Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't forget Criticisms of communism for another case of this {{twoversions}} nonsense. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedies & Proposed Enforcements

When will there be something added to these sections???? I somehow feel that without these things, this case doesn't really deserve to be in the "Voting" phase. --69.117.6.28 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It does seem to have stalled somewhat Robdurbar 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I now wonder whether this case can be closed before 2006...--Metric1031 05:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus version

"1) Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. are directed to work together to produce a consensus version. If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert."

This proposed remedy seems to apply to a conflict that no longer exits. There is now a consensus version for Democratic peace theory and there seems to be only minor differences with Mihnea Tudoreanu (who is not mentioned in the above statement) regarding Criticisms of communism and these seems to over presentation rather than substance. I have not had any contact with Pmanderson and Robert A. West for months now. Ultramarine 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That would be because Pmanderson has not edited since Nov 9 - a situation which is subject to change the moment he comes back. Raul654 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Another problem is stating "persist in sterile revert warring". I have always tried to discuss the differences on the talk page and have usually only reverted when they have refused to make responses or give sources for claims. An edit is then the only alternative left unless one should accept that Wikipedia should contain unverifiable and incorrect statements and original research simply because someone advocates them without evidence. No evidence have ever been presented that I have reverted without explanation and attempts to discuss the facts.Ultramarine 13:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is also another problem, user:Ryan Delaney has himself admitted that he has willfully broken the protection policy regarding these articles because he dislikes me as a person. (Probably because of earlier criticisms by me of Kant's philosophy). [1]. He has also protected Pmanderson's versions for weeks, refused and reversed attempts by other administrators unblock them, and continued to protect the DPT article despite there being a consensus on the talk page of how to proceed. If he is so ready to persistently break policy because of this personal dislike, he will probably block me for a week when making the slightest edit of any kind to the articles. Ultramarine 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I also find it strange the Pmanderson (and Ryan Delaney) should be allowed to make personal attacks against me. Ultramarine 08:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I wonder if this proposed remedy will allow Ultramarine to continue this behavior with other editors on other articles in the future. It might be prudent to consider expanding the language to forbid the involved editors from carrying out this kind of {{twoversions}} editing on any articles whatsoever. The current wording is very ambiguous, and could be read either way. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, it was not I who introduced the two-version template, it was Pmanderson. I always have tried to reach a consensus version by discussions on the talk pages. I would not certainly not object to banning this template. I again note Ryan Delaney personal aversion towards me ever since I dared criticize his own personal POV regarding Kant and his repeated willingness to use his administrative powers in this personal vendetta against me. Ultramarine 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Also note that Ryan Delaney already seems to be planning to use even the current text as an excuse for blocking me when editing "any articles whatsoever" since he thinks "The current wording is very ambiguous, and could be read either way"!!! These conflicts have only occurred in the articles Pmanderson were involved in and disappeared the moment he stopped editing Wikipedia. Consensus was achieved immediately on the DPT article, involving me and other editors such as Robdurbar, and only minor style differences seems to remain on Criticisms of communism. Ultramarine 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if this proposed decision will work as intended: Since any user who uses reverts could be blocked, this would mean that a user who reverts to his version would be blocked, but this leaves his version on the article. If another user reverts to a different version, then they would run the risk of being blocked. I imagine a situation where editor A reverts to his non-consensus version, only to be blocked, but editor B is afraid to revert to the consensus version because she's afraid of being blocked. Or am I misreading how arbcom wants this remedy to be imposed? --Ryan Delaney talk 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)