Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Workshop

Additional discussion points by Ultramarine[edit]

(removed by Theresa Knott as partial duplicates of those below)

Removal of my comments[edit]

This is the Workshop page, not the Proposed decision page. See [1]. Do not edit or remove my comments without permission [2]. Ultramarine 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this was directed at Septentrionalis several days before Theresa Knott's edits. Ultramarine 11:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the workshop page it states "It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others." (my emphasis) I take this to mean that only arbitrators post the proposed findings but anyone can comment on them. I will therefore remove them for now, but will refer the matter to my fellow arbitrators to see if they agree with my decision. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow arbitrators disagree. I've reinserted the proposals. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The header language on this subject could use clarification. I read it in good faith as asserting that all unsigned proposed points should be the work of Arbitrators. Septentrionalis 02:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine, you are permitted to make suggestions on the Workshop page by the leave of the Arbitration Committee. However, we (the Arbitration Committee) control these pages and may refactor them however we see fit, including editing your suggestions, moving them about, or removing them entirely. The right of non-Arbitrators to edit a workshop page is a privilege extended by the Arbitration Committee and it may be retracted at any time for any reason by the Committee. We definitely do not require your permission. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed at Septentrionalis and his edit, not at Theresa Knott. I certainly respect the right of the Arbitration Committee. Ultramarine 23:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed discussion[edit]

I removed a discussion from the workshop page as unhelpful; it is pasted here in full for reference purposes. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization of parallel versions by editors[edit]

When replacing the lead version of either of the above articles with their preferred copy, Ultramarine typically refers to the edit as replacing the article with "the correct referenced edition" [3], while Pmanderson et al typically refer to the edit as replacing the article with "the consensus edition" [4].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My reasons for calling the collaborative versions "consensus", both on DPT and CoC, are set out in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#Consensus. In brief, Ultramarine is a single editor, engaged in the stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, discussed under Wikipedia:Consensus. We have also called them "collaborative". Septentrionalis 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Septentrionalis argues for a Wikipedia where factually accuracy is irrelevant. For example, if a corporation dislikes an article, then it only has to hire enough people so that its preferred version becomes the "consensus" or "collaborative" version. Ultramarine 00:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I request that this comment, which is both false and abusive, be taken into consideration against Ultramarine. My position has always been, and still is, that factual accuracy is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify the text of an article - if it were sufficient, we would have no other criteria. Ultramarine has slung the same mud towards Ryan Delaney.[5] (He probably genuinely believes what he says; he has never acknowledged that Democratic peace theory was edited for clarity, and Criticisms of communism was edited because, as his own edit summaries proclaimed ([6] et permulta sic altera), his edits were criticisms, instead of describing them.
  See Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Neutral_point_of_view_.28and_associated_principles.29. "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." My references for the descriptions are extensive, verifiable, and reliable. Compare to the numerous unsupported claims in their versions. Or the factual inaccuracies in their versions discussed on the talk pages, like this one presented in the evidence section, 23 September [7].Ultramarine 01:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ultramarine's reverts have persistently removed large sections from Criticisms of communism of which no one has ever complained (and smaller sections from DPT). That is one, repeatedly stated, reason why they have been restored. I am reluctant to call this hypocrisy, but I can find no other word. Ultramarine's remedy is simple: he is free to add to the collaborative version of either article, as he has been invited to do. Septentrionalis 03:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Please give diffs for where you have repeatedly stated that I have removed large or small sections of either article of which no one has ever complained. Septentrionalis is of course free to edit the correct referenced versions and invited to do so, of course following NPOV and Verifiability, instead of violating NPOV as noted above by removing well-referenced information by reverting to his incorrect and unreferenced versions. Ultramarine Ultramarine 06:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  Here is one such diff: [8]
  
  The rest of this claim is hogwash. Mihnea attempted to edit Ultramarine's reversion during this arbitration, and Ultramarine immediately reverted (as the evidence will show, under Ultramarine and collegiality.) More importantly, both collaborative versions began as efforts to improve Ultramarine's text
  On Democratic peace theory, Robdurbar began by revising Ultramarine's edit for clarity, as I have put it evidence under Consensus.
  
  M. Tudoreanu likewise began editing Ultramarine's text for balance (producing a better NPoV than either of them would alone).
  
  Both of these have been met with continual reversion. Septentrionalis 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding his diff, he as usual has no examples or references in support of his claims. As such it cannot be responded to and is uninteresting.

Regarding Mihnea's edit, this is explained in the evidence section 4 October [9]. The other side must follow the usual Wikipedia rules when editing, like Verifiability of statements.

Regarding Robdurbar, he supported several parts of "my" version. He objected to the statistical section [10]. I cooperated with him so that he later also supported my description [11].

Regarding "balance", again "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." Ultramarine 22:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest objection to Ultramarine's writing, from the very beginning, has been his apparent inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. He insists that an opinion does not become true just because many people on wikipedia support it; at the same time, he insists that an opinion does become true just because many anti-communist historians support it. His text does not present views, as it should. Instead, it attempts to present facts and convince the reader of a certain POV. Furthermore, it seems he has not taken the trouble of reading past the first paragraph of text I added to his version before removing everything I wrote. The second paragraph dealt with the use of the lowercase "c" in "communism", while three more paragraphs further down gave an overview of the notion of "communist states".

I have added some further clarification regarding the spelling. Again, see my response on 4 October. Ultramarine 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the alleged removal of "blocks of well-referenced information", I would like to note that Ultramarine does not merely give the reader an account of what various sources have said on a subject; he actively endorses his sources. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the argument. I have included all views that have reliable and verifiable sources. Ultramarine 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: