User talk:Pudgenet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Write stuff here about how Pudge totally rules.

See User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk if you care. I don't.

Contents

[edit] Special rights

The page on special rights is under my mediation, something you have clearly indicated you won't tolerate. You were not part of that page prior to my involvement. You have not been involved in that issue prior to my involvement. Any involvement by you on that page would constitute Wikipedia:Wikistalking. You are not invited to participate in that page and if you continue to do so I will add wikistalking to the charges before the arb committee and ask for a ban during the trial. jbolden1517Talk 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Um. Wow. You're completely losing it.
I edited your page, so it got added to my watchlist. I saw in your edit summary something about "special rights," which is a topic I am interested in (having just posted recently about it on my journal). So I went to the page, noticed some problems, and commented on them.
This is not "stalking." I said nothing about you or the mediation process. I am not participating in your mediation. Since when does that mean I cannot discuss on the talk page? The mediation is taking place elsewhere. I do not have to be "invited" to participate on the discussion page, it is my right to participate there, and after I finish this edit, I will revert your inappropriate and unwarranted removal of my edit.
Your insane conduct here is not helping your "case" against me. Pudge 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pudgenet, Jbolden1517 has a legitimate basis on which to feel that you are stalking him. In your entire history of editing Wikipedia, you've never edited Special rights before now. Whether his claim is true or not, it would be highly advisable for you to not participate in pages which Jbolden1517 is mediating, as it will most likely serve to fan the flames.
  • Also, I'm going to caution you one last time regarding civility. Referring to Jbolden1517 as "insane" is clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. If I see evidence of similar behavior, I will temporarily block you from further editing. --Durin 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, deleting his talk page comments is inappropriate as long as they are on point. Pudgenet is not challenging, arguing with, or even talking to Jbolden1517. Were he doing so, Jbolden might conceivably have some grounds for asking a third party to do something about the alleged stalking. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Accusing Pudge of "stalking" him seems a completely loony thing for Jbolden1517 to have said. Pudge clearly has an interest in the topic and is entitled to edit the article. Just because Jbolden1517 is "mediating" it, does that mean he is allowed to blanket ban people he dislikes from editing it (or even just the discussion page rather than the page itself)? Of course not.
Aside: Speaking as someone who has never actually heard the term "special rights" before, I just went to look at the article. There is no indication anywhere on the talk page that Jbolden1517 is doing anything with it. This is most unhelpful. Suppose I get on his shitlist, but edit the talk page for something else that he is apparently "mediating", without seeing any warning that he is doing so. Does that make me a stalker?
Anyway, as if Jbolden1517's accusation wasn't bad enough, he put his comments on Pudge's user page! When on Earth did you ever see someone do that? What kind of mediator violates the convention of talk pages, for God's sake? I am honestly astonished. I will be investigating tomorrow what the method is that I have to use to bring a complaint against him.
Jbolden1517's responses to this situation are visibly degrading on a daily basis. Sane is defined as "acting rationally"; Jbolden1517's actions in this respect are not rational, and stand as testimony to his gross inability as a mediator. I stand fully behind Pudge's comments. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Assuming you are "pudge" on IRC, please check IRC. I'd like to chat with you. --Durin 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your RfAr

Pudgenet,

Respectfully; the arbitration has already been accepted. You've made a number of attempts to claim the arbitration was brought improperly and is lacking in evidence, and now of late have asked that it be summarily dismissed. The arbitration has been accepted by ArbCom. It's rather past the point of it being rejected. --Durin 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, three of the arbitrators who accepted it did so before they knew that, in fact, mediation had not yet been even attempted in the dispute in question, contrary to Barry's claim to the contrary. Pudge 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing ... while they did accept it, they did not accept any content dispute involving Perl. It's completely amazing to me that Barry keeps asserting that they should resolve some dispute in which the people actually involved -- and I am not one of them -- were not even notified. Pudge 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps you lack experience of how RfArs are conducted. I wanted to talk with you on IRC regarding this, and perhaps help you to understand it better. --Durin 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
... and? Pudge 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, really ... was there something else? I am not sure why you added this comment; if it was to provide information to me, what information is that? If it was to encourage me to chat with you on IRC, I've been on there, and waiting, and continue to wait. Pudge 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The opportunity to chat with you on IRC is not going to present itself any time in the immediate future. I would encourage you to gain more experience in Wikipedia arbitration. It is not a court case, though that analogy is often used (and has been used on your RfAr). For example, if someone brings a charge of a robbery against you it doesn't mean they can't bring up arson charges too. Additionally, you are not the "defense" and others the "prosecution". You are not limited by those constraints to bring other evidence to bear and bring up other closely related points of dispute. I would caution you that the RfAr is not the place for debate. Point by point constant rebuttals of everything that other people say is generally counter productive. Present your evidence. Be clear. Be concise. Keep in mind that the people who will be reading this and making decisions on this have no role in the dispute. They are unfamiliar with it. To ask them to read voluminous materials is unlikely to lead to beneficial solutions. --Durin 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A little surprised to see your name on Wikipedia for the first time, and involved in an RFAr case. And not about politics. :) Anything I can do to help? Anything I can do to elevate your impression of Wikipedia admins in general? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, this is not considered vandalism. However, it's entirely likely that what he was "warning" you about wasn't vandalism, either. One of the most common problems around here is folks trying to cast a content dispute as "vandalism." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I could not care less what you call it; it was inappropriate. I was removing what consensus dictated was inapprorpiate edits by Barry. This is not vandalism, and he accused me of vandalism by childishly adding a warning to my page. Whatever you want to call it, it was inappropriate. Pudge 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It was certainly childish and inappropriate. But around here the term "vandalism" carries additional connotations. For example, vandalism may be reverted on sight without regard to the 3RR rule.
Barry's edits to the Perl article have clearly been pushing a real agenda. But those edits aren't vandalism. Neither is your reversions of his improper and incorrect edits. And so when he threw that warning (which is a standard warning, btw, but I think you know that) on your page, he was misidentifying your proper edits as vandalism. (Quite disingenuously, perhaps...) But even that misidentification is not vandalism, nor the use of the warning.
Anyway, just trying to help navigate the confusing maze of terminology.
It is really bizarre that you could be brought up in an ArbCom case having only 35 edits to your name in article space, and I think it's pretty clear that the case is brought in bad faith. The only reasonably thing they could say is that you've violated civility, which is something you've admitted so it's no longer an issue. If you think I can be of any help making this case to the ArbCom, and want such help, let me know. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile! You're being "wikistalked"

At least by some people's standards. Assuming they are consistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdavidb&diff=prev&oldid=59716030

Only explanation for how he knew so quickly. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it goes on. While I was posting this, the next one chimed in.

Apparently having an RfArb page to discuss the matter isn't enough. It's mandatory that it come to your talk page, as well, and everybody else, like mine. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, watch the hypocrite. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting about how Wikipedia works

Regarding this, you did nothing wrong that I can see, other than the personal attacks, which you've repudiated. The problem is you ran afoul of somebody with a high opinion of himself who thought his position merited more authority than it actually did. And if you read closely, his strongest complaint is that you've "damaged his reputation" and other such.

In the end, such things around here almost always come to naught. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this, while there are a few comments about "removing personal attacks" in pages that aren't quite policy, it's usually best in my experience to just let the stuff remain on your page until archiving. If someone dumps a metric ton of bytes on your page, though, then it'd be good to move, delete, or archive. My talk page history has a few interesting examples. It's also considered bad form if someone who has a dispute with you finds it impossible to reach you. And Wikipedia has a very, very high bar set for what constitutes a legitimate dispute. You have to be really, really, really crazy to actually merit the term "crazy." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Roulstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Roulstone.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Basically, Pudge has to follow the same rules as everyone else, Barry (who brough t the complaint) is banned from Perl, jbolden had a meltdown and left Wikipedia, and everything else is back to how it was four months ago. Probation is uninteresting since admins can ban people without it, apparently. So, why all the rucus and pomp and circumstance? 70.223.26.201 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, you (User:Pudgenet) are subject to the following restrictions:

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted before, that's pretty well nonsense. So in essence, there are no restrictions on me, since these things are true of everyone else too. Except it just means that trolls like Barry are more likely to come up to me and try to goad me into a response. Such restrictions are entirely useless, even counterproductive, and I will ignore them. They only exist because the arbitration committee feels it must do "something" and so this "seems" like it is doing something, when it's not. Cheers, Pudge 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No Pudgenet, the personal attack parole permits blocks of a longer period than normally seen in dealing with problematic users. Further, five such blocks will result in a year's ban from the project. That is also not inline with normal blocking procedure. Additionally, the probation permit administrators to ban you from a page. So for example, if you disrupt Perl with tendentious editing, edit warring or incivility, you can be banned from the page. You need to take this seriously, and not be dismissive as you were above. --Durin 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, no. Admins can do whatever they like to me, or any user, who is being disruptive and violating the rules. You were quite clear to me earlier that you could ban me, long before arbitration, for the same things you say that now an admin is "permitted" to ban me for. The "parole" does not permit something that is not already permitted. And I will not take it seriously, and please do not pretend you can tell me what I "need" to do. I do dismiss it, and will continue to. Pudge 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, don't take it seriously, and get yourself banned. --Ideogram 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? That makes no logical sense. How do you figure I will get banned for not taking it seriously? The arbitration committee nowhere implied that I was required to take it seriously, or else get banned. I think you're seeing something that does not exist. Pudge 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PUDGE-lg.png

This presents an unusual case. This image is of an album cover apparently produced by you. You've tagged it appropriately as {{albumcover}}. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 does not permit the use of fair use tagged images in userspace. The only place this image is used is in userspace on your userpage. I'd like to ask you to make an addition to the image's page indicating its status; that it is here under fair use except for use on your userpage, or if not under that status have you release the image of the album cover under a free license. Your thoughts? --Durin 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me (the first suggestion, not the free license ... for now), though I am not sure the proper way to denote it. Help? Also, not sure if it makes a difference -- it shouldn't -- but the image itself is also a parody, of a Johnny Cash cover. Pudge 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the image an actual album cover of music you have made? I just want to clarify that. If it's not, and it's straight parody of the Cash album, I think perhaps another fair use tag is appropriate, and it's use on your userpage isn't. As for wording on the page, how about this: "This image is used on Wikipedia under terms of fair use in all cases and in respect to policy with the exception that this image may be used by myself, the creator of this work of music of which this is the album cover, on my userpage. All other uses must adhere to fair use policies here on Wikipedia. --Pudgenet". How's that? --Durin 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I took the picture of myself, I did the editing, I did it all. And your wording sounds fine to me, thanks, I'll fix it up later. Pudge 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/d/User_talk%7EPudgenet_f08e.html"