Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Barry-

Statement of the dispute
Per Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl:
 * User:-Barry- began contributing to Perl in December, 2005. In March, 2006, his edit summaries started to become noticeably more combative and on April 29, 2006, he first began to mention the Python programming language
 * 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), after that was reverted, he added in an external comparison link and later he added to rather questionable external links to anti-perl diatribes
 * After that was reverted, the watershed edit summary came: 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.


 * From there, a number of edits and revert wars resulted, with existing Perl editors reverting the user's work with varying degrees of civility. Eventually, the issue was brought to the Mediation Cabal by RevRagnarok on 23 May 2006 after a dispute over -Barry-'s removal of Perl from the list of "Good Articles" with the justification that there was POV and the article was not stable.
 * Durring the mediation process, two things came to light:
 * -Barry- would not be willing to compromise unless multiple admins were to take part in a vote as proxies for the current editors of Perl, whose input -Barry- was unwilling to accept.
 * -Barry- is, in fact (by his own admission) Wassercrats (not the banned imposter Wassercrat), a former member of the Perl Monks site, with a years-long history of dispute with the Perl community.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User:-Barry- is also known as Wassercrats (not the banned imposter Wassercrat) on the Perlmonks site. This user has brought a long-standing anti-Perl dispute to the Perl page here on Wikipedia. User has revert-warred with multiple editors, removed Perl from the list of Good Articles, and has threatened continued revert wars unless his demands for changes to Perl are met.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Per Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl:
 * User:-Barry- began contributing to Perl in December, 2005. In March, 2006, his edit summaries started to become noticeably more combative and on April 29, 2006, he first began to mention the Python programming language
 * 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), after that was reverted, he added in an external comparison link and later he added to rather questionable external links to anti-perl diatribes
 * After that was reverted, the watershed edit summary came: 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.


 * From there, a number of edits and revert wars resulted, with existing Perl editors reverting the user's work with varying degrees of civility. Eventually, the issue was brought to the Mediation Cabal by RevRagnarok on 23 May 2006 after a dispute over -Barry-'s removal of Perl from the list of "Good Articles" with the justification that there was POV and the article was not stable.
 * Durring the mediation process, two things came to light:
 * -Barry- would not be willing to compromise unless multiple admins were to take part in a vote as proxies for the current editors of Perl, whose input -Barry- was unwilling to accept.
 * -Barry- is, in fact (by his own admission, see link above) Wassercrats (not the banned imposter Wassercrat), a former member of the Perl Monks site, with a years-long history of dispute with the Perl community

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Edit summaries became slightly combattive:
 * First mention of Python
 * Attempt to push Python as "alternative" to Perl:
 * Addition of external anti-Perl diatribes:
 * Edit summary explicitly stating POV:
 * Dispute ensued on talk page:, ,
 * Many editors disputed edits as POV or otherwise unhelpful:, , , , and so on.
 * He removed Perl from the Good Articles list:
 * When specifically asked, has stated that compromise by vote would only be possible if multiple admins were to stand in for the existing editors of the Perl article, whose input he was unwilling to accept.
 * User has stated elsewhere "There's a con section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Con ) that I'd have gone crazy in if I was being a troll." Said user then began editing the Con section. (User identity confirmed here)
 * User makes his first change to the Perl section. It is reverted the same day by RandalSchwartz for being factually incorrect.  It is also a  self published source.
 * User also was looking for quotes from RandalSchwartz for the Perl section. The user stated that "I need trash talk." for the Perl.
 * User adds another self published source.  It was reverted and restored several times, , , , ,
 * User adds an off the record comment from RandalSchwartz without citing a source. Randal removed his name from the quote here due to the lack of a source, which the user added with this edit.  The original post of the comment by the user was made within and hour and a half from when Randal made that statement on IRC.  These quotes was also reverted and restored a few times. ,
 * User [adds] yet another self published source.  The author of the blog cited claimed to be drunk while writing it.  It was reverted here.
 * During mediation, user threatens to send a company discussed on the Perl page to WP:LIBEL unless his demands to revert a change are met.  This occured after user declined a compromise offer that would have removed that particular edit.
 * User has continued on his attacks to other sections of Wikipedia. Instead of assuming good faith with an edit or discussing the edit on his talk page, user applied a vandalism warning.  User then re-added the warning after it was removed.
 * User then set out to edit Wikipedians_with_articles, tying User:Scarpia with brian d foy, a noted Perl author and trainer. In the first edit, he calls brian d foy a "Wikipedia vandal" based on the edit mentioned in the user's "Vandalism" warning.   This change was reverted.   The user then engaged in a revert war to re-add the entry.
 * The last three reverts above were all made within an hour and fifteen minutes. Two independent editors warned the user that this violated WP:3RR.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POINT - User is explicitly disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to make his point (carried from an external dispute) on the Perl and Comparison of programming languages articles through revert-warring and removal of the article from the list of Good Articles.
 * WP:V - User has repeatedly attempted to add self-published and unreliable sources. After being removed, user either added another self-published source or engaged in revert-warring to restore the link.
 * No_legal_threats - evidence point #16 above may be interpreted as a legal threat

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl - invitation to participate:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Compromise attempt 1:
 * Compromise attempt 2:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Harmil 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Imroy 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Steve p 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scarpia 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pudge 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * RevRagnarok 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Christopher Thomas 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) —  Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Im not directly involved, but i've read the comments and understand &mdash; M  in  un  Spiderman 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Response 1
Harmil, your observations are a bit detached from reality. I'll just address a few things here that I noticed were particularly indicative of your "bad faith" and jumping to conclusions (Thanks to Simetrical for addressing many more issues).


 * Your post to my talk page accuses me of "insisting on giant tabular benchmarks, which are known to be flawed; refusing to spell brian d. foy correctly, etc." That's all clearly incorrect, as I explain in my reply on my talk page.


 * In the original version of this RfC, you say I've admitted to being Perlmonks' Wassercrat and that I might also be Wassercrats. It's clear from the home node of Wassercrat that he was an imposter, as noted by the Perlmonks "gods." I have said I was Wassercrats, not the banned Wassercrat. I was never banned.


 * You reverted that edit of mine in which the end of the edit summary said Python was better than Perl, but you didn't look to see whether it was a legitimate edit (which it was) and you reverted it without referring to the content change in your edit summary. You just said "troll." And you defend this on the talk page of this RfC page. At least the beginning of my edit summary explained my edit, at least a little, but even if it didn't, you should look further than the edit summary.


 * On you say "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." The mediator didn't mediate on that original mediation page, so what was said there isn't indicative of a failure in the mediation. The mediator posted one message on that page, saying "New page setup on Talk:Perl Mediation" and on that new mediation page, I was the only one compliant with the mediator, and the other editors who participated were at odds with him. It's no longer me, alone, against the Perl editors.

And shouldn't I have been told about this page? This section is for my response, but I found this RfC page accidentally from a post today on the mediation page. Several days after it was created. That's way too long to be known as the wrong person without being able to correct it. -Barry- 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harmil, also, How to use RfC says to be neutral and not include details in your entry in the RfC list. I reverted your details here. And you didn't link to this page from there. -Barry- 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -Barry- 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Response 2
This is mainly in response to Simetrical's Update as of 07:56, 1 June 2006.

Simetrical wrote: "Likewise, "I need trash talk." should probably be interpreted as being a lighthearted and exaggerated way of saying "strong criticism", not "slander".

That's a good interpretation. The full quote was "I'm wearing my journalist hat. I need trash talk." A few posts down from that, I say "I'm scraping for trash because I figure praise will be a lot easier to find when I get to the pros part."

Simetrical wrote: If the IRC channel log was publicly available from a stable place, there's no problem with mentioning it with the qualification "according to . . .", as an interesting datapoint. If it was not, it should have been removed entirely. I don't know which it was. ... -Barry- has violated WP:V/WP:NOR possibly once according to the evidence presented, when he added a quote from an IRC chat.

Simetrical linked to a diff that shows the URL of the log in my edit summary, which is publicly available and stable. And it's permitted to be logged, unlike some chats.

Simetrical wrote: He has called another user a liar

My next post to that talk page was an apology, but I'm not sure if it was a strong enough apology for you.

Simetrical wrote: If this RFC has not settled the matter within a week or so, which I'm sure it won't have, I would suggest to all the involved parties that they bring the case to arbitration. This appears to be a case where good-faith attempts at discussion, mediation, and outside comment have been tried and failed, and so falls within the ArbCom's purview.

Yes, I don't think a single issue has been resolved. The closest was when one of the editors in dispute with me added something to the article that was agreed to in mediation, but it was reverted by another. Not only are most of the many issues either still open or their mediated solutions unimplementable due to a certain editor's reversions, but his reversions of older material that I added have created even more issues. Scarpia is a notable Wikipedian who I believe is biased and not of good faith, and a vandal for many, many reasons. And Pudgenet's threats to revert content decided on in the mediation, particularly if it's something I favor, are another problem.

In this RfC, the mediator for the issue has said "However Barry's complaint (that the participants are pro Perl POV pushing) is fundamentally true." In mediation, I made some concessions to the POV pushers. Concessions shouldn't be made to POV pushers if at all possible.

Since mediating all of the issues is very time consuming (especially to me, since I have to address the comments of many editors and I seem to be the one who writes even the pro-Perl content that's decided on) and there's indication that editors won't cooperate, etc., I think arbitration is a good idea.

Whether the arbitrators are presented with all of the material I want returned to the article, maybe in addition to the compromised versions worked out in mediation, and decide which should stay in the article, or whether the arbitrators conduct more of a disciplinary hearing, or require a mediated decision to stick, or whatever, I think they need to be involved.

-Barry- 13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -Barry- 13:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to legal threat accusation
In this edit, Steve P says: During mediation, user threatens to send a company discussed on the Perl page to WP:LIBEL unless his demands to revert a change are met. This occured after user declined a compromise offer that would have removed that particular edit.

In the "compromise offer", Steve P used Scarpia's clearly libelous text in the article as a bargaining chip. This needs to be reverted, period. It's totally untrue that "Tiobe clearly shows its bias when it changes it methodology when it looks like Java, the language they commercially support, appears to drop in popularity." Tiobe included more search engines in their tests when the Google results for Java dropped so suddenly that they knew there was an inaccuracy (change in search engine behavior rather than actual sudden drop in popularity). There's no "clear" evidence that they did it for improper reasons. The change in their methodology, if you can call it that, presumably would only increase accuracy. It's not as though they used more search engines only for their favorite language or only when that problem occurred. It was a permanent improvement to their tests. Their point of view is explained on their website.

And user:Swmcd doesn't seem to care much, despite him saying in Scarpia's latest reversions: "If the data is meaningless, more of it won't help...I'll be happy to revert it. I don't think it belongs in the Opinion section in the first place. Swmcd 18:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

He refers to the libel as data, and he still hasn't reverted it.

-Barry- 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: -Barry- 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My use of vandalism warnings
In this addition to Evidence of disputed behavior, Steve P mentions my use of this vandalism warning against Scarpia. Scarpia's reversion, which is what I warned him about, reintroduced a clearly inappropriate negative comment about me (-Barry-), which was originally added by Pudgenet, to the article. Pudgenet said that he originally included it as a joke. Scarpia never offered an excuse.

Should I have assumed good faith when Scarpia reverted to a version for which my edit summary said "Reverting Pudgenet's personal attack, vandalism, and his reversion of a useful edit"? Even if he didn't notice the paragraph with the vandalism, he should have seen it indicated by my edit summary.

This is from the official policy: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

It's a matter of opinion. Judge for yourself.

The Wikipedians with articles issue was brought to arbitration by me. I'm currently waiting for the case to be accepted. Pudgenet refused to discuss his reversions in the proper place. The links I added were clearly agreed to on the talk page of the article. The three revert rule says "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I wasn't warned about violating it because I didn't. The rule was mentioned to me because I reverted three times (not more) and I had to be careful, not because I broke the rule. -Barry- 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: -Barry- 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Simetrical
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''


 * I'm not sure whether an "alternative languages" section is necessarily useful, but offhand I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad thing. Probably there are more effective ways to convey that information, but Perl and Python (from what I understand) serve more similar purposes than, say, Perl and Javascript, or Perl and COBOL.  Someone who wanted to use one would probably be interested in considering the other as well.
 * The diff mentioned as an "external comparison link" is, in fact, an internal comparison link, a (potentially) very useful one that all programming-language articles should certainly have.
 * All languages have their critics. Adding external links critical of the language is absolutely appropriate.  They should, if reasonable, be balanced by links to support of the language, but better to have one than neither—even if it's slightly biased for a time, eventually someone should counterbalance it with the addition of supportive links, if any are available.  See also Eventualism.
 * There is no reason for a user who believes Python is better than Perl to avoid editing either article. Nor does any history of conflict elsewhere have anything to do with Wikipedia.
 * I do not find edits such as to be particularly combative.  In fact, -Barry- appears from those edit summaries to be fairly reasonable and respectful.  Stating that Python is better than Perl may have been unnecessarily provocative, given the background, but I at least view the statement as somewhat lighthearted.
 * It is absolutely reasonable for -Barry- to "want to go beyond the Perl editors" if he finds them unreasonable. Compromise is not necessarily good; sometimes (and I make no assertions about this particular case, as of now) one side is being unreasonable.  This applies even if one side greatly outnumbers the other.
 * Removal of an article from the good-article list is a judgment call, and no evidence has been provided to suggest whether or not it was an appropriate one.

On the other hand:
 * Partially reverting an edit without giving reasons for the actual reversion is not an appropriate action. ("Troll" is not a reason for why PerlMonks should or should not be described as active or a user group.)
 * Summarizing others' contributions as "diatribes" or "trolls" is unhelpful.

Based on the evidence presented, I see no fault whatsoever with -Barry-'s actions. Possibly this is due to inadequate evidence; possibly it's due to the fact that, in fact, -Barry-'s actions were essentially faultless. But my conclusion stands until further evidence is presented by one side or the other. And for the record, I have never written in either Perl or Python.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) jbolden1517Talk  23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Update as of 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I have inspected the evidence provided by User:Steve p. It has not changed my opinion of the situation significantly:


 * I believe that due to the underlying tension, the pro-Perl group that brought this RFC is generally not making sufficient effort to assume good faith when interpreting User:-Barry-'s statements. "There's a con section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Con ) that I'd have gone crazy in if I was being a troll." is a conditional, whose condition is not necessarily true.  He did not call himself a troll, he made a subjunctive hypothetical statement.  Likewise, "I need trash talk." should probably be interpreted as being a lighthearted and exaggerated way of saying "strong criticism", not "slander".
 * WP:V is irrelevant to all of User:-Barry-'s activities that it was cited for. User:-Barry- was adding external links in all of the cases cited, not references (although they were under the heading See also). External links need not be to reliable sources, provided the source is interesting or useful.  No evidence has been presented that any link added was in any way factually incorrect; even if it would be, it should still be included (with appropriate provisos) as an example of typical albeit illegitimate criticism of the language.  (See, for instance, Unicode's link to, which contains many factual inaccuracies.)
 * Quoting statements made in an IRC channel that is not publicly accessible is original research and not verifiable. If the IRC channel log was publicly available from a stable place, there's no problem with mentioning it with the qualification "according to . . .", as an interesting datapoint.  If it was not, it should have been removed entirely.  I don't know which it was.

I have also reviewed Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl, but the evidence presented there appears to be substantially identical to the evidence presented on this page, which I have already addressed point-by-point above. I have, however, reviewed the discussion in the Mediation Cabal's page, and reviewed the page history of Talk:Perl dating back to December 11, 2005. My conclusions are as follows:


 * -Barry- has violated WP:V/WP:NOR possibly once according to the evidence presented, when he added a quote from an IRC chat. He has not at any time violated WP:POINT or WP:NPOV.
 * -Barry- has been unnecessarily aggressive in his talk-page statements and edit summaries, and has repeatedly violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He has called another user a liar,  called others' contributions BS, called others biased hypocrites, and made excessive use of sarcasm. He has also made other unnecessarily provocative statements.  However, he has generally behaved reasonably in terms of advocacy of content additions.
 * -Barry- should more carefully word what he says. He has on a number of occasions made statements that could be construed without great difficulty as implying that he intends to provoke other editors, intends to sabotage the Perl article, or similarly negative things.
 * Most of the editors at Perl are supporters of Perl, as might be expected. -Barry- is a critic of Perl.  The consensus on the talk page, therefore, favored the more numerous Perl supporters.  In accordance with the normal unconscious cognitive heuristics we all use, the numerousness of the Perl supporters seems to have convinced most or all of them that they are clearly correct, which leads naturally to the view that anyone who strongly disagrees is a troll or otherwise undesirable.  This view is incorrect.  -Barry-, although in a minority, has submitted a great deal of valuable criticism over the past six months or so, some of which was illegitimately reverted by Perl supporters.
 * As a consequence of the above, based on confirmation bias, a number of Perl supporters have repeatedly cited policies that are in fact inapplicable to what -Barry- has done. Likewise, a number of Perl supporters have repeatedly construed ambiguous statements by -Barry- in an unnecessarily unfavorable light.
 * User:Harmil has engaged in incivility and personal attacks against -Barry-, and has failed to assume good faith. He has called links he added "diatribes",, called an edit summary of his a "troll", accused him of adding bias (deliberately, it would seem) to the article, accused him without presenting evidence of deliberately inserting false material, and called him a vandal.  He has, however, sometimes acted civilly and reasonably as well, and did repeatedly attempt to reach compromises.
 * User:Imroy appears to have been respectful and reasonable in his dealings with -Barry-, although sometimes quite critical, and at least once losing his temper to some degree.
 * User:Pudgenet has repeatedly violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF with respect to -Barry-, including calling a suggestion of his "stupid", saying what he was doing is "bullshit" and threatening to mass-revert his edits without specific reason, calling him and his contributions "useless", implying that -Barry-'s opinions are worthless, and calling him a troll. He has suggested that WP:AGF is inapplicable (in fact "bullshit"), suggested that it's unnecessary for anyone to provide evidence against -Barry- because that would serve his purpose,  and suggested that if anyone supports -Barry- he must either not have looked at the evidence or be acting dishonestly.
 * User:Scarpia has been excessively hostile to -Barry-, including calling him unreasonable, obsessed with the destruction of Perl, and acting in bad faith.

This is my conclusion. I view -Barry- as being guilty of personal attacks and incivility to a substantial degree, but far less than Pudgenet; furthermore, I view most of -Barry-'s edits to the Perl article as constructive, and most of the reversions of his edits as destructive.

If this RFC has not settled the matter within a week or so, which I'm sure it won't have, I would suggest to all the involved parties that they bring the case to arbitration. This appears to be a case where good-faith attempts at discussion, mediation, and outside comment have been tried and failed, and so falls within the ArbCom's purview.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Update as of 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Pudgenet added, without explanation, a borderline personal attack against -Barry- into article space, of all places. He could not possibly have failed to know that this was unacceptable; therefore, this constitutes vandalism.
 * -Barry- might have been better served by asking an entirely unrelated third party (not, e.g., me) whether he thought the vandalism notice was appropriate or not. It's best to avoid taking any kind of action against someone you're in a dispute with.
 * -Barry- did not violate the three-revert rule, since he made only three reverts within 24 hours and no more. However, he should not have revert-warred in any case; 3RR is an upper bound, not the only limit on revert-warring.  If the suitability of a section is disputed, it should be brought to the talk page.
 * Additional content should not be added to a dispute summary in an RFC that's already been endorsed by someone. It makes it look as though they agree to it when they don't necessarily.  In this case they probably all would agree, however, so I won't nitpick.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by jbolden1517 (mediation cabal)
I am the mediator for the case cited Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl. I started mediation a few days ago. So we have the following timeline:
 * 5/23 User:Revragnarok request the mediation cabal intervene
 * 5/26 User:Harmil put this RFC out
 * 5/27 I took the case and started the mediation process.

The mediation process has been fairly active. 3 people have primarily participated. User:-Barry- himself, Scapia and User:Steve p. The original filler User:Revragnarok was busy memorial day weekend, and Harmil the filler of this RFC has refused to be involved and further reverted a change that was partially mediated. On the other hand he may believe that Barry has rejected mediation.

The Perl talk page has gotten very inflamed, I think, as a result of personal attacks and edit warring. People are reacting to one another and not really to the presented issues. The talk pages are full of extreme posturing, however the article itself is reasonable. People are jumping to conclusions about what others are saying to the extent that its very difficult to even follow the conversations. I've found all the participants to be more argumentative than normal and many of the ones that didin't participate consider any attempt at resolution a waste of time.

It is entirely possible that removing Barry would allow peace to prevail and normalcy to return. The other people all seem to get along and are able to be rational in discussions with one another. However Barry's complaint (that the participants are pro Perl POV pushing) is fundamentally true. I would say they actively tend to present material about Perl in the most favorable light possible while at the same time being accurate; that is the article has a sympathetic point of view / apologist point of view. Certain types of evidence are given undue weight and other evidence is under-weighted. I'm not sure that the Perl editors realize the levels of biases and I think authors from other language communities could substantially improve this already very good article. I simply can't determine yet if the attitude towards Barry is being reflected in their attitude towards his critiques or if they critiques generated the hostility to Barry (a chicken and egg problem).

Looking solely at the mediation Barry has been the most reasonable participant. That however shouldn't be overweighed as Barry has the most to gain from the mediation. However for the RFC to hold I would need to see an unwillingness to compromise which has not been the case Barry has compromised on several small issues already (placement of a quote, form of another piece of information, willingness to footnote something rather then include it in body text...). For this reason I can't support a disciplinary RFC at this time. I certainly believe dispute resolution is needed but I don't see evidence of actual deliberate misconduct on either side.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) jbolden1517Talk  23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Ideogram
I encountered this dispute after reading a note left by Steve p on the WikiProject Programming languages page requesting "a fresh set of eyes." I have done some Perl programming but no Python programming.

I feel that Barry has been uncivil but has done nothing else objectively wrong. I do agree with the Perl editors that many of his suggested edits are ill-founded, and I can see how Barry being stubborn on those issues can be frustrating.

Fundamentally progress towards a compromise is now impossible due to all sides failing to assume good faith. I don't know what the solution is, but I do not think Barry is solely to blame.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ideogram 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close
I don't know exactly how and when RFCs should be closed, but this discussion is clearly stale, and the case has been heard by Arbcom, resulting in probation and a topical ban on editing Perl related articles. Move to close.


 * 1) Thatcher131 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Steve p 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Christopher Thomas 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

RFCs are generally not closed, they're just delisted. I've done so now for this case, since it's certainly gotten to be pretty much irrelevant. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I had in mind. I looked at other cases and didn't see any "close/archive' divs like AfDs etc.  Thanks. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.