Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Proposed decision

message: I am totally neutral in this case, but I believe the same possible mistake that I flagged in the Workshop area is repeated here. In this section on this Project page it is again stated that the edit that Barry relied on to make the Vandalism allegation was this one, whereas it was in fact the combination of these  edits (the first of which is clear vandalism, the second immediately subsequent one has a rude personal attack in the edit summary), as can be easily seen from the History section of the article. This was correctly reverted and labeled  here by Barry. Also, the History timestamps of the Pudgenet Talk page clearly show that Barry placed his Vandalism warning template there shortly after the vandalism edits by Pudgenet. Again, I have no ax to grind in this case; for all I know, Barry may have his own failings to answer to, but this specific case, calling and reverting an act of vandalism when it is clearly so, and inserting a template to that effect in the vandal's Talk page, is not one of them. Crum375 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct me if I am wrong. I put my original comments exactly as you suggest in the "comments by other parties" section of the project page of the Workshop area. Now I see the same mistake I am trying to highlight propagated to the Proposed Decision area, where there is no "Comments by other parties" section that I can find. Again, if I am missing something, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I am quoting from the Project page of this Proposed Decision area: "For all items: Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.". Crum375 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have read your comment more carefully. Never mind, thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Crum375.  The second Blatantvandal template was pretty inappropriate, but the first was in response to this, which was in fact blatant vandalism.  Could we have an arbitrator comment on this? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: if Pudgenet was accidentally reverting to a vandalized revision, possibly it wasn't actually vandalism, but -Barry-'s was then a reasonable mistake to make, at the least.  Saying that -Barry- assumed bad faith might be accurate, but given the context, I have to sympathize with his assumption that Pudgenet was aware of what he was reverting to.  His vandalism warnings still may not have been the best response, and perhaps he should be held accountable for them, but whatever is decided, it should be made clear that -Barry-'s actions were in response to apparent vandalism by Pudgenet. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scarpia is the one who reverted to the vandalized paragraph that Pudgenet added. My actions were in response to apparent vandalism by Scarpia, and previously to clearer vandalism by Pudgenet. -Barry- 21:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, you're correct: Scarpia's reversion.  So yes,  was clearly not an inappropriate accusation of vandalism, even if it may not have been the best thing to do. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have apologized, as I did with a similar misunderstanding, if Scarpia said he didn't notice the vandalism that he put back. -Barry- 20:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism allegation by Barry