User talk:Pudgenet

Ignoring revert warring request

Despite my request, you continued to revert war performing a revert [1] that was identical to a revert you performed just a ~eight hours before [2]. 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 Wikipedia: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 [3] [4] (see edit summary) are entirely unhelpful. Further, assertions of article protection against someone [5] [6] 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 [7] [8]. 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 Wikipedia: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 [9], 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 [10] is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia: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)