Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence

Durin: I don't want to make this an issue on the evidence page because my evidence is long enough and I'd prefer to leave some room in case I have more to say about Pudgenet, but I see that you're putting some blame on me regarding edit warring so I'll deal with it here.

I sought your advice here, where I asked "Now, how do I go about reinserting the Brian D Foy entry without getting you mad at me?" but you never responded. I was forced to use my own judgement. I thought I had good reason to believe that Pudgenet was reverting my edits improperly, which arguably was vandalism, and I used that as my basis for reverting him. I even changed my wording based on his edit summary complaints in an attempt to please him. I also took it to the talk page to see what others had to say and changed my edits according to the desires of others (Rob).

I admit to paying little attention to the frequency of my reversions, but I was never warned after your first warning (in which you admitted that I hadn't violated the 3 revert rule), and it seemed obvious to me that I was doing the right thing. Your frustration with Pudgenet is understandable, but I think you should have responded to me when I asked how to go about reinserting the edit that Pudgenet reverted, which I actually think you should have reinserted when you gave Pudgenet the second, stronger warning for reverting it.

In your statement, you say "Both parties have been deserving of blocks regarding the revert war." I disagree, and I don't see evidence that I deserved being blocked. -Barry- 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the RFAR/Pudgenet page and so I feel this discussion doesn't belong here. Ideogram 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here it says "All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute," so I figured I should defend myself somewhere. -Barry- 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no authority and I'm not going to argue with you. Ideogram 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, this should have gone here on the talk page, sorry:

Ideogram wrote in "Failure to comply with civil requests":
 * Clearly the nightmare will never end.

Kindly tone down the melodrama. (How's that for a civil request?) — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I should talk to you either. Ideogram 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* If you wish. I'm just not of the opinion that that kind of language is productive. Thanks for demonstrating your response to criticism. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move."
The evidence page says "If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move." Just a reminder. -Barry- 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)