Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-13/criticism of holocaust denial

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	criticism of holocaust denial
Status	Close
Request date	11:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	Mystichumwipe (talk)
Mediator(s)	User: Goswamir14
Comment	Stale

Request details

Where is the dispute?

[[1]] It began regarding a subsection called testimonies , but it now also applies to and affects the modus operandi and sourcing for the whole article.

It started here: "Do these sources discuss "Criticism of Holocaust denial", or even discuss Holocaust Denial in any way?" Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is involved?

• User:Jayjg
• User:Steven J. Anderson to a lesser extent
• User:Mystichumwipe i.e. myself

Acceptance of Mediation

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

• User:Goswamir14 talk-20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?

1. Deciding what constitutes "directly related to the subject of the article"

2. Deciding how rigid is the requirement of verifiability of all material (sources)

3. Deciding the application of wiki policy regarding "...questionable sources as sources on themselves." [2]

What would you like to change about this?

I resonate with the complaints by another editor here (User:DeknMike) against Jayjg, in that case on the topic of Messianic Judaism . I also request civility, proper engagement with alternative viewpoints (not gaming) and reasonableness. Also I would like Jayjg to receive a warning about threatening editors with being blocked or banning merely for holding valid opinions that are different from his own. I would like a genuine discussion about the correct interpretation and application of Wiki policy regarding verifiability and relevant sources. When doing that I want the bullying and threatening by Jayjg and insults by him and Steven J. Anderson to stop (subtle abuse/accusation of ant-semitism and suggestions that I am incapable of adding anything of worth to the article). Basically I request a fair discussion with civility and without what appears to be deliberate stalling/avoidance or bullying threats, i.e. the 4 points of the discussion page: Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, and Be welcoming.

How do you think we can help?

If you think I have a valid complaint then I would like you to remind Jayjg and Steven J. Anderson of the above core points of engagement. Perhaps also you can offer an opinion on the areas of disagreement. Jayjg has now said he will not discuss these issues with me anymore (I don't feel he ever did but just kept repeatedly asking for examples which I repeatedly gave, but which he then found fault with regarding my delivery of them). He has now said if I discuss my issue again he will have me banned (not blocked). He has said I am "disruptive", although I have initiated discussion, backed down from an edit war (allowed an undo to stand even though I did not agree with it, prior to reaching consensus), and have always attempted to be polite and civil.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Requesting party (Mystichumwipe)'s only source appears to be a anti- Holocaust site, [3], which is questionable in terms of verifiability and encyclopedically- appropriate. User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

(moved here from Jayjg's user page)...

Hi Jayjg. In view of what I find to be

- your unecessary aggressive and bullying tone,

- that double case of what I took as subtle abuse,

- what I see as your refusal to properly engage and answer my valid points regarding application of wiki policy,

- your avoidance and failure to respond to the examples that you requested (examples which took some time to compile and submit, and then amend as requested, plus then add further detail to on your further request),

- and now your recent threats of banning if I continue to discuss my isses with you or anyone else,

I have therefore reluctantly submitted a mediation request.

Its here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-13/criticism_of_holocaust_denial --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You want mediation with me and every other editor on that page, none of whom agree with you, and all of whom are tired of your antics there? Abide by policy, and use the Talk: page for its purpose, and we won't have any conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one who is avoiding my responses, threatening me with banning, and thereby attempting to force me to respond ONLY within very restricted parameters that you feel you can decide for me. I do not feel that allows me to have open or fair dialogue. How do we resolve that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi both of you. Mystichumwipe, firstly, please put User tags ([[User:]]) when you file a mediation case. I've agreed to take on this case and would like to just clarify with you (Mystic). Firstly, you claim that User:DeknMike is agreeing with you. Looking at his talk page, you haven't had any communication with him save for one message of his agreeing, and he has made no comments on the page in question (Criticism of Holocaust denial). Your referencing website, zundelsite.com is up for sale. I quite frankly don't see what your problem with Jayjg is, Mystic. You blanked a huge section and then claimed a cutting mistake. You reverted 10 times over the course of 4 days, n violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. You then bring Mr. Anderson. What is the issue? The consensus is saying to stop, and you refuse to do so. I am looking at this and I am honestly beginning to think you are inflating the situation. Your edits have been reverted by 4 different users, and you refuse to stop it. I agree with Jayjg when he threatens to ban you. You are not discussing an issue, from what I can tell. His tone has been quite acceptable. Mystuc, Wikipedia doesn't appoint administrators lightly. Jayjq has thousands of edits and quite a bit of experience. Please explain what he is doing incorrectly. He is being quite moderated. You might want to look over Wikipedia's Editing Guide.

User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

1. just to clarify a misunderstanding, I didn't intend to imply that User:DeknMike is "agreeing" with me. I wrote that, quite by chance, I saw that he has made almost the exact same complaint. I only mentioned that to explain why I chose you to mediate.

2. I don't know what you mean by "up for sale"? Can you explain. The issue is about 'questionable souces as sources in themselves' and 'verifiability'. Everything needs to be sourced, doesn't it? Otherwise we have the situation that exists today in the article where an argument is presented in a misleading way without a source that is verifiable and then that incorrect version of the argument is criticised. I can give examples if you like. That is clearly in violation of wiki verifiability policy, isn't it?

3."...claimed a cutting mistake".

That would have been vandalism pure and simple if I had done that deliberately. Please assume some good faith here, or this disussion will be of little use.

4. I reverted 10 times over the course of 4 days? :-0 Huh?!!? Really!

On the article? Or are you talking about the talk page (or both together)? And if on the talk page does that include 'minor edits' of fixing spelling, etc? Plus on the thirteenth of June I had three edits due to that awful mistake with the power cut.

5. "The consensus is saying to stop, and you refuse to do so."

I really don't see it as 'the consensus'?! :-o As I see it only one person has attempted to discuss my valid point of view correctly and that is Singularity42. Only ONE person is saying "STOP" and that is User:Jayjg who has not discussed my issue, and has only answered in an unreasonable and bullying, threatening uncivil way (exactly the same complaint that User:DeknMike made). How many times does soemone HAVE TO PUT UP THE SAME REFERENCES AND SOURCES AS EXAMPLES before it becomes a clear case of avoidance? Does replying by saying that someone is wrong regarding wiki policy, without providing an explanation, really count as 'discussion'?

User:StevenJAnderson has not discussed my issue at all, either. He has merely undone everything I have added because he doesn't like my citation tags and two sources. No discussion of anything else I added from either of them.

6. The issue of what consitutes 'directly related to' I would still like to be adressed.

7. User:Jayjg has written "sources you use must be directly related to "Criticism" of Holocaust denial")

Yet I have provided, as requested, seven examples of sources that do not fit this requirement. There are many more. This inconsisteny has NEVER been addressed.

I am merely requesting consistent application of wiki policy. Lebob wrote: It is not because a book is not specificaly devoted to Holocaust denial... material could only be deleted if it was proved that the sources used in this article do not say what is reported in the article." --09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC). That is also my understanding.

8. Finally, please can I also ask you to address the points I made in my mediation request There were three of them... --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He is reverting your edits, as is Jayjg. Therefore I believe it is implied that they agree. I did not notice that Singularity was in agreement with you. Therefore, 2 people disagree and... well... can you deem consensus for yourself? I suppose so. It would be at a draw. This seems to be much more confusing then it really is. I'll mediate on the mediation page. However, when I see the talk page for the article in question, it appears to me that Singularity is questioning the reliability of your only source. And when I say its up for sale, I meant a .com address not a .org. In my view, it looks like this Zundelsite is a site which promotes the 'honor' of the German people. What really gets me is you claim Zundelsite is a verifiable source (without bias). Scrolling down, I see the words How Holocaust Enforcers yada yada. What is that? Really? Its as much a verifiable source for Criticism of the Holocaust as sourcing Glenn Beck on the Tea Party--clearly biased.

User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that that Singularity was in agreement with me. I said he was the only one who actually discussed with me properly about what my point was in reality (i.e.correctly). Others did as you as you are now doing, viz. misconstruing my point. (Phewph!)

I am not claiming consensus for myself (:-o?). I am saying there was no consensus that I should "Stop"

I am not claiming the Zundel source is a verifiable source for Criticism of Holocaust Denial or "without bias". I am saying its a verifiable source for Holocaust denial AND I'm saying that is appropriate as it is directly related to the article, and needs to be supplied as everything needs a source for verifiability. I.e. if we are going to present arguments that are then going to be criticised, those arguments need to be sourced. Do you see?

Er... I don't know what your time constraints are, and I appreciate your involvement, but are you perhaps skimming when you are reading the points of disagreement and my answers? As you have misconstrued my meaning on almost every particular in your two answers.

Jayjg wrote as a reason for an undo: "none of these dubious sources and insertions have been discussed..." And yet the evidence that I attempted a discussion over many days is clear to see. So that is demonstrably a travesty of the actuality. The additions I made I had clearly mentioned and given my sources for them.

Plus 'citation required' tags were removed. Why was that?

StevenJ.Anderson and Jayjg both wrote: "anyone who inserts citations to a Zundelsite cannot be trusted" which is not good faith and was despite my clear appeal to wiki policy to explain my reason for doing so. A reason that has still not properly been adressed (verifiability and questionable sources as sources on themselves).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply to this mediation request, may I ask your advice as to how I can best proceed with this issue. Jayjg is clearly in breach of good faith editing, and guilty of using the talk page innapproriately. WP:TALK Viz.# No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks. # Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with... having them banned for disagreeing with you. I.e. he didn't just "explain ...the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies,...[which] is permitted..." Plus I contend he is using these threats as a way of refusing to discuss what I regard as infringements and unbiased application of core wiki policy in the editing of that article, (i.e. my three points, which have still not been adressed by you). Please could I ask you to reply to these three points, or failing that please advise as how to how you suggest I take this further if you have decided that you do not want to mediate--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Here again, for ease of understanding, are the basic points of impropriety I am complaining of:

i.) many unattributed opinions in the article are presented as fact. I suggested (and still suggest) that these have to be attributed or removed.

Some 'citation required' tags were added by me to begin to effect this but were immediately removed.

Citations supplied by me to address this were immediately deleted as coming from unreliable sources. When I supplied my reasoning in accord with wiki policy, ad hominem insults directed at me (e.g. "can't be trusted") were offered as explanation for these undiscussed 'undos' of my edits.

Threats of banning were made if I continued to discuss this on the talk page in the light of my understanding of core wiki policy .

ii.) Many sources in the existing article are NOT taken from sources specifically discussing "Criticism of HC" (the title of the Article). Yet Jayjg repeatedly insists on this, while simultaneuosly uses this criteria as a reason for disallowing material that he appears to personally not want in the article. I.e. there appears to be inconsistent (and presumably partisan/biased) administration of editorship.

Here again is what is in dispute

1. Deciding what constitutes "directly related to the subject of the article"

2. Deciding how rigid is the requirement of verifiability of all material (sources)

3. Deciding the application of wiki policy regarding "...questionable sources as sources on themselves." [4]--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask, why was this never dealt with?

And who has closed this and on what grounds?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)