Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/-Barry-

First time

This is my first RFC against a user. Please, let me know if I've done anything wrong. Thanks. -Harmil 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to take to time to read the entire thing right now, but I was Wassercrats on Perlmonks, not Wassercrat, who was someone different who's username was blocked by monks who knew he was an imposter (I think it's still indicated on his home node). I left voluntarily.

I'm pretty sure I'll have something else to say about this, especially considering how this rfc was described on the mediation page, but not right now. -Barry- 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Wassercrat was a sock puppet set up to look like Wassercrats for trolling. Once discovered, the sock puppet was banned. Steve p 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A sock puppet, meaning me? I don't suppose you have anything to back that up. Wassercrat was investigated, and I'm sure his IP was checked. See the comment that the Perlmonk "gods" left on the home node of Wassercrat. It says "This account has been disabled. It is not owned by Wassercrats. Imposing as another monk is frowned upon by the gods."

But thanks for lying. It will only make you look worse. -Barry- 18:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see 'Steve p' claiming it was you in any way when I read "set up to look like". -- RevRagnarok 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't sound like he meant me the first time I read it, but "sock puppet" stood out the second time and it looked like he meant me. Sorry if I was mistaken. But I wonder what Harmil's excuse was for saying "User:-Barry- is also known as wassercrat (and possibly wassercrats) on the Perl Mongers site" on the original project page. -Barry- 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough that the Wassercrat sock puppet was not you, but please assume good faith. I was confirming what you were saying. Steve p 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering you knew about the name being associated with a banned sock puppet and didn't correct it yourself, and that you're trying to hold my reporting of libel against me [1], and that you actually used the libel about Tiobe as a barganing chip [2] rather than remove it, not only don't you have respect for Wikipedia, but you have no respect for the law. -Barry- 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Threatening people is not cool.

Let's get the timeline of events correct here.

1. I make a compromise offer [3]
2. You decline by saying the TIOBE data should stay [4]
3. You indicate a desire to contact TIOBE indicating that you will direct them to WP:LIBEL unless a disclaimer regarding TIOBE should be removed. That comes after the compromise offer that would have removed it.

I didn't make it a bargaining chip -Barry-, please try to assume good faith. Also, I believe my previous comment in this section makes it clear that you had nothing to do with the Wassercrat sock puppet on Perlmonks. Steve p 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem here?

The fact of the matter is that Perl has been disrupted. Editing that page is now quite difficult, due to the constant reversions, and User:-Barry- has removed the page from the list of Good Articles as a result of his own reversion wars and attempts to insert anti-Perl bias on the page. This user has, furthermore, brought his long-standing disputes with Perl from other Web sites without contributing anything to the quality of the article.

I'm not sure I understand how this is not a problem.

Further, since some of the recent commentary was directed at me, I'd just like to say that I take exception to the claim that my reversion was uncalled for on the edit that I refered to as a "troll". When an editor leaves an edit summary like, "Python is better than Perl, you know," how else is it supposed to be interpreted? Clearly, that's an expression of tremendous bias; and is aimed at a Perl article, so it is clearly a troll. I'm not seeing any way in which this edit (even if it was to insert a comma) would be considered anything but an attempt to start an argument with other editors of the page, and that's not what Wikipedia is for.

Fundamentally, the dispute here is between the editors of Perl, who want to have an excellent Wikipedia article for the language, and User:-Barry- who wants to see an article that explains his POV regarding the language. -Harmil 17:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's go over this point by point.

1. That Perl has been disrupted says nothing by itself. Disrupting a bad article by trying to improve it against the will of others is good.
2. That -Barry- reverts says nothing by itself. Reverting bad edits is good.
3. That -Barry- removed Good Article status says nothing by itself. Removing Good Article status from a bad article is good.

Let's stop there for the moment. The problem is, you have presented no evidence to show that -Barry- has done anything bad. You say he disrupted the article, but don't give diffs to show that his disruption was bad. You say that he reverted others' edits, but don't give diffs that show that the reversions were bad, or for that matter that they even existed. You say he removed Good Article status, but don't provide evidence as to why the article deserved that status at the time.

In short, you don't substantiate your assertions of misbehavior, at all. What you need to do is spend an hour or so going over user contribs and page histories, finding bad things that -Barry- has done, and posting them for inspection. Just saying he's done bad things isn't enough, and not everyone is going to want to go over huge page histories themselves. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. So much nonsense. Barry is a troll who just wants to make Perl look bad. Consensus is unanimously against him. Perl editors should just revert his bad edits -- that is, almost all of his edits -- and move on. And Simetrical, I hope you realize that spending the time going through the histories to show him to be in violation is precisely what he wants. He wants to use his time to make us waste ours. That is his whole point. And don't give me bullshit about assuming good faith, because assumptions like that are reserved for where there is no direct knowledge of a lack of good faith. The bottom line is that he continually goes against consensus, as is perfectly clear from the evidence, and to say you find no fault given this fact shows you either haven't looked, or you are being dishonest. As I will assume good faith with you, I assume it is the former, not the latter.

And perhaps even worse than going against consensus is his pathological behavior of always taking the argument elsewhere when he loses it. So from PerlMonks, he comes here. When he loses in Perl he goes on to smear editors he has disputes with in Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles, and takes his completely unreasonable "popularity" nonsense -- and by completely unreasonable, I mean only that none of it is warranted by actual facts, but claims it is -- to other pages, like Comparison of programming languages, in the hopes that he will "win" over there. And when he doesn't get his way, he asks for arbitration to override unanimous consensus. He is a perpetual timesink, and you're just feeding it. Pudge 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Harmil did exactly what Simetrical is asking for here. -- RevRagnarok 11:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

good faith, civility, consensus

I am not expert in Perl so I can only comment on the tone of the debate.

In an ideal world we would be able to assume good faith on the part of all participants. It seems that assumption has broken down here. Clearly Barry has violated Wikipedia norms of civility, but then so have his opponents.

As for consensus, consensus "except for one person" is not consensus. As a Perl outsider I would value very much what an avowed critic of Perl has to say. Having been on the "majority" side of a "consensus" before I now recognize that NPOV can only come from accomodating differences of opinion.

If you cannot assume good faith and stay civil, and Barry leaves as a result, your article will suffer for it. Again, my preliminary observation is that Barry's primary sin is being uncivil; having an unwelcome perspective is not a sin. Ideogram 01:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has been mentioned several times from both points of view, but I don't think Wp:consensus was ever mentioned. Maybe that's because it doesn't really resolve the issue, but people should know about that page. -Barry- 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First, Ideogram, there was consensus. You seem to be implying that one person disagreeing means there is no consensus, and that is false. Second, none of this has anything to do with keeping an "avowed critic of Perl" out. It has to do with keeping useless information off the page. No matter what Simetrical thinks, the two articles Barry kept adding were useless. They were filled with objectively false and misleading information. The TIOBE "popularity" data is inherently flawed on two counts: the data collection methodology is useless, and even if it were perfect, the data itself shows no correlation to popularity. And so on. If Barry were going to add reasonable information and abide by consensus, there'd be no issue here. None of the other Perl editors are afraid of negative information about Perl, as long as it's accurate or otherwise reasonable. Quoting a Perl author out of context saying a module "sux" isn't.

I do not agree with you that "having an unwelcome perspective is not a sin," because it is: however, the only unwelcome perspective is one that seeks to include inaccurate or otherwise unreasonable information. Negative but reasonable information is not at all unwelcome. Pudge 07:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you that the specific case of TIOBE data is not acceptable. But that doesn't excuse your behavior. Given what I've seen from you I hesitate to even talk to you. Ideogram 07:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the record I can see that numerous compromise offers were made and Barry rejected all of them. This does tend to weaken his position. But it still doesn't excuse your lack of civility. Ideogram 07:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the specific edits that Barry is insisting on are ill-founded. The lack of good faith and civility only serves to muddy the waters. But mediators are not supposed to take a stand on the issues; they can only rule on matters of procedure. From that perspective, both sides look bad, with Barry actually looking a little better.

I don't (yet) understand Wikipedia norms, but it does seem to me that Barry has done nothing objectively wrong (other than being uncivil). Refusing to compromise is not an actionable offense. The fact that all the editors agree against him is not relevant. Truth is not determined by democracy.

If this case goes to arbitration I don't expect the arbitrators will rule on the basis of whether the edits are acceptable or not. They are also likely to rule on the basis of procedure. Don't be surprised if they rule against you. You can blame Barry all you want, but if the two sides can't reach a compromise everyone loses. Ideogram 08:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done then if one side digs in and says "No compromise unless all my edits must go in" even when independent editors have said that they are not "acceptable references"? Steve p 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What would normally happen would be the dispute resolution process. There are 3 primary processes on wikipedia for resolving issues of subject matter

1. The mediation process where a mediator tries to determine is there is any solution acceptable to both sides
2. The RFC process (on subject matter) where other people from the community have experience in similar situations are called in
3. The verifiability process where both sides are asked to produce high quality references for what they are arguing

In terms of Perl the important thing that was being forgotten was that the standard on wikipedia is verifiability not truth (called wiki's razor). A high quality well respected source saying something "false" outweighs a low quality source saying something "true". I think a great deal of the problems that were faced by the Perl group was that there was a great deal of expertise so people were focused on what is true not what is verifiable. So shifting the consciousness from true to verifiable might solve the problem.

In terms of the RFC process I tend to doubt that would have worked in this case. Most of the issues were fairly specific and unlikely to generate interest. The one exception would have been the idea of moving from a pros/cons to an opinion section as that could have generated generally commentary.

Finally there was mediation process which was a great fit for this case. Generally what happens is the more popular side enthusiastically joins the mediation and gives the mediator moral authority. The less popular side is able to hear from the mediator things they aren't able to hear from their opponents since they don't distrust the mediators motives. As a result opinions often do change.

Lets take an example of the Randal quote. Here we have a quote which is absolutely from a high quality source. It further is reasonably verifiable (even Randal admits he said it). On the other hand it was an off the record comment and now Randal has disowned the contents of the quote. Most people will agree that a quote that reads "A said B off the record in a moment of pique, however C actually reflects their real view as shown in sources D and E" is fairly stupid and would rather go with something like "A asserted C in D and E". Coming from the other side this seems tortured coming from someone sympathetic to their point of view this seems reasonable.

jbolden1517^Talk 13:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the quote has nothing to do with the technical merits of Perl. Items should be added when it adds to the relevant content. A may have asserted C in D and E, but if it isn't relevant to a discussion of the Perl programming language, its implementation, and its syntax, then its addition is unneccesary. Randal's quote is off the record, he requested it be removed, and he doesn't mention that O'Reilly Media has criticisms of Perl as a language. Perl the product for OSCON, maybe. Perl the community, probably not as the organizers are still involved in the Perl community.

The editors of Perl want to see the article improved. -Barry- has made improvemnents, including good additions to the criticism. I believe he can make more, and I believe we all can make more improvements to the article if we stick to the topic of the article. Perhaps Randal's quote would be appropriate in the article Feelings about Perl, but, despite your arguments, it is not relevant or appropriate for the article about the Perl programming language.

That said, jbolden1517, do you believe that Randal's quotes involve a criticism of Perl, the programming language, implementation, syntax, or other technical merit? Steve p 14:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[Outdenting] I think you may want to reread what I wrote. You are responding the opposite position of the one I advocated. As for the Perl article I think it most certainly should deal with more than Perl as a technical entity. It also exists as a business entity (where popularity makes a huge difference), a cultural entity (where influence on other languages makes a large difference), an experimental entity where it has acted as an interesting test case for many ideas in computer science, etc... Further in a general purpose encyclopedia article I would argue those interests are more important tan things like implementation (which is very specific to a particular point in time) or syntax (which is mainly of general interest in so far as it influenced other languages).

Great, so now I guess I need to look for all of the compromise offers I've made that others turned down and mention them in the RfC.

Ideogram wrote: "I don't expect the arbitrators will rule on the basis of whether the edits are acceptable or not. They are also likely to rule on the basis of procedure."

First of all, I didn't submit a case about Perl to ArbCom. The case I submitted was about Wikipedians with articles, and I added some things that make Pudgenet look bad to help support the case and so maybe Pudgenet will get whatever punishment or warnings he deserves and hasn't yet received. After I gave him the second blatant warning, I brought it to the attention of administrators, but only one seemed to notice the first warning (about vandalizing the article by inserting stuff about me). Maybe there should be a rule that prevents someone from removing a final warning too soon, to help prevent administrators from missing it. Durin is the administrator who got involved, but he seemed to have missed that first, more serious offense. Maybe the arbitrators will realize that Pudgenet was never punished for that.

Others joined in on the RfA and changed the focus a little, so the case may end up being about the Perl article. I intend to briefly mention or point to some key Perl issues when the evidence page is created, in hope that ArbCom is willing to address them, but I didn't intend for that to be the focus.

Also, see this:

There are two very important things to realize about the Arbitration Committee and its members:

1. They do not have much time, and

2. They care much more about product than process.

According to number 2, it sounds like they'll have article quality in mind more than what procedure was followed (or maybe what procedure they follow?). My argument about Wikipedians with articles involves a decision that was already made by the editors, which Pudgenet not only didn't go along with, but I don't think he offered any direct arguments for or against it in the proper places (I think he just used the talk page to attack me for various things at the time), and it sounds like he's purposely misrepresenting what was decided on the talk page. So in this case, the arbitrators might uphold what I think is the clear decision agreed to on the talk page, rather than make their own content decision.

With the Perl issues, things are a little different. Most editors I'm in dispute with joined in the discussion in the proper place. Also, since there are so many issues, is it reasonable to expect the editors to admit that in every case I was right, even if we discuss each issue and it's apparent that I am right? In the mediation, it looked like the compromises that the mediator suggested were agreed to. I waited a while before editing the article just to make sure there were no objections. There weren't. But as time went on, I think the editors thought of the compromise as me winning. Then Scarpia ignored the mediation and starting reverting what was agreed to. Then the other editors wouldn't discuss some of the mediator's or my compromise offers (or even the related issues). This was all expected. That's why I wanted to go straight into an arbitration-like procedure. Finally, it may be happening. -Barry- 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)