Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 31 May 2006

Statement of the dispute

Per Misplaced Pages: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:

1. -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.
2. -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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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:

1. -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.
2. -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.)

1. Edit summaries became slightly combattive:
2. First mention of Python
3. Attempt to push Python as "alternative" to Perl:
4. Addition of external anti-Perl diatribes:
5. Edit summary explicitly stating POV:
6. Dispute ensued on talk page: , ,
7. Many editors disputed edits as POV or otherwise unhelpful: , , , , and so on.
8. He removed Perl from the Good Articles list:
9. 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.
10. User has stated elsewhere "There's a con section ( http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
11. User makes his first change to the Perl#Con section. It is reverted the same day by RandalSchwartz for being factually incorrect. It is also a self published source.
12. User also was looking for quotes from RandalSchwartz for the Perl#Con section. The user stated that "I need trash talk." for the Perl#Con.
13. User adds another self published source. It was reverted and restored several times , , , , ,
14. 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. ,
15. User yet another self published source. The author of the blog cited claimed to be drunk while writing it. It was reverted here.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:POINT - User is explicitly disrupting Misplaced Pages 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.
2. WP:V#Self-published_sources - 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.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl - invitation to participate:
6. Compromise attempt 1:
7. Compromise attempt 2:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Harmil 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Imroy 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Steve p 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Scarpia 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Pudge 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
6. RevRagnarok 11:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Christopher Thomas 23:46, 30 May 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.}

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 accidently 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)

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 m: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 Misplaced Pages.
• 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. jbolden1517 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by jbolden1517 (mediation cabal)

I am the mediator for the case cited Misplaced Pages: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. jbolden1517 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.