Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-11 Natalinasmpf on Communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NEW SECTION - Natalinasmpf on Communism

From: User:BostonMA

Status: New request

Where is the issue taking place?

Communism

Who's involved?

User:Natalinasmpf vs myself User:BostonMA

What's going on?

Edit war

Repeated removals of "disputed" tags prior to resolution of disupted issues

Repeated removal of statements which are backed by verifiable sources which cast doubt on the statements in the current text which lack verifiable sources, are "original research", are not neutral point of view, and in my opinion, just plain wrong.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like statements for which there are no verifiable sources, i.e. "Original research" removed. I would also like Natalinasmpf to abide by the 3 revert policy. I would also like Natalinasmpf to respect the posting of "disputed" tags until factual disputes have been resolved. After the factual issues are resolved, I would like to make edits to remove biased point of view.

One specific issue that I would like to see addressed is the following. The text of the "Under the Commintern" section contains the statements:

Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to their ideological mission, to create a working class itself.

For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established.

Taken without any other context, the statement: "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place." is true. Without any other context, the statement says nothing about Marx's theory regarding revolutions where capitalist development was not the most advanced or where a large working class was not in place. However, in the context in question, the statement was obviously meant to be a statement of contrast between what Marx believed regarding revolutions "where capitalist development was most advanced" and Russia. The implicit meaning is something along the lines of "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur *earlier* where capitalist development was the most advanced, and *later* where it was not so advanced.

The idea that the latter result is a consequence of Marx's theory is "original research" and is not supported by verifiable sources. However the contrary idea, namely that a Russian revolution could provide a signal for workers revolution in the West, (that is precede revolutions in countries where capitalist development was most advanced) is documented at

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

I would like to make a comment regarding the editting of the Communism page in general. The editting history, as well as the talk, shows that a small group of individuals, including Natalinasmpf have taken it upon themselves to be the guardians of the existing page, and act to thwart any independent editting. This could be either good or bad depending upon circumstances. Wikipedia has espoused the goals of Verifiability, No "Original Research" and Neutral Point of View. These goals, together with the ability of countless individuals to make contributions to Wikipedia provide the basis for something truly great, something truly better than existing encyclopedias. I frequent the Math sections of Wikipedia, and note that already the math sections of Wikipedia are more extensive, and hence more useful than the encyclopedias which were available to me in my younger days.

The group which has taken virtual posession of the Communism page, however, appear to want to drag Wikipedia back toward the Encyclopedias of yesteryear. Encyclopedia Britannica is cited as a model. However, the older encyclopedias were commercial undertakings. As commercial undertakings they often reduced content for the sake of cutting costs. But perhaps more importantly, as commercial undertakings, they were subject to the influences of politics. In my opinion, this led to a significant lack of neutrality in their articles on political subjects. Blocking the appearance of verifiable facts which challenge the nice tidy narratives told in some articles might give the appearance of being more "encyclopedic", but in reality is an obstacle to the development of objective, verifiable articles. For this reason, I would hope that a mediator will give suggestions to this group that they take a friendlier view towards the inclusion of information which is supported by verifiable sources, and take a harsher look at narratives that may seem to be the "consensus" of their group, which may tell a pleasing story, but which are not supported by factual evidence.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

n/a

-- User:BostonMA

[edit] Mediator response

• Wait. I actually read the one issue. The wording is a tad bulky. :-/ Hmm, so basically you'd like to remove some bias from the communism article, but the article is gaurded? Kim Bruning 14:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for looking at this so soon -- I see the waiting list for mediation is quite long. I would write on your user-discussion page, but I see you are busy with your dissertation. Good luck. Sorry for the wordiness. The article is block now because of an edit war, and that is what I was hoping for help with. Thank you again, but I hope someone else has some time available. (BostonMA 00:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Message left on User_talk:BostonMA asking whether mediation still needed. If no response within 7 days, I will close this case. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We (Natalinasmpf and myself) seem to be able to resolve our disputes now, so I don't feel a need for outside help. I offer my thanks to the Mediation Cabal for taking the time to be of service to the community. --BostonMA 23:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

I really appreciate not being informed about this discussion.

I informed you that I was seeking mediation. [1]

Yes. How lovely. This is indeed, mediation, I presume. Anyhow, I won't take offense, I just find this odd. I'd like to clarify that I'm not acting out of vested interest, and even User:172 (who is not a communist, by the way, and is actually if I perceive correctly, a bit into the right) agrees with me. -- Natalinasmpf 04:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please try to understand. I don't claim that you are acting out of vested interest. Nor do I care whether User:172 is or is not a communist. However, I do care about two things. 1. The accuracy of the articles, 2. The avoidance of edit wars. It should be clear from the discussion that there are disputes regarding the article. Yet you repeatedly removed disputed and npov tags.

"Blocking the appearance of verifiable facts which challenge the nice tidy narratives told in some articles might give the appearance of being more "encyclopedic", but in reality is an obstacle to the development of objective, verifiable articles."

Just let me comment. I think the intentions are being misinterpreted. Formality is important - but we are not sacrificing content for formality either, it's simply organisation into various other pages.

Again, please try to understand. I do not know or understand your intentions. Why you engaged in an edit war is not as important as the fact that you engaged in an edit war.

The statements that is sought removal has been there for half a year or more, following consensus on a copyediting of the article, and a major overhaul, including participants such as User:Ultramarine (who is right wing, by the way)...it's not original research. That's just my take. Natalinasmpf 04:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not there is consensus between the previous editors is, in my humble opinion, not as important as whether certain statements are inaccurate, and can be shown to be inaccurate with verifiable evidence. Whether certain statements are "orignal research", whether certain statements lack NPOV etc.. Consensus by prior editors should not be an excuse for edit warring. (BostonMA 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

I think consensus is important. Consensus, especially over evidence, determines accuracy. If evidence exists, then consensus will likely accept it. I was not the initiator of the edit war; your changes may have corrected some accuracy, but they had a tonal problem that needed to be rephrased, and which took time to rephrase. If it had been worked out with us earlier (and now the issue is in fact, resolved), then it would have been done faster, rather than it descending into a revert war. Talk pages are for working closely with editors, not mainly for arguing. The onus is usually on the introducer of the change - no consensus defaults to no change, and would have to be discussed first. Is there still a problem? -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is still a problem. I disagree with you that you were not an initiator of the edit war. You say that my edits had "tonal" problems and needed to be rephrased. However, you did not rephrase them, but deleted them. Further, you deleted the "disputed" and "npov" templates. There it is not a question of tonal problems, but of a group of editors wishing to hide the fact that the content of the article is disputed. You seem to regard the disputes as closed because two sentences have been changed. In my opinion, these were only the start of the necessary changes, not their completion.

One of the problems that I have with you is that you make reverts but do not provide cogent justifications for the text to which you revert when challenged. For example, you reverted edits I made for which I had verifiable sources. You have yet to provide verifiable sources for the text to which you reverted. It is my impression that you are making the reverts on behalf of other editors, whom you believe to be knowlable and for whom you have some respect. However, if the other editors have a problem with my edits, why not let them make reverts if that is what they want to do? It is my opinion, that if you make a change, even a revert, then you are responsible for that change. You should be able to defend the accuracy of any changes you make, or be willing to back down.

A second problem that I have with you is that you make reverts, citing this or that justification, when the article as a whole suffers from the defects you site to an even greater degree than the edits. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that one assume good faith. However, they are clear that one need not assume good faith if actions have broken that faith, for example edit wars. I will accept that you are acting in good faith when you apply your style guidelines with equal energy to the existing article as to edits made to the article. Until you apply your criteria impartially, I will continue to find your reversions objectionable.

A third problem that I have with you is that I made a proposal that editors abide by wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict avoidance / conflict resolution. You have not yet stated a willingness to agree to abide by these guidelines. On the other hand, at times you seem to flaunt rules, such as the three revert rule, even after a warning had been given by an admin. No, my issues with you have not been resolved. (BostonMA 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

I did not flaunt any rules after being warned about 3RR. I was only warned about the 3RR after I had made more than three reverts. And I gave the justification that new, sweeping changes had to be discussed first before being implemented in the article, which is what other editors agreed on. That was the current consensus. I was about to post a more elaborate explanation on your talk page just now, but apparently it didn't go through for some reason, which frustrates me. I always have now, and previously in most cases when I was still a newbie months back, abided by policy and guidelines. I revert for other editors as they themselves are limited to so many reverts, and that I considered it to be a detrimental revision as it did not wikify concepts, or rather omitted several concepts that were previously wikified. I was not the one making the change - I was using the revision of the status quo. On the other hand, Gibby and yourself was the initiator of change - the onus is on the changer if the change is disputed. I have a huge backlog to take care of. I must deal with hundreds of articles daily, formalising them and removing unencyclopedic and patronising tones. It is therefore advisable that new sweeping changes be worked out in the talk page first, so the community can agree on changes as necessary. Do you not find that reasonable? I do apply my criteria impartially. The sources provided were previously agreed on in the archives, which one should browse, and which there were a huge discussion. You realise that I myself find it to make any change to the status quo in the article, and have frequently have my own changes reverted. After they were reverted twice (and finding out which changes were contested), I do not go back and insert the contested material again, as you have done. Rather, I bring it up in the talk page and justify my own addition, as I am the changer of the status quo. I have backed down from my changes many times because of this. In the same way, I expect the same of other users. I do not also tag the article with a disputed tag, unless the errors made are highly serious. For example, perhaps "presumed" is inaccurate and should be changed to "believed", but that is a rather minor error or implication. It is not patronising, for example, and a question of utter semantics. In a major article such as this, changes can get reverted on the sole purpose of presentation, redundancy, and emphasis can be labelled as a POV. This is the current consensus concerning change to major articles such as that.

I also pledge not to abuse any priveleges. I will not for example, block a user who I am currently engaged in a dispute with. However, there are vandals like User:Wikipedia is Communism and User:Willy on Wheels who need blocking as they are trolls who continually page move vandalise articles regularly, who do warrant blocking. I will not misuse my priveleges.

Concerning the abiding by guidelines - it is implicitly stated that all users abide by guidelines. I do not need to sign some trivial document saying I do (if you meant the document in talk:communism, and that is why I ignored it, as I considered it a case of attention-seeking. That was my opinion at the time. That was not my opinion now, but I have always pledged to be a constructive editor, even in my RFA, so urge you to reconsider your vote. -- Natalinasmpf 01:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have a difference of opinion regarding abiding by guidelines. In [2] you state:

Guidelines are guidelines, they do not apply 100% of the time, while applying many times. I abide by policy, and I abide by guidelines in spirit. The 3RR applies 100% of the time...

One of Wikipedia's guidelines is to avoid reverts. This is not a rule that is enforced, it is only a guideline. What I have been aiming at is to get you to agree to abide by certain guidelines, not some of the time. It is my hope that by reaching an agreement on our behavior, we can avoid edit wars, be more productive etc.

Mattley expressed the opinion that a policy of no reverts was unworkable, that there needed to be a policy in which substantive changes to certain articles (such as Communism) needed to be discussed in the talk page prior to being committed. I understand his concern, and so I proposed another policy [3], which, I think both addresses Mattley's (and perhaps your) concern to avoid undiscussed changes, while also addressing my concern that there be a well defined procedure by which editors may know that if they follow it, and if the changes that they wish to make meet Wikipedia standards, then they will be able to make those changes without being subjected to reversions by other editors. As you can undoubtedly observe, I have been following this procedure [4] for the last few days, identifying sections that I believe are suspect as "original research", and allowing 48 hours for other editors to either provide verifiable sources, or to ask for more time. What I would like in return, and what the proposal calls for, is for all parties to agree not to revert changes which are made in accordance with this procedure. You have had a chance to see it work. Perhaps you think it could be improved. Perhaps there are concerns that I have not addressed. By all means, raise your concerns. However, my concern is that all the parties reach some accord which allows editting without reversions by other editors party to the accord. I am hoping that you will see the logic in this proposal, and agree to it, or to make some other proposal which addresses all of our concerns, rather than dismissing it as a trivial document designed for attention. (BostonMA 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Nati, 172, and Mattley will all slap NPOV and Original Research tags on any section they do not like without discussion. When asked for discussion they will provide points but when points are addressed and tags are removed they put tags back up without more discussion. Yet when the same tags are supplied to sections they wrote they delete them whether or not discussion is given. At least 172 and Nati to my knowlege have violated the 3 revert rule (neither were blocked, but they managed to get their admin friends to block me on 3 occasions for doing far less than they did as I actually kept editing my sections as I placed them back into the article/they just outright deleted everything or reverted the page, thus a clear violation of the rules) and on occasion when they decide to abide by it they message friends or administers to revert or protect the page. They are bullies and hypocrites that only care for rules when it benefits them. At any other time they will make up rules and bend the rest to get their points through while eliminating all opposition.

They also appear to have no genuine interest in editing disputed sections or engaging in compromise (as they claim). Deletion is their most common antidote and it is usually deletion without discussion. When asked for excuses for deletion they provide poorly reasoned excuses that do not match up with the existance of current content within the article (as in that same logic could be applied to delete their own sections). To date they have shown little logical consistancy with deletion, reverting, placing or removing tags. (Gibby 17:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC))