User talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk

Ignoring revert warring request
Despite my request, you continued to revert war performing a revert that was identical to a revert you performed just a ~eight hours before. I am therefore issuing a stronger warning to you to cease the revert warring as it is entirely unhelpful to producing consensus based results in devlopment of articles. If you fail to head these warnings, it will eventually lead to a temporary block of your editing privileges. Please, stop. Thank you. --Durin 03:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed what is, clearly, vandalism. I don't understand what your problem is with what I did.  And I don't understand what you are warning me to not do.  In your quest to be fair, perhaps instead you should be proper. Pudge 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not personally agree with the nature of the content of the Brian D Foy addition to Wikipedians with articles. That said, the revert warring over its inclusion or exclusion is just that; revert warring. What should instead be removed is the POV nature of the addition, along with some effort at verifying the veracity of the addition. Edits of yours such as  (see edit summary) are entirely unhelpful. Further, assertions of article protection against someone   are inappropriate. Revert warring is not the way out of this situation. Resolving the dispute by gaining consensus on the direction the article(s) should go on their talk pages is. If consensus is generated, a simple "revert based on consensus at Talk:(article name)" is sufficient and removes any concern over potential WP:3RR violations, as acting against consensus is a form of vandalism, and vandalism reverts do not count against 3RR. Failing the existence of that consensus, revert warring over controversial additions to an article that are not simple vandalism do count against 3RR. --Durin 03:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. He is vandalizing.  I am not going to waste time cleaning up his vandalism so it looks pretty, I am going to remove it.  If he wants to spend his own time putting up reasonable content, that's his business.  It is highly inappropriate for you to tell me that I or someone else other than -Barry- should waste their time fixing the POV.  As to consensus in Perl, it was reached, with everyone except for -Barry-; read through the Talk page if you disbelieve.  So you have against me precisely one thing I did wrong, that joke edit that specifically mentioned -Barry-.  And you think my tone is "unhelpful," but that is not my concern.  Everything else I've done is removing obvious and clear vandalism rather than wasting my time trying to make it non-vandalism, and removing things according to consensus.  At worst, beyond that, you appear to be asserting I should have noted the consensus in the edit summary.  Noted. And now here is where you are wrong: trying to be diplomatic and splitting the baby instead of coming down against -Barry-, the one causing the real problems. Pudge 03:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, to clarify, when I said "No. He is vandalizing," I was mostly referring to the obvious vandalism in the Wikipedians article.  I do agree with you that in the bad content he is adding to the Perl article, for the most part, it should be done by consensus (though not all of it, for example, his nonsensical quote from someone that a certain Perl module "sux", which is just stupid vandalism that adds nothing to the discussion). Pudge 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you continue in the manner that you have been, which includes banning a user from an article without a supporting ArbCom decision, you are acting contrary to policy here. I am not commenting on Barry's actions here on your talk page, nor comparing your actions to his to decide who is more right or more wrong. I am commenting on your actions only. If Barry continues in ways that are improper, I will advise him of such as well. All the best, --Durin 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one was ever actually banned, so ... um, OK. Again, it is clear that I have only committed one action that is actually contrary to any policy, that one joke edit. As to comparing actions ... the point is that *he is vandalizing,* and you are reprimanding me for removing his vandalism -- indeed, that was what triggered your second warning -- which you yourself have conceded is not against policy. So I still have no idea why you gave me a second warning, since obviously it was not against policy. Pudge 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I previously noted, these edits which assert you are banning Barry from the article are inappropriate . I am unsure as to how I can be clearer in pointing out what it is you are doing. You specifically decreed that he is no longer allowed to edit the Perl article. This is entirely improper. Further, yes I did note that vandalism reverts do not count against 3RR, but the reverts you are performing are debatable as to whether they are vandalism or not. Quoting WP:3RR, "For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded: ... correction of simple vandalism". You may wish to review Vandalism as well, where it states that NPOV disputes are not vandalism. --Durin 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can be clearer by pointing out where I have the POWER or AUTHORITY to ban him. It was just talk, like his silly assertion that he was going to get me banned from editing.  And I have neither continued it, or defended it, since.  So why are you still on about it, and who cares to begin with?  As to the other stuff, I don't see what is debatable.  His only point there is to just screw around with someone he doesn't like, and clearly lying about the person in the process, by saying that one user's revert of HIS edit, which we all know was original content from ME, constituted vandalism on this other user's part. Fine, don't call it vandalism, but it's a bullshit edit that was completely worthless, and we both know it, and you really think my removing it twice is worth fighting with me over, instead of telling him to knock off the bullshit edits that prompted the "problem"?  Look, there's really not a problem here with me.  Stop wasting your time.  Then again, it's your time to waste ... Pudge 04:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I previously noted, I am not discussing Barry's actions here, on your talk page. I am discussing your actions. I am sorry that I have been unsuccessful in effectively communicating to you the errors that you have made. As I noted in my first writing to you, I will continue to monitor both of you to end this revert war. --Durin 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I am sorry you continue to assert I have violated policy in ways that it is clear I have not, and that you continue to waste your time with someone who isn't actually a problem, by your own implicit admission. Pudge 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pudge, the real problem here is that, by being hostile to -Barry-, you are making it more difficult for those of us who are trying to make a case for the removal of his bias from Perl and other places. If you stay within the limits of Wikipedia policy and guidelines (including civility), then it's easier to point out that he's gaming the system and trying to subvert otherwise useful entries to carry on his own agenda of anti-Perl advocacy. -Harmil 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Harmil, what's that got to do with Durin's false insistence that I am guilty of multiple violations of Wikipedia policy?

Civility warning
Your edit summary at is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Please see Civility. Disagreement with someone is fine; attacking them in such an acrimonious way is wholly improper and will not be tolerated. --Durin 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As soon as you cite jbolden for his many errors, which I have now documented clearly, I will care about your chastisement of me. He has continually ignored my complaints about his bad behavior, and if I vent a little, I see no reason to apologize for that.  He is an admin (or whatever) and must be held to a higher standard. Pudge 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the second time now that I have warned you about your behavior and you have made efforts to deflect those warnings by pointing at others. You have no excuse for the edit summary cited, regardless of the behavior of any other party. All users here, whether admin or otherwise, are held to the same standards. This includes you. The above warning stands. --Durin 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * False. In no way am I attempting to deflect a warning by pointing at others. I am saying that your lack of even-handedness simply makes me not care about what you have to say.  I am not attempting to justify my actions, I am accusing you of acting poorly in response.  And until you chastise jbolden, I simply do not care what you have to say about me, because you obviously lack the objectivity necessary to reasonably give me any warning. You're obviously picking sides here, so go away until you can prove you are worthy to speak to me. Pudge 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether I choose to address concerns with other users is irrelevant to whether your actions are in the wrong or not. Your edit summary is clearly hostile and unacceptable by Wikipedia policy. You are welcome to your opinion regarding any supposed bias I have. Regardless of your opinion, I have not taken sides in this issue. The warning above stands, and allow me the opportunity to make it more clear; if I observe another act of egregious incivility on your part, I will temporarily block you from editing. --Durin 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not getting it. I never said that your actions have anything to do with whether my actions are wrong.  I never stated or implied in any way that the action you referred to was acceptable, and that you cannot understand this fact speaks volumes.  I simply said that, reagarding the warning, coming from you, *I DO NOT CARE.* You lack objectivity.  You are choosing sides by refusing to chastise jbolden for his obviously egregious behavior.  You are, therefore, a non-entity.  Pudge 17:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The warning stands. If you engage in another act of egregious incivility such as the edit summary of ], you will be temporarily blocked. --Durin 18:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh. And now I will make my warning: any attempt to block me will result in my filing an official complaint against you for bias against me, and in favor of jbolden and Barry, in order to effect your desired outcome of the discussions at hand. At first glance it just seems like you are going after me for misdeeds, but the fact that you are refusing to go after the others for theirs is clear evidence that you have ulterior motives. Pudge 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an easy way for you to avoid this; don't violate civility policy again. This isn't hard. If you do, and I block you, then please by all means file a complaint if you feel it necessary. I can assure you that this would not bother me. I do not have to find fault with other people before I find fault with you. --Durin 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you do not have to find fault with others. However, you do have to make sure you do not neglect your duty with others, taking their side against me, when they are clearly acting as bad -- and actually, worse, in jbolden's case, reverting my perfectly appropriate edits, trying to block me for disagreeing with him -- than me. Pudge 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Perl mediation
Pudgenet; there are times when groups of people have discussions that degrade into verbal mêlée. Whether one side is thoroughly wrong or one side is thoroughly right, the argument has a life of its own. If the argument persists for an extended period, negative outcomes continue to impact normal non-argumentative processes. In many cases, this verbal mêlée can not cease without significant outside involvement. This is what is happening here with regards to the Perl article.

You have often noted that consensus is a crucial determinant in disputes. This is quite true. But, please keep in mind that consensus is not the only barometer that we use as a basis to improve articles. Take an extreme case, for the sake of discussion; if 20 editors to the article on the Empire State Building agree the building is 1,237 feet tall, and two editors insist the building is 1,250 feet tall, consensus is the building is 1,237 feet tall. Yet, the 1,237 figure is inaccurate. Now obviously in this example we are dealing with an objective measure. However, the analogy does apply to subjective matter as well. A minority opinion in a dispute can be accurate even if consensus is against that minority opinion.

I'm not suggesting that either you or Barry are the correct party. Rather, I'm noting that there is an ongoing verbal mêlée going on that needs to stop for the good of all. Part of a mediation process is establishing ground rules that people are willing to abide by. If the ground rules can not be agreed to, progress can not be made. That's not to say the ground rules are immediately perfect and must be accepted. It is to say that all parties to the dispute must calm down and allow for the opportunity of a calmer resolution process to develop.

The mediation process will continue, in one form or another. If you refuse the mediator, you are welcome to request a replacement mediator and have been shown how to do that. If you refuse the mediation regardless of who the mediator is (which I suspect is the case here), you're going to be on the outside looking in when the mediation concludes. The outcome from it, if it is not to your liking, is going to have substantial supportive basis. Edits by you to override that outcome are going to be seen as disruptive. This will only lead to negative outcomes for you.

Your choices here are fairly limited. You can choose: You've refused #1, and have not (to my knowledge) made a request in line with #2. #3 has potentially poor outcomes for you. I believe you have chosen #3 already. I recommend you instead choose either 1 or 2 and become involved in the mediation process. However, I request that if you refuse #1 and the mediation process continues with the current mediator (i.e., a new mediator is not put in place) that you recuse yourself from the discussion since in most cases inputs by a party that refuse the mediation itself are going to undermine the mediation process.
 * 1) Be involved in the current mediation process with the current mediator.
 * 2) Be involved in a mediation process with a new mediator.
 * 3) Not be involved in mediation at all.

--Durin 13:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, obviously, it is not Consensus Über Alles. However, there have been no reasons given by anyone to overrule consensus.  So that's moot.  Sure, jbolden has declared consensus was incorrect, as has Simetrical, but neither has authority to do so, and neither has given significant justification for that determination.


 * Again, there's no good reason for mediation here. Think about this: it's one guy rejecting consensus.  Mediation is non-binding and non-enforcable, despite what jbolden says, because Mediation clearly says so.  So what does anyone have to gain by giving in to Barry, or agreeing to mediation in the first place?


 * I do refuse the mediator, but will not request another one, because I consider mediation a waste of time, and will implore others to reject the process, as well. There is no possibly good outcome from mediation.  I don't know why you think there is.  All that mediation can serve to do is override -- in a non-binding way, that I will, of course, not abide by -- perfectly legitimate consensus. Pudge 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Then you've made a conscious choice to ignore the mediation process and its outcomes and will revert changes made as a result of this mediation process if it disagrees with your position. I therefore re-iterate my request that you recuse yourself from the mediation process. --Durin 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, again, you're off. I will not revert any changes made as a result of the mediation process, just because I disagree with them.  I will, simply, ignore the mediation outcome, which means doing the same thing as always: seeking consensus, and abiding by it.  If other editors disagree with my views, even if it is because they are participants in the mediation process and made an incorrect decision in mediation, and consensus is against me, so be it, I lose.  Mediation and its outcome will not be warred against, just ignored, as is my right, since mediation, again, is non-binding, not only on the participants, but on everyone else.  Again, jbolden is in absolute violation of Wikipedia policy when he tells me he can enforce the decisions reached in mediation.


 * More reason to refuse the mediator: he continues to remove perfectly valid edits, in this case, a call for clarification, under the clarifications section. Nothing in my edit is a violation of any rule, whatsoever.  Indeed, other potential participants also wanted to know the same information.  He's clearly lost his head (and chatted with you off-Wikipedia so he would no longer display his loss of noggin to everyone else).


 * And I will not remove myself from the entire process. Just because I will not submit to mediation does not mean I cannot have a voice in objections/clarifications.  I intend to continue that until the mediation process has begun, or my objections have been heard (so far, all have been, though it took me re-adding them three times before that happened), and all unknowns have been clarified.  Refusing to submit to mediation and removing oneself from this stage of the process are orthogonal.


 * All that said, I will apologize. I've been too harsh on you, and have taken out my frustrations regarding Barry and jbolden on you.  I still think you should have taken action against jbolden for his many (and continuing!) crimes against me, but that's not justification for some of the language I've used. I don't, however, retract a thing I've said against Barry or jbolden.  That's not to say I am saying I was right, just that I don't feel bad about it. Pudge 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears I am not banned, as I thought. It's only that the Preview is not showing up on the edit page, with the error message "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in.", and I took that to mean I could not edit. Pudge 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support jbolden's removal of your addition to the page as you cited above. Consider an analogy; if everyone in the room is shouting at the top of their lungs, what's the first step? Get everyone to stop shouting, is it not? Or, would you rather everyone just keep shouting? Jbolden is trying very hard to mediate a nasty dispute. The refusal of mediation means that a revert war will likely continue on the article. Revert wars are not acceptable, as I noted earlier on this talk page. This dispute will not go away just by a presumed fait accompli by one side or another to decree what the article will contain or not contain. It must be mediated in some form or another. By using mediation, we attempt to address these concerns in a calm, reasoned manner. If mediation can not work, the other possible outcomes become increasingly nasty. I strongly encourage you to reverse your decision and engage in mediation. One possible outcome of mediation is a clear assertion that Barry's additions are improper. This would provide a clear basis on which to stop a revert war should it continue or erupt again in the future. Currently, by imploring others to refuse mediation you are advocating everyone to keep shouting. If revert wars erupt again on the article once protection is removed, I will begin issuing blocks. This is one of the nasty directions in which this could go. One way or another, this dispute will end. I would much rather have you involved in the mediation process than not, if you can agree to some ground rules (whether the current ones or others agreed on by all) that included attempts at reducing heat/smoke and increasing the sense of working together towards a common solution. --Durin 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What does your analogy have to do with what I did? I added two short, small, self-contained requests for clarifications.  Did you even actually look at what I added?   Here it is, look again.  Please tell me how either of those requests for clarification, which others want clarified as well, are "shouting."  Maybe you were referring to my previous discussion complaining about jbolden and the process; that is not the edits I am referring to.  The edits I am referring to here were removed only because they came from me.  Seriously, what is wrong with those?  Jbolden keeps removing things without explaining them, and stating policies without backing up the authority for those policies.  His lack of reasonable communication is one of his main problems, though not the worst one.


 * Your assertion that I am encouraging anyone to keep shouting is false. I am encouraging everyone to calmly reach consensus and ignore people who disagree with it.  And I disagree with your opinion that this will solve nothing.  It will continue to waste the time of the non-Barry editors who will have to do more work to make consensus clear, but we can avoid this mediation nonsense, and we can continue to improve the Perl article, so I call that accomplishing something.


 * As to your encouragement: without mediation, it is already clear that Barry's additions (the ones in question) are improper. Mediation will not provide what does not already exist.


 * And even if I were to engage in mediation, I would not do so with jbolden, who has obviously violated many official mediation policies and is thus -- by definition -- incapable of continuing. I could not care less how hard jbolden is trying; he is proven to be incapable. He has advocated positions, he has dictated consensus where it did not exist, he has stated that he can enforce the result of mediation.  All of these are expressly forbidden in the mediation guidelines.


 * And I will not waste my time trying to get a different mediator, when I think mediation is a waste of time to begin with. If some other mediator appears by whatever process, perhaps I will reconsider, but it's not my job to spend my time advancing a process that I don't believe in (largely due to the way jbolden has botched things).


 * Lastly, I don't even agree that this is a "nasty dispute." Before jbolden and you got involved, no one I knew was angry, just mildly annoyed, and we handled Barry clumsily.  It's only since you and jbolden have gotten involved that it's actually gotten nasty.


 * Please stop wasting your time encouraging me to either participate in mediation under jbolden, or to try to get rid of him. Neither will happen. Pudge 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)