Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pudgenet (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 20 June 2006 (→Your RfAr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Write stuff here about how Pudge totally rules.

See User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk if you care. I don't.

Special rights

The page on special rights is under my mediation, something you have clearly indicated you won't tolerate. You were not part of that page prior to my involvement. You have not been involved in that issue prior to my involvement. Any involvement by you on that page would constitute Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking. You are not invited to participate in that page and if you continue to do so I will add wikistalking to the charges before the arb committee and ask for a ban during the trial. jbolden1517 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Um. Wow. You're completely losing it.

I edited your page, so it got added to my watchlist. I saw in your edit summary something about "special rights," which is a topic I am interested in (having just posted recently about it on my journal). So I went to the page, noticed some problems, and commented on them.

This is not "stalking." I said nothing about you or the mediation process. I am not participating in your mediation. Since when does that mean I cannot discuss on the talk page? The mediation is taking place elsewhere. I do not have to be "invited" to participate on the discussion page, it is my right to participate there, and after I finish this edit, I will revert your inappropriate and unwarranted removal of my edit.

Your insane conduct here is not helping your "case" against me. Pudge 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Pudgenet, Jbolden1517 has a legitimate basis on which to feel that you are stalking him. In your entire history of editing Misplaced Pages, you've never edited Special rights before now. Whether his claim is true or not, it would be highly advisable for you to not participate in pages which Jbolden1517 is mediating, as it will most likely serve to fan the flames.
• Also, I'm going to caution you one last time regarding civility. Referring to Jbolden1517 as "insane" is clearly not in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. If I see evidence of similar behavior, I will temporarily block you from further editing. --Durin 19:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, deleting his talk page comments is inappropriate as long as they are on point. Pudgenet is not challenging, arguing with, or even talking to Jbolden1517. Were he doing so, Jbolden might conceivably have some grounds for asking a third party to do something about the alleged stalking. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusing Pudge of "stalking" him seems a completely loony thing for Jbolden1517 to have said. Pudge clearly has an interest in the topic and is entitled to edit the article. Just because Jbolden1517 is "mediating" it, does that mean he is allowed to blanket ban people he dislikes from editing it (or even just the discussion page rather than the page itself)? Of course not.

Aside: Speaking as someone who has never actually heard the term "special rights" before, I just went to look at the article. There is no indication anywhere on the talk page that Jbolden1517 is doing anything with it. This is most unhelpful. Suppose I get on his shitlist, but edit the talk page for something else that he is apparently "mediating", without seeing any warning that he is doing so. Does that make me a stalker?

Anyway, as if Jbolden1517's accusation wasn't bad enough, he put his comments on Pudge's user page! When on Earth did you ever see someone do that? What kind of mediator violates the convention of talk pages, for God's sake? I am honestly astonished. I will be investigating tomorrow what the method is that I have to use to bring a complaint against him.

Jbolden1517's responses to this situation are visibly degrading on a daily basis. Sane is defined as "acting rationally"; Jbolden1517's actions in this respect are not rational, and stand as testimony to his gross inability as a mediator. I stand fully behind Pudge's comments. -- Earle Martin 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Assuming you are "pudge" on IRC, please check IRC. I'd like to chat with you. --Durin 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your RfAr

Pudgenet,

Respectfully; the arbitration has already been accepted. You've made a number of attempts to claim the arbitration was brought improperly and is lacking in evidence, and now of late have asked that it be summarily dismissed. The arbitration has been accepted by ArbCom. It's rather past the point of it being rejected. --Durin 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, three of the arbitrators who accepted it did so before they knew that, in fact, mediation had not yet been even attempted in the dispute in question, contrary to Barry's claim to the contrary. Pudge 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing ... while they did accept it, they did not accept any content dispute involving Perl. It's completely amazing to me that Barry keeps asserting that they should resolve some dispute in which the people actually involved -- and I am not one of them -- were not even notified. Pudge 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you lack experience of how RfArs are conducted. I wanted to talk with you on IRC regarding this, and perhaps help you to understand it better. --Durin 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

... and? Pudge 03:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, really ... was there something else? I am not sure why you added this comment; if it was to provide information to me, what information is that? If it was to encourage me to chat with you on IRC, I've been on there, and waiting, and continue to wait. Pudge 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The opportunity to chat with you on IRC is not going to present itself any time in the immediate future. I would encourage you to gain more experience in Misplaced Pages arbitration. It is not a court case, though that analogy is often used (and has been used on your RfAr). For example, if someone brings a charge of a robbery against you it doesn't mean they can't bring up arson charges too. Additionally, you are not the "defense" and others the "prosecution". You are not limited by those constraints to bring other evidence to bear and bring up other closely related points of dispute. I would caution you that the RfAr is not the place for debate. Point by point constant rebuttals of everything that other people say is generally counter productive. Present your evidence. Be clear. Be concise. Keep in mind that the people who will be reading this and making decisions on this have no role in the dispute. They are unfamiliar with it. To ask them to read voluminous materials is unlikely to lead to beneficial solutions. --Durin 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A little surprised to see your name on Misplaced Pages for the first time, and involved in an RFAr case. And not about politics. :) Anything I can do to help? Anything I can do to elevate your impression of Misplaced Pages admins in general? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, this is not considered vandalism. However, it's entirely likely that what he was "warning" you about wasn't vandalism, either. One of the most common problems around here is folks trying to cast a content dispute as "vandalism." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not care less what you call it; it was inappropriate. I was removing what consensus dictated was inapprorpiate edits by Barry. This is not vandalism, and he accused me of vandalism by childishly adding a warning to my page. Whatever you want to call it, it was inappropriate. Pudge 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)