Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Original RfAR
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. (There is no question of which website; the article cites it, and we've all quoted it).
 * 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." in Talk:Democratic_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. 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 (here and elsewhere)  that we have refused to discuss "his" version of Criticisms of communism. Its talk page is 153K and most of it (especially  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 liberum veto in contradiction to Consensus. In particular, he objects that 3-1 is not consensus on an article ( and Talk:Criticisms of communism)
 * He has likewise refused to recognize a consensus against him on a shortened version of Democratic peace theory. . 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.
 * The NPoV version of Criticisms of communism must be  critical of communism, 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. . He made the same claims again when the length of the new page reached 37K Talk:Democratic peace theory.
 * Bullet-points are unencyclopedic. (Minor, but bizarre. Septentrionalis 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC))
 * 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, although a large portion of his text was accepted; and then called for the page to be protected , as it still is. (page history)
 * And he has now done the same thing with Criticisms of communism in response to the consensus (3-1) decision to remove the two-versions tag and invite Ultramarine to actively edit the collaborative version. (WP:RfPP) He has been expressly invited to insert the dozen or twenty sentences which he has added to his private version during August.

Original response
Hmm... So, the most recent accusations are that I
 * am uncivil for asking of others to follow Verifiability and 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.
 * questioned why a talk page was completely achieved when there was ongoing discussions . 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.
 * 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:, , ,
 * 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) . 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
 * have requested that the critics should not delete well-referenced facts and arguments on Criticisms of communism and Vladimir Lenin and those in support of democracy at the Democratic peace theory. There are much greater differences between the two versions of Criticisms of communism than a "dozen or twenty sentences", 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.
 * have violated policy regarding Consensus which in fact states "In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth 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 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 (Most recent discussions here  Ultramarine 09:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)), on Vladimir Lenin, on Democratic peace theory  (Most recent discussions here  Ultramarine 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)), and on Democracy

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 NPOV, Verifiability, Cite sources,  No original research, Consensus, and Wikiquette. More specifically, they have systematically and on a very large scale, in important Wikipdia articles, violated the above when deleting referenced facts and arguments negative for communism and when deleting referenced facts and arguments showing the beneficial effects of liberal democracy.

Evidence presented by Ultramarine
I must mention user:172 in order to explain the events, but I have had no contact with him recently.

15 January 2005
A long dispute between 172 and me starts regarding whether the article Communism should have any mention of the large scale human rights violations that occurred .

15 February 2005
I start editing Democratic peace theory.

31 May 2005
Mihnea Tudoreanu starts editing Democratic peace theory.

3 June 2005
Septentrionalis/Pmanderson starts editing Democratic peace theory.

6 June 2005
Robert A West starts editing the talk page of Democratic peace theory.

8 June 2005
Frivolous accusations by Septentrionalis of copyvivo in order to remove arguments.

23 June 2005
Septentrionalis adds the 2V template to Democratic peace theory.

16 July 2005
172 files for 3RR violation by me.

172 now again tries to completely remove all criticisms from the Communism article. When this fails, he creates the Criticisms of communism article and moves the material there.

18 July 2005
Discussions and edits on Democracy regarding the role of capitalism. Repeated deletions of referenced facts.

19 July 2005
172 sends a personal message to Slimvirgin regarding the 3RR.

20 July 2005
Slimvirgin blocks me fours day after the initial request. 172 thanks Slimvirgin for the block.

Spontaneous page protection of Democracy without request.

RFC against me by Mihnea Tudoreanu. 172, Septentrionalis, and Robert A West participated in the planing before the RfC, in part by using email for things too sensitive for the talk pages. Apparently they filed the RfC while I was blocked so that I should have no chance to make an initial response "You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it".

21 July 2005
I add the Two-version template to Criticisms of communism.

26 July 2005
Septentrionalis states that it was first now, two months after the start of the dispute, that he had read a basic review paper of the DPT that I had repeatedly pointed out and admits drawing conclusions without checking my sources.

27 July 2005
When I commented on Septentrionalis statement, he changes to that he had read the review earlier but that "the memory blurred".

I add referenced critical facts to Vladimir Lenin which previously was clinically free from any. This as usual starts a series of summary deletions, involving among other Mihnea Tudoreanu and 172. I request and get page protection. This finally starts a factual discussion. The article now has some critical content.

28 July 2005
172 is blocked for 3RR violation reported by me. 172 sends new personal message to Slimvirgin. After a long discussion, 172 is unblocked.

2 August 2005
On Peer review Septentrionalis deceptively claims to be a neutral mediator of Criticisms of communism. We had at that time already been in dispute over the DPT article for two months.

14 August 2005
Robert A West, Mihnea Tudoreanu, and Septentrionalis reach a "consensus" between the three of them regarding Criticisms of communism. They ignore that a poll should not be used for "fact finding", make no attempt to let their straw poll be known outside the talk page, like on RfC or Current surveys, and make no attempt to reach a consensus regarding the nature of the poll, as required on Survey guidelines. Thereafter they refuse to discuss the facts, delete the 2V tag, and simply keeps mass reverting to their preferred version. This despite Consensus and What Wikipedia is not: "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."

18 August 2005
RFA against me by Septentrionalis. I add counter-charges and include Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West. After this Mihnea Tudoreanu and somewhat later Robert A West have almost completely avoided disputes with me, the burden of which seems to have fallen almost entirely on Septentrionalis. Factual discussions resume for a while on Criticisms of communism after my counter-charges.

22 August 2005
Page protection of Criticisms of communism after request by me. As clearly stated, this was due to the continued deletions of the 2V tag, not in order to win the debate with my version on top, as they continue to insinuate.

24 August 2005
Robert A West states to one the members of the Arbitration Committee "Since I did not initiate the action, and was not named as a party by Septentrionalis, I am not sure exactly what this means." . In fact, he was one of the authors of the RFA against me and he and Septentrionalis carefully coordinated their actions, even if only Septentrionalis presented it. My counter-charges were however not part of their plan.

7 September 2005
Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis "Updating 2v for his latest dead pigeon". "restore collaborative version over unilateral PoV rant".

9 September 2005
Uncivil edit summaries by Septentrionalis "rv fraudulent superstition". "Revert from incomplete inaccurate and dishonest piece of Rummel-worship".

15 September 2005
Septentrionalis criticizes a reference style that my version no longer has, showing that he has poor understanding of what he blankly reverts and criticizes, which he also admits. My latest version at the time. He has still not corrected the problem he inaccurately criticizes my version for in his own version.

Septentrionalis deliberately lies regarding my "practice", he is for example well aware that I have not requested that my version should be on top after page protection.

Uncivil comments by Septentrionalis.

16 September 2005
Septentrionalis on Democracy claims to be "centrist" and that it is thus not the extreme left and right who are criticizing liberal democracy. This despite his blank denials of referenced facts on Criticisms of communism and his blank refusal to admit any consequence for Marxist theory of the real-world failures of the Communist states. His insistence on a very rigid Marxist interpretation of history has been commented on before by other editors. On Russian famine of 1921 he has removed negative facts and added an inaccurate apology and in a dispute with another editor argued that it is doubtful that even the Holodomor was a genocide.

18 September 2005
Septentrionalis continues to refer to a "consensus" on Democratic peace theory as an excuse for mass deletion of referenced facts and arguments. In fact, there have never even been a straw poll and other editors have disagreed with his version.

21 September 2005
Septentrionalis edits Consensus.

22 September 2005
Septentrionalis adds his initial RFA to this page after I had written my response and then states "Ultramarine appears to have left these charges unaddressed, except two: that he threatened to have Criticisms of communism protected "with his version on top", and that he is failing to recognize consensus against him." He deceptively does not add my response to his initial RFA.

23 September 2005
Examination of one of Septentrionalis few sources, a book where he as usual refuses to give page numbers or quotes, shows no support for his claim, which thus appears to be a deliberate fabrication.

3 October
Septentrionalis accuses me of biting the newbie on Talk:Russian Constituent Assembly. I note that we reached a true consensus and presented our respective versions with sources in the article. He got the last word both on the talk page and in the article.

Mihnea Tudoreanu again starts deleting sourced material, using the same explanation as Septentrionalis. Robert A West apparently continues to be "unable to log on, or edit, Wikipedia"

4 October
Mihnea Tudoreanu deletes a paragraph from my introduction and adds several from the other version. 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.

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" 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.

Septentrionalis also on this page insinuate that I "continues to ignore all invitations to edit the collaborative version" It was Septentrionalis, not I, who first insisted that there should be two versions and who added the Two-version template. When I do have edited the other version by updating the Two-version template, he simply deletes this by reverting to a version with an outdated Template, also sometimes ignoring that others have "collaboratively" edited my version. As shown in the talk pages, I have numerous times tried to discuss the differences. Previously we have also reached a consensus on several issues, see an earlier factual discussion here, but unfortunately they now prefer to blank reverts. It should be noted they usually never attempt to explain why they delete new referenced material I add but simply in the edit summaries refer to a "consensus" or "collaborative version"; the factual discussions have almost always been initiated by me as I try to get an explanation or in order to try to reach a consensus.

6 October
Septentrionalis again deletes the referenced version and the new referenced studies and arguments by well-known historians that I had added. His only explanation is "consensus: the last edit summary exaggerates the half-dozen footnotes". The diff between my two versions.

7 October
Septentrionalis on this page adds to his criticism of one of my sources regarding the environmental problems in the Communist states. He misleadingly states that it was first on August 26 that I "finally" cited this source. This is false, it had been included since July 22. He also cites his criticism of this published paper but misleadingly do not include my responses which can be found here, including that the paper cites numerous other sources for all the statements in the several pages long summary of the environmental problems in the Communist states. He also points out that the authors are "Latin Americanists", apparently finding this suspect. Here is some information on the authors.

12 October
Regarding Robert McClenon's complaint on this page, obviously it is true that correlation is not causation. However, the studies I presented do not contradict this which Robert McClenon seems to think. If he insists that they do, then this should be published outside Wikipedia. I repeat the answer I gave him in the RfC: "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. "

17 October
Response to Septentrionalis claims here Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence.

Regarding the 6 sources, they certainly use other methods than simple correlations, which is what I stated. If Septentrionalis wants to argue for fallacy in their results, Wikipedia is not the place. See also Silverback's response.

Regarding alcoholism in the Soviet Union as an explanation for increased mortality, I had two sources which both prominently mention this, not one as Septentrionalis states. That I removed the statement due to Mihnea Tudoreanu arguments regarding this should be entered as evidence that I want to create a factually correct article and listens to good arguments in a discussion. Septentrionalis claim that newspapers with anecdotal stories are better sources than scholarly articles speaks for itself. Regarding the discussion about GDP/capita and the DPT, see the latest discussions here. It should be noted that their version still falsely states that the paper found that a substantial level of development is required for the DPT.

Compare to the many factual inaccuracies and NPOV violations in their versions documented here: Talk:Criticisms_of_communism, Talk:Democratic_peace_theory.

20 October
Septentrionalis again deletes the correct referenced description of the democratic peace theory and several new studies that I had added without any explanation except his usual excuse for deletions of facts that he dislikes, his "collaborative" version. In addition he is uncivil again, describing his revert without updating the 2V template as "cleaning up after Ultramarine again".

He is also uncivil on the talk page of the article after I pointed out that one of his very few added references in fact when examined was found to explicitly state that the democratic peace theory is correct: "I regret that Ultramarine remains unable to read English." .

26 October
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.

28 October
Septentrionalis continues to be uncivil, stating in a edit summary "rv from advocacy; Ultramarine has actually found a source, how nice". The correct and referenced version has over 70 references, almost all added by my. Ultramarine 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII
Regarding RJII's comment, I note the previous arbitration case against him by me and Slrubenstein and some of his previous personal attacks against me.


 * "I find your mentality and reasoning ability abysmal."
 * "looks like it was devised by a schizophrenic with ADHD."
 * "looks like it was written by third grader who can't get his thoughts together"
 * "Go to bed, little boy."
 * "an absolute incoherent mess, as one would expect."

Unfortunately, he seems to think that this arbitration case gives him permission to use even more vehement personal attacks. RJIII is also an anarcho-capitalist and is thus like Marxists a fundamental opponent of liberal democracy.

POV warrior?
In the RFC I was accused of being a POV warrior and that "He appears to be waging a single-handed crusade to purify Wikipedia of what he considers "various left and right extremists" 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."

Examining my sources on Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of Communism will show that I have used very few from any right-wing think-thank. I used some on Democracy regarding the relationship with capitalism, but also there I used studies from other researchers. Note that even for conservative researchers it is the scientific methods and results that should be discussed, ad hominem should be avoided.

I will use some examples from the capitalism article. As openly stated, I think that capitalism is overall beneficial. However, I think that RJII's involvement is a sign that I add opposing arguments and facts also against my own view, like against capitalism. I have been the first to add many important criticisms against capitalism in that article:


 * First mention of market failures
 * First mention of the problem of monopolies.
 * First mention of externalities.
 * First mention of large scale human rights violatons, wars, and imperialism by capitalist states.
 * First mention of problems with sustainability, overpopulation, and energy depletion . I also found the subject so interesting that I created and wrote most of the content of Future energy development.

Verifiability
Some specific examples of unreferenced errors from their articles where they refuse to correct errors despite references:


 * "However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today". I have shown that the environmental situation has improved in every studied former Communist state.
 * "the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress; so did pure science (in fields not blighted by ideological pressure), mathematics, and military technology." I have shown that this is false, only occasionally was Soviet pure science or military technology advanced..
 * "The original democratic peace hypothesis referred to peace between democracies, the later pacifist democracy hypothesis to an inherently less warlike nature of democracies; some theories include both. The separate peace hypothesis implies that wars between unlike regimes (democracy and non-democracy) are more probable. The militant democracy hypothesis implies that democracies are inherently likely to go to war with non-democracies." Numerous inaccuracies in these basic definitions.

Some specific examples where references added by me are reported incorrectly in their version despite that this has been pointed out:


 * "A recent paper by Mousseau, Hegre and Oneal[3] presents statistical evidence that the democratic peace is real, but that it only applies when there is substantial economic development (at least $1400 US per capita)." This is a very low level of development.
 * "In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in Romania, but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region." False, began to improve immediately in several of the nations.
 * "Another paper [5]. presents the decision to go to war as a prisoner's dilemma: the best outcome for both sides is peace, but it is better to attack than be attacked." No mention of attack.

Primary evidence
My primary evidence is the difference between the two versions of the articles and and the sections in talk pages where the factual differences are discussed. Please see the history for our latest versions. Please also note that there have been many changes since the start of the RFA. Their reverts unfortunately break the footnote system. The number of the footnote should still be correct so the reference can still be found in the reference list.


 * Democratic peace theory. List of proposed changes: . Sandbox where the footnotes work:
 * Criticisms of communism. List of proposed changes II: . Sandbox where the footnotes work:

Examination will show the following behaviour by the opposing side:


 * Blank denial of well-referenced facts and arguments
 * Promise to soon add referenced support for arguments but never do
 * Suddenly want to delete entire sections that they previously insisted on if new evidence against their position is added
 * Make minor inconsequential changes and then falsely claim that errors in their version have been fixed
 * Refuse to cite sources for claims or cite entire books but refuse to give quotes or page numbers
 * Present original research as arguments for removing peer-reviewed studies
 * Deceptively modify earlier comments after responses have been made
 * Gross ignorance of the Democratic peace theory, do not even get the most basic definitions right
 * Almost all of the factual content in both articles have been written by me. I have made a great effort in order to find, read, and then add material from many different reliable sources. Their contributions mainly being deletions and various unreferenced attempts to explain away the facts. In the Democratic peace article I have added over 40 inline links to peer-reviewed studies, statistics, and other empirical evidence. They have added 3 inline links to newspaper articles, 1 to an essay, and only 1 to a scholarly book. In the Criticisms of communism article I have similarly added 28 inline links, they 2. On the talk pages it is only I that do research and add any verifiable facts.

It should be noted that Septentrionalis continues to insinuate various problems with my editing style, using various isolated comments. Reading the whole section on Environmental problems in the Communist states will show NPOV violations, blank deletions of referenced facts, and promises to add referenced support that are never fulfilled. One important difference between our versions is their blank deletions of all referenced arguments regarding the relevance of the real-world results of the Communist states for Marxist theory, compare to the referenced version.

In short, I consider the charges against me to be frivolous and simply part of much larger pattern. The opposite side has no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. The text in the official policy POV pushing describes their attempts well. I feel this is a question of some importance for Wikipedia. Should blank denial be allowed to triumph over referenced studies and research? Should one small clique, desperately afraid of letting others know the probably best documented advantage of liberal democracy and the numerous drawbacks of communism, be allowed to impose its will by force?

Updates

 * Added more to the timeline. Added initial response. Diff . Ultramarine 20:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Added more to the timeline. Diff . Ultramarine 15:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Added more to Primary evidence. Diff . Ultramarine 19:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed link to sandbox since Criticisms of communism has been unblocked. Diff . Ultramarine 02:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * More on the two versions, factual discussions, and principles. Diff . Ultramarine 18:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Added more to the timeline. More on footnotes. Diff []. Ultramarine 20:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Added more to the timeline, moved some material. . Ultramarine 08:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Added more to the timeline and links to sandbox versions where the footnotes work. Diff . Ultramarine 09:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Have added more to the timeline on several occasions.  Ultramarine 16:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dejvid
Above, Ultramarine, talking about Septentrionalis, states that: "His insistence on a very rigid Marxist interpretation of history has been commented on before by other editors  ." Both references point to comments by me. I have to say that had Utramarine done more than skim thru the discussion then he would have seen that nature of the disagreement was 180 degrees away from how he, Ultramarine, has presented it. My comments were in fact not about Septentrionalis at all but about Septentrionalis' opinion on Geoffrey de Ste. Croix. Geoffrey de Ste. Croix was a Marxist but I felt that Septentrionalis was too ready to assume that de Ste. Croix  followed a rigid Marxist interpretation of history. Dejvid 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Septentrionalis
I added the original text of the RfAr here, because I wish its statements, which are supported by diffs, to be considered as evidence.

Ultramarine appears to have left the RfAr charges unaddressed, except two: that he threatened to have Criticisms of communism protected "using [his] version", and that he is failing to recognize consensus against him. These deserve sections of their own.

Ultramarine is, however, a master of the incomplete quotation and the suggestive irrelevancy. Most of his statement above consists of these; and it would be very long to discuss them all. One example of each should suffice (the most recent [when this was written] in his lengthy narrative):

16 September 2005

 * 16;53
 * I commented on Talk:Russian famine of 1921
 * Describing even the Holodomor as genocide (rather than, say, mass murder) is iffy, although the case can be made: it requires that Stalin have cared which'' peasants he starved.
 * I.e.: Stalin was a mass murderer by starvation; but he may well not have intended the destruction of any particular group of people, as the definition of genocide requires. If this be Stalinism, make the most of it.

Suggestive Irrelevancy
Ultramarine states that I edited consensus. Quite true; so what?

19 September 2005

 * 16:17, 16:18
 * I proposed an addition on Wikipedia talk:consensus.

21 September 2005

 * 17:46
 * I added the following revised paragraph, since no-one had objected or commented in 48 hours:
 * ''The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of more editors to the issue by one of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent consensus being enforced by a small group of willful editors. Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken.
 * This is mostly policy; the rest should be uncontroversial.

22 September 2005
I see that Ultramarine is complaining that I did not add his countercharges to this page when I added the "RfA [sic]". Has it occurred to him that it would be improper for me to add his evidence? Septentrionalis 21:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

23 July 2005

 * 19:04
 * Ultramarine did threaten, if he didn't get his way, to have Criticisms of communism protected "using my version".;

22 August 2005

 * 11:30
 * Ultramarine requests having 'his' version protected as "factually correct", while discussing his page protection request..

Consensus
The following evidence argues a consensus on a common version in both articles. In both cases, Ultramarine has never edited the collaborative version, although invited to do so; in both cases, he has persistently reverted to an edit all his own. (We have even attempted to contribute to what he calls "his" version, and been reverted for our pains: See below.)

14 August 2005

 * 20:44
 * Robert West calls a straw poll whether we had consensus to remove the two-version tag and continue editing on the version he, I and Mihnea Tudoreanu had contributed to.
 * by 21:47
 * Three of us felt it did exist, and again invited Ultramarine to join us. Ultramarine protested that no such proceeding could show consensus and declined to participate.
 * If Ultramarine thought a survey should have been called, he was free to call one; he has not.

22 August 2005

 * 17:25
 * Ryan Delaney reverts Ultramarine's last edit, describing this as "to consensus version"
 * 17:26
 * He protects the page.

23 August 2005

 * 14:00
 * Ryan Delaney declines Agiantman's effort to "support Ultramarine's version"

12 August 2005

 * 12:12
 * User:Robdurbar, as his first edit to the page, boldly shortens the then existing text,
 * 16:57
 * I applaud this revision

13 August 2005

 * 20:30
 * Robert West approves of the short version

14 August 2005

 * 18:36
 * Ultramarine reverted to the long version, as a PoV fork, which has been since edited by himself alone, with one exception. He has never edited the short version either. (See 3 September below.)

26 August 2005

 * 15;56
 * after much cooperative editing, including shortening the history section, to about where it is now, Robdurbar adds back some of Ultramarine's statistics section,
 * 17:30 and 18:43
 * I suggested combining some of it with another section; Robdurbar said: go for it;
 * 19:23-23:22
 * and I did. (combined diff}
 * The resulting version is substantially identical (with some local changes} to my last edit.

28 August 2005

 * 15:19
 * Robdurbar comments on Ultramarine's insistence on innumerable studies, and general inflexibility

29 August 2005

 * 06:29
 * Robdurbar tells Ultramarine "Whatever, I didn't come here to get into POV discussions. You include as much as you want, and let the casual reader be lost in a field of heavy-going statistical discussions"
 * 17:50 and 18:48
 * Robdurbar suggests more of Ultramarine's studies; I replied that I didn't see anything I wanted, but if he saw anything desirable, he should please add it. He never did.

1 September 2005

 * 23:50
 * Robert West reverts to the short version as consensus
 * I have reverted more often; because Mr. West has had trouble editing over the last three weeks; he has made only a dozen edits to Wikipedia since (contributions).

3 September 2005

 * 11:28
 * Ruzmanci replaces the intro of the PoV fork,
 * 16:39
 * I took up Ruzmanci's intro into the shorter version,
 * 21:24
 * But Ultramarine refuses the replacement ,
 * 21:23
 * and excludes it from his next reversion to the long verison.

10 September
I consolidated Ruzmanci's intro into the text, and tweaked it; so has Ruzmanci. (see page history for 10 September, which will show Ruzmanci's involvement with the short version)

The long version is the work of one editor; the shorter version has the work and approval of four editors. The only other edits have been dabs and two cases of vandalism. (The only other comment on the talk page has been Regebro questioning a single point; he is welcome to be bold and alter the text, if he wants - so far he has not.)  This is consensus.

As for polling, there is not only the two-version poll mentioned in the arbitration request, Rubdurbar also posted the edit dispute on Requests_for_comment/Politics, where it still is.

Content disputes
Ultramarine's content disputes fill literally hundreds of K on Talk:Democratic peace theory, its archive, and Talk:Criticisms of communism. Discussing them adequately would take at least as long. I do not request that ArbCom settle any of them; I believe the ordinary means of dispute resolution are sufficient, and repeat that I will accept mediation.

In summary, much of Ultramarine's arguments are the same techniques of incomplete quotation and suggestive irrelevance as above, applied to external sources. Much of the remainder is Ultramarine protesting that a point is accurate; even when his preferred text has been deprecated as unbalanced, unclear, verbose, or off topic. Accuracy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.

Nevertheless, I will answer for my edits.

Editing with Ultramarine
Ultramarine has made no effort to edit collaboratively. In one mood, he will discuss a difference on the talk page, and makes no edits at all. In another, he reverts daily to "my" "correct" version, often adding a word or sentence; while making demands on the talk page as to how other editors must correct "your" version if it is to meet his lordly approval. In neither case does he edit the offending version.

And, as above, I have a sample.

From Talk:Criticisms of communism:

23 July

 * 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine suggests a long paragraph on Communist pollution
 * 15:17 and 15:40 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea includes it in Criticisms of communism, except one sentence, and a mention of the Caspian Sea in another sentence.
 * 15:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine complains
 * 16:01, 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea supplies the demanded sources
 * 16:17, 23 July 2005
 * Mihnea explains exclusion of the Caspian Sea....disappeared, since it hasn't.
 * 16:28, 23 July 2005
 * Ultramarine complains that the source proving the Caspian Sea still exists are out of date (believe it or not)
 * 17;28 23 July 2005
 * I propose a compromise on the Caspian (which is accepted).
 * I oppose Ultramarine's last sentence, which is:
 * ''Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead
 * as redundant, and virtually is a weaselword; but if included, I will dispute it, not reject it.
 * 19:02, 23 July 2005
 * Ultramarine threatens to "have the page protected, using my version".

17 August

 * 20:06
 * Ultramarine makes page protection request.

20 August

 * 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine makes a list of demands, including the sentence above
 * 20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat my objections, but also the promise not to revert the sentence if he includes it.

22 August

 * 17:48
 * The page is protected
 * 17:49 and 23:01 22 Ausust 2005
 * Robert West defends the sentence, at least in part

26 Ausust

 * 13:43, 26 August 2005
 * Ultramarine finally cites his source, which is a paper on Cuba
 * 15:46, 26 August 2005
 * I comment that the sentence is cut-and-paste from a paper on Cuba, and therefore not the best-sourced (or clearest) criticism.

27 August

 * 07:24, 27 August 2005
 * Robert West asks for a more precise phrasing for any sentence on river pollution

28 August

 * 20:18, 28 August 2005
 * I suggest an alternate sentence (which is not cut-and-paste; it summarizes several paragraphs from a paper on Poland in 1990:
 * ''The Vistula was poisoned with mining spoil, agricultural runoff, and sewage; its fish were inedible, its waters green with algae; much of its water was useless for man or beast.

30 August

 * 15:43, 30 August 2005
 * Ultramarine insists on his sentence

14 September

 * 23:24, 14 September 2005
 * and insists....

All this over one and a half sentences, which Ultramarine could have included in the collaborative version at any time; at least till he himself had the page protected. He conducts every discussion in this style. I hope that ArbCom will consider this as mitigation of anybody's annoyance with Ultramarine.

Ultramarine assumes bad faith
On the talk page of this evidence, Ultramarine again insists that those who disagree with his edits must be Marxists seeking to conceal the evidence for liberal democracy. If this be so, why is the article liberal democracy not in evidence? Septentrionalis 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine bites the newbie
On Talk:Russian Constituent Assembly, Ultramarine bullies User:TheInquistor, an editor with 44 edits, according to kate's tool. (TheInquisitor knows the term "POV-pushing", but this is possible for genuine newbies, especially ones that have just gotten the boldness to edit.) TheInquisitor had no User page until 01:20 2 October, and has no talk page - although I may send him a welcome after I post this.

I suppose Ultramarine will claim that TheInquisitor is another member of the conspiracy, trying to conceal the evils of Communism; however, it was Ultramarine who reverted a sourced assertion that the Bolsehviks gerrymandered the meeting of the Soviets. RCA edit:17:37, 1 October 2005 Septentrionalis 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine and collegiality
Ultramarine has never edited the collaborative version of either article I have attempted to edit with him, except to change twoversions or dispute tags.

Nor will he permit the PoV forks he calls "his" versions to be edited by others. Mihnea Tudoreanu did an experiment on this recently, using Criticisms of communism; similar events, involving many more edits, have occurred on Democratic peace theory.

4 October 2005

 * 06:22, 4 October 2005
 * Mihnea alters the intro of the PoV fork, expressly identifying it (in the edit summary) as a test to see whether Ultramarine will allow editing of "his version". I would regard any counteredit other than complete reversion as acceptance in principle of collegiality.
 * 06:28 4 October 2005
 * Mihnea reverts to the collaborative version, again inviting Ultramarine to join in editing it.
 * 18:55 4 October 2005
 * I add twoversions, in an effort to make crystal-clear that the 06:22 edit 24710405 is an effort to cooperate on "Ultramarine's version".

5 October 2005
This is not wiki behavior. It is appropriate to a blog; and there are free bloghosts, such as Blogspot. If Ultramarine wishes to edit UltraPedia, he should open such a blog, or find space for another mirror-site, which he can control as he pleases. If it will aid in amicably resolving this dispute, I am prepared to add links to such pages from both the pages I have been concerned with. Septentrionalis 18:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 08:46 5 October 2005
 * Ultramarine reverts to PoV fork, including a complete reversion of the intro.diff from Mihnea's edit, showing reversion of intro; diff from Ultramarine's previous edit.

Ultramarine's misuse of sources
Ultramarine does not report sources well, even those he himself has introduced into the discussion. I have come to believe that this is genuine difficulty in reading and writing English, rather than carelessness or dishonesty.

On this page, under above, Ultramarine lists six sources to show that his views are not derived from correlation, and thereby to refute Robert McClendon's evidence. Of these, This last is still studying correlation; although it uses an unfortunate and potentially misleading terminology. It is a fallacy to assert that, because A is a leading indicator of B, A causes B: there may be (and in practice often is) a common cause C, which merely works faster on A than on B. Septentrionalis 05:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Four are papers asserting correlation between two variables, after controlling for certain other specified variables.
 * One is a book review, which does not discuss details of method.
 * One is a paper studying, quite standardly, whether correlation between two time series can be improved by shifting them in time.

In his most recent claims here, it ascends to misstatement of fact ; as Mr. West and I  have both attempted to explain to Ultramarine, the substance of that section is included in the collaborative version here. But Ultramarine can accept no phrasing but his own.

Ultramarine does this on articles too, despite his boasts of accuracy. Mr. West had to remonstrate with him several times on Democratic peace theory. 23:42 13 August 200517:13 22 August. On Criticisms of communism, Ultramarine insisted [Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#Life_expectancy][ on sourcing expansive statements on late Soviet alcoholism on a single source with  a single sentence on the subject:


 * On an individual level, alcohol consumption is strongly implicated in being at least partially responsible for many of these trends.

M. Tudoreanu is about right in describing this as "maybe, we think, perhaps alcohol consumption could be a factor"  lower edit.

(ArbCom does not need to decide the content dispute here; Western newspapers were full of anecdotal accounts of late Soviet alcoholism - but any of them would a better source than this.)  Septentrionalis 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There are other examples, but they would take longer to explain. See also, below. Septentrionalis 05:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Incivility
Ultramarine charges that I made four uncivil remarks about his edits. I did; I regret the intemperance.

He also charges that I have been uncivil to him. I regard as  parliamentary; I should have said whinging in. I have amended it.


 * Ultramarine's latest complaint is (as often) refuted by reading the full text he fails to quote: Anyone who sees wholly independent cause as different (other than in emphasis) from independent cause has failed to read English. Septentrionalis 23:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this to be all the substantive countercharges; I am willing to comment further on any of Ultramarine's statements above, if the ArbCom would like, but I think I've reached the word limit. Septentrionalis 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

13 August 2005

 * 21:07
 * On Talk:Democratic peace theory, Ultramarine complains:
 * No DPT claims anything about internal affairs.
 * 21:54
 * Robert West amends the text to satisfy the objection.
 * 21:55
 * Mr West notes this on the Talk page

25 October 2005

 * 23:24
 * Ultramarine asks why I have not included his latest finding, a study connecting proportional representation with internal violence.

26 October 2005

 * 16:57
 * I remind him of the above discussion
 * 20:50
 * Ultramarine replies:
 * The more general version of the DPT extends to internal systematic violence such as civil wars.

The form of expression Robert West adopted in August would include the proportional representation paper.

Evidence presented by Mihnea Tudoreanu
The very first piece of evidence that I believe should be examined is the difference between the two versions of the Criticisms of communism article:


 * Collaborative version
 * Ultramarine's version

You will notice that Ultramarine's version makes every effort to (a) reduce all arguments of the opposing side to straw men, and (b) refute those straw men. Specifically, in discussing arguments for and against an assertion, Ultramarine's writings are constructed around the following pattern:
 * 1) Ultramarine's POV is asserted, often as fact.
 * 2) The opposing POV is briefly acknowledged.
 * 3) The opposing POV is summarily dismissed with a counter-argument.

Example of Ultramarine's treatment of opposing arguments:
 * "Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that humans rights violations such as executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both non-democratic Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers. However, past evils in an old regime can hardly be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of Hitler could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the German Empire in Africa. Advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them. However, this defense can also be criticized. Alexander Solzhenitsyn argues in his book Gulag Archipelago that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era Gulags were much worse than those of the Tsarist era Katorgas. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths."
 * (from his most recent version of the Criticisms of communism article; see link above)

Indeed, upon reading Ultramarine's articles, one gets the distinct impression that they are written to prove a point rather than inform the reader of the different opposing views regarding an issue. He makes little effort to deny this. Rather, he insists that his POV is simply correct and should therefore be endorsed by wikipedia. He often refers to his version of an article as the "more correct version".

Ultramarine's views on what constitutes proof of truth are strangely self-contradictory. On the one hand, he has (correctly) asserted that truth is not democratic, and that agreement between all editors of an article (minus one - himself) on a certain version of that article does not necessarily make that version correct. On the other hand, he has repeatedly insisted that any peer-reviewed study must be presented as unquestioned scientific fact ("They do not claim, they present a statistical study. This is science, not discussion arguments. Provide your own peer-reviewed studies or keep quiet.") I have repeatedly asked him if he would apply the same standards to studies authored and peer-reviewed by historians in the Soviet Union. He has declined to answer.

Ultramarine has consistently demonstrated ignorance of scientific methods and standards. He has asserted that statistics by themselves are enough to prove a thesis, and has repeatedly ignored explanations by myself as well as third parties of the fact that social science is not hard science. He is certainly welcome to believe whatever he wishes, and to present his POV as one side of an argument described in a wiki article; the problem is his insistence that his POV is not merely a POV, but the truth.

Ultramarine has shown a willingness to resort to any underhanded means to get his version of an article on top. As noted by Septentrionalis, he has threatened to get the Criticisms of communism article protected using his version. He has also insisted that the first version of an article to use the two-version template should permanently stay on top until the dispute is resolved, knowing full well that this would allow him to keep his version on top indefinitely simply by refusing to close the dispute or listen to the other side.

Clearly, Ultramarine's zeal is without equal; as he states on his user page, he concentrates all of his considerable efforts on a small number of articles. Unfortunately, this has resulted in him effectively "taking over" those articles and treating them as his private property. Whenever another user attempts to make an edit that goes against Ultramarine's POV, he will inevitably revert and keep up the edit war until the other user gives up. I could be wrong, but I have yet to see anyone reaching any kind of final compromise with Ultramarine. I sincerely doubt that such a compromise is even possible.

Finally, I would like to mention that I have been on vacation for the last week of August and first week of September, and have had little time to contribute to wikipedia since coming back. I have not avoided the dispute with Ultramarine on purpose during the past month; I have greatly reduced my contributions to wikipedia in general. My contribution history will confirm this. I am now intending to resume a more active role, however.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

19 July 2005
Replacing a statistical statement of fact, that correlation is not causation, with a peer-reviewed but disputed reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democracy&diff=19115862&oldid=19115492

To put this diff in context, Ultramarine appears to be gaming Wikipedia's verifiability policy and misapplying the concept of No Original Research. Ultramarine was replacing a statement from mathematical statistics, that correlation does not imply causation, with a reference to a peer-reviewed study in economics. The statement from mathematical statistics is more solidly verifiable than a peer-reviewed study. The statistical statement was not (contrary to Ultramarine's argument) original research by Mihnea Tudoreanu, but a restatement of a well-known principle.

I had no involvement in the edit wars in question until the RfC that preceded this RfAr was filed. It is my opinion as a professional user of statistics that Ultramarine is gaming Wikipedia's verifiability policy with its (reasonable) statement preferring peer-reviewed research over non-peer-reviewed research in order to push POV. Robert McClenon 12:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Note
I have an e-mail from User:Robert A West. He has been unable to log on, or edit, Wikipedia; but he will be trying later from another ISP. Septentrionalis 20:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {Silverback}
Two quotes kind of tell the whole story


 * "As communism entails the abolition of the state, a communist state is an impossibility according to communist theory"

and


 * "Strictly speaking, the term "Communist state" is an oxymoron, since the communists themselves define communism as a social system that has abolished private property, social classes, and the {[government|state]] itself."

The first is from the original article as created by User:172, the second is from the recent alternate version largely created by the "consensus". That consensus is the communist clique or cabal that Ultramarine has fought, apparently, all alone, probably because he is an individualist who believes that certain principles apply, no matter what the consensus thinks. Ultramarine's chief "crime" seems to be, that he did not form his own clique.

Unfortunately, content also gets entangled in this arbitration. Is the clique, editing in good faith, i.e., do they really believe this separation of communism or state, or do they also go to great pains to praise and defend totalitarian oligarchies and dictatorships like the USSR and Cuba. I've tangled with 172 in the past when he objected to the mentioning of Kruschev's and Breshnev's oppressive repression of emigration, and recently on Fidel Castro, where he found the term "totalitarian" problematic. Where does communism end and apologia for totalitarian states begin?

Beware arbs, when you start to favor cliquish "consensus" over the higher principles of this encyclopedic effort. Ultramarines contributions seem more NPOV. Imagine that, an individual getting closer to objective truth than a clique!--Silverback 04:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

SB response to the July 19th evidence by Robert McClenon
McClenon has chosen to criticize one edit out of hundreds, hardly a serious indictment. The statistical truism that McClenon defends was used as part of a longer argumentative text within the article. I have long agreed that argumentitive points should be allowed to be made such as this, particularly on science pages, where it should be possible to note for instance that studies being cited for a particular point, do not control for certain variables relevant to the point, without having to find a specific authoritative source for that point. This type of "discussion" is common when summarizing scientific results. I gave the ARBCOM an opportunity to address and clarify this specific issue in the WMC arbitration case, but the ARBCOM did not address the issue.

But was the McClenon example an appropriate place and manner to be presenting this statistical truism, as the coup'de'grace of an argument presented within the text of the article? And does the quality of this argument compare to the quality of the text proposed by Ultramarine with his peer reviewed citation? First, the "disputed source" is a peer reviewed journal of the CATO Institute which is well regarded and often cited by non-libertarians of both parties despite being a "libertarian" think tank. The article is in the field of economics, an observational field that does not give many opportunities for controlled studies, but must try to glean "causality" and confirm or test theories by analyzing historical data. This issue of causality is explicitly addressed in the cited article, and it relies on the well established "Granger causality" type of statistical analyses. The results of such studies are presented as "evidence of causality", not proof of causality. In economics, often times usually, "evidence of causality" is the best you can do, and the theories that win the day should be those that accumulate the most or best evidence without having problematic counter evidence. If you look at the Ultramarine text, he does not overstate the evidence, and in fact presents it remarkably fairly "...Most of the evidence....support the theory that...causes democritization". This fairly represents the type of Granger causality results available, does not contradict the statistical truism and does not claim proof of actual causality.

By contrast, the Mihnea text, is weak argumentation and assertions unsupported by citations. In fact the NOR objection to it appears supportable. While I argue for tolerance of some such argumentation in the article text so that summaries and discussions of the evidence and theories can be better written and the writing less constrained by NOR, my hope of course, is that the arguments would be of high quality and supported by SOME evidence and not mere reasonable seeming assertions. The argumentation asserts that particular examples are counter examples to peer reviewed theories, that are far more rigorously defined, and are an attempt to deal with complex non-linear socio-, politico-economic factors. Whatever the merits of these counter examples, noone is served by presenting them non-rigousously. Consider for instance, is India really poor in the sense that is relevant to the arguments being discussed? India is describe as "arguably not prosperous". It could be pointed out how advanced India's medical system and transportation and energy systems are by historical standards. It could also be pointed out that India has one of the largest middle classes in the world. India's lack of prosperity is not something that should be asserted flippantly or uncritically accepted as relevant.--Silverback 04:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SB response to Ryan Delaney
I view Ryan Delaney's protection of the "Criticism of communism" article as unnecessary and a mistake in judgement (i.e., not a crime). I view his POV reversion to what he thinks is the correct version, a violation of the protection policy and an abuse of the admin powers he has been entrusted with, and as a prejudgement of the outcome of this case, since he points to this case as the justification for his reversion. Frankly I don't see how this case helps justify his abuse of his powers.

Ryan Delaney also is not familiar with what has been going on in the article. It was not a pure revert war, Ultramarine had been make substantial additions and improvements to one of the versions, including making changes in response to feedback. Delaney also misinterprets the two recent editors that had "quit in frustration". 172 had only shown up at the article recently to take sides in the revert war, and I think quit because he realized he wasn't making a constructive contribution. He is involved in an arbitration case with me, and we had been having discussions indirectly about the issues in surrogate locations such as Talk:List of dictators. The other editor was one of the parties to this arbitration (the one with a name that signs with an alias, both difficult to remember). I think he quit, because he found himself reverting all alone, his co-parties had become inactive on the article, and of course, given this arbitration case, his reverting was unnecessary and pointless, and was just preventing Ultramarine from further improving a version of the article. His reasons are probably more complex than Ryan's characterization.

Here is an example of where I "shopped" for an administrator and the arguments that I used. Of course, Ryan's abuse was a clear violation, and I shouldn't have to shop for an administrator, any administrator should do, the unwarranted "deference" culture is embarrassing to wikipedia. In fact, Ryan should have corrected the violation himself when it was called to his attention. I suspect that Ryan just has difficulty admitting he made a mistake. --Silverback 14:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ryan Delaney
Recently, I came into contact with User:Silverback over the protection of the article Criticisms of communism. For reference, some parts of the timeline are repeated.

I interpret this as a broad attempt at gaming the system from Silverback, by "shopping for an administrator". His assertion that progress was being made on the article is trivially false, and I think advanced by his willingness to say anything he thinks might get the article unprotected so that he can revert back to the "correct and referenced" version. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * August 22 I proctect the article for the first time. I leave twoversions in the protected version.
 * August 27 User:Shanes unprotects the article just five days later, saying "We can't have it protected forever".
 * August 28 User:Ultramarine makes the first post-protection edit, restoring the "correct referenced version" the following day. The revert war continues over the next 30 days as if the article had never been protected: See page history.
 * October 30 I revert away from User:Ultramarine's version of the article and proctect it a second time. The edit history showed that at within the last four days, at least two editors had quit in frustration , and there was no evidence on the talk page of the dispute being close to resolution.
 * November 1 User:Silverback asks me to unprotect the article, citing the lack of a request for page protection and claiming that progress was being made. The full length of our exchange is available here and here.
 * November 1 True to his word, User:Silverback posts on WP:RFPP requesting that Criticisms of communism be unprotected. A debate between the parties ensues.
 * User:dmcdevit (an administrator) writes "At the moment, protection was a good decision. It should sit for at least a few days."
 * Dmcdevit removes the request.
 * November 1 Silverback takes it to the talk page of Criticisms of communism, where he further accuses me of misusing my admin powers.