Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop

Pierre Bourque section
I'm not sure that the diffs for Pete Peters quite show 'insert positive'. The first diff is a reversion to a long-standing (and quite positive) list of Bourque's accomplishments to undo a series of tendentious edits by one of the alleged IP-socks of Ceraurus. Buck  ets  ofg ✐ 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Either the wm servers or my connection is really slow today and it was taking forever to page through the history to see who was doing what.  An important point, though, is that Pete was doing what Arbcom has called in the past "sterile reverting", rather than discussing and trying to make a version that worked.  For example, Pete simply restored "He is a seasoned journalist, author of 4 books, and myriad news columns covering the advent and growth of the Internet through the 1990's." every time, without trying to find some compromise language that would be more encyclopedic.  Pete also removed "Hic claims to authorship of several books, and to being an Internet news authority, have been contested." every time it appeared, without any discussion on whether this article and its claims were reliable, encyclopedic, etc. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That could indeed be the case--I don't think there's any doubt that both sides were doing a lot of sterile reverting. But here you raise the question of 'insert positive' and 'remove negative' in the context of Ellis' charge that Peters = Bourque.  The reversion that you link could be taken to show him inserting vanity material that would support that charge--if it weren't a reversion.  Buck  ets  ofg ✐ 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, its a workshop. Edit me or propose a variant to clarify that.  I'm not trying to take a position either way on the allegation that Peters is Bourque; although Ellis has used the allegation to justify further bad behavior on his part. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)