’s cited approvingly and extensively by Holocaust scholars such as Joshua D. Zimmerman [44] Leonid Rein [45] Timothy Snyder and Elezan Barkan (et. al) among others Note Icewhiz claims that "I specifically excluded him" - this is completely false.
Icewhiz falsely misrepresents a source by changing "post-Stalinists" (source) to "American Jews" (Icewhiz’s words) [46] in order to make the BLP subject appear anti-semitic. Neither the word “American” nor “Jews” appear in the source [47] When asked about this edit, Icewhiz excused himself calling this smear of a living person a “mild form of OR” [48] (!!!!!!) Icewhiz falsely misrepresents a source by claiming that MJ Chodakiewicz "wrote a column in which he described an on-going genocide against whites by blacks in South Africa”. [49]"This is false. In the very first paragraph Chodakiewicz writes “There is no genocide, but it is true that they have been subject to violence”. To be fair to Icewhiz, the headline attached to the article misrepresents the text as well, but then why is Icewhiz using WP:PRIMARY sources to attack BLPs in the first place? Another case of "mild form of OR" I guess.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wisheseditI think the last comment by Nishidani was insightful, but... The problem here is the collision of different POVs. Which POV, exactly? Icewhiz tells about it in his statement (#10, green, "partisans of the Home Army — those clandestine forces in Nazi-occupied Poland loyal to the Polish government-in-exile — were just as dangerous to Jews as were the Nazis."). Just as Nazi. Yes, I understand, this is a quotation from here, but one should read the entire source, and it was written to say something different ("New research, however, demonstrates..." etc.). Can such "Polish anti-Nazi=Nazi" POV be justified as a "majority view" of scholarly sources? No, it definitely can not, even considering the description of the controversy by Nishidani (diff above). The actual question under discussion is different: was the effort by the Polish Government in exile to save Jews significant enough? Yes, there are different opinions about it. Overall, the behavior by Icewhiz looks rather problematic to me. I said this before [50]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Icewhizedit
|