Thread:BlazPod/@comment-258494-20191230072928/@comment-33034960-20191231012226

Greetings,

I think my clarification of the situation is absolutely necessary.

First and foremost: I did not have any intention to start a discussion about Mr. Villa Avisencio's claimed/real age, much less about the connection between the Gerontology Wiki and GRG. I have just added an additional information to Mr Villa Avisencio's biographical article from an existing source (listed in References). At this point I am not going to discuss the fact that most of the biographical information in the article was taken from this source but the information about Mr. Villa Avisencio's reported age in 2017 was deliberately (?) omitted. As soon as I added the sentence about this information from the source (again, taken from the References), my edit was immediately deleted (changed to the previous form), and when I added it again, the process was repeated. Only then I write the first comment and started a discussion.

How else can I point out the arbitrary behavior of an editor (editors)? Neither you nor any other admin has condemned, in the whole discussion, such action (deletion/changing of information from the source, listed in References) when it happened. Such edits, in my view, are unacceptable; not only from the standpoint of Gerontology Wiki rules but also from the standpoint of objectivity and correctness on a larger scale.

Secondly, my mention of the Gerontology Wiki and GRG connection that was, in your opinion, “incorrect and unacceptable”. To clarify: I did not mention GRG in this discussion first. My mention of GRG referred to the mention of GRG in one of the editor's response (quote): “This disscusion should stop here, and we should wait for the GRG and GWR to make their decision on this case.” My response to this sentence was: “Gerontology Wiki is also not GRG. The current form of articles on the Gerontology Wiki has nothing to do with what GRG will decide in the future. For now, publicly available sources are and should be the only references and they should be considered objectively and comprehensively."

“W'e 'should wait for the GRG and GWR to make their decision on this case.” Sorry, but this statement is nothing but an example of a“ water is wet” proverb that has nothing to do with concrete problems (arbitrary changing/deleting of data from published sources in the Gerontology Wiki articles, and justifying such actions by unpublished data from original research). Of course, we should wait and see what GRG will say about Mr. Villa Avisencio's age, and respect that, but we have discussed about the content of an article here and now.

“Gerontology Wiki is also not GRG”: this statement does not reflect the (in)connection between Gerontology Wiki and GRG but reminds that, especially in the case of the issue under discussion - despite the interconnectedness - there are two entities which have their own characteristics. Many times, I have read on Gerontology Wiki, when someone in the comments asked questions about typical “GRG issues” (e.g. sc's documentation) that Gerontology Wiki is not a place for such issues and that he/she must address the issue to GRG.

“The current form of articles on the Gerontology Wiki has nothing to do with what GRG will decide in the future.” I think there is no need to clarify this statement. The articles on Gerontology Wiki are based on sources that are available in the present and - I guess so – not on “what will happen in the future” speculations. Such speculative statements are completeley irrelevant; not only in this case, but always and everywhere.

Last but not least about GRG in my responses, I think it is worth mentioning my statement from another response in the same discussion: “''However, GRG will have the final say. Until then we are considering all publicly available sources at the same level.''” I have nothing to add to these statements and I think they clarify my opinion on this matter.

I am pleased to have clarified my position. However, I think that in the discussion about Mr. Villa Avisencio I have nothing to apologize for, except for the awkward expressions, because I'm not a native English speaker. You can shorten my suspension or not. But, depending on your first response to the whole situation (which I perceived as arrogant and offensive, eg. mentioning my “response” but without the quote to which response it refers, and statements like “If you don't, find another Wikia”) I think I will consider whether my participation in the Gerontology Wiki project still makes any sense at all. In any case, I am proud to have added a lot of new information to Gerontology Wiki articles so far, especially from non-English sources.

Regards