→It's Your Dispute: comment |
Promethean (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Medcabstatus |
{{Medcabstatus |
||
<!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> |
<!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. Remember to remove the mediation request message from the article talk page when closing. --> |
||
|status = |
|status = closed |
||
|article = [[History of the Jews in Poland]] |
|article = [[History of the Jews in Poland]] |
||
|requestor = [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> <!-- Don't touch this --> |
|requestor = [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> <!-- Don't touch this --> |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|parties = {{User|Piotrus}}, <br> {{User|Tymek}},<br> {{User|Malik Shabazz}}, <br>{{User|Boodlesthecat}},<br> {{User|Xx236}}, <br>{{User|Lysy}},<br> {{User|Greg park avenue}},<br> {{User|Poeticbent}}<br> {{User|M0RD00R}} <br> {{user|Szopen}} <br> {{user|Halibutt}} <br> {{user|Prom3th3an}}. |
|parties = {{User|Piotrus}}, <br> {{User|Tymek}},<br> {{User|Malik Shabazz}}, <br>{{User|Boodlesthecat}},<br> {{User|Xx236}}, <br>{{User|Lysy}},<br> {{User|Greg park avenue}},<br> {{User|Poeticbent}}<br> {{User|M0RD00R}} <br> {{user|Szopen}} <br> {{user|Halibutt}} <br> {{user|Prom3th3an}}. |
||
|mediators = |
|mediators = |
||
|comment = [[WP:STICK]]. |
|||
|comment = Mediator Withdrawed at request of Requester due to concerns over NPOV. New mediator required . |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
<!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> |
<!-- The comment section above is used by mediators to briefly state the status of the case, which shows up on the case list. --> |
Revision as of 14:29, 19 September 2008
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | History of the Jews in Poland |
Status | closed |
Request date | 01:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | Piotrus (talk · contribs), Tymek (talk · contribs), Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs), Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs), Xx236 (talk · contribs), Lysy (talk · contribs), Greg park avenue (talk · contribs), Poeticbent (talk · contribs) M0RD00R (talk · contribs) Szopen (talk · contribs) Halibutt (talk · contribs) Prom3th3an (talk · contribs). |
Comment | WP:STICK. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|History of the Jews in Poland]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|History of the Jews in Poland]]
Request details
Who are the involved parties?
Piotrus (talk · contribs), Tymek (talk · contribs), Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs), Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs), Xx236 (talk · contribs), Lysy (talk · contribs), Greg park avenue (talk · contribs), Poeticbent (talk · contribs), M0RD00R (talk · contribs), Szopen (talk · contribs), Halibutt (talk · contribs)
What's going on?
Ongoing content disputes with the above editors centered on the issue of the extent of antisemitism in Poland, particularly in the 20th century. Disputes concerning validity of sources.
What would you like to change about that?
request monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators to give opinions on the disputes and diffuse edit wars.
Mediator notes
- A rathor interesting request, not sure if this is a mediators job but I'm happy to do it informally and to request page prtotection and discuss disputes where required.
- After seeing the article history and talk page I think this is definetly a mediators job :=) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm kindly asking all participants to cease discussion until I get on tomorrow. I mean, it's not an imperative, but I fear that the discussion will just kind of go... downward. Or something. I dunno. Something to consider. I'll be back on later :-) 71.82.149.155 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Courtesy of an unlogged-in xavexgoem
Hey, guess what! My ISP dropped me! AND they rewired my entire house to work with coax, which my new ISP can't do anything about (that is, without paying them outrageous service costs). So I'll be away for quite a bit. Sorry about this! Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Extended content
|
---|
Hi Guys, Im glad that you have come to mediation, would you mind stating your acceptance (of mediation) for starters «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obvious problemsHere's the impression I'm getting. There are two groups of editors:
Which is respectively appearing as:
Is this a valid impression/connection? Does anyone disagree? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) If you agree, how can I convince you otherwise? :-)
GrossFirst issue on the table is apparently Gross, and how to fit him in the article. Boodlesthecat has requested where he has been used inappropriately as a source. It seems most folks are OK with him being used as a source, but the question is how much weight he should be given, and how his information should be presented. Where and how is it appropriate and inappropriate to use him? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
<---I can't say yet whether it should be unlocked. There are complaints from at least four different editors above about information and sources in the article, presumably concerning edits that I had made. Yet it is strangely silent, and as Xavexgoem points out, the Gross issue turns out to be a non starter (although I have plenty of complaints about the articles about Gross and his work, if we get to that point). So I can't tell what other editors intentions are at this point; e.g., are thye simply going top go back to the status quo if the page is unprotected. I would prefer that they identify whatever issues they have, and whatever changes they would like to see made now, in this forum. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Problem statementMaybe we need a fresh start and Boodlesthecat would state the problem, as he is the original requester for the mediation. Apparently he sees the problem elsewhere than I do. --Lysytalk 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
<---Ok, if we are going to discuss this, then let's be honest and not distort reality. Show me anywhere in a Wikipedia article where it says "Poles are antisemites" or where Polish antisemitism is discussed without thoroughly reliable sources. Show me, Piotrus, where I claim to be "speaking for the truth," rather than for input that is backed by reliable sources. Let's not make accusations that we can't back up please. And Lysy, please pay attention to what others say--I said, just minutes ago, that "Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland"--I did not say anything about "Polish intrinsic antisemitism" as you claim. Entirely different meaning. This misinterpretation based on changing words seems to be an ongoing problem. For example, just moments ago elsewhere, in this instance, what I clearly characterize as "fringe speculations" in an edit summary gets transformed into "fringe magazine," entirely changing the meaning. My POV, if I need to describe it, would be to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship and mainstream media understanding that anti-semitism is a key part of the History of Jews in Poland. My own complaints would include Wikipedia articles that quote minor authors to insert claims such as "some 3500 to 6500 Poles died in late 1940s because of Jewish denounciations or were killed by Jews themselves"--claims you generally won't find in standard reference works, but do appear in Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in PolandOK, it seems we have the problem defined, finally. It's the belief that "Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland". Would you agree that "Philosemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland" is true as well ? --Lysytalk 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
An average reader can understand this article as:
If you don't mean it, please rewrite the article.Xx236 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit AgreementHistory of the Jews in Poland has been fully protected indefinitely until
(outdent) First, I find it astonishing that anybody who has lived under a Communist government would argue that a newspaper can't be an organ of the government. Second, the determination by some editors to verify independently what reliable sources say ("It doesn't matter if you have a 'reliable' source for a mistake, we don't include mistakes in our project.") is a prime example of WP:OR. It does matter what reliable sources say, and if Gazeta Polska was independent of the government, find reliable sources that say so. The insistence by one or more editors that a reliable source is mistaken is not an acceptable way of documenting Wikipedia articles. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There exists Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) article. Why don't you discuss there? Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sourcesSo far we've failed to acknowledge our biases, bad sign, as it could help a sincere discussion. Maybe we could agree to a higher standard of "reliable sources" for the purpose of this article ? The article is about history, so how about admitting only published peer-reviewed research papers by historians ? (no prose, media commentaries, reviews, books by non-historians etc). Can we agree on this maybe ? --Lysytalk 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, since you have called for the mediation, try to explain what do you expect. In a mediation process the parties can eventually achieve some compromise. Can you explain what compromise would you be ready to accept, because I'm getting lost with you. --Lysytalk 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Discussion of specific article issuesA number of discussions of article issues are currently underway on the articles talk pages. Please bring those discussion to this page, with specific issues cited.
Gazeta Polska characterizationReliable sources describe it as "the governmental Gazeta Polska", the unofficial organ of the Sanacja regime, the semi-official Polish newspaper Gazeta Polska and Gazeta Polska, the organ of the Polish government. With a number of sources describing it as an official or semi-official government newspaper, "pro-government" seems weak and inaccurate. Given what the reliable sources say, what are other editors recommendations? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've demonstrated with the sources above (all quoted were found by yuours trully...), the sources are somewhat contradictory. The only source focusing on the newspaper, the Polish encyclopedia I cited above, make's it clear it was pro-government, but not offcial. Case closed; do note that all the editors but one agree on that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
While the sources cited concerning Gazeta Polska all agree that it served as a "mouthpiece" for the government, they seem inconsistent concerning its exact relationship with the government. From what I can tell, I think the description at Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) is probably the most accurate: it "was seen as a semi-official news outlet of the sanacja-dominated Polish government". That's hard to condense into a few words, so I think the proposal — "pro-government" with a link to Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) — is probably the best solution. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Selection of sourcesThe above discussion of Gazeta Polska may seem a petty thing, but it illustrates well our problem with the careless selection of sources, that I mentioned already earlier, when we discussed Gross (or at least tried to). Boodlesthecat claims that "the majority of sources" clearly support this and that. This is not the case. Finding a couple of random unrelated books with google keyword search and claiming that some of them are "the majority of sources" is a misconception. I'd suggest we use common sense, but if an editor insists that it's more important that it's supported by sources, he should find an indeed relevant source, in this case a publication on "Gazeta Polska" explaining its character, so that we have no doubts here. The fact that someone published a diary in which he mentioned the paper and called it "semi-official" is not helpful here. Also, the way Boodlesthecat selects his sources illustrates what I meant when I said that this way it's possible to find a source to support almost any claim. With his first search he found a historical dictionary of Poland, that described Gazeta Polska as "unofficial". Probably dissatisfied with this result, he then explicitly searched for the "official" keyword, and found a completely unrelated book on Spanish Carlism. We don't even know in what context the Gazeta is mentioned there, as the content of the book is not available online. But it seems enough to proudly present the book as "the source" only because it was displayed in the result list in a search for the "official" word. See what I mean ? If we want to be serious about writing an encyclopedic article, we should use reasonable and related sources, and not just something that popped up in a google search and happens to have the keywords matching our agenda. --Lysytalk 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Mediators: Some ground rules pleaseI am getting truly fed up with having to incessantly respond to an unabating slew of accusations with practically every post emitting from a group of editors. I insist that the mediators please supply some clear ground rules for behavior, and that they be enforced from this point on. As I mentioned before, this is a mediation. It is not an anything goes forum for me to be a punching bag for an angry group of editors. I am refraining from content discussions until this is resolved. Thank yuo. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Second that. The purpose of the mediation is not clear to me. I have repeatedly asked Boodles to state the purported goal but to no avail. I assumed good faith but now I tend to believe that the only reason is to keep the article protected. --Lysytalk 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC) It takes two to talk. Here is my response to Boodles' earlier question, summarising why I think this is hopeless.
I'm sorry but if it continues to develop that way, I'm inclined to agree with Piotrus that any attempts to mediate with you are a waste of time. Once more, please, try to think why have you requested the mediation, what do you expect of it and if you are ready to admit that your POV may not always be the only right one, even if you find a source to support it. --Lysytalk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, where are the mediators? I think I made my case clear above: it's impossible to mediate with Boody (which is why we need external, neutral moderators) because he think he is 100% right. Thus he refuses to back down. No compromise can be reached if the only solution acceptable to him is for us to agree with 100% of what he wants to do. I would welcome if the moderators/mediators would point out what concessions we could do to appease him that we haven't tried, but it takes two to tango... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, you write that Gross is a pure diversion from discussing substantive issues. Let me ask you once again. What do you think are these substantive issues ? --Lysytalk 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a substantive issue I raised earlier. When editors insist on judging the validity of a reliable source's definitions, that's WP:OR. As examples, when a source refers to "Polish collaborators", it's WP:OR to decide questions such as were Polish collaborators ethnic Germans?, and what is the definition of collaboration?, and what are the implications of one million collaborators? It's appropriate to cite the source and, if necessary, the source's definition. If you find another reliable source with a different number of collaborators, or one that contests the first source, then cite them both. That's how WP:NPOV works. Not by editors insisting that they are the personal judges of the veracity of a reliable source's research. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Cherry-picking one's sourcesHere's another substantive issue I raised earlier. When a reliable source gives a range of widgets from x to y, it's appropriate to mention in the article that the number of widgets has been estimated from x to y. It is not appropriate to write that the number of widgets is x. It's especially egregious when the source (call her Mary) says that Charles says x and James says y, and an editor replaces Mary with Charles as a source. Cherry-picking one source out of a group of sources, especially to replace a range with a point, is another form of WP:OR. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
More mediators ?I think, maybe we need more mediators ? I feel sorry for you, Prom3th3an, having to read through all this. --Lysytalk 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions Drawn so FarOkey well heres the underlying message im getting. The dispute is primarily about a minoritys groups POV on History of the Jews in Poland, justifying it with 1-2 questionable sources. Whilst the majority of sources and contributors say/think something else? Wikipedia is a concensus and from what I can see here there is a consensus to do it one way, however the minority are sticking to thier guns. I could be drawing the wrong conclusions and I'm interested in what you guys think? I'm going to finish this paragraph after people comment on it. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ground RulesSorry guys, but im going to have to be firm.
Comment. First of all, I’d like to express my deepest sympathy to our Jewish Wikipedians for having to deal with outburst of actual real anti-Semitism on Talk and in Main-space. Such instances make them justifiably hard-line and unwilling to consider a difference between political extremism represented by some internet sources and examples of critical analysis by rational thinkers on the other hand. Everything is being thrown into the same basket as a result: bitterness, hysteria, anti-Polish sentiment, personal grievances, hearsay, fallacies, fantasy, groundless accusations, as well as findings of Yad Vashem and the Israeli War Crimes Commission with no differentiation made between them, as if there was no difference between rational thinking and hate propaganda, especially with regard to the Jewish Holocaust in Poland. The old animosities result in virtually every single article on Jewish-Polish relations being turned into a mockery of science. Communist swindlers and fraud artists are being presented over and over as the so called reliable sources and defended against quote-unquote cherry-picking, while being cherry-picked for the monstrosities they allege. Understandably, many Polish Wikipedians are offended and eager to do something about it. How do you intend to conclude this discussion? How do you define speculation in such environment? What smear campaign do you include as verifiable and how do you make others not freak-out as a result? --Poeticbent talk 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Jew-baiting rants on article talk pageYou can see the latest examples of the sort of Jew baiting nonsense and one has to put up with on these articles hereand here. The cause of this particular outburst? Because I supported the view that the Polish expression "Don't be a Jew" just might be anti-semitic. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
|
The Objectives
Lets go back to basics
- request monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators Done
- give opinions on the disputes
- diffuse edit wars Done
Ok, list the disputes below in simplest form.
- Dispute 1
- Dispute 2
- Dispute 3
- Dispute 4
- Dispute 5
... «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- There are a number of different disputes currently active on the article talk page. Since we can't seem to get past the first one listed here, I'll just list that one for now, in the hopes are mediators can help secure an agreement:
- Dispute 1: Characterization of Gazeta Polska circa July 1939 (the date that the newspaper is being quoted from in the article). The article currently describes it as an "organ of the Polish government", and a reliable source is given for the statement. Other reliable sources also use this characterization, while other describe it as "semi-official", "pro-government" or as the newspaper of an important faction of the government (one that had become increasingly influential by July 1939). Which characterization should be used? (Note: this seemingly minor point is important because it impacts on whether the quote in the article is a view of the government, or just of one of the factions.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Such discussion should be moved to Gazeta Polska (1929-1939). Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Gazeta Polska was controlled by the Camp of National Unity, not by the government.Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 2: The extent of Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Related to this is the issue of whether certain sources are reliable, how to judge which sources are more reliable than others, whether it's appropriate to replace a source that describes a range of values with a source that mentions only the low end of the range. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I mentioned at least once: see Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland#One_million_Polish_collaborators_in_the_Holocaust. Still no reply anywhere. Complaining that something is not being discussed when it is being discussed is not helpful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. I have noted repeatedly that issues are indeed actively being discussed elsewhere, and have requested that we move those active disputes to this central location. Boodlesthecat Meow?
- Dispute 3: Possibly the worst instance of political propaganda is featured in a review of a book on postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Special prominence is given to facts long corrected by Yad Vashem i.e. the inflated number of victims, however, Yad Vashem findings are not being mentioned (because they’re not a part of the book). The impression is being created that the writer was merely presenting undisputed facts, which is false. The same article features hysterical words of empty praise flying in the face of WP: Peacock. --Poeticbent talk 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific on this one--specify which article you are talking about, where exactly the problem is, where the article indicates the author stating undisputed facts, where are there hysterical words of empty praise etc. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Does the expression “You read it breathlessly” ring a bell? It belongs to Fear, an article heavily edited by Boodlesthecat amidst a wave of POV reverts. The article is stuffed with outbursts of hate propaganda in the form of citations which have no informational value whatsoever. Worst yet, the article (technically fronted by this portal) is equating Polish people with the Nazis with messages like “the Poles were as bad as the Germans” (this one, disguised as a citation from a trade magazine) or accusing Poland en masse of “false claims to the smug, easy virtue” (this one, by an American-Jewish reviewer who considers himself “a casualty of Poland”) I'm surprised Boodlesthecat asked, than again, all disputes listed here ought to kept in the open including the preceding one by Malik Shabazz. --Poeticbent talk 03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If not because Boodlesthecat asked, Be more specific as to the article because im asking now. In future just answer a reasonable question... «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews, see here, and we are talking about a non-controversial author, historian and diplomat Norman Davies. What about a controversial author Gross? All Wikipedia articles about his books and books about editorials about his books as in Neighbors Respond contain reviews, reviews of reviews and even blurbs ONLY. How one can treat this as a source of reference to a historical article? Beats me! greg park avenue (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- If not because Boodlesthecat asked, Be more specific as to the article because im asking now. In future just answer a reasonable question... «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the question was unnecessary at first, because the preceding comment was equally vague. Dispute #2, as I see it, refers to the Holocaust in Poland, article which is now locked (don't ask me why) with an assertion challenged in Talk as a communist monstrosity. --Poeticbent talk 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 4: What is Poland - Any text about History of the Jews in Poland has to include the definition of Poland for the given period.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Can you indicate where this is an issue/dispute? It would seem that, just like in a discussion of any country, whenever "Poland" is mentioned, it would be the Poland that existed at the time being discussed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- How is this a dispute with respect to the article? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The Objective (2): Protocol for listing disputes
Can we please follow the clear and simple instructions provided by the mediator
"Ok, list the disputes below in simplest form.
- Dispute 1
- Dispute 2
- Dispute 3
- Dispute 4
- Dispute 5"
and not use that space to immediately start arguing any particular side of the dispute(s)? It seems like a simple task, and if followed, it can provide a framework for actually making some progress on the disputes. thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou Boodlesthecat, I did ask for it to be in simplest form and i did not ask for views or opinions. Basically all i want is a WHAT and WHERE «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll begin a new clean list of current disputes below; I'm copying the first two from above because they seem pretty straightforward. Please add additional ones following the basic WHAT and WHERE format. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
List of disputes
- Dispute 1: Characterization of Gazeta Polska circa July 1939 (the date that the newspaper is being quoted from in the article). The article currently describes it as an "organ of the Polish government", and a reliable source is given for the statement. Other reliable sources also use this characterization, while other describe it as "semi-official", "pro-government" or as the newspaper of an important faction of the government (one that had become increasingly influential by July 1939). Which characterization should be used? (Note: this seemingly minor point is important because it impacts on whether the quote in the article is a view of the government, or just of one of the factions.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Mediator input requested by both parties at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02_History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Gazeta_Polska_characterization (and can we get rid of this annoying yellow bar that prevents anchors from working?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe just the Gazeta Polska section can be moved here; there is merit to collapsing a lot of the rest of the discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 2: The extent of Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Related to this is the issue of whether certain sources are reliable, how to judge which sources are more reliable than others, whether it's appropriate to replace a source that describes a range of values with a source that mentions only the low end of the range. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- But this is not related to the HotJiP article and this mediation! I've just recently (yesterday!) asked you to look at the relevant part of Wikipedia: Collaboration_during_World_War_II#Poland, and so far that section has not seen any edit warring or discussion! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- The dispute over the range of values covers more than one article, including the HotJiP article and seems appropriate to this mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since I attempted to engage in dialogue over this several times here (see Dispute 2 in the section above), was ignored all the time until recently (thanks for finally replying at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland#One_million_Polish_collaborators_in_the_Holocaust), I am slightly irked that editors spent more time complaing about that issue than trying to discuss it. I hope it changes; in any case I've said all I wanted at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland#One_million_Polish_collaborators_in_the_Holocaust and I intend to continue this discussion there (why split it?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since it is a dispute at more than one article, including the one that this mediation covers, why not have the discussion here? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since I attempted to engage in dialogue over this several times here (see Dispute 2 in the section above), was ignored all the time until recently (thanks for finally replying at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland#One_million_Polish_collaborators_in_the_Holocaust), I am slightly irked that editors spent more time complaing about that issue than trying to discuss it. I hope it changes; in any case I've said all I wanted at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland#One_million_Polish_collaborators_in_the_Holocaust and I intend to continue this discussion there (why split it?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 3: Usage of non-neutral quotes in evidently non-encyclopedic tone: a recent example. This was mentioned earlier by Poeticbent and greg.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 3a: I believe Dispute 3 above is more accurately stated as follows: Can reliably sourced quotes which state or discuss the thesis of a somewhat controversial book be used, even if some editors object to such inclusion based on their own dislike of the authors views that are being presented, backed by reliable sources. The issue clearly isn't the usage of "non-neutral quotes," as claimed above. A simple perusal of the article's history will show that the earlier versions worked on extensively by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Poeticbent, greg park avenue and others opposed to quotes presenting Gross's views are not opposed to "non-neutral quotes," as the version they produced earlier contained almost entirely strongly negative attacks on the book and its author. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dispute 4: Is there a need to monitor the possible sanctification of sweeping, derogatory terms such as anti-Semitism in relation to all of Poland at any given time, and ethnic slurs, such as Żydokomuna? The latter article can easily be rewritten under a more neutral title such as the Polish Jews in the communist movement with the term Żydokomuna placed lower down as a separate subsection noting its harmful ideological connotations inspired by wartime destruction of Poland. Similarly, disparaging terms used indiscriminately such as "Polish anti-Semitism" (a countrywide blame), have a ring similar to Polish Nazis and Polish death camps (in relation of World War II) and could be replaced with more neutral and balanced language acceptable to all readership. I realize that it takes two to tango, and that one cannot be dealt with without the other. --Poeticbent talk 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The anti-semitic myth of Żydokomuna is a notable phenomena, one of many Antisemitic canards with its own history and notability. A separate article on Polish Jews in the communist movement could be feasible (there is at least one notable book on the subject), and it can be a place to move the POV forked sections on that subject currently in the Żydokomuna article. As it stands now, the history digressions in the Żydokomuna article merely serve as justifications for the canard. The myth of Żydokomuna is not a subset of Polish Jews in the communist movement--it is an antisemitic concept developed by Poles based on a bigoted myth that Jews were out to destroy Poland. The fact that there were Polish communists is no more relevant to the Żydokomuna myth than the fact that there were wealthy Jewish industrialists is relevant to Hitler's antisemitic theories. These cherry picked facts are used to justify the theory--the theory is not based on the facts. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- - Żydokomuna is a myth or fact similarly like the part of this article which describes the Jewish life in Poland as growing antisemitism. As Henryk Sienkiewicz has written - when I steal a cow, it's O.K., when you steal my cow, it's wrong. My myths are academic truths, your myths are prejudices. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- - The escalation of anti-semitism in the interwar years in Poland is a copiously documented historical fact. The laughable claim that a handful of Jews are responsible for enslaving 30 million Poles under communism is a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory; the psychological instabilities extant in those holding such perverse sensibilities have been investigated now and then, but that is beyond the scope of this mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- - Jewish life in Poland is a copiously documented historical fact. Selecting some aspects of it and ignoring others is propaganda, not editing. BTW I'm not claiming there was no antisemitism in Poland. Don't go too far, please. Please assume that I'm not a Nazi idiot, is it too much? Xx236 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- - The escalation of anti-semitism in the interwar years in Poland is a copiously documented historical fact. The laughable claim that a handful of Jews are responsible for enslaving 30 million Poles under communism is a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory; the psychological instabilities extant in those holding such perverse sensibilities have been investigated now and then, but that is beyond the scope of this mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- - Żydokomuna is a myth or fact similarly like the part of this article which describes the Jewish life in Poland as growing antisemitism. As Henryk Sienkiewicz has written - when I steal a cow, it's O.K., when you steal my cow, it's wrong. My myths are academic truths, your myths are prejudices. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The anti-semitic myth of Żydokomuna is a notable phenomena, one of many Antisemitic canards with its own history and notability. A separate article on Polish Jews in the communist movement could be feasible (there is at least one notable book on the subject), and it can be a place to move the POV forked sections on that subject currently in the Żydokomuna article. As it stands now, the history digressions in the Żydokomuna article merely serve as justifications for the canard. The myth of Żydokomuna is not a subset of Polish Jews in the communist movement--it is an antisemitic concept developed by Poles based on a bigoted myth that Jews were out to destroy Poland. The fact that there were Polish communists is no more relevant to the Żydokomuna myth than the fact that there were wealthy Jewish industrialists is relevant to Hitler's antisemitic theories. These cherry picked facts are used to justify the theory--the theory is not based on the facts. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- - I certainly nowhere at no time assumed you were a Nazi idiot. In any case, for the purposes of the mediation at hand here please note the interwar period of the article contains these sections:
- So it seems that Jewish life in Poland in those years and the well documented rise of anti-semitism in that period are covered in the article. So please indicate what exactly the issue is, what you feel is being "ignored," etc.. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The facts are - there are three sections:
- Independence and Polish Jews - mostly about pogroms and abuses
- Jewish and Polish culture - quotes 3 references
- Growing anti-Semitism - the longest one, quotes 15 references.
- The facts are - there are three sections:
- So it seems that Jewish life in Poland in those years and the well documented rise of anti-semitism in that period are covered in the article. So please indicate what exactly the issue is, what you feel is being "ignored," etc.. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- BTW - what about Jewish economy?
- I have written more than ten times listing subjects ignored or underestimated in this part of the article in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. An interesting ignored subject - the Jews in the movies and Polish language press.Xx236 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Those are all good suggestions for additions and improvements, but they don't seem to be "disputes." I'd be happy to see additional material on Polish Jewish culture. A defining issue at the time of Polish independence in 1918 was the wave of anti-Jewish pogroms so it seems reasonable that this would be in the article. However, if you have additional good sources for what else the onset of independence in 1918 meant for Polish Jews, feel free to recommend it. However, this section, as you can see above, is List of disputes, so please try to focus on issues that are actually disputed, rather than undispouted suggestions for improvement (which can be easily discussed on the talk pages.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that. Going back to what I said, the number of Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory (as if there was anything specifically Polish about it) is considerable. The codeword "Polish" is used as a political label pretty much indiscriminately against all Polish non-Jews. It is a loaded question, a myth "virulently pervasive and persistent" (as noted in The Washington Post) brought into Wikipedia along with the anti-Polish sentiment. --Poeticbent talk 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the Washington Post didn't note that Polish antisemitism a myth; what you are citing is a 1993 letter to the editor in the WP by Andrzej Jarecki Counselor, Cultural Affairs Embassy of the Republic of Poland. A week later, the Washington Post printed some letters in response to Jarecki, under the heading Polish Antisemitism: Hardly a `Myth', so we can say both perspectives were "noted in The Washington Post." But letters to the editor are hardly reliable sources one way or another. More to the point of your complaint--can you indicate the "Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- You can't be serious about these kind of comparisons. On the one hand you have a statement made by a Cultural Affairs Counselor at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland, and on the other, a hate-ridden chat laced with sorry Polonophobic stereotypes such as that "most of Polish society has... a glaring and appalling record of rampant antisemitism" and that Poles "betrayed Jews in hiding." I repeat, there's nothing uniquely Polish, or different by definition about the true or alleged anti-Semitism of some Poles from any marginal group anywhere else in the world, and yet, the phrase is used indiscriminately in virtually all articles mentioned in this discussion. Polish anti-Semitism does not exist as a Wikipedia article (don't mind the redirect), so why is it being disseminated as a code phrase in articles about our history. Is it, because, according to Conspiracy theory article: "In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part"? --Poeticbent talk 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would think this would be obvious, but once again, let me point out to you that it is well nigh impossible to address problems or disputes in articles if you will not provide specific examples of the problems you reference, even when asked directly to do so. So I'll again ask you to clarify your complaint. You said above, and I quote:
I'll repeat the question. Can you indicate the "Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory"?Going back to what I said, the number of Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory (as if there was anything specifically Polish about it) is considerable
- I would think this would be obvious, but once again, let me point out to you that it is well nigh impossible to address problems or disputes in articles if you will not provide specific examples of the problems you reference, even when asked directly to do so. So I'll again ask you to clarify your complaint. You said above, and I quote:
By the way, who is the "notorious Polonophobe" you reference above? The writer of the letter published in the Washington Post that you refer to as a "notorious Polonophobe" was a member of an elite WW2 British commando group, participated in the invasion of Normandy and the final invasion of Germany in the war to liberate Europe from Nazism. Do you have any sources which describe him as a "notorious Polonophobe" ?Struck per Peoeticbent's withdrawal of characterization; still await examples of dispute.Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to be taking an unexpected turn. I think we need to define our terms of reference before we move any further. Perhaps the best definition of what constitute the core issue of this dispute can be found in the Letters from Freedom written by Adam Michnik, Irena Grudzińska-Gross and Jane Cave (excerpt, below). --Poeticbent talk 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Relations between Poles and Jews are still burdened by two stereotypes--one Polish and the other Jewish. According to the Polish stereotype, there has never been any anti-Semitism in Poland, and the Jews were never so well-off as they were there. In this stereotype, each critical voice condemning anti-Semitism is considered an expression of the anti-Polish conspiracy on the part of international forces who are filled with hatred for Poland. There is also a Jewish stereotype, which says that each Pole imbibes anti-Semitism with his mother's milk; that Poles share the responsibility for the Holocaust; that the only thing worth knowing about Poland is just that--that Poles hate Jews.
- The Polish stereotype produces among Jews, even Jews well disposed toward Poland, an instinctive dislike of Poles. This stereotype makes any calm and clarifying debate on the history of Polish anti-Semitism impossible. On the other hand, the Jewish stereotype immediately arouses a sort of "secondary anti-Semitism" among Poles, because people who are completely free of anti-Semitic phobias feel accused of sins they've never committed. And having been accused of being natural anti-Semites, they feel hurt and perceive ill will on the part of Jews; and such feelings tend to preclude an honest dialogue with Jews about the past and the future. [7]
- What would be more helpful (and you've been asked this at least half a dozen times, to no avail) would be for you to provide specific examples of problems with the article. Since you've been requested to provide specific examples repeatedly, and since you consistently don't provide them, it would seem that one can only conclude that you cannot provide specific examples, and/or you simply want to use this mediation, as you did with the AfD process, as a venue for soapboxing and complaining rather than as a way of making concrete improvements to the article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What would be more helpful if you read what I have written. I have given plenty examples of lacking informations in the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. The biggest problem is the definition of Poland and Poles. Either Poland was the state with its borders, so ethnic Poles consisted about 2/3, not all of them Roman Catholics or the article is about ethnic Poles, not about Poland. Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- What would be even more helpful when posting to a section titles List of Disputes would be to examine the meaning of the word dispute. A dispute is different from a feeling that something is lacking. You can add information that is lacking. A dispue is where other editors are actively disagreeing with you. I would think that if you are involved in a dispute, it would be fairly simple to list it clearly and simply. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
ARe you sure you try to cooperate? Or rather prove tham I'm a dumb Pollack?Xx236 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've made about a dozen requests for you to clearly list any actual disputes (as opposed to vague references to what's "missing.") You seem unwilling to supply any actual disputes. And although you are trying to play the role of a victim here (rather than respond to a simple request), please note that making ungrounded charges of bigotry towards other editors (such as your accusation against me above) is a form of incivility. Please desist from making such false, unsupported defamatory charges. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A break in the discussion
A number of the most active participants in the mediation seem to be on breaks, so I suppose we will resume on their return. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- The desire to go on has to be reinforced by examples of good will, otherwise this discussion will slow down to a halt not because of breaks, but because of a sense of pride and exhaustion. – Boodlesthecat, why did you copy-paste an entry by Malik Shabazz including his signature? Maybe he would prefer to do it himself, don’t you think? Besides, he made an oddly suspended statement requiring guesswork and further explanation by others. So, why did you repeat it in its original form rather than pinpointing the problem in your own words? The fact that the article Holocaust in Poland has been locked for so long with your inflammatory edit in it, is not a sign of good will. --Poeticbent talk 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Poeticbent. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to regarding "copy-paste an entry by Malik Shabazz"--could you please point this out, and what the problem was? As for the article being locked, I obviously have no control over that (and it was locked in no small part due to your edit-warring), so it seems a bit odd to cite that as being "not a sign of good will" on my part. As to being exhausted, you are again welcome and encouraged to discuss content dispute issues here, in a civil, straightforward and clear manner so we can collectively resolve some of these disputes (which is what will get the article unlocked). You kight find this less exhausting and less a blow to a sense of pride then spending an unnecessary amount of time filing a futile AfD that was unanimously rejected on the basis of WP:SNOW and a recognition that you were using the AfD process as a tool for edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have the right to your own opinion about any old propaganda piece that needs to be re-written from scratch to meet the criteria of balance and objectivity noted by some respondents at AfD. Hate mongering has to be taken care of first and foremost, especially the conspicuously prominent outbursts of anti-Polish sentiment with no informational value whatsoever. Anyhow, by restarting the list of disputes (above, which I find rather confusing) you also copy-pasted someone else's signature here. On a separate note, can we please keep it civil from now on, without accusations and mudslinging? --Poeticbent talk 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I moved Malik's and other dispute listings to a new section (with no complaint from Malik) largely because other editors (mainly you, Poeticbent, as can be clearly seen above) were peppering the lists with unconstructive rants. And it's a bit disingenuous of you to innocently request discussion "without accusations and mudslinging" after you return to this page accusing me of lacking good will, inflammatory edits, inappropriate moving of content--all in one post! So whenever you as well are ready to follow your own pleas about civility, we can continue. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Until mediators propose solutions to disputes 1-3 listed above, I see no reason not to be on a break from this mediation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- It would be good as well if mediators could indicate that they are still involved. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes were still here, just been spectating for awhile. Mediation put on hold. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Any suggestions/recommendations on how to proceed? Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Re-Opened: As for how we proceed I have a few ideas though I think this will end up being escalated to medcom who will probably escalate to arbcom. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's Your Dispute
Ok guys, in regards to the article above, I want you (in groups if you wish) to take a copy of the article and make it the way you would want it in regards to the disputed content. In other words make a proposal. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm content to proceed with the article as is. My purpose in initiating this mediation was to circumvent the edits wars wherein sourced content gets serially reverted based on some editor's personal dislike of the material (and I think that reality is confirmed by comments made by a number of the reverting editors sprinkled in the morass above, in which they clearly indicate they are unhappy with the tone of sections of the article but consistently--despite pleadings--fail to cite specific examples). My initial request was to try and proceed, as I noted in the filing of this medcab, with "monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators to give opinions on the disputes and diffuse edit wars." Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok well, im happy enough to kepp an eye on that article and stop edit wars. If you wish for third-opinions see WP:RFC or WP:THIRD. Other than that there is not much we can do here. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be worried about proceeding only because there is no agreement to not return to the practice of arbitrary deletion of well sourced material (rather than using the talk page) that was a problem before and which wuold start the edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the protection was counterproductive. There was little rv warring before it, and I think we should give unprotection a try and see where it takes us. Several articles (HoJP but also Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland) have now been protected for a month - that's way too long, particularly if it pleases only one editor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Piotrus, please refrain from making derogatory, bogus statements such as "particularly if it pleases only one editor" simply for dramatic effect. I never asked for protection of the articles; and if you have a diff indicating that I did and that protection "pleases" me, please supply it. It was in fact the unwarranted, serial removals of well sourced material on the part of you and yu like-minded editors that got the articles locked. So kindly refrain from posting self-serving rewrites of history. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- All I want is to unlock the articles for normal editing. Then we can see if any revert wars resume, and if they do, how many people are reverting. That way we can also easily identify the real issues that led to conflict (which sentences/paras/etc. are getting reverted).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- At the moment this mediation seems unproductive. Let's try unprotecting the article and identifying conflicts as they occur. We can ask for protection again if a revert war starts. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, we can see a revert war (specifically, unilateral removal of reliably sourced material) being unleashed as we speak [8],[9], [10]. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- The situation is quite simple to me. Boody believes he is 100% right. An impartial mediator should agree with him in 100%. Since you didn't, and you even dared to criticize him and agree with his opponents, you are not impartial. I wonder - how many mediators will we burn through? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, no Piotrus, I raised my issues about Prom3th3an's impartiality a month ago when he was sending you wink wink, messages showing a clear bias towards one side of the dispute. He assured me that this wasn't favoritism, but rather he was somehow being diplomatic. I assumed good faith and took him at his word; foolishly it turns out, judging by his latest biased attack on me on the arbitration. So thanks for your self serving comments yet again Piotrus, but as usual, they bear little relationship to reality and are, as usual, distorted and self serving. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since you too, Prom3th3an, now refuse to address actual content issues and instead engage in ad hominen attacks on me, you will fit right in with the team you have chosen. Would have been nice if you had stated that you are in league with Piotrus from the start rather than pretend to be a mediator. Please note that you are now also declaring yourself in league with another of Piotrus' tactics--threatening to use admin powers and 3RR as a tool for edit warring, rather than discuss content. Welcome to your team, dude. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- If I am on thier team, you have made me that way. Also note that I wanst on thier team from the start, up untill now I tried to remain neutral however your disruption has gone on long enough that I am now throwing my weight around. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you confirmed my point exactly. You are joining the side that does little more than engage in one-sided ad hominen attacks rather than openly discuss content issues ("your disruption has gone far enough"), and, like Piotrus, you feel have a right to openly misuse authority to further disputes (with your warnings that you are going to "throw your weight around.") And all this sudden anger at me is for what, Prom3th3an--because I responded publicly to your thoroughly-inappropriate-for-a-mediator, contentless ad hominen attack on me in an arbitration? Again, enjoy your new team; keep in mind that currently six arbitrators are eager to look into the allegations of Piotrus' abuses. This gang edit warring team you are joining is now being examined in the light of day, and I find it no surprise that there's some kicking and screaming. Food for thought when you threaten to start "throwing your weight around." Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Prom3th3an, I'm glad you noted on your own account that you should no longer be mediator to this case. A comment like "Boodlesthecat wants the protection to stay because it protects his version of the article (which is also the minority revision accoridng to what I can gather.)" at RFP in conjunction with "You will be most pleased to know that it has been un-protected." to Boodlesthecat paints a very poor picture of your respect for Boodles. Same with "As for being uncivil, I hardly call mentioning the truth uncivil, you do have colourful blocklog, its a fact you will have to accept in due time. Out of curiosisty, How would you describe your block log to a blind man?". And for your information, your "weight to throw around" makes one think you're misunderstanding your role here. You're a self-appointed informal mediator, not part of the Mediation Committee or anything. And no, I'm not criticising the mediation cabal just now because I know in general it tries to do good, but if the mere fact of being part of the med cabal should guarantee anything, one should know that User:Bonaparte, too, was one such volunteers (and got a medal until someone realised that mistake). Sciurinæ (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)