Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Perl 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Perl

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: RevRagnarok 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Perl, spilled over to Comparison of programming languages

Who's involved?

User:-Barry-, User:Revragnarok, User:Scarpia, User:Harmil, User:Pudgenet.

What's going on?

Claims of NPOV, most by User:-Barry-. -Barry- also claiming that Scarpia is a sock puppet for brian d foy.

Small clarification: no assertion of sock-puppetry has been made to date, and I believe it was made above in error.

• The claim (which I belive is generally accepted by all concerned) is that User:Scarpia is in fact brian d foy, a well known Perl author and editor of external publications.
• User:-Barry- has further claimed that User:Scarpia has used his pseudonymity to make autobiographical edits in contradiction to guidelines. -Harmil 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Both sides make good points, but a lot of the con is FUD against any interpreted software language, along with seemingly bogus benchmarks.

Specifically, the "Cons" sub-section of the "Opinion" section should be reduced back to its state prior to the argument. Language popularity (especially as measured by search engine results) is not actually a criticism of the language, and the fact that the current text is couched in weasel words makes it all the more inappropriate. -Harmil 03:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

N/A

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Not at this time.

[edit] Mediator response

New page setup on Talk:Perl Mediation jbolden1517^Talk 16:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Related RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Barry- jbolden1517^Talk 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This case is now before the arbitration committee Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Details are complicated but due to social problems with the Perl group mediation was rejected early on and was never really successful. Fundamentally there was never an interest in dispute resolution and a great of bullying occurred first to Barry and then to the mediator.

Closing case as there was never a good faith effort (with the exception of Steve P and -Barry-) and in dispute resolution. jbolden1517^Talk 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Summary of items presented Harmil 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• User:-Barry- began contributing to Perl in December, 2005. His edits were largely innocuous and reasonable.
• In March, 2006, his edit summaries started to become noticeably more combative [1], [2], but his edits were still largely reasonable.
• On April 29, 2006, he first mentions Python [3]
• And then a series of edits attempted to push more and more Python-centric POV by listing it as an "alternative language" (something that we don't do on any other language page, AFAIK) [4], after that was reverted, he added in an external comparison link [5] and later he added to rather questionable external links to anti-perl diatribes [6]
• After that was reverted, the watershed edit summary came: [7] I reverted this myself, openly referring to it as a troll. The edit summary in question:

better Perlmonks description. Hey everyone, see my new Python 3 article! Python's better than Perl, you know.

• A number of problematic edits on the part of User:-Barry- were brought up on the talk page here: [8], [9], [10]
• An attempt to compromise on one particular edit was discussed here: [11] as a means to resolve the reversions that he had made previously, immediately thereafter the compromise was wholly reverted with the excuse that User:Harmil's RFC for the page should expire before any compromise should be sought -Harmil 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• In an interesting move, User:-Barry- actually removed Perl from the list of "Good Articles" with the justification that there was POV and the article was not stable. It had been stable, of course, before he began injecting what several editors have agreed was in fact inaccurate or POV [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and so on.
• The point has been made that some editors have been hostile to User:-Barry- in a very uncivil way on his talk page and on the Perl talk page. For example: [17][18]
• new (02:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)) It seems from this posting: [19] that User:-Barry- and a user on the Perl Monks site named wassercrats are the same person. This is substantial because wassercrats has a long-standing relationship (negative) with the Perl community, having authored such missives as: [20] It would be very helpful if User:-Barry- could comment on his relationship with / identity as wassercrats if any.

• Yes, I'm Wassercrats from a few years ago, and I responded to Brian D Foy's blog on the same page you link to. I assume my response won't be deleted. If it is, I'll post it somewhere else upon request. -Barry- 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In summary, this has been a two-sided discussion: User:-Barry- against the consensus of the other editors of Perl. -Harmil 22:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the quotes that -Barry- has inserted into the article has had the original author ask it be removed (from User_talk:-Barry-):

Please stop quoting something I said in irritation out of context on IRC. At best, it's one guy's opinion, unsubstantiated by anyone in charge. In all likelyhood, I'm simply reporting on a personal dispute with some of the OSCON organizers, making it appear that it's not just about me. You should not paint the entire community based on my personal dispute. I support anyone who will keep removing the quote, as it is not up to encyclopedic standards. --Randal L. Schwartz 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-- RevRagnarok 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The "original author" had previously said if you're going to paraphrase what I said, at least cite a reference for the quote and I did when I reinserted it. I also refer to that here by saying "Anyway, Randal's in the Perl business and probably wants to keep a decent relationship with O'Reilly and/or doesn't want to make it look like Perl's popularity is declining. If Scarpia thinks that Randal really doesn't believe what his own fingers typed in IRC -- about Perl not being interesting to O'Reilly any more -- he should add that to the article, but don't remove relevant information!" -Barry- 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

• Compromise is difficult with somene who obviously feels so strongly about his opinion. I request that the page be returned to the last version that was listed as a Good Article, and consensus be achived on specific points before User:Harmil, User:-Barry-, User:Scarpia or anyone else involved continues. -Harmil 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The current page is listed as a "good article" because when I delisted it, my delisting was reverted. The "good article" template is on the talk page, where I think it's supposed to be. The last version listed as a good article is the current version.

I more than compromised on many issues raised here by allowing reversions and other changes. There's very little room left for compromise at this point. I want the revisions that I mention here, to the Con subsection of the Opinions section, to all be undone, and until then, I want my custom POV template, which was reverted here put back. Anything less than a full return of what I had added to the Con section isn't acceptable to me at this point, though I might not engage in a revert war over it if the POV template is added to the Con section. -Barry- 07:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The lack of your opinion on Perl does not constitute POV. Please review WP:NPOV and come back to us with any rationale that explains why an edit that the broad consensus of editors says is POV and inappropriate must be retained in order to remain NPOV. I'll abide by an decision which is the consensus of editors on that point (well, on any point, really... I'm pretty easy going and have been known to implement the results of consensus on Wikipedia when I disagreed in the strongest possible terms). -Harmil 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry- "allow[ed] changes" - how civil of you. That is the point of the wiki. Threatening with a revert war is also a great act of diplomacy. Also, I put the Good Article flag back in because my understanding is that first there is a review, then a decision. Not "I don't agree with it, so there it goes!" -- RevRagnarok 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• 2nd compormise offer: I would also accept a vote on each particular point (addition of the shootout benchmark resutls; addition of the Web search polling results; listing popularity as a criticism, etc.) I'm not partial to votes on Wikipedia, but if that would help here, I'd be happy to put together a list of all of the disputes and their various related options for voting on Talk:Perl. Consensus is good, after all -Harmil 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rev: I've been diplomatic, but the bias among the editors who speak up is too large and too apparent now.

Your understanding about the GA template is wrong. Read this. You don't have to accept my removal if you have a valid reason. You don't.

Harmil: That's a great idea, but not if the editors to the Perl article vote. My compromise would be to find one administrator to vote for each Perl editor's vote, with each administrator's vote counting as two. And with some checks for neutrality, for example, I'd prefer the administrators to not be active members of the Perl community or to have edited the Perl article significantly in the past.-Barry- 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Bary: Don't you think that the admins for this suggested resolution, who are supposed to be neutral, also should not be partisans in favor of Python or any other "competing" language? I really don't understand your insistence on pushing your negative POV about Perl (which, by the way, I never used) into what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic treatment of Perl. Programming languages are simply tools, not religions to be proselyted or turfs to be defended. What do you think would happen to WP if the critics of a each topic insisted on having the last word (literally) on WP’s article about the topic? If, say, orthodox Jews insisted on having the final edit of the article on Jesus Christ and insisted on deleting any reference to His divinity?

Here is another possible compromise, Barry: Why don’t you agree to express your criticism of Pearl on Pearl’s Talk page, rather than through edits of the Pearl article itself? Finell (Talk) 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise on the issue of who the moderators should be, but remember that I believe the Perl community is biased (and has other problems), and I have reason to believe that other programming communities are less so. I don't want to waste time arguing that here, so if you really think there's too high a risk of moderators who are programmers of other languages being biased, then leave them out too, or leave out just the programmers of "popular alternatives to Perl". Or if necessary, just leave out those who are active in internet discussion venues (message boards, chat, etc.) about their language, but it would be easier to check up on whether someone has programming experience than whether someone belongs to one of those discussion venues.

The "last word" problem exists on Wikipeda and is dealt with. This article has a Criticisms and responses section, and it's pretty short. There should be a liberal attitude toward what's allowed. If it ends up being three times longer than that section, let it be for the sake of giving people both sides and not censoring. The problem with the editors of Perl is that they don't even want to include a response, so we won't even know if I'd need a last word after that. They just want my edits cut.

And remember that I'm not the one who created the opinion section, though I think it's a good idea. -Barry- 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-, am I to understand that a vote is acceptable to you, but only if no one who disagrees with you votes? That does not seem like a compromise to me.... -Harmil 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, a vote as I describe above is fully acceptable to me no matter the results, but I reserve the right to complain about unforeseen circumstances. I think not abiding by the decision after a vote is considered vandalism. -Barry- 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But, you are not, in fact, willing to allow people who evidenced disagreeing with you to vote. I was trying to phrase that in such a way that you would realize what you are asking for. This would be akin to a 3rd party candidate in US politics saying, "I'm OK with a vote, as long as no one with a party affiliation votes." On Wikipedia, we generally open voting to all comers with the provisos listed in policy and guidelines documents throughout Wikipedia: namespace (such as the provisions against sock puppetry, vote trolling, etc.) I would think that any vote which we got at least one admin to review upon completion would be sufficient. People who are strongly interested in a topic are always welcome to contribute on Wikipedia. That's what keeps Wikipedia vibrant and informative. We have policies against POV articles, but I have yet to see any suggestion that Perl is POV other than your complaint that you can't list a flawed Web server search survey as a criticism in an opinion section. Honestly, we would probably be better off following the example of all of the other languages' articles and removing the Opinion section all together. -Harmil 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the question is still hanging (hence the lack of indent for this paragraph... bit of a visual pun, there): Would you accept any compromise that does not involve copious amounts of time donated by several admins (an option which I can assure you will not happen, since there are more important articles than Perl on Wikipedia) ? This is an important question, because it seeks to demonstrate how possible any form of mediation would be on this issue. If no form of mediation is possible, then we are at an impasse and this mediation technique is doomed to be fruitless. -Harmil 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to go beyond the Perl editors, obviously, and just having an administrator reviewing a vote isn't enough. I'd prefer to have more than one administrator and for them not to be active in the Perl community, but anything is better than leaving it to the current Perl editors.

I don't know how the various forms of arbitration here work, but I'm sure things are a bit flexible. RfC didn't attract anyone last time it was tried, and I think this needs to be taken to the next level or two, where some hire-up(s) make some executive decisions. -Barry- 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

This is related. Everything else has basically been said on Perl's talk page, edit summaries, etc. If anyone has any questions or takes special interest in a particular issue, and I'm made aware of it, maybe I'll comment. -Barry- 01:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What I don't understand is - why are we trying to compromise here? Barry is the problem, it's that simple. He's the one that has caused all of this mess. I wouldn't mind some fair criticism of Perl in the article, but Barry has shown a pretty clear bias in his attempted additions, and a complete inability to understand our problems with the material. He just doesn't seem to "get it". And you can see that over on Talk:Perl Mediation when talking about the benchmarks - people were having a good discussion about why precise benchmark numbers aren't applicable to a language as a whole, and Barry had to drag out the numbers again! Like it'll all be ok if he just explains the numbers in detail.

Which seems to be his way of getting his anti-Perl bias into the article - we have no control over the external information, so he'll do anything to get it in. He'll make numerous edits to the text introducing a link, add weasel words that downplay the relevance so as to placate the rest of us, even offer a "pro" link to counter his. All of this to get his precious link to some dubious statistic or rant by a drunk blogger into the article.

So, sorry, but I just don't get this attempt at a compromise. Barry is trying to add bias to the Perl article and hasn't accepted 'no' for an answer. Why should *we* compromise when *he's* in the wrong? Imroy 17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Imroy, comments about -Barry- specifically, that don't involve an attempt to compromise on the issues involved here should be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Barry-. This page is an attempt by one editor (not me) to provoke a compromise without moving to the next level of dispute resolution. I feel that, on the basis of -Barry-'s responses that that has failed, and have thus moved on to an RfC. -Harmil 17:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I went through some of the evidence, up to the fourth item ("And then a series of edits attempted to push more and more Python-centric POV...") Let's try to link to the relevant portion of the talk page when some disputed edit is mentioned. The relevant discussion in this case is here. I initiated the discussion after my edit. People disagreed with my edit and pointed me to Comparison of programming languages, which I said would decrease the need for my controversial edit if such an article existed. My response was "Thanks for the link. I began fixing it up. When I fix it a little more, I'll remove some of those templates [which were in the Comparison of programming languages article at the time] and link to it." I improved that article greatly and added a link to it from Perl's article. I allowed the reversion of my original "popular alternatives" infobox and never put it back.

Please don't consider my failure to address other evidence as accepting that it's not misleading. There's a lot there and I didn't review it all. -Barry- 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

• Your change was reverted. That is why you went to the talk page, and then found another page on which to push the Python vs. Perl issues you felt were important.

Timeline:

• Perl - 00:38, 1 May 2006 Turnstep (Revert POV "infobox": does not need to be mentioned somewhere.)
• Talk:Perl - 02:11, 1 May 2006 -Barry- (Popular alternatives to Perl)

• You correctly pointed out another editor whose voice I left out of the above examples: [21] -04:13, 24 May 2006 Harmil

Sorry if you thought I was "pushing" anything. What I actually did, in this order, was:

• fill in the Comparison of programming languages page as it was intended to be filled in
• add popularity columns to the comparison chart based on the best information available, from TIOBE's site (though the search engine methodology is disputed)
• add comparisons of benchmarks between Perl and six other languages (not just Python) to the Perl article
• in response to complaints about benchmark accuracy, doubled the data, adding tests from an additional operating system, and added a link to a warning about the accuracy ( [22] )
• after continued complaints, added a cautionary Sectfact template ( [23] )
• in response to complaint about the Sectfact template, added more descriptive and cautionary custom-made template ( [24] )
• improved Comparison of programming languages even more with new sections and links
• after a failed request-for-comments attempt, at which time I allowed the benchmarks to be reverted, I posted the benchmarks here ( diff showing initial addition to page ).

Also note that I took the time to compile the benchmark data in a much more compact and easy to read form than was available from the source, and a link to the source wouldn't have been the same.

-Barry- 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it more than a little disturbing that a proposed compromise is that one party "might not engage in a revert war". That sounds less like compromise and more like a threat. Steve p 12:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-: let's bury the hatchet. Let's you and I agree that the benchmark data that you are using has been demonstrated, in at least one case (the only one we've looked at so far) to be flawed as any cross-langauge benchmark traditionally has been. Let us further agree that such flaws make it non-encyclopedic. Let us further agree that Web search polling doesn't constitute the popularity of a language and such results are equally flawed, especially when maintained by a company that has a financial interest in one particular language. Let us further agree that Perl used to be listed at WP:GOOD, is not now, as a result of your having removed it unilaterally [25] and should be restored. Let us move forward to make Perl and Comparison of programming languages excellent articles which are informative and helpful, not advocacy for any point of view. -Harmil 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's show a panel of administrators the article before my edits and have them compare it with the article after my additions (which they could do well enough by looking at the edit history, on an edit-by-edit basis, but I don't mind it either way), and have them decide which is better.

Pro and Con subsections of an Opinion section should be able to solve a lot of problems because it provides a place for edits by those against some aspects of subject of the article, as well as providing a place for those who want to praise the subject, even when the edits are based on opinion and now known to be fact. Actually, just stating that something isn't known to be fact should be enough, and an Opinion>Con section isn't necessary, as long as there's reason for introducing that non-fact, such as the non-fact being mentioned on a popular website dealing with the subject matter. But the bias of the Perl editors has actually turned the Opinion section into a detriment to the article. It shouldn't be removed, but the actions of the Perl editors need to me monitored, at least when there's a report of a problem. I think there's some rule about content disputes not being handled by administrators, but an exception should be made in some cases, like this one. And maybe Comparison of programming languages too, because notable author-in-hiding user:Scarpia is reverting a comment that I got from his own slide that says the Perl module Benchmark.pm "sux." ... Oh, sorry, this time it was the OTHER blatant vandal who did it--user:Pudgenet -Barry- 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)