Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

No Mediation Yet Attempted
Barry says that this arbitration request is regarding the dispute in Wikipedians with articles. Barry has not yet attempted mediation (despite the claim to the contrary) in this dispute. This case should be rejected and mediation should be suggested.

If the arbitrators choose to hear the dispute specifically on this topic, despite that mediation has not been attempted, I will provide evidence regarding it. Please let me know so I can prepare it. I'll assume you're not going to consider this topic, as it's not followed proper dispute resolution procedure to arrive here, unless you tell me otherwise.

No Other Active Dispute
There is no active dispute between -Barry- and I regarding anything else, despite multiple claims, by all three other participants, to the contrary. I'd provide links, but there are none to provide.

No Recent Examples of Incivility Requiring Arbitration
It's been claimed I have been incivil toward -Barry-. I do not contest the allegation, but I do contest that there has been any recent example of this in the couple of weeks or so leading up to the request for arbitration. Arbitration is a last resort to end bad behavior, not a means to punish past and non-ongoing behavior.

Durin Rebuttal
Yes, I said what he said I said about "attempting control," except that a. I never took steps to do it and b. I never mentioned anything like it again after he told me not to. That was one month ago. There is obviously no need for resolution here, since there is no dispute: he said I was wrong to say it, and that I should not act on it; I never again said it, and I never acted on it. I don't see the point in even mentioning it, and he implies there is something in need of resolution, which is very confusing.

Similarly, the only examples he offers of incivility toward Barry are from one month ago, and any discussion of my problems with Jbolden are well beyond the scope of this RfAr. There's a wealth of evidence showing his misdeeds as moderator, but I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole. I have not the desire to go into it, as long as he leaves me alone and stops deleting my edits, which he appears to have done for now.

In that Durin's only evidence provided shows that both issues began and ended a month ago, I suppose Durin is implicitly acknowledging my claim that there is no other active dispute between me and Barry, and no recent examples of incivility by me in regard to Barry. (Note also that I am not even bothering to bring up evidence against Barry at this point; I simply don't care, but if necessary, there's a wealth of it, starting with many of the links in the RFC against him. But I don't see the point, unless I feel the tide of this turn against me, and then I'll bring it all up to take him down with me.  :-)

As to my "deflections," I don't see the relevance. I am scratching my head wondering how ceasing the activity he told me to cease requires, in his mind, any ongoing dispute requiring a resolution. Just because I am arguing with him about his lack of action in regard to others? Where's the need for resolution? I disagree with him, and he with me. But I did not continue the activity mentioned in his warnings, so ... what's the dispute? Am I required to agree with him?

Now, Durin may counter that I did violate two of his warnings: incivility and "revert warning." I disagree with the latter, and mention that further below in this section. With the former, he warned me about civility toward Jbolden a second time, when I called his removal of my edit "insane" on my talk page. I did not consider this to be incivil, though it certainly was blunt. He did, and that's fine, but I didn't think it would violate policy when I did it. And note that another admin, jpgordon, was also angry with Jbolden over the edit in question. 

As to the removal of his warning: I had no idea this was an issue. I don't understand what the problem is. Was the removal taken as a rejection of the warning? If so, it was taken that way incorrectly. And, again, that happened a month ago, and is not an ongoing dispute in need of resolution.

As to the "revert warring" -- clearly, the only actual dispute here -- this, again, gets to my main contention: this should be mediated, not arbitrated. I contend Barry is far more at fault on this topic, but since I believe this should be mediated, I won't dwell on the specifics here, except to say that I do not believe what I did constituted revert warring, because I believe what I did was justified due to consensus agreement on the Talk page (which came after Durin's warning). I will not request mediation myself, because so far, everyone involved except Barry, who has chosen to speak up, has stated that Barry's edits are the inappropriate ones, and have taken issue only with how I've reverted his edits which I've since changed my behavior on, such as editing without a comment, and doing it without discussion first on the talk page). If Barry wants mediation, he can request it.

Barry Rebuttal
First, Barry is not an admin, and has no right to give me "warnings" that I have to pay attention to. This is laughable. He "warned" me to stop removing his inappropriate content? Is he seriously saying this is evidence against me, that I removed his "warnings," which to my mind were childish vandalism?

I again won't discuss the details of the Wikipedians with articles dispute, as it belongs in mediation before it arrives here, except to say that I strongly disagree with his notion that consensus was arrived at, and that I never saw his requests for "mediation" or to "talk about it," because after his childish "warnings" I took to deleting what he posted on my talk page without reading it. Even then, no mediation was actually attempted; he should have, as per dispute resolution procedure, attempted official mediation, which he did not do. He did not need my permission to begin the process.

There is no requirement I read anthing he posts to my talk page, that anyone has ever pointed me to. So I don't know how that matters. It is unreasonable to take that as a tacit rejection of mediation, esp. as I've myself tacitly accepted the notion here.

And why in the world should I let him respond to anything on my user page? What's that about?

Further, Barry could not be more wrong when he said "in that same post he rejects my mediation request for resolving the Wikipedians with articles issue." There is absolutely no evidence of any such thing in that post, where I only said I would not read what he posted on my talk page.

Perhaps worst of all though, I was a willing participant in the place this actually should be discsussed: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians_with_articles. If he had simply requested mediation there, where it was most relevant, then it would have been properly responded to. How can anyone take his claim of attempting mediation seriously when he didn't even discuss it there?

As to the vandalism claim, again, that was a month ago. Nothing like it happened before or since, and I find continued attempts to bring it up, when it is obviously irrelevant, disingenuous. It was, of course, a joke edit: I was demonstrating the absurdity of his edits by making an absurd edit. I frankly don't find my edit significantly worse than his, but I make no excuse for what I did, either. I only say that a. Barry's no better and b. I've done nothing like it before or since.

As to my supposed pro-Perl bias, since I've not edited Perl since a week before mediation even started (again, almost a month ago), I won't even suppose anyone actually cares. But if you do, I will note that Barry provided no evidence of any bad non-NPOV pro-Perl edits by me, and there are a great many examples of non-NPOV anti-Perl edits by him. This is the pot calling the wine glass "black." Also, I've coauthored *two* Perl books, not one. That said, I see no money from either, and my website (why does he keep saying "claims", as if this is in dispute?) generates absolutely no money, so my professional stake in Perl is no more than anyone else's (and far less than most).

Finally, Barry denies that there is only the one ongoing dispute, but oddly, offers no actual evidence of anything else, repeating that I should not delete posts of his from my talk page (which I see no justification for concluding), and dishonestly citing something that began and ended a month ago as a "current active dispute." And most hilariously, Wikipedia has no policy about me being incivil toward other Wikipedians on other sites, especially ones that I own, so I have no idea what that's about.


 * Barry says no edit by him could reasonably be considered vandalism. I think this speaks for itself.  He doesn't like that we have a content dispute, so his solution is to "welcome" me to Wikipedia and accuse me of vandalism?  Flummery.


 * His claim that "There had been hope of resolving the (Perl) content dispute if Pudgenet didn't interfere" is incredible. First, as the facts show, I did not interfere with the mediation, according to the admin Jbolden brought in: Durin.  Second, my comments that questioned the process -- which, again, Durin told me directly were not interference -- were relegated to a completely separate section of mediation, first on the same page, then on a separate one.  It was not interspersed at all with the rest of the mediation.  I am flattered that anyone could think my complaining about the process in sections and pages separate from the actual process could prevent the process from continuing, but I am afraid I don't believe such amazing tales. Of course, again, the people actually involved in that dispute were not notified that dispute would be under arbitration, and it would be inappropriate to take any action without such notification, even if it happens now, as it is late in the process.  Pudge 04:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He also claims my first edit was about brian d foy. This, too, is false.  I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but never bothered to get an account until I wanted to start an article, as that seemed appropriate. Pudge 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden Rebuttal
As Jbolden mentions nothing in relation to this RfAr and is only attacking me personally, I have no significant response, except that I disagree with his many characterizations and find them extraordinarily disingenuous, and I'll provide a few examples.

The most examples he provides are, in his words, examples of "Rufusing to partipate in mediation while being disruptive to the process, that is trolling." However, what he does not note is the fact that when Jbolden brought Durin in to help him out, I wrote, 'I reject, categorically, the false statement by Durin that "interference with the mediation process is a form of trolling," if he means by that, arguing against the use of mediation, and arguing that the mediator is a terrible one.' Durin followed this up by writing, "Voicing concerns about the mediation process is not trolling." You will find that I was voicing concerns, as Durin said I was allowed to do, and that once there was a place for those concerns ("Objections/clarifications") that I limited my comments to that particular section.

So Durin, whom Jbolden brought in to help out, said what I did was allowed. And yet Jbolden said I was violating policy when I continued. How can I win when I do what his admin help says I can do, and he still says I am wrong?

So too goes many of his examples. Like this one, where Jbolden calls my disagreement with Durin an accusation of lying. Or saying I am deliberately provocative when it was the other party who was provoking me, and I was calmly telling the person that his personal comment toward me had no effect on me and was off-topic. Or saying that I refused to engage in reasoned conversation by linking to reasoned conversation.

I've been no angel. I strongly disagree that the overwhelming majority of links Jbolden has provided actually represent any wrongdoing, but there are a few that do. A very tiny handful represent inexcusable behavior from over a month ago that has not continued. Others represent exasperation on my part that one would need to stretch to a significant degree to call "uncivil." Most are just normal edits, for which nothing is wrong at all. He says I accused people of lying where I did not, he says saying "you're wrong" is uncivil, and so on. Where I have been blatantly uncivil, I was wrong, and I do again apologize, but those few examples (particularly, my "joke edit", and the threat to delete all Barry's edits) have been done to death already.

Jbolden claims I tied a username to realname without permission. This is false, and he provided no evidence of it. I did tie Barry to Wassercrats (after others did, since I wouldn't have known myself), but I have no reason to suspect "Wassercrats" is Barry's real name, but, rather, another pseudonym (on the conrary, it seems "Barry" is his actual real name). Further, the whole basis of this RfAr is Barry's linking of a username (Scarpia) to a real name (brian d foy) without permission, and his clear attempt to defame both in the process. Maybe that is allowed because brian d foy has an article; I don't know. Regardless, Barry did do this -- whether is allowed to or not -- and I did not do this at all. Indeed, it was Jbolden who first brought up the (false) notion that Barry and I had a "history" on other sites (as best as I can tell, meaning the one I linked to). So even if linking to another username elsewhere does constitute linking to a realname (and I can't imagine it does, but just in case), Jbolden opened the door by accusing me of having a history with Barry, so identifying Barry as Wassercrats on that other site (which I did in the original RfAr at Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet too, noting Barry's 500 posts at PerlMonks as direct rebuttal evidence to Jbolden's false claim) cannot be considered unreasonable.

(Further, as noted by others, Barry has self-identified himself as Wassercrats, anyway.)

And again, I do strenuously object to the several statements by Jbolden that the PerlMonks expulsion of Wassercrats has anything to do with this, for my part. Yes, Barry was expelled from the tribe, and yes, that may carry over here. But I am not a member of the PerlMonks tribe, and I couldn't care less than to "enforce" any actions taken there. My unwise statement against Barry had nothing to do with that, but with my recognition that he was acting in bad faith. I saw his threats to make Perl look bad, I saw his terrible edits, and I saw his reactions to other editors, and I overreacted, and I was wrong. But this had nothing to do, for my part, with any activity of his on any other site (except to one degree: someone pointed out to me some posts by him on PerlMonks that showed he was intending to act in bad faith). I have absolutely no problem with criticizing Perl, and have done so on many occasions. Indeed, so have several of the other editors there, including Scarpia, merlyn, and Dominus, to name but a small few.

Jbolden has been constantly accusing me of doing things wrong that were not wrong, while he himself consistently violated Mediation. I ask the arbitrators to seriously consider Jbolden's credibility in these matters. I could give a point-by-point rebuttal to each thing he's posted as I did with the "trolling" comment above, where he clearly misrepresented what actually happened, but that seems to be a waste of time.

Ideogram Rebuttal
Ideogram is wrong when he says I did not assume good faith. I did not imply that his intent was to personally attack me, but nevertheless, he did so. By noting I was being civil out of the blue, he necessarily implied that he believed that my being civil was noteworthy. If my being civil was noteworthy, it can only be because he believes I am normally not civil. Therefore, he was directly implying I am normally not civil, in the middle of a technical discussion in which there were no heated words or acts of incivility, which I cannot see as anything but a personal attack, whether it was intentional or not. Pudge 14:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
After I gave Pudgenet this and this "final" warning, an administrator (Durin) warned Pudgenet and me not to revert war. Pudgenet received a stronger warning when he continued. Pudgenet claimed to have reverted clear vandalism. Durin corrected Pudgenet, explaining that my edit wasn't simple vandalism and instructing Pudgenet to remove my POV or work it out on the talk page rather than revert. Pudgenet said no and reverted again. That time, his edit summary described a concern of his that I addressed in my next edit (made after I asked Durin "how do I go about reinserting the brian d foy entry"). Pudgenet reverted again. I went to the talk page myself to reach consensus, with Pudgenet's only participation not addressing the issue (though he again said my old edit was bad). According to the agreement on the talk page between me and Thivierr - to make my links more neutral by not using link text - I edited the article again. Pudgenet reverted again (and again, and again...).

I got Pudgenet to discuss his unusual interpretation of this matter here, before the discussion was considered off topic and reverted by jbolden1517, who was mediating a different issue. Pudget's refusals to work this out in the proper place are listed under Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

The last version of Wikipedians with articles entry that Pudgenet reverted, which I'd like restored, is:


 * brian d foy &mdash; : Publisher and editor of The Perl Review and co-author of Perl books.

As of June 16th, the second paragraph of Wikipedians with articles says "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work," so I think the links I added to indicate Scarpia's possible NPOV violations (including what I believe is Scarpia's blatant vandalism) are appropriate.

Bad faith
In addition to avoiding discussion, Pudgenet's unusual interpretation of this discussion indicates he's purposely misunderstanding. He also made a bogus claim that criticism by me and Perl 6 developer and lecturer Shlomi Fish is nonsensical (see Audrey Tang's three posts, starting here, about Shlomi's Perl 6 contributions). Shlomi's criticism is well written (so is mine), and the link to it shouldn't have been reverted.

Pudgenet's excuse for removing my posts from his talk page is also bogus. His RFAr statement says "I consider Barry's use of my talk page as vandalism (due to actual vandalism there by him)." No edit of mine to his talk page could be reasonably considered vandalism.

Vandalism
Pudgenet criticized me (a non-notable Wikipedia editor) here, in the article itself, without even explaining who I was, calling it a joke edit.

Incivility
Examples of Pudgenet's incivility include "Removing useless content from a useless editor", "you know where that stick can go," and "Hey asshole, we're not going to let you continue to pollute the Perl article with your bullshit.... He refuses to read anything I post to his talk page, making mediation impossible (mediation rules say "Disputant(s) should contact the other party and get their consent..."). Pudgenet explains how he treats my posts here (among other places), and in that same post he rejects/ignores my mediation request (to which he was replying) for resolving the Wikipedians with articles issue. His deletion of my posts also makes it impossible for me to respond to his user page criticism of me (I'm the "funny node" author).

Bias
Many complaints above show Pudgenet's pro-Perl bias. I believe his bias is even greater than the "pro-Perl POV pushing," mentioned here, of other editors because of his greater professional and personal stake in Perl. Pudgenet claims use.perl.org is his site, that he's coauthored two Perl books (including this), and that he's been asked to speak at OSCON (a popular Perl conference). He's also created several Perl modules and started started brian d foy's article with his first edit (see also Edit warring regarding brian d foy).

Active disputes
Pudgenet claims on this arbitration page that "There is no active dispute between -Barry- and I [aside from the Wikipedians with articles issue]". He further claims that he hasn't been incivil recently and that his past deeds shouldn't be punished. However, recent and unresolved issues include:


 * Pudgenet's June 7th criticism of me (I'm the "funny node" author)


 * Continued deletion my posts from his talk page.


 * Recent posts in this thread of brian d foy's blog (AKA Scarpia) including the comments "To me, you're an idiot no one cares about," "Speaking of suckiness, there's ... you," and "I hate you."


 * The fact that Durin (the administrator who was involved) may not have noticed the blatant vandalism that I warned Pudgenet for here because Pudgenet had deleted it by the time Durin got there and Durin only issued a revert war warning. I consider his vandalism an open issue that he should be punished for.


 * Comments such as "I've never seen one valuable edit made my Barry that was illegitimately reverted" and "If he continues, I will just routinely revert every edit he makes in Perl, regardless of what it is," which indicate a possible future edit war involving Perl, especially now that Perl mediation has failed.

-Barry- 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet has attempted to assert control over an article
Assertion: User:Pudgenet attempted to control an article in violation of Ownership of articles. Evidence: Informed this is improper: Rebuttal: Pudgenet rebutted my assertions that he attempted to ban -Barry- from the Perl article. Commentary: It is clear from the edits that Pudgenet made that his intentions were to prevent Barry from making any edits to the Perl article. Despite informing him that this was improper, Pudgenet's rebuttal shows he refused to acknowledge that there was any error on his part in this regard. I am concerned this pattern of behavior may continue in the future since Pudgnet sees no error in what he did in this regard.
 * Pugdenet noted at, "(-Barry-) has, again, clearly demonstrated bad faith or incompetence, and no longer shall he continue to waste the time of good people on Wikipedia. At least, not on the Perl article".
 * At Pudgenet said "you are not allowed to edit the Perl page anymore".
 * "Further, assertions of article protection against someone are inappropriate".
 * "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."
 * "No one was ever actually banned, so ... um, OK."
 * "You can be clearer by pointing out where I have the POWER or AUTHORITY to ban him. It was just talk,"

Pudgenet has been uncivil
Assertion: Pudgenet has been uncivil on a number of occasions in violation of Civility. Evidence: Rebuttal: Commentary: In my opinion, Pudgenet has aggressive tendencies that can be contained with patience on his part. However, there are times when he clearly exceeds the bounds of propriety that we must all operate under here for harmonious editing. His apology is encouraging as it seems he accepts some responsibility in this area for his actions. I remain concerned that there may be future acts of incivility, and have found evidence that lends credence to the possibility that he might again be uncivil.
 * In removing some content posted by User:-Barry- to the Perl article, Pudgenet said in the edit summary, "Removing useless content from a useless editor".
 * In removing some content from the Perl article, Pudgenet said in the edit summary, "if you cannot spell Randal's name shouldn't be editing here".
 * In reference to "Mediation with a stick" at Talk:Perl, Pudgnet said (see edit summary), "you know where that stick can go".
 * In response to posting by User:Jbolden1517 on Pudgnet's talk page, Pudged said, "You're completely losing it" and "Your insane conduct here is not helping your "case" against me."
 * Pudgenet said, "if I vent a little, I see no reason to apologize for that".
 * Pudgenet said, "I will apologize. I've been too harsh on you, and have taken out my frustrations regarding Barry and jbolden on you"

Pudgenet deflects criticism rather than accepting he has a role in the dispute
Assertion: While not specifically a violation of Wikipedia policy, I have been troubled by a tendency on Pudgenet's part to deflect criticism of himself by pointing at others rather than accept culpability on his part and/or insisting that action be taken against others before any action against him has legitimacy. Evidence: Rebuttal: Commentary: Certainly there is no requirement that an administrator must review the actions of all parties in a dispute before being able to take action in regards to a specific user. Pudgenet has clearly been uncivil, and warning him about it was entirely appropriate and done properly. I have taken no position in favor or against any particular editor in this dispute. I have tried to have a beneficial effect, by attempting to shut down the revert war and later aid in the mediation process. I have no vested interested in the content that is under dispute, and in fact have even agreed with some of Pudgenet's stance regarding the content. I focused on Pudgenet in this dispute because he removed my revert war warning and continued the revert war.
 * When I observed to Pudgenet his ignoring of the request to stop the revert war, he said, "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." More context of this discussion is at User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk
 * Two weeks later, when I warned Pudgenet regarding civility, he responded, "As soon as you cite jbolden for his many errors, which I have now documented clearly, I will care about your chastisement of me."
 * Subsequent to this, he stated, "until you chastise jbolden, I simply do not care what you have to say about me"
 * Further subsequent to this, he stated "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".
 * Pudgenet has routinely maintained that I lack objectivity since I have not chastised others for their actions in this dispute. I believe this is the fundamental point in his rebutting of this position. I think this is summarized best by this edit by Pudgenet.

-Barry- and Pudgenet have engaged in revert warring
Assertion: Both -Barry- and Pudgenet have engaged in revert warring, despite warnings. Evidence: I provided some evidence of this at Requests_for_arbitration/Pudgenet. Others will probably expand on this further, and I may do so as well at a later time.

--Durin 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History of incivility
Out of slightly more than 100 edits on Perl related topics Pudgenet has managed to insult and threaten the following users:, , , , , , and. The attacks started 6 months ago and have continued to this day (literally), in a process of escalation. What follows is an inventory by type of personal attack:


 * General Rudeness
 * Toward Mipadi trying to be helpful
 * Sarcasm towards Barry in (summary)


 * Insults to other's abilities,intelligence or sanity
 * Endomion
 * CDThieme
 * Barry (summary)
 * Shlomi Fish (summary)
 * jbolden1517 -


 * Refusal to engage other editors in reasoned conversation
 * Mipadi -
 * Barry - (profanity)


 * Dismisses other editors as having opinions not worth paying attention to
 * Barry - [
 * shlomi fish & Barry -
 * Ideogram -
 * Simetrical -


 * Deliberately provocative, that is trying to incite I don't care about your wishes I will do X
 * Ideogram -
 * Barry - deletion of vandalism warning


 * false claims of vandalism
 * Barry -


 * profanity and threats
 * Barry -


 * Insulting another editor professionally
 * Shlomi Fish - (summary)


 * Accusing other editors of lying
 * Simetrical -
 * Barry -
 * Durin -
 * Endomion -
 * jbolden1517 -

Undermines dispute resolution
Most of Pudgenet's hostility goes beyond simply making wikipedia less enjoyable for the editors actually creating content. A great deal of it is directed at undermining the dispute resolution processes that wikipedia possesses. This is an areas of grave seriousness, attempting to intimidate editors is designed to alter content. Attempting to mediators, administrators and people who participate in the RFC processes undermines the system of governance that wikipedia possesses. Its the difference between beating someone up in a bar and intimidating witnesses or judges.

This evidence will show that:
 * 1) Pudgenet refuses to participate in dispute resolution
 * 2) He attempts to undermine dispute resolution processes that he is not involved in
 * 3) He threatens and attacks people who attempt to advance dispute resolution

Copy confirmation
Below this line is a copy of the confirmation regarding other steps that have been tried


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Attempts by Barry to engage in productive dialogue deleted:
 * Deleted requests for mediation
 * Attempts to join in discussion (see edit summary)
 * Other attempts at mediation turned down
 * Third attempt never responded to
 * During the RFC process for Barry, jbolden1517 and Simetrical attempted to instruct Pudgenet that his behavior was unacceptable and constituted sustained personal attacks against Barry
 * Attempted administrative intervention by Durin in which Pudgenet attacked administrator questioning his understanding and his ethics once he attempted to prevent Pudgenet's harassment of Barry
 * Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage (mediator was jbolden1517 very active member of Mediation Cabal)
 * Administrative guided mediation which Pudgenet has engaged in sustained personal attacks against the mediator and has been successfully disruptive preventing much progress (governed by jbolden1517 under Durin's supervision).

Details

 * Warning by Harmil how Pudgenet was undermining dispute resolution


 * Refusal to heed an administrator
 * Warning by Durin for edit waring
 * Warning by Durin for 3RR violations
 * Warning about harrasment
 * Warning about personal attacks by During
 * Warning about trolling
 * Dismissive of Durin regarding his violations of WP:CIVIL
 * Accusing an administrator of having alterior motives for cautioning him
 * Refusing to modify tone after warning


 * RFC process
 * Refusing to partipate in good faith in the RFC process
 * Refusal to heed Simetrical's well argued case of his misbehavior in the RFC


 * "Peace offerings" from other editors
 * Deleted good faith effort to stop edit war and then redeleted after instructed not to by mediator


 * General misconduct regarding dispute resolution
 * Admission that he is violating policy, failing to assume good faith, impossing a ban. Incidentally also considers another editor stupid and a waste of time.
 * admits to vandalism and impossing a ban on another editor


 * Refusing to participate in mediation while being disruptive to the process, that is trolling
 * This was one of the more serious issues. The Perl mediation was derailed due to the efforts outlined below
 * There are claims that jbolden1517 was such a poor mediator that Pudgenet had essentially no choice but to undermine his efforts. It should be noted that

                 
 * jbolden1517 is deputy coordinator for the mediation cabal
 * jbolden1517 has mediated well over 20 cases to successful conclusion
 * These actions were specifically prohibited by an administrator
 * Strong attacks which were clearly uncivil on mediator which discredited him and thus led to unsuccessful mediation -
 * Warning by Durin about intentionally interfering in mediation process
 * Warning about not heeding disciplary warnings


 * No valid complaints regarding mediation
 * The mediation cabal has a dispute resolution process. This mediation also had administrative supervision.   Below is a list the various ways complaints could have been addressed, insulting and harassing mediators is not among the approved venues for opposing a mediation.


 * 1) Durin was directly supervising the mediation so misconduct would have been handled by him
 * 2) jbolden1517 has recognized Cowman109 as the his superior in the mediation cabal and would have deferred to him.
 * 3) The mediation cabal recognizes, the mediation committee as having the right to take cases.  Jbolden1517 explicitly mentioned this option to Pudgenet
 * 4) The mediation cabal maintains a complaint site no complaint was filed
 * 5) The mediation cabal maintains a talk page to address issues of policy.  No policy issues were raised.
 * This was expressed to Pudgenet multiple times -


 * Comment regarding Barry
 * Barry's 3RRing and other issues were within the realm of the normal problem user which are I've handled as part of the mediation cabal on a regular basis. He was resoponding well to mediation and all evidence points the fact he would have continued too and the dispute would have been brought to resolution.  Pudgenet's actions were well outside the normal range of response.


 * RFAr
 * Initially refusing to participate in good faith in the RFAr process revert war and active posts since then.


 * Offsite issues
 * The following is an off site critique of someone who observed the same root behavior I had observed.  In particular I point to Meryln's comment (handle for Randal Schwartz User:RandalSchwartz), Perlmonks is a tribe. Wassercrats got expelled.... There's no formal mechanism for excommunication, as there is with some tribes...The actions around Wassercrats are justified.  I continue to contend that at its root this is the core disagreement.  There is a belief by the editors on the Perl article that because Barry was "excommunicated" from PerlMonks he has lost his right to equal status on wikipedia's Perl article.  I contend that PerlMonks is an advocacy and support site and that while being a critic of Perl may be rightfully unacceptable there, the same does not hold true for Wikipedia which incidentally was the conclusion drawn by the RFC process.
 * comment from May 31st regarding Barry, establishes Pudgenet's claim of offsite pattern:
 * Statement by Harmil
 * Of course I'm not active in Perl monks and have no way of knowing when Pudgenet and Barry came in contact with one another. This gives examples of the sorts of comments which establish the collective pattern which concerned me as a mediator.  I unable to make specific judgments regarding Pudgenet's particular time of contact.


 * False RFC
 * Requests_for_comment/Jbolden1517 another attempt
 * Lobbying for an RFC Also note the campaign of harrasment/explicit threat in this post


 * Possible wikistalking
 * There was an initial wikistalking on other cases:

Inability to assume good faith
This edit: I interpreted as evidence that Pudgenet was capable of civility, so I posted this: which I intended sincerely as a peace gesture to indicate I was willing to talk to him.

Then I received this:.

Apparently I am now on Pudgenet's "enemy list" and it is impossible for me to talk to him.

Originally I had hoped to use the first edit as evidence in Pudgenet's favor but his response indicates my help is not welcome. I have no desire to deal with Pudgenet further and intend to avoid him whenever possible.

Ideogram 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Inability to admit error
In this edit: Pudgenet tries to argue me into admitting that I made a personal attack.

Failure to comply with civil requests
After the above, I posted the following:

Then I received this:

Clearly the nightmare will never end.

Double standards
At Requests_for_arbitration/Pudgenet Pudgenet says: "I consider Barry's use of my talk page as vandalism (due to actual vandalism there by him), and I just delete what he posts there without reading it (including his notice of this arbitration request)."

Taken together his statements imply that Pudgenet feels free to impose rules on others that he himself does not follow.

Ideogram 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-'s useful contributions to Perl
-Barry- has made many contributions to Perl, including vandalism reversion, minor tweaks to wording or formatting (, , , , , , , , etc.), and additions and removals of content. Although many of the latter were contested and reverted, others remain partially or wholly in the present version, presumably indicating that the editors at Perl deemed them useful.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.