Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proper placement of comments[edit]

I request that Ultramarine's spurious comments, numbered (5) through (9) below, be removed from this page, where they do not belong. I will add (10), pending this being done, to avoid confusion. Septentrionalis

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Consensus[edit]

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. makes sense Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. My efforts, and Mihnea Tudoreanu's, to do so have been entered into evidence. Ultramarine has opposed all of them, except for a grudging assent to the original Request for Mediation. When Mediation was finally offered, he declined it. He has ignored the RfC, also in evidence. Septentrionalis 19:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Consensus has also stated that "Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumstances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers." Official policy also states that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes." [1]. As discussed in the evidence section, I have numerous times tried to discuss the factual differences and why they are deleting well-referenced information. It should be noted that almost all of the specific factual discussions have been initiated by me, they have usually summarily reverted new factual and referenced content with no explanation except by referring to their not adequately done and many months old straw poll. Regarding Mediation, my anwer was "Unfortunately, I do not consider the dispute mediatable anymore. I have already for two and half months tried to present referenced facts and asked for the same when discussing. However, the other side does not respond to such arguments. Thus, I prefer the arbitration process to continue" Ultramarine 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Appeal to "consensus" has been used repeatedly in this dispute, but there is no evidence that the parties opposing Ultramarine have been using it with the what the larger community would have in mind for an article named "Criticisms of communism". Their use of it merely means they outnumber Ultramarine. I object to POV characterization of one version of the article as the "consensus" version. Ultramarine's version more prominently features the litany human rights violations that most people would expect to see in a Criticisms of communism article that has been forced out of the communism article by apologists for or deniers of the problems represented by the extraordinarily persistent transitional phases imposed by communists on their way to the a classless, stateless society enabled by a newly purged or re-educated human "nature". Three editors do not "own" an article merely because they happen to hold votes when just one of the many interested parties in the community is around.--Silverback 04:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

2) When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. This looks to be one long slow-motion revert war. Still harmful to the wiki even when 3RR isn't being broken. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. I would like to point out the numerous factual discussions that I have initiated where I have asked for explanations for the deletions of well-referenced facts and arguments. [2]. I have tried to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and have a spent considerable time researching and adding reliable and verifiable sources for all disputed statements. In contrast, in the evidence section I have many times pointed out their unexplained blank reversions, their ignorance regarding what they are reverting and criticizing, and their uninterest in improving the articles. See for example 15 September [3]. More than one month later after this and the promise to correct their own version, they have still not bothered to correct this problem in their own version that my version was falsely criticized for [4].Ultramarine 17:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to point out two recent attempts by me to initiate discussions regarding why Septentrionalis is excluding referenced sections. Septentrionalis has refused to make any answer [5][6] Ultramarine 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I have reverted, I have done so in order to add new material, references, or correct mistakes. Ultramarine 11:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We have discussed Ultramarine's demands for 100s of K; they have in large part included in the collaborative text - in fact, whenever there was any other editor to speak for them. Ultrmarine, however, cannot be satisfied with anything less than his own way on any point. Septentrionalis 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply false, see for example Robdurbar's support for at least parts of "my" version in "Characterization of parallel versions by editors" below (now moved to the talk page. Ultramarine 14:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)). I corrected text he opposed so that he later supported it. I have several times corrected "my" version when the opposite have given references in support. They refuse to do the same and keep verifiable errors as noted in 12). Ultramarine 05:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Note, that opposing parties have admitted including large parts of Ultramarine's contributions into the version they favor, the one that de-emphasizes human rights violations. Unless they have violated wikipedia principles in including that text, it must be admitted that Ultramarine has made valuable contributions to the article, so any sanctions should not include bans from editing these articles. The articles and wikipedia would be poorer without his efforts.--Silverback 07:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles[edit]

3) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Ultramarine's comment about reverting the page to "my version" suggests that this applies: [7]. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. That comment was made several months ago and was made when the other side decided to stop factual discussions and instead just decided to revert to their preferred version. I referred to what I now call the referenced and correct version, not to that I "owned" the article. As noted in the evidence section, I have tried to reach a true consensus and we earlier reached this on some points. I would argue that it is the other side who are claiming ownership by continually referring to their "consensus" and refusing to discuss why they are reverting and deleting referenced facts and arguments. Not that they have a "consensus" even using their standards, see for example this [8]. Several other editors have also reverted to "my" version, sometimes calling the other side edits vandalism, certainly also showing that they do not have a "consensus" [9][10][11]. While I have sought explanations in the discussion pages and continually added references, they do not and simply refer to their many months old and not adequately done straw poll as an excuse for deleting several months of new referenced arguments and facts. That is what I would call ownership of an article. Ultramarine 04:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultramarine has referred to "my" version as recently as 7 October [12]; possibly more recently. And he still behaves that way, even if he has learned euphemism. Septentrionalis`
  2. See previous section. Silverback has recently supported Ultramarine's efforts at a PoV fork of Criticisms of communism; with the express intent of "balancing" Communism. [13] This is a violation of WP:Point, and an expenditure of effort that could be better spent on Communism; it also demonstrates Silverback's judgment that Ultramarine is reverting to a PoV text. I understand the strategic intent, but think it misguided. Septentrionalis 19:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Silverback is only one of several editors who have supported "my" version, as noted above and in the evidence section. He is not on trial in this case. Regarding "balance", this is achieved by adding well-referenced information if this is lacking, not by deleting well-referenced information just because some persons dislikes this information. See 6) and 7) and 8) below. Ultramarine 06:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is certainly accurate for Ultramarine to use terms such as "my version". His version is clearly his, since he is the only one working on it. Other users have attempted to edit his version in the past - indeed, that is how the "collaborative version" was created in the first place - but he has always reverted those edits. Ultramarine has ascribed to himself the role of ultimate judge of any and all content that goes into Criticisms of communism (or at least his version thereof). Thus, he has effectively asserted ownership over the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. "My version" can be read to mean no more than "my contribution". nobs 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

4) Personal attacks on other users are unacceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Septentrionalis has on several occasions made personal attacks, for example after the start of RFA stated that I have no life [14], something explicitly mentioned as an example of a personal attack in the policy. He has also continued with this in recent edits, see 20 October [15]. Ultramarine 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted, Septentrionalis has to this date no regrets for his personal attack, calling it "parliamentary" Ultramarine 16:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that Ultramarine has made it plain what his complaint is, I see I expressed myself in a manner subject to misinterpretation. Ultramarine has devised an interpretation of my remark which I had never imagined, and I do regret whatever pain it has caused him. Presumably I should have said that Mr. West "has been swallowed by his life outside Wikipedia" (since he had not posted for two weeks, and is still not posting); whereas Ultramarine has posted copiously. I shall amend.Septentrionalis 20:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      As noted, Septentrionalis offers no apology for or acknowledgment that he made a personal attack, instead stating that **I** have "devised" a misinterpretation.Ultramarine 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Septentrionalis continues to be uncivil, stating in a edit summary "rv from advocacy; Ultramarine has actually found a source, how nice" [16]. The correct and referenced version has over 70 references, almost all added by me. Ultramarine 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Septentrionalis makes a thinly disguised personal attack against another user, DreamGuy. "It would be uncivil to speculate whether he is a liar or a lunatic." [17] Ultramarine 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I have taken a Wikibreak to reduce stress. If Ultrmarine has done the same, so much the better. He, at least, ought to concede provocation, since my remarks were a protest against undisdussed and unjustified removals from a page. [18]Septentrionalis 02:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Any Wikibreak must have been very short since Septentrionalis continues to edit, including his usual blank reverts of well-referenced information. I fail to see any relevance to his pattern of personal attacks against other editors. There is certainly no apology for them. Ultramarine 19:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      If Ultramarine had checked my contribution list, he would have seen almost three days (04;33 2 November to 01:47 5 November). Septentrionalis 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
The comments below this line are the work of one of the parties to the case, not an Arbiter.

Relevance of references[edit]

5) Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. While citation to references is definitely preferred, this level of precision is not always required. It would be folly for us to adopt this as a guiding principle. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask why this is rejected in this case when exactly the same text passed 7-0 in this case [19]. Ultramarine 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak to that case; I was not an active Arbitrator on it. The requirement to cite to specific passages is not a requirement for citation in legal contexts; I cannot understand why we would hold our contributors to a higher standard. I shall have to review the commentary leading to the adoption of that principle. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a thick book without giving page number makes checking of claims extremely difficult. In addition, even if the book is read through the other side can always claim that something was missed but refuse to state where. In scientific literature giving exact page numbers is the standard.Ultramarine 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. Septentrionalis has in the article and on the talk page refused to give page number or quotes from books he claims support his statements. Ultramarine 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the relevant sections [20][21][22] They have still not corrected their statements in articles. Ultramarine 23:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Source citations[edit]

6)

  • It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.
  • Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. The other side has continually removed results and references from verifiable and reliable sources such as peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books by well-known historians. Usually they provide no explanation when they do this. If asked on the talk page, they fail to provide adequate reasons. Ultramarine 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This principle has been upheld in other cases Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Source_citations.Ultramarine 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Does this apply to misleading, irrelevant, off-topic, redundant, or misquoted sources? Wikipedia is not paper, but it cannot cite every source someone may think relevant to an article, even on so narrow a topic as Democratic peace theory; there are too many of them.
As mentioned in the correct and referenced version, more than a hundred researchers have published many more papers in this field. Obviously it has far reaching real-world implications. By refusing to mention studies that for example show evidence for less democide and civil wars in democracies their version is certainly violating NPOV on a very important topic. Ultramarine 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The collaborative version does mention both subjects, without using the neologism democide. As Ultramarine pointed out some months ago, these are somewhat off topic in democratic peace theory; and the text was altered (and on balance shortened) to meet this objection. Evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#Ultramarine.27s_double_standard Septentrionalis 02:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my earlier statement, this was incorrect as I learned when I did more research. As noted in 12), the more general version of the DPT includes less civil wars and democide. Your version makes no mention of the studies showing this effect of democracy, only mentioning it as a "claim". Under "Statistical studies of DPTs" you have no mention of these studies and you selectively exclude mentioning the many studies showing various other findings and support for the DPT. All of this is NPOV violations. Ultramarine 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In other contexts, Ultramarine has vigurously opposed the Bandwagon Fallacy ("X is true because the majority says so"). But, strangely, his view is suddenly reversed when it comes to "peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books by well-known historians". Apparently, X is true if the majority of (or at least a few hundred) historians say so. I am sure there were just as many historians in the Soviet Union who published peer-reviewed articles showing communism to be inevitable, and just as many scholars in Nazi Germany demonstrating the superiority of the Aryan race, as there are historians in liberal democracies endorsing the democratic peace theory. Wikipedia should not endorse a certain political view or ideology, no matter how many historians swear that it is the Absolute Truth. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have certainly not argued that scientific truth is determined by voting among researchers. In science, one good study is all that is required to overthrow an overwhelming consensus that may have existed for centuries. The quality of the information is what is important. You are arguing that the works of Soviet "historians" and Nazi "scholars" are Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Ultramarine 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not up to you (or any of us) to determine which studies are good and which are bad. And I certainly do argue that, on the subject of ideology (e.g. liberalism, communism, etc.), the works of Soviet historians and Nazi scholars are no less reliable than the works of historians living in liberal democracies. Why should they be? Because they are tainted by the ruling ideology of their respective countries? By that logic, one could just as easily argue that the studies of liberal historians - especially openly militant liberals, like Rummel - are tainted by liberal ideology and therefore unreliable. Your use of scare quotes around "historians" and "scholars", as well as your refusal to accept the works of Soviet historians on the subject of Communism and the Soviet Union, is a clear symptom of the larger problem that has brought us here: You cannot even conceive of the idea that Communists could be anything other than liars. "Historian" and "Communist" are mutually exclusive categories in your view. Anything said by a Communist is by definition unreliable propaganda - even when dealing with the subject of Communism itself. That is why your article on Criticisms of communism is like a trial based on the principle "The accused is obviously biased; thus, he should not be allowed to speak in his own defense". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor have I argued that Wikipedia should "endorse" a certain political view or ideology. But certainly that "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." Well-referenced information is not an endorsement of an ideology. On the other hand, systematic deletion of such information if in conflict with an ideology is a characteristic of totalitarian states. Ultramarine 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have obviously not argued that Wikipedia should endorse a certain political view; my statement was that your text endorses your own political views in practice, whether you admit it or not. I encourage the arbitrators to read your text for themselves and judge whether I am correct. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Neutral point of view (and associated principles)[edit]

7)

  • It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
  • Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
  • Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. The other side has continually removed the most critical arguments against communism and those most in support of the democratic peace theory. This includes many referenced arguments by historians and philosophers against Marxist theory and failure to mention most of the findings and very strong support from many published peer-reviewed studies and researchers in support of the democratic peace theory. Ultramarine 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This principle has been upheld in other cases Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29.Ultramarine 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ultramarine himself has constantly removed the pro-communist point of view from the Criticisms of communism article, often giving the reader a straw man version of communist views. The most glaring example is Ultramarine's wholesale deletion of the Communist and Left critique of Communist states section (see difference between versions: [23]). Also notable is the fact that Ultramarine gives a counter-argument for every argument put forward by the communists, while leaving the anti-communist arguments either uncriticized or refuting the communist objections to them. The anti-communist points that are not present in the collaborative version were removed because Ultramarine wrote them not as arguments but as facts. Note, for example, his table of "Numbers killed by Communist states", which lists the controversial numbers given by the Black Book of Communism as if they were undisputed fact. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have given Wikipedia:Verifiable and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for my statements as can be seen in the reference list which at the moment has over over 70 entries. If the other side wish to argue against these statements, they should similarly give good sources. Otherwise they are ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, especially important in controversial articles. For example, their own opinion that the academic book the Black Book of Communism, painstakingly written and researched by six respected historians, is not a reliable source is no excuse for deleting the numbers from the book. They should discuss this on the talk page and give reliable sources as support, which they have not, instead preferring blank deletions. I would certainly be happy to modify any statements if they give good sources, not just their own unverifiable and original research opinions. Ultramarine 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ultramarine has insisted on a detailed defense of one particular Democratic Peace Theory. Robdurbar, Robert West, and I agree that it is enough, for example, to say that sources disagree on the extent to which WWI Germany was a democracy (and in general on what grounds), leaving the reader who wants more detail to the (copious) external links. Ultramarine insists on proving that William II was a dictator. Ultramarine's texts have thus been both advocacy and off topic; both are deprecated. Septentrionalis 03:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The correct and referenced version has verifiable facts. Your version certainly does try to establish that Germany was democracy, claiming that "votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall" which is simply false since the Chancellor ignored a vote of no confidence in 1913. In addition to this gross inaccuracy, your version violates NPOV since it mentions other arguments for a democratic Germany but mentions none of the arguments against. Ultramarine 19:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine's claims here are doubly false. The collaborative version says, and has for some time:
  • One class of criticism argues either that Germany was a democracy [for two specified reasons] or at least that it was no less democratic than Britain. This is not an assertion that Germany was a democracy, but that some people have argued that it was.
  • For example, almost all DPTs handle the First World War by asserting that Central Powers were not democracies because: the Kaiser had the power to appoint his ministers, he and the General Staff made the decision for war, as did Franz Josef in Austria-Hungary, and that many structural features of the Reich made democratic institutions ineffective.
Unfortunately, Ultramarine also misreads external sources in the same manner.
His post also contains a logical error. If the collaborative text asserts that "votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall", this is not falsified by Bethmann-Hollweg surviving one. What matters are examples of governments falling because of votes of no confidence, as Bethmann-Hollweg eventually did (like most of his predecessors).Septentrionalis 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Septentrionalis second point above contains another factual error, it was not the Kaiser and the General Staff who made the decision for war. The Kaiser and the not democratically elected Bundestag together had the power to declare war and did so in the case of WWI. Again, the Chancellor ignored a vote of no confidence in 1913. The DPT looks at democracy or not at the outset of the war, so it is inaccurate to state that "votes of no confidence did cause governments to fall" is an argument against the DPT. Regarding other Chancellors, see 5) above.
  • As noted in a reference from the correct and referenced version, the Chancellor himself in 1913 stated "that in France and Great Britain conditions were different, but that parliamentary government did not exist in Germany; that it was the constitutional privilege of the Emperor to appoint the Chancellor without any assistance or advice from the Reichstag; that he, the Chancellor, would resist with all his might every attempt to change this system; and that he, therefore, refused to resign because the resolution had no other effect than to make it evident that a difference of opinion existed between the Reichstag and the government." [24].
  • Septentrionalis himself has noted that "The standard objection to DPT is the Western Front" [25], so obviously WWI should be discussed in some detail in an article about the DPT. Again, his version is factually incorrect and violates NPOV by excluding many of the arguments against Germany being a democracy at the outset of WWI while at the same time including the arguments that supports his view. Ultramarine 13:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

No original research[edit]

8) The part of the NOR policy which appears relevant is prohibition of something that "purports to refute another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article".

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. As discussed on the evidence page, User:Mihnea Tudoreanu has presented an unreferenced attempt at refutation, in this diff.[26], by giving, without citation, alleged counter examples to controversial theories. First of all, it is doubtful whether single counter examples refute political science theories. Is India, the nation with the world's largest middle class, despite its reputation for poverty, really lack prosperity in the sense required to refute the theory? Unless this theory and its refutation is discussed in references, this diff shows an attempt to substitute original research and an attempt at refutation for Ultramarine's well referenced citation of research from a reputable source.--Silverback 07:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy[edit]

9) Everyone is expected to follow Wikipedia policy

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Far too vague. Which policy are you referring to in paticular? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to and identification with Bartleby the Scrivener would seem to be an argument against norms and rules in general. However, as Septentrionalis has not repeated such arguments I do not consider this an important point. I still argue that he by reverting well-referenced information continues to violate proposed principle 6 and 7 which have been upheld in other arbitration cases. Ultramarine 23:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. I would like to point out two recent attempts by me to discuss the differences and why Septentrionalis is deleting well-referenced information. Apparently Septentrionalis thinks that he does not have to follow Wikipedia rules, explaining his deletion of well-referenced material with that "The proper and sufficient answer is that I would prefer not to." and linking to Bartleby the Scrivener [27][28]. Ultramarine 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ultramarine's quotes are incomplete, as usual; the full responses are:
    • I had missed this ill-placed addition to this page. The proper and sufficient answer is that I would prefer not to. Ultramarine is free to add any such study, but I don't see why he would: he has argued, correctly, that internal peace is not the subject of a DPT, properly speaking.
    • I would prefer not to. I do not see any sign of an explanation in Never at War which is not already reflected in this article. Its scholarliness is also doubtful; any author who claims to have read both Italian and Tuscan (as though they were distinct) is a crank, and there appear to be several errors of historical fact and historiography; although this may well be Ultramarine's recurrent incompetence in reporting his source.
      • I still see no reason to include off-topic or redundant sources. I have presented evidence as to Ultramarine's accurary at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#Ultramarine's isuse_of_sources; but those are only three fairly straightforward examples.
        • See my response here [29]. Note that Septentrionalis claims that problems regarding me invalidates all the referenced information and that he therefore can violate principle 6 and 7 without any discussion and without giving factual reasons for each individual reference. This is ad hominem. Ultramarine 12:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my earlier mentioned links [30][31] for a response to his other arguments. Ultramarine 23:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ultramarine's efforts to define policy as doing what Ultramarine wants are documented in the original request for arbitration. Septentrionalis 03:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Changing other users' contributions[edit]

11) A user may not edit another user's comments except to make insubstantial changes (such as archiving/moving, formatting, or correcting typos) or with express permission from the other user. (This does not apply to simple vandalism or spam.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Moving a comment from one place to another is not the same as changing them. This proposal will not fly on the evidence presented. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. As noted in the RFA, done here [32], [33], [34], [35] and most recently on this page [36]. Ultramarine 23:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moving comments bodily is legitimate, especially when it is clearly indicated and intended to clarify discussion. [37] These were both; describing them as "changing" contributions is a lie.
    • In the case of Criticisms of communism, Ultramarine, having set aside a section for some dozen differences between his previous edits and Mihnea Tudoreanu's (and most of the text from his side of the edit war has been, and is now, included in the collaborative version) suddenly began including new material in that section, rather than the bottom of the page or of the article. This was and is confusing; eventually he himself created a new grand section to avoid the confusion he had created. Septentrionalis 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The first three examples were outright deletions, especially serious due to attempted camouflage by simultaneously adding new text. However, that was a long time ago and have not been repeated as far as I know. I only mentioned this principle due to Septentrionalis latest attempt, although I agree that since it was only a move it may be unimportant. Ultramarine 00:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two examples seem to be edit conflicts; I was unaware of them until they were brought up here. The third was a documented removal of text quoted from the article. It was protested, and apologized for, in an hour. [38] Septentrionalis 02:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Verifiablity[edit]

12) Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Verifiability is the key to becoming a reliable resource, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be easily verified by readers and other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. The other side have refused to correct incorrect unreferenced statements and have incorrectly reported findings from references added by me despite that this has been pointed out. Thus, their versions contain many deliberate and verified factual inaccuracies [39]. Ultramarine 04:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ultramarine has repeatedly asserted that a "correct" "factually accurate" statement is defined as a statement made by one of his sources. Anything said by anyone with any sort of academic credentials thus becomes undisputable truth. Ultramarine's insistence that any claim made by his sources is fact rather than opinion is, in my view, the primary cause of the present crisis. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The above describes the situation as succicently (sp?) as I've seen it. However, it should also be noted that some users, myself included, have been equally guilty of inserting too many unrefernced views/facts into the articles (I speak for Democratic Peace Theory; I have not worked with Ultramarine elsewhere) Robdurbar 10:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also, Ultramarine's sources often do not say what he claims they do. Usually, this is the result of his taking some isolated statement out of its context; this is one reason I believe that he has genuine difficulties reading English. But he has been known to cite a source which does not address the point he is trying to claim at all. (See, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#12 October; the second source mentioned.) Septentrionalis 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy[edit]

13) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not provides that Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Some comments by a previously uninvolved user who have examined the evidence: [40][41]. I agree with large part parts of this analysis. The other side have used Wikipedia in order to write an apologetic and POV defence for their beliefs. Their tactic have been to attack me as a person rather than trying to write NPOV and verifiable articles. On the other hand, the correct and referenced versions have included all views that have verifiable and reliable sources. See for example the long list of specific and well-referenced criticisms against the theory included in the article about the Democratic peace theory. Ultramarine 11:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The edit summaries by Ultramarine, presented in evidence, and Silverback, discussed above, document their joint intention that Criticisms of communism be a work of advocacy. Such an article would be basically worthless to Wikipedia, even as a counterweight to advocacy on Communism – if only because most readers of Communism would not see it. Septentrionalis
This is of course false, I would be very happy to include any view that have verifiable and reliable sources. I invite the other side to present such views so that we together can build a verifiable and reliable encyclopedia instead of attacking me as a person. Ultramarine 10:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would characterize Ryan Delany's characterization of Ultramarine's editing style (not, I think, of Ultramarine's personality; have the two of them ever RW met?) as also being "comments by a previously uninvolved user'. Doubtless the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the interval between the two points. Septentrionalis 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What characterization are you referring to? Ryan Delaney has made a personal attack against me and arguably abused his administrative powers in this case [42]. Ultramarine 10:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Evidence of intended advocacy should come from the article, not the edit summaries. If the article entries are sourced and written with a neutral POV, there is no advocacy. See "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view."[43] Better evidence of advocacy would be attempts at original research such as that by Mihnea --Silverback 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed perfectly true that if the article entries are sourced and written with a neutral POV, there is no advocacy. However, the entire reason why this case was brought before ArbCom is because Ultramarine does not write with a neutral POV, refuses to write with a neutral POV, and will revert any attempt by any other user to modify an article if that modification does not suit his POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 03:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above this line are the work of parties to the case.

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Criticisms of communism[edit]

Criticisms of communism was created July 16, 2005 by 172 (talk · contribs) [44], commenting "moving Ultramarine's text from Communism to new article along the lines of "criticisms of socialism" in order to keep the former topic on topic."

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. This had the effect of sanitizing the Communism article by removing negative points of view from it. Fred Bauder 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. User:172 is not a party to this arbitration; my major contact with him, other than agreeing that Ultramarine was bullying Mihnea Tudoreanu, was that he was one of those who reverted my only substantive edit to Communism. Septentrionalis 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • this compound diff summarizes a series of insertions and removals by several people. But the details would not change the situation: I was for text A, he was for text B.
  2. Regarding Fred Bauder's comment, I wish to note that the Criticisms of communism article is now at least as long as the Communism article itself. Thus, it is necessary to keep them separate due to concerns of sheer size. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Separate parallel versions[edit]

The editors of Democratic peace theory have maintained for several months two separate, intertwined versions of the article, one version being maintained mainly or entirely by Ultramarine, the other mainly by Pmanderson and Robert A West, along with other editors. Each of these two editing groups has, when updating its version, replaced whichever version was the lead version of the article with their preferred version. See history of article; see e.g. revert to Pmanderson version, revert to Ultramarine version. Similar conduct has taken place on Criticisms of communism, although with more editors acting in concert with Pmanderson; see history of article; see e.g. revert to Ultramarine version, revert to Pmanderson version.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Extended maintenance of multiple versions of an article using the {{twoversions}} template is likely to be confusing to readers. Kelly Martin 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maintenance of two separate versions of an article is not a feasible solution to disputes and does not aid in reaching consensus; {{twoversions}} should be used as a temporary measure only and not deliberately maintained. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maintaining two seperate versions of an aticle is not a good way of achieving NPOV. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. The majority, on both Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism, deprecated the {{twoversions}} and have repeatedly invited Ultramarine to join in editing a single version. Ultramarine has refused this [45][46], and the proposal to remove {{twoversions}} is actually one of his complaints in his response to the RfAr. (Note that while he refused removal of {{twoversions}} in favor of mediation, he has also refused mediation.[47]) Septentrionalis 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See my response in the evidence section, 4 October [48]. Septentrionalis is of course welcome to edit the correct and referenced version, of course he should adhere to principles like Verifiability and NPOV. Both of our versions have now removed the two-version template. Regarding mediation, see my earlier answer above. Ultramarine 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I am not a party in the Democratic peace theory dispute, I wish to note that Ultramarine has reverted any attempts to edit his version of the Criticisms of communism article. The best example of this was my attempt to add more information to the intro [49]. It was soon removed by Ultramarine [50]. In fact, the entire collaborative version that Septentrionalis and myself support was originally created through an extensive edit of Ultramarine's text [51]. Ultramarine is clearly not willing to allow anyone to make significant changes to his text. Thus, editing his version would be futile, and would soon get us right back where we are now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This cycle (Ultramarine reverting daily, other editors eventually giving up and editing "his version", and Ultramarine reverting those edits) happened at twice more in the long history of democratic peace theory, even before the present conflict. Septentrionalis 02:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The example of Ultramarine "reverting any attempts to edit his version of the Criticisms of communism article" that Mihnea Tudoreanu is citing as the "best example" seems to be no example at all. On the 4 October 05 entry of his chronology [52] which refers to the same incident, Ultramarine writes "Mihnea Tudoreanu deletes a paragraph from my introduction and adds several from the other version [same diff. Mihnea refers to]. The fundamental difference is the deletion of 'A central question is the implications of the real-world results of the Communist states for Marxist theory.' and replacing this with statements that the Communist states and communist theory are unrelated and that there are criticisms 'concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century Communist states, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are logically distinct' My version have many referenced statements arguing that this is false, for example Lenin quoting Marx [101]." Mihnea simply repeats the charge as if the month-old rebuttal has never been made.
  2. Ultramarine goes on to say, "Mihnea Tudoreanu also states that this a 'test to see whether Ultramarine actually accepts editing of his version; I have introduced material from the collaborative version and I believe Ultramarine will later revert it out of his version' Apparently he considers removal of such dubious material evidence of misconduct. He then reverts to his own version and removes the Two-version template, stating that 'rv to collaborative version; Ultramarine is once again invited to edit' [102] Apparently this version is still the only 'collaborative' one and the only one that others should be allowed to see, despite that he has just "collaboratively" edited the other version." If Ultramarine's analysis in his rebuttal is correct, this "test" of Mihnea's could be understood as a trap in which Mihnea, never having collaborated on the referenced version with Ultramarine before, introduces changes he expects Ultramarine has reason to reject, so he can later point to it, if so inclined, in a diff as the "best example" of Ultramine's unwillingness to collaborate.
  1. As long as Ultramarine's rebuttal stands, Minhea's thesis that "Ultramarine" is clearly not willing to allow anyone to make significant changes to his text" is shown to be unsubstantianted, particularly in light of the fact that he had just previously stated that Septentrionalis is "welcome to edit the correct and referenced version, of course he should adhere to principles like Verifiability and NPOV."
  2. Minhea goes on to say "thus, editing his version would be futile and would soon get us right back where we are now." I would rather say "because Minhea has aroused suspicions of bad faith by claiming to collaborate while introducing material as true that had been argued, through a referenced statement, to be false, the way to collaborating with Minhea on the referenced version would be littered with Minhea's self-imposed obstacles and would soon get us right back where we are now." It's interesting how presenting just a little bit more of the picture can make such a vast difference in how to adjudge the appropriate remedy for the problem Minhea tells us will recur. If Minhea is to blame, the propositions he's advancing to conduct the etiology of the problem, a problem tedious as it is in its protraction to Wikipedia, actually point to himself (suggested by his apparent willingness to trap) as the causal agent! It's as if a doctor had said the post-operative infection was caused by an otherwise presumed innocent assistant introducing germs in the operating room, while the doctor himself been witnessed not getting new surgical gloves after using the toilet!
  1. Septentrionalis then offers this: "This cycle (Ultramarine reverting daily, other editors eventually giving up and editing "his version", and Ultramarine reverting those edits) happened at [sic] twice more in the long history of democratic peace theory, even before the present conflict." How helpful of Septentrionalis to offer that it's not only a tedious problem, but a repeated problem. Knowing what we know now, however, it would suggest the question, "What if those 'other editors' were of the same ilk as that to which Ultramarine's evidence suggests Minhea belongs?" It would suggest an even greater gulf between Ultramarine's claimed misbehavior and his actual virtuous behavior. I would suggest at this point (06:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)) in determining which version should be given the benefit of the doubt, that time be given so that the cycle claimed by Septentrionalis that "happened at [sic] twice more" involving Ultramarine be given proper scrutiny and investigation, and the question be answered, "are the nature of the other edits that the editors, as Septentrionalis said, introduced into "Ultramarine's" version of the article defensible or not?" Although surely Septentrionalis would not refer to refuted edits as grounds for the obvious implication that Ultramarine is in the habit of causing exactly the kinds of problems that it has been so tedious to rehearse here in this Request for Arbitration--and may thus very well do so again at some future time inconvenient to all! 64.154.26.251 06:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to spend a few moments in sheer bewilderment at such comments as your admiration for "Ultramarine's [...] actual virtuous behavior". It is plainly evident from your words - and proven by your edit history - that you have never attempted to work together with Ultramarine in editing an article. Indeed, I see a pattern here: Ultramarine is criticized by those users who have actually attempted to work with him, and supported by those who have not. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
But let us return to your accusations against me. First of all, there is no "fundamental difference" - there are a number of differences, which are by no means inseparable. I had in fact added a second paragraph to the introduction in addition to editing the first paragraph, but apparently neither Ultramarine nor you read beyond the first lines of a new edit before deciding to revert. Ultramarine took issue with part of my edit, and, consequently, reverted everything rather than simply tweaking the portion he objected to. This kind of behavior is one of the most frustrating aspects of working with Ultramarine. A normal pattern of editing would be as follows:
  • User A writes something.
  • User B makes edits.
  • User A takes issue with some aspects and tweaks User B's edits.
Ultramarine's style, however, is different:
  • Ultramarine writes something.
  • User X makes edits.
  • Ultramarine takes issue with some aspects and does a complete revert, telling User X to make better edits next time.
In brief, Ultramarine stubbornly refuses to edit other people's work. He insists that others should edit his work, and reserves the right to revert those edits if he is not happy with them.
That is the core of the issue here; but, as an aside, Ultramarine's assertion that my text makes "statements that the Communist states and communist theory are unrelated" is false on its face. My text merely pointed out that it is possible to criticize communist states without criticizing communist theory, and vice versa. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization of parallel versions by editors[edit]

When replacing the lead version of either of the above articles with their preferred copy, Ultramarine typically refers to the edit as replacing the article with "the correct referenced edition" [53], while Pmanderson et al typically refer to the edit as replacing the article with "the consensus edition" [54].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. My reasons for calling the collaborative versions "consensus", both on DPT and CoC, are set out in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#Consensus. In brief, Ultramarine is a single editor, engaged in the stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, discussed under Wikipedia:Consensus. We have also called them "collaborative". Septentrionalis 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note that Septentrionalis argues for a Wikipedia where factually accuracy is irrelevant. For example, if a corporation dislikes an article, then it only has to hire enough people so that its preferred version becomes the "consensus" or "collaborative" version. Ultramarine 00:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interestingly, Ultramarine holds a glaring double standard in this issue. Just as a corporation could hire wiki editors, it (or a government) could fund researchers to write biased ideologically-driven papers and peer review each other. In fact, the latter practice is far more common in the world, at least up to this point in time. Yet Ultramarine insists that peer review is the great unquestionable standard of accuracy - if something is claimed in a peer reviewed paper, it must be true. I have repeatedly asked him if the same rule holds for studies written and peer reviewed in the Soviet Union. He has declined to answer. I do not know Russian, but I'm sure someone who did could find hundreds of peer reviewed documents "proving" all sorts of things Ultramarine is not willing to accept. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop&oldid=431112317"