User:Scandum has become increasingly a thorn in my side. He is obviously some sort of neo-eugenicist and he spends all of his time on here causing problems on eugenics related articles. Put basically, he questions basic historical facts (such as that the Nazis used eugenic rhetoric to justify their racial policies) and tries to edit them out of articles. When he is advised to look at the many dozens of references given in the article -- all to scholarly works, all available on Amazon.com, all available at a standard library -- he claims he has never read them and cannot get access to them. He does not cite anything to justify his own opinions, and apparently has never read anything on the topic. If you do give him a web source, he disregards it as a "random source" or simply disagrees with it.
He hasn't broken any rules, but he's wasting a lot of time. The POV he is pushing is completely uninformed about the articles he is trying to push it into, he seems to purposely not understand direct responses to his queries, he repeats the same old schtick no matter how carefully the other editors attempt to reason with him and show him their sources. Those who disagree with him he labels "bullies".
It is clear to me, anyway, that he knows nothing reliable about the topic and is just a crank. The changes he wants to institute are ones which anybody with even a mild education in the subject matter knows are at worst untrue and at best historically and logically incoherent. As an example, he filed a POV warning because he wanted a line change from saying that part of what put eugenics into disrepute was a reaction to the Nazi eugenic programs, to saying that what put eugenics into disrepute was the UN Human Rights Declaration. The latter doesn't specifically mention eugenics but even then it was *caused* by a reaction to the Nazis. He doesn't seem to understand the difference, it is clear he just wants to remove any reference to the Nazis.
I'm getting pretty fed up, after three weeks it is clear that reasoning with him isn't going to get anywhere, and he is really wasting a lot of my time and the time of others on here. Anybody have any advice? If anybody wanted to read the small novel of talk at [[Eugenics]], I'd appreciate any specific insight as well. I'm trying to be civil -- failing at times -- but I get pretty annoyed when some crank pushing what I consider to be a pretty ugly and revisionist POV (into an article which has been carefully written so as to minimize its own judgments and POV -- it doesn't say "eugenics is a Nazi philosophy" as it easily could, it is about perceptions and rhetoric) cuts back on time which I could be spending writing or editing better articles because I have to explain things to him that he would have known if he had done any actual reading in the subject. (And mind you, I don't mind explaining things -- I do mind when I am sure that my efforts are wasted because my explanations will not be read)
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too elitist, anti-user, whatever. I think if you look at his contribs list though you can see his agenda pretty well, and I try to assume good faith with people for at least the first week of their work. You can see, if you look, that I've tried to rewrite various things in the article to be more clear and precise, and have for the most part tried to take everything he said at least seriously enough to give it a real response (up to the point of repetition). Again, he hasn't broken any rules, I don't see any real grounds for mediation, I'm just getting very frustrated, and justifiably so, I think.
FF
Open an RfC on this user. List some examples of "POV pushing". If Scandum is not citing sources for his additions and/or is ignoring sources supplied by other users, then he IS breaking rules. Keep in mind that an RfC on an individual should focus on personal behaviour and not content issues.
Some users respond positively to being the subject of an RfC; others don't. If Scandum doesn't, you may have a good case to bring before the ArbCom.
HTH
V.
Well, yes, I suppose I can do that. I suppose I was also just looking for anybody else's input on this before I go ahead with something like that -- making sure I am doing the right thing on this. Again, he's not doing anything flagrantly out of bounds but he is becoming quite a pest.
FF
On 6/3/05, Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl wrote:
Open an RfC on this user. List some examples of "POV pushing". If Scandum is not citing sources for his additions and/or is ignoring sources supplied by other users, then he IS breaking rules. Keep in mind that an RfC on an individual should focus on personal behaviour and not content issues.
Some users respond positively to being the subject of an RfC; others don't. If Scandum doesn't, you may have a good case to bring before the ArbCom.
HTH
V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This sounds like a move that will go to arbitration. I suggest you move it along. Speak to Scandum about changing sure enough, but move it along and we can get it over with if he is determined to keep on with the stuff you describe. For example, ask him if he will use inter-library loan to check references before he deletes them.
Fred
On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Fastfission wrote:
User:Scandum has become increasingly a thorn in my side. He is obviously some sort of neo-eugenicist and he spends all of his time on here causing problems on eugenics related articles. Put basically, he questions basic historical facts (such as that the Nazis used eugenic rhetoric to justify their racial policies) and tries to edit them out of articles. When he is advised to look at the many dozens of references given in the article -- all to scholarly works, all available on Amazon.com, all available at a standard library -- he claims he has never read them and cannot get access to them. He does not cite anything to justify his own opinions, and apparently has never read anything on the topic. If you do give him a web source, he disregards it as a "random source" or simply disagrees with it.
He hasn't broken any rules, but he's wasting a lot of time. The POV he is pushing is completely uninformed about the articles he is trying to push it into, he seems to purposely not understand direct responses to his queries, he repeats the same old schtick no matter how carefully the other editors attempt to reason with him and show him their sources. Those who disagree with him he labels "bullies".
It is clear to me, anyway, that he knows nothing reliable about the topic and is just a crank. The changes he wants to institute are ones which anybody with even a mild education in the subject matter knows are at worst untrue and at best historically and logically incoherent. As an example, he filed a POV warning because he wanted a line change from saying that part of what put eugenics into disrepute was a reaction to the Nazi eugenic programs, to saying that what put eugenics into disrepute was the UN Human Rights Declaration. The latter doesn't specifically mention eugenics but even then it was *caused* by a reaction to the Nazis. He doesn't seem to understand the difference, it is clear he just wants to remove any reference to the Nazis.
I'm getting pretty fed up, after three weeks it is clear that reasoning with him isn't going to get anywhere, and he is really wasting a lot of my time and the time of others on here. Anybody have any advice? If anybody wanted to read the small novel of talk at [[Eugenics]], I'd appreciate any specific insight as well. I'm trying to be civil -- failing at times -- but I get pretty annoyed when some crank pushing what I consider to be a pretty ugly and revisionist POV (into an article which has been carefully written so as to minimize its own judgments and POV -- it doesn't say "eugenics is a Nazi philosophy" as it easily could, it is about perceptions and rhetoric) cuts back on time which I could be spending writing or editing better articles because I have to explain things to him that he would have known if he had done any actual reading in the subject. (And mind you, I don't mind explaining things -- I do mind when I am sure that my efforts are wasted because my explanations will not be read)
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too elitist, anti-user, whatever. I think if you look at his contribs list though you can see his agenda pretty well, and I try to assume good faith with people for at least the first week of their work. You can see, if you look, that I've tried to rewrite various things in the article to be more clear and precise, and have for the most part tried to take everything he said at least seriously enough to give it a real response (up to the point of repetition). Again, he hasn't broken any rules, I don't see any real grounds for mediation, I'm just getting very frustrated, and justifiably so, I think.
FF _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l