Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boraczek and Shorne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to this mediation subpage, being mediated by Grunt (to whom this page refers in the first person). I ask that users other than myself, Boraczek, and Shorne edit this page until proceedings are complete. If you wish to comment and are not one of the above users, please hold off doing so on this page until after proceedings are complete.

If you are Shorne or Boraczek, please try to keep things in a (reasonably) civil tone on this page; the last thing I want is for this to turn into a shouting match (if that happens, I will close this page without hesitation).

Now then, let's get things started...

If I understand things correctly, this dispute is on the basis of whether or not certain edits made by the both of you to articles relating to communist organisations and the former Soviet Union construe a neutral point of view. I'll give both of you the chance to explain the reasoning behind your edits and/or reverts on some (if not all) of the articles in question. Shorne has indicated that some of these articles are: Joseph Stalin, Kulak, Collectivisation in the USSR, Ludo Martens, Free world, Great Purge, and Communism Weathermen and Boricua Popular Army, as it seems to me at this point in time, it seems to me that the dispute may simply be a misunderstanding of what construes a "neutral point of view".

I'll give you both some time to respond to this. -- Grunt   ҈  01:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend days writing up explanations of everything I've done. If Boraczek has a serious dispute over a change of mine, let him articulate it, and I'll respond.

For now, I'd like to point to his recent changes to Ludo Martens, which are typical of his handiwork. I would like a justification of those changes that takes into account the comments of User:El_C on Talk:Ludo Martens. Specifically, answers to El_C's direct questions would be appreciated. Shorne 15:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not asking for a detailed explanation of everything you have written - just explanations for some of the disputed actions. We can work through these one at a time if we must; a detailed understanding here is better than a hastily written thought pattern, and would help to determine the underlying causes of this dispute. -- Grunt   ҈  15:25, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Although it is I who initiated this request, I shall not participate any further at this time. A mediator quickly came along and deleted my comment on a recent request for mediation, saying that comments from non-participants were unwelcome; yet comments were evidently most welcome on the request that I filed against VeryVerily about six weeks ago—one that never got a single reply from any moderator, incidentally. In addition, the kangaroo court of corrupt arbitrators is demonstrating its partiality at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. The administration of this site is hopelessly corrupt and dishonest and must be dissolved if the site is not to degenerate into an even more hellish disaster. Shorne 17:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd urge you to at least give Boraczek a chance to respond to your comments here before making such a decision. Arriving at this line of thought through a completely unrelated incident is not the way to solve one's disputes; on the contrary, I think it will merely make things worse. But I won't stop you if that is the case. -- Grunt   ҈  17:41, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
This is a related case. Boraczek is VeryVerily's protégé. The (mal)administration here favours such people and does little to hide its tendentiousness. The kangaroo court of incompetent, biased, unresponsive "arbitrators" is going to ban me. Bring it on, then! I've been saying this for days. Go ahead and ban me; show everyone how corrupt you are. Shorne 17:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This subpage is not the place to criticise the arbitration committee. Please try to keep your comments related to this dispute at hand; otherwise we won't get anywhere. -- Grunt   ҈  21:44, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there seems not to be any page for criticising the arbitration committee. Shorne 22:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On the contrary; the arbcom is a frequent target of criticism - including my own. I don't care to go hunting for those pages right now because this mediation session is not meant as a place for such discussion. We await your response, Boraczek. -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
The "arbcom" is totally unresponsive and needs to be exposed as such. The fact that there is no centralised place for complaints about that corrupt committee is evident in your comment about the need "to go hunting for those pages" where criticism has been posted. Shorne 08:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we're still waiting for a reply from Boraczek. Shall we give this a few more days and then kick it up to the arbitration committee? Shorne 11:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek appears to have disappeard since the 14th. We'll give this a few days and if he doesn't return we can consider this closed for the moment. -- Grunt   ҈  14:23, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am pretty busy this week, so I am not able to devote much time to this mediation case and to Wikipedia in general. But I thought I should at least reply to Shorne's request for mediation and Grunt's initial message.

First, in my opinion Shorne's accusations which were made in his request for mediation are unfounded. I am saying this to avoid the impression that I implicitly admit that his accusations are justified.

Second, I could level many accusations at Shorne as well. But I consider mediation an attempt at an agreement rather than an exchange of accusations. So I will just write what I think the problem is about and what type of agreement I expect.

Let me distinguish four levels of the dispute.

1. General opinions and orientations. My attitude toward communism and Shorne's attitude toward communism are very different. As a result, what Shorne considers "facts" is what I consider a real distorted and sometimes propagandistic description. And what I consider truth is what Shorne considers "factually incorrect information" or even "propaganda". I think an agreement on this level is impossible, that is to say, I do not expect this mediation process to make one or both of the participants change their political views.

2. NPOV. Of course, differences in opinion do not have to bring about violent disputes and edit wars. One of the goals of the NPOV policy is to prevent this kind of problems from arising.

I agree with grunt that the problem is related to the way of understanding the NPOV rules. The way I interpret them is different than the way Shorne interprets them.

In my opinion, NPOV means that if there are different and contradictory opinions on what happened, we should present these opinions and attribute them to people who hold these opinions. So if A says X and B says Y, a Wikipedia article should say "A says X, B says Y".

In Shorne's opinion (Shorne, please correct me if I distort anything), NPOV means that there should be no opinions in the article, there should be only facts. So if A says X, B says Y, and X is correct, a Wikipedia article should say "X".

Some examples of the NPOV dispute between me and Shorne: Shorne's post: [1], my post [2], Shorne's reply [3], my posts [4] [5] [6].

In my opinion, Shorne's way of understanding neutrality is deeply rooted in his personality. This is the way I see it: Shorne has the deep belief that there is only one truth which has been already discovered. He is convinced that he knows this truth. He thinks that this truth is obvious and undeniable.

This is why Shorne usually fails to discuss the matter of controversy. Even if he tries to discuss the matter, he says what he believes to be true and he assumes that the matter is already discussed and explained - the truth has been revealed. When anybody who has a different opinion answers, Shorne is aggressive and insults him or simply refuses to discuss the matter. Example: [7] - [8] - [9].

This is not to make an accusation, but to show what the deep source of the problem is in my opinion.

Well, according to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). So we cannot negotiate the way of interpreting NPOV during this mediation. The question is whether we understand it correctly or not. I hope the mediator finds a way to make both of the participants understand what NPOV really means.

This is my first proposal for the text of the future agreement:

I) Both sides promise that they will make maximal effort to follow the rules of Wikipedia NPOV policy.

3. Procedures. I think an agreement is easiest on this level. As far as I know, Shorne stopped breaking the three revert rule, I don't break it either. I suggest further restrictions so as to prevent edit wars from starting.

II) None of the sides will revert edits made by the other side without explanation (in the summary or on the discussion page).

III) If any of the sides reverts, the other side will not instantly revert to the previous version. Instead, the other side will ask for explanation or substantiate his own edits on the discussion page. The other side can put a proper tag (for example Template:Totallydisputed) in the article too. The other side will refrain from reverting until the first side answers or until the first side fails to answer in 48 hours.

Probably, these points need rewriting so that they are expressed in better English.

4. Particular articles and edits. Well, the conflicts related to particular parts of particular articles should probably be resolved on corresponding talk pages. Of course, we can discuss particular edits and articles here, they may serve as examples, but I think the dispute is not restricted to some definite number of issues. It seems to me it is about general way of writing articles and dealing with different views on the subject.

This is what I wanted to say at the beginning. Now I would like to ask the mediator: should I reply to any of Shorne's messages? Boraczek 18:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you feel a response is necessary to Shorne's questions, please do so. Otherwise I'll give Shorne the chance to reply to your comments if he has anything to say. -- Grunt   ҈  18:57, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
It's not whether Boraczek feels that a response to my questions is needed. If no response is forthcoming, I will take that as his acceptance of my charges. Shorne 20:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In fact, I find it outrageous that you had the nerve to suggest that answering my direct questions was optional. What the hell is "mediation" good for, if discussion itself is left to the discretion of one party? Big waste of time—as I knew from the beginning that it would be. I regret wasting my time writing stuff that is only being ignored; I should have had the sense to know better.
I will push directly to arbitration if Boraczek does not answer the questions. Shorne 01:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see that Boraczek has responded, I must disagree with his approach. We need to talk about factual issues, not make groundless pronouncements on each other's "personality" and the like.

Boraczek stated in (1) that he and I differ strongly on the issue of communism. This is certainly true. I maintain, however, that it is not relevant. I manage to collaborate here with some people who hold opinions very different from mine. (For example, User:Mikkalai and I can usually discuss things rationally and reach a compromise when there is a dispute.) The reason that Boraczek and I are in mediation is that that sort of collaboration is not happening. I maintain that Boraczek repeatedly uses these articles as platforms for promoting his private opinions with little regard for the facts.

The mediator asked me to reply to Shorne's post, so I will comment on what Shorne wrote.
First, I would like to say that I also find my cooperation with User:Mikkalai very satisfactory, even if his opinions are very different than mine. To me, Mikkalai is a brilliant example of a Wikipedian who has strong personal views on the subject, but still cares about gathering reliable information and preserving NPOV in the article. The best proof is that both I and Shorne accept Mikkalai's edits.
I never used Wikipedia as a platform to promote my private opinions, but Shorne apparently did. I used to think that he intentionally used Wikipedia to spread his own POV, but now I think he does it, so to speak, spontaneously. That is, he is not aware of the fact that he tries to impose his own extremist POV, because he thinks this POV is the obvious truth. Boraczek 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It also seems to me that Boraczek is not serious about doing research—an opinion well supported by the history of the article The Black Book of Communism. Boraczek petulantly demanded the creation of this page (see [[Talk:Communism/Archive3#Response to the petulant demand for the use of the Black Book of Communism]]) so that he could write an article presenting the "evidence" in support of the book's claims. We created the article. Did he ever write anything? User:Mihnea Tudoreanu and I wrote almost all of it. Boraczek came along later and reverted a few things. That's the extent of his contribution—and, I conclude, of his seriousness.

Let me describe what happened. On Talk:Communist state User:172 suggested that the section about The Black Book of Communism would be relevant in the article about communism rather than in the article about communist state [10]. I agreed and I moved the section to the article Communism. The section simply reported on what The Black Book of Communism said, attributing opinions to the authors [11]. BTW, I didn't write that section. 2 hours later Shorne came and removed the section, calling it "POV propaganda" [12]. I restored the section, because I didn't accept suppressing information about the Black Book for the reason that Shorne did not agree with what the book said. Soon, Mihnea came and removed the section, calling it "insane POV propaganda" too. I restored the section again. Eventually, Mihnea refrained from removing the section. He inserted a NPOV label instead. I accepted this solution and I started a discussion on the talk page, defining my standpoint [13]. Then Shorne came and removed the NPOV-labeled section again. He also removed factually correct information on Poland I added to the article, which he never questioned on any discussion page [14]. Seeing that Mihnea and Shorne strongly oppose the section. I suggested a compromise - creating a separate article on the Black Book [15]. Mihnea accepted my suggestion, but Shorne insisted that any information about the book should be suppressed [16]. Finally, Mihnea persuaded Shorne into accepting my suggestion. Let me add that Shorne was really rude. He called me a swine, compared me to a "believer in the Evil Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy" [17] and said "go off and write the stupid article" [18]. I think I don't need to argue that his posts violated Wikipedia policy (No personal attacks, Civilty).
Unlike Shorne suggests, I never said I would write an article on the book. I wrote: "My suggestion is that we create a separate article, report what the Black Book says and then list objections to it". The section already reported what the book said. I encouraged Mihnea to list objections to the Black Book and I asked Shorne not to interfere [19]. That's all.
I edited the article about the Black Book a few times within the folowing 24 hours. I removed a slander added by Shorne [20] and I explained the reason for this removal on the discussion page [21]. I also changed some very tendentious "questions" [22] and I explained why I made these changes on the discussion page [23]. Boraczek 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I spent a good deal of time on October 10 writing a ten-paragraph refutation of Boraczek's and User:Fred Bauder's source for the dishonest claim of "100 million" deaths caused by communism. Wasted effort, obviously, for neither of them, nor anyone else, has replied to this text (see [[Talk:Communism/Archive3#Response to the petulant demand for the use of the Black Book of Communism]]). But both make it their business to go around promulgating the "100 million" lie at every article that touches on communism—and then to accuse me of POV when I don't embrace the idiotic lie.

First, I did reply to Shorne's text [24] [25]. Fred Bauder did answer as well [26].
Second, I think this example reveals Shorne's attitude very well. Shorne did not agree with The Black Book of Communism, he listed his arguments, so he thought he had the right to suppress any information on the book. Other Wikipedians (me and Fred Bauder) did not agree with him, but Shorne did not care. Many historians, probably the majority, think the book is a reliable source, but Shorne did not care. The book is famous and stirred up a lively controversy, but Shorne did not care. He thinks that what the book says is a lie (not merely false information, but a conscious lie), so there should be no mention of the book at all. So he removed the whole section on the book.
Let me add that IMO Wikipedia discussion pages are not appropriate places to publish one's own ten-paragraph polemic with a famous book. Boraczek 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek's peculiar framing of NPOV as "A says X, B says Y", with only X mentioned if it is factually correct (and Y is factually incorrect), is inconsistent with his history of editing. Again, a good illustration of this is his recent set of changes to Ludo Martens. I created the article (which still needs to be expanded) one day last week. Boraczek, snooping through my edit history, came bouncing up soon thereafter and wrote a lot of opinionated rubbish not even backed by a knowledge of Martens's work (almost all of which is certainly foreign to Boraczek). This is hardly "A says X, B says Y". It is nothing short of a hatchet job written out of spite by someone who doesn't like the fact that Martens is a communist historian whose reassessment of the Soviet Union under Stalin is rather more favourable than the conventional view of Stalin as the devil incarnate.

Shorne's article contained an unsubstantiated, POV statement. I removed that statement and added some true information on Martens. Maybe my edits were not perfect and my wording was not too good, but anyway I believe my version was closer to the neutrality than Shorne's version. El_C questioned my changes and removed the paragraph I added, so I discussed my changes on the discussion page. In the meantime, Shorne reverted to his old, POV version. Boraczek 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I repeat my call for a defence by Boraczek of his changes to Ludo Martens, including a response to the questions carefully written out by El_C on the talk page. I am dying to see how such changes meld with the policy on NPOV and accuracy. Shorne 20:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did explain my changes on Talk:Ludo Martens. Boraczek 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I feel that understanding what causes a dispute and what traits of the persons involved were a factor is one of the really only effective ways to stop future such disputes from happening again. It appears to me right now that one of the major causes here is determining exactly what or what cannot be called NPOV here. It very much seems to me that the both of you have strong views as to what can be considered factual in this respect.
It seems to me that this is being exacerbated by a relative lack of unbiased, civil communication on the talk pages in question and in edit summaries. I am inclined to agree with Boraczek's proposed solution that you should make efforts to communicate with each other more on talk pages before making changes that could be percieved as controversial and not to revert excessively if such a change is made.
Shorne, if you have anything you wish to change about Boraczek's proposed solution here, please say so. Boraczek, before we move on, I would like you to follow up on Shorne's posed questions. That way, we can all be satisfied and that's what we're trying to do here. :) -- Grunt   ҈  02:05, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
I don't accept that "solution", which amounts to empty words. If Boraczek had been serious about discussing things, I wouldn't have had to request mediation. The problem is Boraczek's behaviour. Talking about wishy-washy "solutions" that don't amount to anything is 'way out of line when the fundamental issues have not been addressed by one party. Again, we can see here who is serious and who is not: I carefully (and at a great cost of my precious time) lay out the facts; Boraczek mutters insinuations about my "personality" and generally tries to turn this into a "Kumbaya" session. Shorne 02:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How would you suggest going about solving future disputes of this nature, then? -- Grunt   ҈  03:09, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
I have already tried all of what Boraczek suggested. He is not serious about discussion, and I have grave doubts about his ability to discuss things rationally. Shorne 03:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the record here, I am awaiting Boraczek's next response. -- Grunt   ҈  20:19, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

You can wait until the cows come home. Obviously there is no point in discussing anything where the administration is corrupt, unresponsive, unaccountable, biased, and vindictive. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision. Shorne 18:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How many more days shall we wait before concluding that Boraczek is not serious about mediation? Shorne 04:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek, before we move on, I would like you to follow up on Shorne's posed questions.

I am sorry, I am not sure if I understand what you meant. If you meant the questions posed at Talk:Ludo Martens Shorne talked about, then I have just replied to them. If you meant that I should reply to Shorne's post of (20:22, 17 Nov 2004), then I will be glad to do it (nobody likes to be unjustly accused with no possibility of defence). But my opinion on the described events is, of course, different than Shorne's opinion, so I doubt if it makes Shorne satisfied. Boraczek 13:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Shorne simly wanted your rationale behind your edits to Ludo Martens. Shorne should clarify if this is the case and read your reasoning regardless. -- Grunt   ҈  17:06, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
All right. I am ready to reply to Shorne's post of 17 Nov. But I will not do it unless it is requested, because, as I said, I try to treat this mediation as a process of reaching agreement rather than as an exchange of accusations. After all, mediation is defined as the activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest (Wikipedia:Mediation). Boraczek 18:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please proceed; it'll help to reach a mutual understanding here and thereby (hopefully) lead to an agreement. -- Grunt   ҈  00:40, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
I have just replied to Shorne's post.
I have to say that the situation is a bit strange, because Shorne has been banned from editing articles related to communism. Since he is not allowed to edit articles on communism, it seems there is no current dispute to be solved. Boraczek 22:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)