Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ultramarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).


Note: This page is currently in evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence. Please do not archive or close until that process is closed. Septentrionalis 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Ultramarine repeatedly engages in revert wars while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. He is exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He is rude and condescending to other editors that do not share his readily apparent political leanings. He has been multiple times for breaking the 3RR rule, such as on 9 Mar 2005, 23 May 2005, and July 20, 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Description

User Ultramarine has been contributing to Wikipedia since December 2004. He appears to be waging a single-handed crusade to purify Wikipedia of what he considers "various left and right extremists" [1] by adding the "results of science," his code word for the Truth coming from right-wing think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

He engages in revert wars, insults fellow editors who modify his changes, often implying that they are "Marxists," "revisionists," or 'engaging in censorship' with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over Communist state, democracy, useful idiot, and democratic peace theory.

By failing to weigh his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with evidence from sources aside from advocacy groups, he conflates his own opinions and beliefs with "science," thereby flouting the "no original research" rule. Having failed to convince other editors with his arguments on the talk page, he is pursing a nearly continual revert war over the communist state, democracy, and democratic peace theory articles, having repeatedly reverted to his desired version of the article, in opposition to multiple other editors. Ultramarine appears incapable of collaboration and negotiation to achieve NPOV in articles.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] 24-hour 3RR blocks

1. Capitalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):

Blocked by BrokenSegue. [2]

Relevant discussions have been archived at

2. Communist state (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):

Relevant discussions have been archived at

3. Communist state (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs):

Relevant discussions have been archived at

[edit] Incivility on Talk pages

  1. The Marxists have stopped even trying to explain their deletions of the results of peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC) [4]
  2. This is of course exactly the place to point out the failings of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. No censorship or revisionism. Ultramarine 13:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC) [5]
  3. Have already pointed them out here. Do not again make a large scale deletion of arguments and facts you do not like. If you do not like the English, correct it, do not censor. Ultramarine 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC) [6]
  4. Communism will not be granted immunity to critique that easily. If necessarily, I just add another section for anarcho-communism or other sects that claims the name communism. Do not think that the short half-life of anarchist societies has prevented large scale human rights abuses, read for example this [7].Ultramarine 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) [This response implies that User:Natalinasmpf’s motive behind the following comment was to grant “communism immunity to critique,” despite nothing having nothing to do with the Criticisms of communism article: “Yes, but I am referring to communist theory. Communist theory, which this article deals with is the sibling/parent of anarchism, and hence critique for a communist state should be left at communist state, not communism.” -- Natalinasmpf 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC) [8]
  5. “Wikipedia shuld not censor it…” Ultramarine 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC) [9]

[edit] Incivility in edit summaries

  1. Reverting gross and outright censorship of verifiable facts.
  2. Rv censorship, corrected the statment on the relationship between economc freedom and political freedom
  3. The marxists have stop even trying to explain their reverts. However, I will add another reference
  4. Rv attempts to hide science, added that the indices has been used in hundreds of studies
  5. Present your own study, do not censor science
  6. Rv large scale POV violation and deletion of arguments


[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  3. Wikipedia:Cite your sources
  4. Wikipedia:No original research
  5. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  6. Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Attempted compromise on Democracy page: [10] Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
  2. Second attempted compromise on Democracy page: [11] Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
  3. Third attempted compromise on Democracy page: [12] Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC); his response
  4. Discussion on Talk:Democracy: [13]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. 172 | Talk 23:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Corax | Talk 20:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Septentrionalis 20:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Viajero | Talk 13:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ruy Lopez 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Whytee 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I spend a great deal of time trying to read what peer-reviewed studies say and then add these results to Wikipedia. Many of these results show that liberal democracy and capitalism improve the life of humans. Naturally, this is unpopular in some circles.

When I have found contrary results, I have added them. Looking for instance at the capitalism article, I have added numerous critical arguments against capitalism and even created entire critical sections, like the "Sustainability" and "Human rights violations, imperialism, and democracy" sections which were created by me.

The above critics have made every attempt to stop me from criticising communism. 172 have made repeated attempts to exclude critical text, external links, and internal Wikipedia links mentioning the very large scale human rights violations in the Communist states, even though the other Wikipedia articles about political movements mention similar problems. Mihnea Tudoreanu has simply deleted critical texts although I have given very detailed, verifiable sources. When I have presented peer-reviewed studies, most by researchers independent from any right-wing think-thank, they have deleted or misrepresented them. I have called this censorship; I still do.

Regarding the DPT below, I have made a great effort to read many peer-reviewed papers beside Rummel and have added to results to the article. Almost all the references to peer-reviewed articles have been added by me. I also note that Septentrionalis has created two versions with his arguments and added a "Two-version" tag linked to his two versions. He has thus not only excluded me from article, he has falsely misrepresented my view. Ultramarine 05:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now, 172 simply reverted [14] my latest version of Criticisms_of_communism including deleting the Two-version template, which states that there should be a consensus first. I had spent a great deal of effort in order to find and add references to the text documenting the failures of communism and added much new information. Here is a link to my version [15]. Ultramarine 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding 3RR blocks, I note that there has been discussion among administrators if this was correct and one was removed, see above. In most of my edits I have tried to add substantially new arguments when I reverted. However, I will avoid doing even such reverts in the future. Ultramarine 18:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Fuelwagon's comment, I do not think that they fairly represent my edits. There were many other differences between the edits than he implies. Looking at the first diff [16], I added numerous studies supporting my statements. I corrected the false statement that it was studies only done by right-wing think-thanks. I included the arguments from the previous edit and even added another argument against my position, that "Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition." If studies shows that economic freedom causes political freedom or that political freedom causes economic freedom, then it is hardly wrong to state that. I have never seen a Wikipedia policy that one must use direct quotes from the studies. If an argument is a misunderstanding, then this should be stated. It would have been better to avoid "might". Regarding the other diff, [17], most of it is merging of other comments, including the comments about public media which existed before my edit in another paragraph. As Fuelwagon notes, the paragraph was POV before. Ultramarine 07:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Some of my critics are attacking the concept of peer-review itself. Mihnea Tudoreanu: "Further, peer-review is not part of the scientific method and says nothing of the scientific value of the study [18]. Or that I ask for sources and verifiability of statements. Or the use of statistics and peer-review in the social sciences (See below). These are all interesting policy questions. If an arbitration case can bring more clarity, then I am happy to participate. Ultramarine 09:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Robert McClenon's critic that correlation is not causation, this I accept. However, the studies use other methods than simple correlations, which can be found if looking in the references I provided. [19] [20][21][22][23][24] Ultramarine 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Robert McClenon's suggestion of mediation regarding the factual content, this is a good idea which I support. This would include the disputed factual content of Democratic peace theory, Democracy, and Criticisms of communism. Ultramarine 13:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

[edit] Outside view by Pmanderson

It's not just Marxists. Ultramarine does not Play Well with Others. My experience with him has been almost entirely on Democratic peace theory; and may be seen at some length on its talk page. When I first edited the article, it had an NPOV tag; [[25]; and consideration of the version from which Ultramarine [proposed to remove it may show why. It is this: [26]

Just to add, Ultramarine implies that just about any editor he disagrees with is a pro-Soviet Marxist, even User:Trey Stone (who is proud to admit that he's on a crusade against Marxism on Wikipedia) on Communist state, who attempted to copyedit his work and was charged with "censorship" and "revisionism." 172 | Talk 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine has written a polemic in favor of one version of DPT, as presented by a certain Prof. Rummel, who has a website. [27] He has shown very little evidence that he knows anything more about DPT than the website has taught him; and it is itself an argument for Rummel's PoV and an advertisement for his books (which it is perfectly entitled to do).


Ultramarine edits are persistently PoV. I particularly like this one, in which he calls deleting arguments against Rummellism NPOV [28] See also comments by User:Mel Etitis, User:Michael Hardy, and User:Corax on Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1.

I attempted to add fair and comprehensible statements of the criticisms of Rummellism. Ultramarine reverted them persistently. I requested help from Mediation,[29] and from Mel Etitis as a third party. Mel's comments are here: [1#New_comments] He also asked for an RfC on the edit war, for which I thank him

When Ultramarine does not edit out a criticism of Rummel, he sandwiches it between defences. I attempted to clarify the structure, whereupon Ultramarine accused me of deletions, falsely.(See this diff, for example [30]. Much has been moved around; no massive deletions. Compare Ultramarine's deletions from the criticism section here [31] and its eventual removal. ) I called a survey on the structure. (See [[32]] and [[33]] All the comments disliked his structure (one also disliked mine) but he continues to revert to it.

He has repeatedly removed dispute tags (he once removed an accuracy dispute tag in the same edit in which he alleged factual inaccuracy [34]) Septentrionalis 00:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. 172 | Talk 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Robert A West 17:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Corax 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ruy Lopez 00:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Robert A West

From my vantagepoint, Ultramarine's response is instructive. His announced ethic of relying on peer-reviewed studies is commendable, although of much less value than he seems to think. But note that he presumes that any criticism of the studies he cites comes from those who dislike the conclusions -- this is a breach of decorum, a misunderstanding of academics and appears to jaundice his view of those contrary views he has read.

I have observed at least five unfortunate consequences of this.

  1. Because Ultramarine is adamant about supporting the view with which he agrees, his fellow-editors are almost forced to become advocates for the opposite POV.
  2. Because Ultramarine insists, somewhat illogically, that only a peer-reviewed article can be used to critique a peer-reviewed article, he shoves aside valid criticisms of his pet theory.
  3. Because Ultramarine insists that every criticism be responded to in detail, the articles tend towards logorrhea, which injures Wikipedia.
  4. He demands that comments in talk pages be sourced, which is contrary to one of the common uses of talk pages, "I am sure that X, but I can't find a source."
  5. When someone makes an edit that is unsourced or poorly-sourced, but nevertheless makes a fairly obvious point, instead of being helpful and trying to improve the article, Ultramarine simply reverts and routinely accuses his fellow-editors of ignorance, or laziness.

This is truly regrettable, because a more collegial Ultramarine who sought actively to promote NPOV would (crystal ball warning: will?) be, I believe, a true asset to Wikipedia, and actually do a better job of presenting those opinions with which he agrees.

(I have rephrased slightly from the version on the talk page, so I did not copy Ultramarine's response, which he may wish to rephrase.)

Robert A West 21:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. 172 | Talk 22:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Robert McClenon 18:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Septentrionalis 20:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ruy Lopez 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Perorative 09:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View FuelWagon

This diff

Before: It has been argued that it is not democracy which causes economic prosperity, but rather the other way around: prosperous nations will tend to become democracies.
Ultramarine: One observation is that democracy become widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism.

Ultramarine's version has historical significance. Agrigultural cultures required slavery to survive, given the massive amount of physical labor needed. Slavery was common on many societies up until the industrial revolution gave us firearms to fight tyrannical rulers and tractors to render human labor much less important in growing food for a population.

Ultramarine: Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition. Another objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canda today have a higher GDP/capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP/capita will be higher with higher economic freedom

this is clear POV, hedging criticisms with the word "might". Also, declaring such criticism wrong by saying "However, this is a misunderstanding" shows the opinion of the editor entering the article, rather than reporting the opinions of others.

Ultramarine: However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above.

This line added to a paragraph explaining correlation is not causation. Yet Ultramarine inserts that a study establishes causation, which is POV. A study of societal influences might suggest causation, but wording this strong needs to be quoted from outside source, not opined by the editor.

This diff

Before:The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the already rich, or else may encourage candidates to make deals with the wealthy for legislation favorable to those supporters once the candidate is elected. On the other hand, the very wealthy are only a very small minority of voters.

Ultramarine keeps the above para, and adds the following:

Public media in a democracy has to be non-partisan. Partisan voices that are heard widely - through broadcasts or publication - are often owned by private companies. Some critics argue that serious arguments against capitalism tend to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected Freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to start media arguing against capitalism. They argue that the little success of such media reflects public preferences and not censorship.

The original paragraph is clearly POV against wealth, and a countering view is deserved. However Ultramarine's opening sentence "media... has to be non-partisan", while a sentiment I agree with, isn't a countering view. It's an imperative from the editor. Rather than provide an outside counterpoint view, it excuses in a very odd way the behaviour that the first paragraph complains about, saying political campaigning that favors the rich isn't a problem of capitalism but of media companies that shirk their non-partisan obligations and follow... capitalism. The rest of it at least represents a countering point of view, but the "some critics argue ... arguments against capitalism is suppressed by such companies" is a strawman. Clearly, ultramarine has not yet mastered "writing for the enemy".

The two edits above show that Ultramarine's changes contained a kernel of truth delivered with a POV sledgehammer, which is extremely unfortunate. The article could be improved if Ultramarine could find a way to deliver an edit within wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV, no weasel words, writing for the enemy, no original research. However Ultramarine's current approach appears to be too caustic a price to pay to get at whatever nugget is contained in the edit. Fixing a somewhat POV article by swinging it far to the opposite side of POV while poisoning the well of the other editors, does not qualify as a gain for wikipedia.

Ultramarine needs to modify his behaviour so that his contribution outweighs whatever cost he brings. (and we all bring some baggage)


FuelWagon 01:34, 22 July 2005

Users endorsing this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. . Stirling Newberry 02:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. 172 | Talk 04:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Robert McClenon 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Perorative 09:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sesel

Politically charged DOS reports, the Index of Economic Freedom, and Rummel are not scientific sources.

Economics is infinitely more subjective than physics or mathematics, and work in that field can not be definitively asserted as factual because there are other factors (i.e. political motives) that color the "research". The Heritage Foundation, a private institution, can rank countries lower in the list (than a so-called "objective" analysis would show) for the sole purpose of compelling them to further deregulate their economies. These are issues that are potentially up for debate. In contrast, the fact that the Earth is round is not negotiable, and anyone, even those outside a private think tank, can determine this.

My point is, economics is not physics. In physics (hard science), there are universal laws. In economics (political science), there are competing theories (any of which could be valid or successful, largely depending on global political and social structures and divisions) and hidden motives. Using the word "science" and citing a controversial think tank as if it possessed truth, as if capitalist economic functions are as non-negotiable as the laws of nature, is misleading and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.

This is simply something to think about. I'm not accusing anyone. I'm not calling names. I'm not saying capitalism is bad. I'm not going to endorse any side in this dispute, and will not involve myself in the discussion regarding "criticisms of socialism/communism". I just don't have time to familiarize myself with the context of all disputes involving this user's conduct. —Seselwa 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Users endorsing this summary sign with ~~~~

  1. Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Robert A West 16:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Septentrionalis 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Very well argued point on the social sciences. 172 | Talk 23:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Viajero | Talk 13:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further outside view by Robert West

Again, Ultramarine's response shows his needlessly combative style. He accuses Mihnea explicitly and me implicitly of "attacking the concept of peer review." Yet, the quotation that he cites as evidence is perfectly in keeping with the article on the subject. For myself, the reason I have confined my comments on DPT to the talk page is precisely because I will need time to produce verifiable sources of sufficient quality to satisfy me. On the other hand, if I could have inspired Ultramarine to do a little writing for the enemy, it would have improved the article. Robert A West 17:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Septentrionalis 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still another outside view

I have signed two of the summaries saying that Ultramarine is unnecessarily confrontational and should change his style. However, I do have one question. In the Talk:Democracy discussion, Ultramarine was complaining that Mihnea Tudoreanu was presenting original research. I have not read the details long enough to know whether that was true. If he was, then he also needs to be counseled. If he was not presenting original research, but either stating an opinion on a talk page, or providing a source, then that allegation is further evidence of a lack of civility by Ultramarine.

I have been a profesional user of statistics from time to time in my career as a computer scientist. Correlation does not provide direct causation. The argument that a correlation shows causation is an interpretation, that is, a POV. A correlation is a fact if the statistics are valid. Causation is a POV. A strong correlation may suggest causation, but it may also indicate a hidden variable. Please present POV as POV. Please be civil.

Has mediation been considered? Maybe a mediator could persuade Ultramarine to be less combative. Robert McClenon 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the discussion and this diff, the key sentence appears to be Mihnea's addition "Another theory is that the free markets and capitalism practiced by liberal democracies have resulted in their relative economic prosperity. However, there are also numerous counter-examples to this theory: Many wealthy democracies, such as Sweden or Canada, are far less capitalist and practice far more state regulations on the market than poorer nations such as Chile or Estonia." Septentrionalis 20:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that diff. It appears that Ultramarine was deleting a statement of fact from a Wikipedia page that provided sources, and replacing it with peer-reviewed research. The statement that he deleted was from mathematical statistics, which is a "harder" science than economics. How to interpret specific statistics is often POV. The principles of mathematical statistics are well understood by mathematicians, statisticians, and scientists. Mihnea Tudoreanu was not presenting original research, but was citing a principle. Has mediation been considered? Robert McClenon 22:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Mediation has been requested for DPT, but no mediator has responded. [35] I can see why one might not. I would certainly accept one. Septentrionalis 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Further views of Pmanderson

I was not expecting to comment again; but I have two points to add; and an unexpected third.

[edit] Two-versions

Two-versions is not a non-admin version of protection; nor is it a means to force one's own version to the top and tell the other side to stop arguing. (If it were, it would have been deleted. [36]) Ultramarine knows this; he leapfrogged the two-version I placed [37] in Democratic peace theory often enough. It is an imperfect means of book-keeping while looking for a consensus on which version to use as a working version.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~): Septentrionalis 19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed truce on this subject by Robert West

I believe that the dispute on this point results from want of care by both parties when editing versions with a two-versions template in place. I have proposed a truce on this subject. It is a bit unwieldy, but if we stick to it we should be able to keep third-parties out of this dispute and keep our respective sanity while each side tries to improve its version. Robert A West 07:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persuading the reader

Ultramarine has edited Democratic peace theory so that it will persuade the reader that Rummel's version is true; he has edited Criticisms of communism to persuade the reader that communism is vile. (Hence the picture on this discussion page.) As a side effect of this, he thinks anything that doesn't aim at this goal is argument from the other side: When I added a summary of Kant's Perpetual peace [38], Ultramarine said that my arguments got stranger and stranger. He doesn't understand: I wasn't arguing. I was trying to present what Kant actually said. Septentrionalis 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):


[edit] Copyright and threat of rules abuse

Ultramarine has been demanding, but not reverting to, the sidebar on this talkpage, the one with the corpse. The image and much of the text come from this site. I strongly suspect that this is a misunderstanding of policy, rather than a wilful violation, since he posted the link on Talk:Criticisms of communism himself, to convince me the text was true. (Mihnea and I had objected that it was tendentious and so PoV}

Exchange from the same Talk page (the merger was a proposal to merge as much as possible of one version into the other):

  • On the contrary, there is an agreement on this article by 2/3 majority. Shall we continue with the merger? Septentrionalis 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no Wikipedia rule about 2/3 majority in cases like this, there should be consensus. If you try to do any "merger", I will ask for protection of this page, using my version. Ultramarine 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC) [39] {Italics mine Septentrionalis}

<sigh> Septentrionalis 23:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine added a version of the text from the same sidebar to Vladimir Lenin. He snap reverted to it three times [40][41][42], although a large portion of his text was accepted; and then called for the page to be protected [43]. I find this suggestive. Septentrionalis
I note that, in the protection request, he complains of User:172, who was one of those who reverted to half Ultramarine's text[44]; and four hours later reported 172 for a borderline 3RR violation [45] on a different article (penalty later revoked [46]). Does not Play Well with Others. Septentrionalis 15:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~): Septentrionalis 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent reversion

One of the conflicts discussed here was the conflict over Criticisms of communism, in which there was substantial overlap between Ultramarine's version and Mihnea Tudoreanu's. I was able to establish a long discussion, which resulted in a version which contained essentially those things on both sides to which the other side did not object. The text was by no means consensus, but it was much closer to one than either competing text had been.

However, while Ultramarine was much politer after the initial RfC, he has no begun to revert to his old version, at first every few days; then every other day; now two or three times a day. He often makes a rearrangement or adds a sentence or two. (I invited him to add his new sentences as "edits to the consolidated version [which] are welcome, and will be viewed on their merits. They may well stay; no-one contends the present version is flawless" [47] both on talk and on an edit summary) All eight of the reversions listed below have taken place since the edit summary; Ultramarine's only discussion has been [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticisms_of_communism&diff=21013785&oldid=20939404 this a few minutes ago]

This constitutes

  • Massive, unjustified, deletion.
  • Insertion of material which two editors have separately deprecated.
  • For the avowed purpose of making this article a criticism of communism, rather than a discussion of such criticisms.


Version reverted to:

20:14, 2 August 2005

Reversions:

14:40, 3 August 2005
16:27, 6 August 2005
07:37, 10 August 2005
16:24, 11 August 2005
16:02, 13 August 2005
17:18, 13 August 2005
17:59, 14 August 2005
19:29, 14 August 2005
13:24, 17 August 2005
19:33, 17 August 2005
19:43, 17 August 2005


Successive diffs (time will differ slightly; Ultramarine does follow his reversions by reversing the two-version tag; and occasionally makes other minor edits):

2-3 August 3-6 August 6-10 August 10-11 August 11-13 August 13-13 August 13-14 August 14-14 August 14-17 August 17-17 August 17-17 August

After which he requested page protection as above.


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~): Septentrionalis 20:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by nobs

Having read the above Incivility on Talk pages, which is the only portion of this dispute I have read, I will be watching with some interest. Thank you. nobs 17:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Ultramarine_8f44.html"