This is to all editors' attention regarding EC-protected topics and articles that get frequent edit/revert wars for whatever reason.
Despite the fact that all of the editors who are eligible to edit there are supposed to be familiar with relevant editorial policies (note I'm not speaking of behavioural issues, which is a whole other matter, though the patterns of editing might constitute some behavioural evidence), there are frequent occurrences in which their ignorance has been noted. Therefore, I feel that it is very important to note some of the issues plaguing the anti-Semitism in Poland topic in particular.
The talk pages have, for quite a long time, seen a proliferation of demagoguery which eats up the time that should be instead spent on the main purpose of why we are here, that is, writing articles. Some of these have taken gargantuesque proportions, as I've witnessed on ArbCom and on one of the articles I've expanded. I've been involved in both, and that's more than enough for me. If you want to waste your time bickering on talk pages - please do that, but if I come there, please involve me only to the minimal extent possible, the extent which is reasonably required to clarify any of the issues.
The editors who wish to interact with me in any extent regarding editorial disputes are reminded that:
clear substantive explanationof why this edit is getting reverted. As the definition of word "substantive" indicates, the challenge must base on real, not apparent or simply plausible concerns. For the purposes of ECP topics, the
clear substantive explanationwill be interpreted as providing, apart from the relevant policy/guideline which the editor thinks is being violated, the specific example of the questioned passage(s), if the highlighted passage within the diff does not make it clear enough, the reason this passage gets deleted, as expressed in e.g. a quote/page reference/URL etc. supporting the other interpretation or in a suggested remedy (e.g. this section gives too much weight to the issue relative to the rest of the article, expand others or trim the section), and the reasoning why this could not have been fixed by the reverter/deleter themselves otherwise than via a revert. For instance, if WP:BALANCE is asserted over a specific edit which e.g. adds another source to the viewpoint already represented in the article, the editor will have to point to (a) source(s) that say(s) otherwise, or better still, add them themselves and present the other viewpoint. The editor may reverse the burden of proof, and therefore compel the one seeking inclusion to form consensus, only if the
clear substantive explanationwas provided.
not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, [we should] not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.In short, editors often mistake the two, and they must know the difference.
In light of these considerations, the behaviour regarding failure to comply with the above-cited policies or well-recognised essays will be as follows:
Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)