Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note for me for later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed_decision#Participation_in_dispute_resolution_in_good_faith

[edit] Third sentence

Doesn't the third sentence of the introduction bother anyone else? "After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies." Incomplete sentence. I'm afraid to change it, but someone should. I think it's used in every arbitration case. -Barry- 20:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jbolden1517

Jbolden1517 is removed from the mediation cabal. Kim Bruning 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Is this a proposal? If it's fact, where is it documented? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal coordination is delegated from me, so I may also undelegate it when it becomes nescesary. It became nescesary. There is slightly more detail at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Jbolden1517_is_not_a_member_of_the_mediation_cabal. Kim Bruning 17:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jbolden1517_threatening_per_email.  :-( Kim Bruning 17:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been moved to archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive115 -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kim is the original founder of medcab. He's under the illusion that he is vested for life with authority over medcab. This doesn't mean much of anything. You join medcab by taking a case and/or signing your name up on a list. He "unsigned" my name hence "I'm no longer a member". I'm still mediating the same cases. Damn in the movies when they say "so let it be written so let it be done" it works so much better.  :-) jbolden1517^Talk 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope the arbitration committee is aware that this is not the way the mediation cabal operates. Jboldens statements are fundamentally incorrect, and of course he does not speak for the mediation cabal. Kim Bruning 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess this doesn't matter anymore, he's gone. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 12:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What now then for the findings/measures he proposed? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requiring Pudgenet to keep Barry's replies on talk page

I have have been following this case since the request for mediation, so I am aware of most of the edits, reverts being discussed. As a disclaimer, I am not a "perl guy" nor anti-perl, so I have little emotional attachment to article, so long as the information is accurate.

With this said, I think that this particular "request" is completely and utterly off-base. Perhaps I have completely missed the boat, but am I to understand that -Barry- is asking for some kind of solution to force Pudge to keep -Barry-'s comments on his talk page? That is Pudge's user/talk page, not -Barry-'s, and it seems to me that Pudge has the right to edit/erase/write what he deems appropriate on his own talk page (obviously within reason and obeying policy/law). If Pudge wants to comment about his opinions of -Barry-'s actions on his own talk page and/or 'erase' content off of his page that he doesn't want , it seems to me that he has a perfectly legitimate and absolute right to do so, just as -Barry- has the right to edit/write/erase what he deems fit on 'his' user/talk page.

Besides, this is Wikipedia, nothing ever 'truly' is deleted. Just check the page differences.

This seems somewhat akin to telling someone that they MUST allow certain people into their house, even if the owner/renter doesn't want them there. It is my understanding that your user/talk page is just that: yours.

My suggestion is that if -Barry- or JBolden have a problem with Pudge's talk page, then perhaps they should post their rebuttals on their talk page (Which -Barry- has done - extensively[1]). I am also curious if -Barry- would appreciate it if a similar demand was made on his user/talk page as well. It would appear to me based on the evidence presented (and I qualify that while I have followed this dispute, I make no claims of fact) that -Barry- wants to have a double standard in place that required Pudge to submit to -Barry-'s edits and opinions and at the same time punish Pudge for maintain his own that -Barry- doesn't happen to agree with. --theCelestrian 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet should be restricted more than people who've been more civil. Blatantly inappropriate comments should be allowed to be deleted, but otherwise, replies to accusations should remain for as long as the accusations remain. The same should apply to me and everyone else. I even chose to keep Pudgenet's blatantly inappropriate comments on my talk page. It's more Wikipedia's talk page than Pudgenet's and I wouldn't even mind so much if references to other Wikipedians are totally disallowed.

See the talk page guidelines, particularly No personal attacks and Don't misrepresent other people. I'm being more permissive than that by asking that my replies remain. -Barry- 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the guidelines as per your recommendation. While I do concede that your point is valid regarding articles, what we are in fact talking about is a user's page and their corresponding talk page, which I have found in my perusings appears to have a different kind of "legal status" on Wikipedia, because it is not subject to many of the rules that govern the articles (example: encycolpedic content, personal infromation/opinions, thoughts, musings, barnstars, ad nauseum). Also, the function of the user's talk page is in fact not used to "improve the quality of the article" as the guidelines suggest, but in practice are a means of communication in regard to that users activiies on Wikipedia.

Just to be fair, I did a little digging for the guidlines on Wikipedia user pages just to make sure that I had a clearer understanding of what was and was not acceptable for the user page. You are indeed correct that user pages still fall under the same rules and guidelines of the Wikipedia project, but again I will reiterate that guidelines, principle and practice are 3 different things, and as the page itself indicates, these are merely guidelines and not "policy."

However, moving from the academic theoreticals, I think you best proved my point by your statement, "I even chose to keep Pudgenet's blatantly inappropriate comments on my talk page." Indeed you did choose to, and that choice was yours, not Wikipedia's, Pudge's, Jobolden's or [insert party name here]. It also seems that your talk page is "yours," but Pudge's talk page is, "more Wikipedia's talk page than Pudgenet's."

While I make no presumptions of your personal character, one could make the argument based upon all the presented evidence, as well as your own remarks, that in this instance you seem to feel that your predilictions/opinions/views somehow "count more." In regards to your comment about, "I'm being more permissive than that by asking that my replies remain," again seems to indicate the the rules apply to everyone else, but you somehow are able to 'circumvent' the very same guidelines you espouse when you deem it appropriate. This is indeed the reason I felt the need to chime in on the discussion that I have had no prior involvement.

What is issue at here for me personally is that both of you seem to feel that the rules only apply to the other guy. You feel you should be free to make edits are you deem appropriate, even if against the consensus of the editing community, while Pudge feels that civility rules don't apply to him. I think that you should be free to what you want on your user page, but the right also must extend to the rest of the Wikipedia community, not just the few who deign that they know better than everyone else (see article on Elitism). -theCelestrian 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit note: edited for typos and a fragment in one of -Barry's- quotes that shouldn't have been there) - theCelestrian 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I can "curcumvent" the personal attack guideline because in this case it's meant to protect me and waiving my right isn't harmful to anyone else. It's different when Pudgenet misrepresents me, my editorial, and my website, and attacks me on his page without allowing my replies. -Barry- 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll assume that you chose to make that decision as a token of your assuming good faith, and I think that's admirable (for whatever the opinion of a complete stranger is worth). Just for my clarification, which right were you referring to here, the right to remove content you deem innappropriate from your user talk page, or the right to add the item to the RFAr? (question is not rhetorical) Obviously the answer you provide will dictate my counter-point to your statement.

Because I cannot find the exact edits that from his previous version of his talk page that "misrepresent you," nor am I willing to go through every version right now, I will assume that your statement of fact is correct, and that he did indeed misrepresent you and your webpage. I will also concur with you that this kind of action is not the most Wikipedian of actions, and I was interested to see that even on Pudge's talk page another user commented about what many Wikipedian's consider is good form regarding talk pages. Jdavidb's comments do seem to support your claim, so while I disagree with this position, and indeed feel that what is/is not on your User/Talk page is ultimately up to your discretion (so long as it doesnt violate policy), I respect that you have your opinion, and will in your case yield this point to you.

However, you have not addressed my other points:

• You have indication that your talk page is your talk page, while Pudge's (and my concern is other users you may not agree with) talk page is, "more Wikipedia's talk page than [enter name of user here]"
• Wikipedia's guidelines on Talk Pages covers "articles," but the guideline's make reference to the talk page being about "making the corresponding article better" and therefore:
  • User Pages, while still governed under the pillars/policies and to a lesser extent the guidelines, in practice seem to have a different status and standard as User talk pages are not encyclopedic articles.
  • While Guidelines are actionable, they are just that, guidelines. Therefore by the very definition of "guidelines" on Wikipedia, these are not canon.

• On an aside, I have made the claim that through observation that you seem to feel that your predilictions/views/opinions seem to "count more" than the throughts/views/opinions of others involved in this issue, and I have yet to hear you provide an adequate explanation why you feel compelled to force edits against consensus, either to me or anyone else involved in this ongoing dispute. I honestly would like to hear your thoughts/opinions/explanations if possible, because as someone who literally found this "issue" when I was looking for some basic information on PERL, I have no bias, agenda to grind with you, but rather would like to give extend the invitation to you to provide reasons for your decisions, should you decide to do so. Obviously I am not a mediator, admin or someone who wields a "stick," but I would like to hear your response nonetheless.

The only reason I continue this talk/debate/mental exercise (other than the fact that I really want to know, and think it would be a huge help in understanding all of this) is because I think you clearly have the capacity to carry this on in an objective manner. -theCelestrian 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages are kind of the user's and kind of Wikipedia's. ArbCom can decide what should be on a user's talk page in some cases, as far as I know, and I see nothing wrong with that. I wanted to point out that it's more than about the user's wishes, but I don't want to go around calling the page "Wikipedia's/his talk page" all the time.

I read that you're a libertarian, so I kind of see where your view is coming from, but the analogy to controlling who comes into your house isn't that good. I think the issue is more comparable to equal time and maybe some anti-discrimination laws. I basically don't want people to be mislead.

About what guidelines apply to user talk pages, this would be a good use for my advisory opinions idea. Until then, interpret things as you wish.

Wikipedia:Consensus says "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject...It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position." I disagreed with the majority for whatever reason and it seems that it can be taken to the next level, so I did. -Barry- 06:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It also says "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." In the case of Perl, all the editors except you were in agreement that your position was eccentric. Sounds like consensus to me. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 10:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that "all" of the editors thought my position was eccentric suggests their bad faith considering (each of the following applies to at least one reverted edit):

• the qualifications of the authors whose material I wanted to link to
• the scholarly material I pointed to that cited the same material I wanted to, in the same context
• the fact that most content was for the Opinion section, which didn't have to contain proven assertions except that the opinions are actual opinions
• lies, blatant vandalism, bad arguments, failure to discuss in mediation before reverting, etc.

-Barry- 18:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[outdenting] No. No bad faith is suggested. I am stating that all the other editors were in agreement that the material you added to Perl was, without exception, of extremely poor quality and unsuitable for Wikipedia. This has been stated to you ad nauseam. I am also stating that they, myself included, viewed your repetitious addition of unencyclopedic tripe to the article as the actions of a vandal. Your actions since then, as Pudge states below, have confirmed your position to be the one of "bad faith". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The articles you [Barry] linked to were universally bad: they were poorly written and contained false and misleading information (the first and second), or were not actual criticisms of Perl (the second and third). The "scholarly material" you claim you pointed to was nothing of the sort. The Opinions section was a dumb idea and everyone but you agreed to remove it. And you are guilty of more lies, blatant arguments, failure to discuss before reverting, and -- above all -- bad arguments than everyone else put together. And, on top of it all, you misrepresented this arbitration by saying it was about my behavior, did not notify any current editor of the Perl article about your ulterior motives, and then went on to try to get the arbitrators to rule on the content disputes there. Talk about bad faith. Pudge 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope the arbitrators will deal with those issues. I'd be glad to add more to the evidence and workshop pages about the qualifications of the authors of the pages I want to link to (from the Opinion section, which I didn't create), and other stuff, if you want to get into it or if the arbitrators say they're willing to deal with the Perl content dispute. The accusations of bad faith increase the chances they will. -Barry- 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that you hope the arbitrators deal with these issues prove that you are acting in bad faith, as it is unconscionable to ask the arbitrators to rule on an issue when the other participants in the dispute have not been properly notified of the dispute. Pudge 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it's reasonable to want to formally inform others involved. I don't think it will change anything, but I'd support the arbitrators if they want to do that before deciding on these issues. It's not something I'd advocate though. -Barry- 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why have you not done so before, even though I've mentioned this to you many times over the past few weeks? Regardless, you are still being asking for something that is unconscionably irresponsible: they have to be notified up front, not at the tail end of the process. And you still assert that they do not need to be involved, that you wouldn't support them being involved, and it amazes me that you would state, clearly and for the record, that you want the arbitrators to rule in a content dispute behind the backs of the people involved. Please do not ever again ask me to assume that you act in good faith, because you continue to explcitly and admittedly act in bad faith. Pudge 06:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm right about the content I want added, and I see anything that gets in the way of adding it as being bad, but I'm willing to play by the rules. If I were an arbitrator, I'd consider informing all those involved, and if there were valid complaints that they needed to be in on this from the start, then I'd either have the Perl content disputes be arbitrated separately or I'd give everyone a long enough time to catch up. I hope the arbitrators don't do that because it would take more time. -Barry- 08:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm willing to play by the rules" — then why do you keep trying to make an arbitration against Pudge somehow equal content mediation in Perl? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, you're not right about the content you want added. You want to add "scholarly data" about "popularity" which -- in absolute, verifiable, fact -- is neither scholarly data, nor about popularity. You want to add "Con" articles about Perl that are -- in absolute, verifiable, fact -- either mostly false, or simply not about Perl itself. I actually almost wish the arbitrators would rule on the content dispute, because you would clearly lose, because the facts are all clearly against you. However, I know that would be entirely inappropriate, because despite the claims (by you and Jbolden) against me, I actually do respect both the spirit and the letter of the dispute resolution process (indeed, this is why I gave Jbolden such a hard time, because he was violating both the spirit and the letter, and if he were not, he could have easily just pointed to the mediation policies I was violating, or pointed out how he was not violating the mediation policies that I linked to; he chose instead to just pretend my allegations either didn't exist, or constituted interference), and the dipsute resolution process -- especially in the case of a content dispute -- is absolutely undermined when you don't properly include the parties to the dispute (even moreso when you pretend it is not a content dispute until after the arbitration is accepted). Pudge 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RevRagnarok: the arbitrators aren't as restricted as you imply. This arbitration was always in part about Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, which is a Perl related issue between me and Pudgenet. The Perl article issues are too, though more people are involved, many of whom have participated in this RFAr. It would be inefficient for the arbitrators to have to handle all of this in two separate cases. Imagine if Pudgenet is banned in this Arbitration, and comes back only to fight another battle and get banned a second time. The arbitrators might have to review the first case to refresh their memory about Pudgenet's background. But it's up to them what to do. I'm just saying that there are certain issues that the arbitrators should consider dealing with here. -Barry- 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Let me be hypothetical for a minute. Let's assume the Perl editors have in good faith removed various edits of -Barry-'s because they are bad and that's why the Perl editors are fighting so hard to keep them out. Let's also assume that -Barry- was unpopular on PerlMonks not because he was a Perl critic, as Jbolden1517 asserted, but instead due to his repeated incivility and personal attacks. [2] (I have to say that the node PostgreSQL, Emacs, and other groupieware was a classic in stirring the pot.) Now, let's take a look at Barry's first few named Wikipedia edits. [3] [4] [5] What a coincidence? In his first few edits, he appears to be trying to provoke editors on Talk:Perl Monks. A few days later, he begins on the Talk:Perl page where he self-identifies himself, hoping, I believe, to start some sort of conflict based on other editors previous experiences with him. [6] No one really takes the bait, however, and -Barry- makes a few more edits to Perl. Causing little confict, he wanders away for several months.

May begins with a return of Barry to the Perl page with this edit [7] to promote PHP and Python on the Perl article. The tactics have changed.

• Make a provacative edit to Perl or another Perl-related page.
• Wait for it to be reverted.
• Go to Talk:Perl claiming the reversion shouldn't have been made because the other editors are pushing a POV.

In this case, the edit is quickly removed, and the following is added as a compromise. [8] After a few of his edits which he has now brought up in arbitration are removed, the edit warring begins in earnest, dragging on through Perl, Talk:Perl, Python [9], Talk:Brian_d_foy, Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, User_talk:Pudgenet, User_talk:Scarpia, Comparison of programming languages, Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, and even during this case to Talk:Perl Monks. That's not including the RfC, mediation, or this arbitation. This seems more like a "campaign of harassment" than anything else done in this case.

As repeated by many throughout this case, this is not a content dispute. This is a case of tendentious editing, revert warring, and provocative edits made across several pages by one editor. Steve p 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)