Case Opened on 18:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Plaintiffs

• Pmanderson (talk · contribs), see [1]
• Mihnea Tudoreanu (talk · contribs)
• Robert A West (talk · contribs)

Defendant

• Ultramarine (talk · contribs)

Allegations

Plaintiffs allege Ultramarine:

• Has been incivil
• Has asserted very original interpretations of policy
• Has persistently edit warred, despite extensive discussion and invitations to join a collaborative version.
• Has attempted to abuse page protection.

Defendant alleges plaintiffs have violated

• His talk page comments have been peremptory orders. For example: "Add back this critque now unless you can cite sources supporting your claim, not sometime in the future." [2] in Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Cold_war_peace_or_the_Bloc_peace_theory This is addressed to Robert West, who has been studiously polite to Ultramarine. I asked whether this was civility and Ultramarine denied any incivility.[3] The point at issue was whether to include eight sources or whether five sources would suffice: a demand to cite sources was hardly relevant.
  • He has also claimed (
    this very long section
    ) has been spent on his version and proposals. Much of the text he has proposed has been included verbatim, some with modifications and some has been rejected by consensus after discussion. The remaining discussions are ongoing.
• Novel assertions on policy:
  • He applies an unspecified theory of consensus that amounts to asserting a
    Talk:Criticisms of communism#comments
    )
    • He has likewise refused to recognize a consensus against him on a shortened version of Democratic peace theory. [5]. See its talk page and archive for evidence of the consensus.
  • An NPoV article on a theory will refute all criticisms of that theory, even those criticisms not explicitly raised in the article. [6]
  • The NPoV version of
    Criticisms of communism [7] must be critical of communism [8]
    , rather than a discussion of such criticisms. (The edit summaries are of virtually identical edits)
  • Archiving a talk page of 106K (archive) is violation of policy. [9]. He made the same claims again when the length of the new page reached 37K Talk:Democratic peace theory#Page length.
  • Bullet-points are unencyclopedic. [10] (Minor, but bizarre. Septentrionalis 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • He has used the talk pages in question to claim other violations of policy, many of them equally frivolous. This is uncollegial. (See the several sections he has titled Violations of Wikipedia policy)
• He has continually reverted
  Criticisms of communism to a private version, ignoring several invitations to join the version every other editor was working on. Diffs in this section of the RfC. This is his version alone; he has reverted, and been rereverted by, every other editor. page history
  .
  • Similarly Democratic peace theory, and apparently Democracy.
• He threatened on
  Talk:Criticisms of communism: "If you try to do any "merger", I will ask for protection of this page, using my version. Italics mine. A few days after, he added some of the text under dispute to Vladimir Lenin. He did three exact reverts in quick succession [11][12][13], although a large portion of his text was accepted; and then called for the page to be protected [14], as it still is. (page history
  )
  • And he has now done the same thing with
    WP:RfPP#Criticisms of communism) He has been expressly invited to insert the dozen or twenty sentences which he has added to his private version during August.[15] [16]

For my part, this is not a content dispute. This is a dispute about rudeness, and about Ultramarine ignoring and abusing policy. He asserts new versions of policy which let him do what he wants, and let him denounce and harass others for doing what he doesn't want. For example; "cite sources" as harassment. [17] (There is no question of which website; the article cites it, and we've all quoted it). Much of this can be found at the

• His talk page comments have been peremptory orders. For example: "Add back this critque now unless you can cite sources supporting your claim, not sometime in the future." [18] in Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Cold_war_peace_or_the_Bloc_peace_theory This is addressed to Robert West, who has been studiously polite to Ultramarine. I asked whether this was civility and Ultramarine denied any incivility.[19] The point at issue was whether to include eight sources or whether five sources would suffice: a demand to cite sources was hardly relevant.
  • He has also claimed (
    this very long section
    ) has been spent on his version and proposals. Much of the text he has proposed has been included verbatim, some with modifications and some has been rejected by consensus after discussion. The remaining discussions are ongoing.
• Novel assertions on policy:
  • He applies an unspecified theory of consensus that amounts to asserting a
    Talk:Criticisms of communism#comments
    )
    • He has likewise refused to recognize a consensus against him on a shortened version of Democratic peace theory. [21]. See its talk page and archive for evidence of the consensus.
  • An NPoV article on a theory will refute all criticisms of that theory, even those criticisms not explicitly raised in the article. [22]
  • The NPoV version of
    Criticisms of communism [23] must be critical of communism [24]
    , rather than a discussion of such criticisms. (The edit summaries are of virtually identical edits)
  • Archiving a talk page of 106K (archive) is violation of policy. [25]. He made the same claims again when the length of the new page reached 37K Talk:Democratic peace theory#Page length.
  • Bullet-points are unencyclopedic. [26] (Minor, but bizarre. Septentrionalis 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • He has used the talk pages in question to claim other violations of policy, many of them equally frivolous. This is uncollegial. (See the several sections he has titled Violations of Wikipedia policy)
• He has continually reverted
  Criticisms of communism to a private version, ignoring several invitations to join the version every other editor was working on. Diffs in this section of the RfC. This is his version alone; he has reverted, and been rereverted by, every other editor. page history
  .
  • Similarly Democratic peace theory, and apparently Democracy.
• He threatened on
  Talk:Criticisms of communism: "If you try to do any "merger", I will ask for protection of this page, using my version. Italics mine. A few days after, he added some of the text under dispute to Vladimir Lenin. He did three exact reverts in quick succession [27][28][29], although a large portion of his text was accepted; and then called for the page to be protected [30], as it still is. (page history
  )
  • And he has now done the same thing with
    WP:RfPP#Criticisms of communism) He has been expressly invited to insert the dozen or twenty sentences which he has added to his private version during August.[31] [32]

For my part, this is not a content dispute. This is a dispute about rudeness, and about Ultramarine ignoring and abusing policy. He asserts new versions of policy which let him do what he wants, and let him denounce and harass others for doing what he doesn't want. For example; "cite sources" as harassment. [33] (There is no question of which website; the article cites it, and we've all quoted it).

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Hmm... So, the most recent accusations are that I

• am uncivil for asking of others to follow
  Wikipedia:Cite sources
  when making statements and that they place sources contradicting their position in the appropriate section, in order to not misleadingly give the impression that there are no such sources.
• have advocated that
  Criticisms of communism should not contain a discussion of such criticisms, when my version clearly does so and indeed has continually incorporated text and arguments from their article [34]
  .
• questioned why a talk page was completely achieved when there was ongoing discussions [35]. And requested that the content on the same talk page should not be archieved again only a few hours later, because all the contents had been introduced in that time and were still relevant [36].
• make "frivolous" and "uncollegial" accusations on the talk page. I note for example several attempts to delete and misrepresent my discussion page edits by editing them: [37], [38], [39], [40]
• make continual reversions with little content while I in fact have made numerous improvements to the more critical version of
  criticisms of communism, (the diff is using their cited edit summary as the starting point) [41]
  . There is no rule that says that every single edit must be a major revision, I see nothing wrong with sometimes making minor corrections of spelling mistakes.
• abuse page protection in order to win arguments when I only ask that the Two-version template should stay so that everyone can read the facts and form their own opinion while continuing the discussion to find a good npov version. I let the record speak for itself [42] [43]
• have requested that the critics should not delete well-referenced facts and arguments on
  Criticisms of communism than a "dozen or twenty sentences" [44], no reason why only the differences introduced in August should be allowed, and I have certainly tried to discuss the differences numerous times in August [45]
  .
• have violated policy regarding
  revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article." and "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda
  . However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.".

Regarding who is correct regarding the facts and who violates NPOV, I refer to the factual discussions on Criticism of communism [46] (Most recent discussions here [47] Ultramarine 09:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)), on Vladimir Lenin [48], on Democratic peace theory [49] (Most recent discussions here [50] Ultramarine 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)), and on Democracy [51][reply]

However, I am thankful for the effort to bring this to arbitration, which I support. The other editors mentioned in "Involved parties" above have violated

• Accept (though I'm worried that it might turn into a content dispute). James F. (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Consensus

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

Passed 9-0

Edit warring considered harmful

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

Passed 9-0

No ownership of articles

3) Wikipedia pages

Passed 9-0

No personal attacks

4) Personal attacks on other users are absolutely unacceptable; see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 9-0

Precision of citations

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 should be as specific as possible, ideally to the level of a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition.

Passed 9-0

Maintaining separate, parallel versions

1) The editors of

1. I've blocked Ultramarine and Pmanderson for 90 minutes each for sterile revert warring on the evening of March 27th. Stifle 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]