Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

As a result of the arbitration case, Pigonthewing was subject to the following limitations:

• Probation: "He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts."
• "limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator."

Enforcement is "blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he edit any page from which he has been banned or excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year."

His response to this was: "I shall treat that with the utter contempt that it deserves." [1]

True to his word, that same morning he:

• Edit warred on Longbridge over the presence of a photograph: [2], [3],[4]
• Edit warred on Jeremy Clarkson over a "npov-section" tag: [5], [6], [7]

He was blocked for forty-eight hours because of this.

Looking at the history of Jeremy Clarkson, it seemed to methat this is a continuation of a long-running edit war in which he was involved.

He had also previously removed the picture from Longbridge in October, and it was recently restored by Leonig Mig, who did not engage in the subsequent edit war.

He is banned from editing Jeremy Clarkson or Longbridge until 0001 UTC, 13 January, 2006.

If he edits either article before then, the enforcement clause will apply. He may be blocked for up to one week. After five such blocks (one has already been executed, so he has four left) the maximum period of the block rises to one year.

He can still perform non-disruptive edits on the talk pages of both articles.

Ban issued by User:Tony Sidaway in order to curb the disruption.

I suggest that a strategy for administrators to deal with any further serious disruption in future would be to add any other seriously disrupted articles to this ban and reset the one-month ban to run from the current date. This would reduce the likelihood of there being a round-robin disruption, with edit wars erupting anew as the bans conclude, should Andy Mabbett fail to curb his disruptive editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have banned Andy from editing the Admin noticeboard for unnecessary troublestirring. This ban is to last for a period of one week. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is good.

It's far too general. Andy Mabbett hasn't edited WP:AN since December 1, and he has not edited WP:AN/3RR since November 16. Significantly, on the latter occasion he pointed out, correctly that he had removed additions from his own user talk page that he considered to be abuse.

I'd support this ban insofar as it involves any attempts to stir up trouble. What I've seen of Andy Mabbett's recent edits on WP:AN/I suggests that he's trying to do that, and he has been blocked for twenty-four hours for that. On a repetition, I'd support such a ban. Meanwhile I think that we can assume that WP:AN and its subpages are choc-full of admins and a ban would be unnecessary at this stage.

I am prepared to enforce my opinion by unblocking, but probably would not do so if I didn't see Andy Mabbett making substantive attempts to edit Wikipedia. Sadly all I've seen from Andy lately in article space is a bit of edit warring on Tardebigge. Brown alert. Bad stuff. Andy, you have to get out there and do some good edits. Then we might think you're worth it. This isn't the place to pursue a vendetta. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Pigsonthewing be banned from editing Karmafists User page, Talk page, and all subpages, and that this ban be concurrent with the current bans on Jeremy Clarkson and Longbridge . Pigsonthewing and Karmafist have a longstanding conflict, and I believe Pigsonthewing has continued to harass Karmafist, despite Karmafist leaving Andy alone, for the most part. These two basically need to keep away from each other. I cite the following edits in support of this ban: [8], [9], [10], and [11].

Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett should feel able to address legitimate concerns. He may edit my user talk page without let or hindrance, short of vandalism, defamation or copyright infringement. I may archive such contributions, in which case they will be available in full at User talk:Tony Sidaway/Pigsonthewing, subject only to removal of obviously illegal content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if this ban is enacted, he would still have every single other user on Wikipedia but Karmafist to address concerns with, if he feels the need. I simply feel that he needs to stay off Karmafist's space, but I want to get consensus. I don't know from your edit if you support this ban or no, can you clarify please? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with your reasoning. I'm just expressing concern that Andy Mabbett, havin been banned from editing admin pages for bringing up cases that many of us find too frivolous to consider, should know that he's still welcome to propagate legitimate concerns. I agree with the principle of separating Karmafist from Andy Mabbett, and vice versa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Its clear to me they don't get on, and I feel this will help others get on with building the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(to Evilphoenix - edit conflict) And if Karmafist continued to make negative comments about Andy on his talk page? Or your talk page? Or my talk page? Or the 'questions' page for his Arbitration run? Et cetera. Does Andy get blocked from every page where Karmafist says bad things about him to prevent those 'disruptive' "Cease making personal attacks" comments? I cannot agree with the assessment that 'Karmafist has left Andy alone'. Note that all four of the instances of 'harassment' by Pigsonthewing you cite above are complaints about negative comments Karmafist had just made about him. How is that 'Karmafist leaving him alone'?

There also continues to be an imbalance in treatment when Pigsonthewing (who was actually not placed under a 'personal attack ban') is blocked for this 'personal attack' (though fortunately the block was soon withdrawn), but Karmafist (who was under a 'personal attack ban') is not blocked for this or this. Now, definitions of 'personal attacks' are certainly subjective, but I think it's clear that Karmafist's two 'not personal attacks' were at least as negative (and 'personal') as Andy's 'personal attack'. I don't think any of them were heinous insults worthy of a block... but enforcement is clearly not equal here and Karmafist cannot claim clean hands.

I fully support keeping them apart, but make it both ways. Heck, just ban them from even mentioning each other. It might cost Karmafist a "valuable campaign tool", but I don't think that was really appropriate in the first place. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between saying negative things and a personal attack. Subtle, but different. I say negative things about Andy with unfortunate regularity, because I see negative things in his actions. Andy basically calls everything said negatively about him a personal attack, and the truth is for the most part he is the only one to see certain comments that way. I really don't care if Karmafist says negative things about Andy on his Talk page. I really don't care if Andy says negative things about Karmafist on his Talk page. I care that Karmafist doesn't edit Andy's userspace, and vice versa. I care if Karmafist makes a personal attack against Andy, and vice versa. He needs to leave Karmafist's space alone, and Karmafist needs to leave his space alone. That's the main thing I'm looking for with this ban, is to block them from each others user spaces. Karmafist isn't on Probation, so nothing official can be enforced against him editing Andy's space, but I don't think he has been editing in Andy's user space. I'm not really observing Andy's Talk page anymore, his removing of comments by me and other Administrators demonstrates bad faith towards discussion with him there, so I'm not going to post somewhere where he will be indulged to remove what I or anyone else says. Andy's said some pretty negative things about a lot of people on his Talk page himself. However, I don't think the first link you posted was a personal attack, the the removal of the block (which was removed, as you pointed out) was justified. Karmafist is not under any personal attack injuction, both of the edits you cite occured after the closing of the RfAr, which also expired the personal attack injunction against both of them. In the first edit by Karmafist that you cite, he says that Andy is thick headed and does not work well with others. Frankly, even if it is a personal attack, it's also the unvarnished truth. Do you dispute it? In the second instance you cite, Karmafist claimed Andy was stalking him. I consider what Andy is doing to be stalking, so I have to agree with that assertion. He further continues to assert that most of Andy's edits after the RfAr were harrasing him, "complaining on the Admin Boards, and causing revert wars at places like Jeremy Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)". Do you dispute the truth of that statement? He further comments that he feels that Andy's negative contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the positive. That is a statement of opinion, and it is a criticism. If you consider Karmafists comment in that edit to be a personal attack, then I respect that opinion, but I have to say, Karmafists's opinion is one that I completely agree with. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the statement, "Karmafist is not under any personal attack injunction", I believe you are mistaken. As to the rest... making frequent 'negative statements' about someone, even if these do not rise to the level of 'personal attacks', is IMO a form of harassment. It is certainly not 'leaving them alone'. That Andy's bland 'cease making personal attacks' comments are taken as 'harassment' and 'stalking' but the numerous denigrations prompting them are not is insupportable in my opinion. Can you show me several instances where Andy has gone to pages that Karmafist is editing and reverted his changes despite previously being uninvolved there? Can you show me several instances where Andy has made clearly false (not just subjectively over whether or not something is an 'attack' or 'lie', but outright plainly untrue) accusations against Karmafist? Repeated statements by Andy that Karmafist should be permanently removed from Wikipedia? Continuing instances since the ArbCom of Andy making negative comments about Karmafist on user talk pages where Karmafist hasn't put him down first? I don't think you can. In each of those cases I can show the reverse. I can also show you Andy apologizing to Locke Cole for a mistaken complaint and Karmafist refusing to apologize to Andy for an improper block. From everything I have seen, with the exception of complaints to AN/I and other 'official' venues about each other (which they both do) virtually all of the initiation of hostilities here comes from Karmafist (though it should be noted he claims Andy's treatment of others as justification for doing so). That certainly doesn't excuse Andy's subsequent behaviour, but can we be done with the myth that Karmafist has done nothing to provoke it? This is about more than their respective user spaces. They need to leave each other alone, period. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock. You can go back through their contributions and find that whenever Karmafist said something negative about Pigsonthewing, it was usually because Pigsonthewing had just done something to set off Karmafist. And once Karmafist responded, Pigsonthewing would cite those responses as "further abuse". And so on and so forth. Don't pretend Pigsonthewing is blameless here, and don't act like he doesn't invite these kinds of negative comments about himself by his own actions. I get sick and tired of seeing you paint POTW like some sort of victim.

My proposal? POTW should be banned from making any comment about Karmafist whatsoever to anyone on any talk page. If he has a problem, he can e-mail admins directly. But his days of routinely going to pages Karmafist has talked on and respond with one liners like "desist making personal attacks immediately" has got to come to an end. —Locke Cole 02:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully express disagreement owith Lock Cole n this. Karmafist did on at least one occasion react in a wholly inappropriate manner to some odd but defensible reasoning by Andy Mabbett, and misused his blocking and page protection powers while edit warring and, apparently, simultaneously believing himself to be adopting a position of mediation. If Andy Mabbett is a less than ideal editor, Karmafist is a far from ideal administrator. On this, Andy has a complaint that is worthy of investigation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I see, these two are like nitroglycerine and vibration placed together, so I would approve any effort to keep them separated. I see that Karmafist has been trying to get away from this whole ordeal, so I would think that minimizing the contact between them would be appropriate. I support the ban on Karmafist's user space, if it is clearly stated that he can talk with any other admin about serious issues. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read through the page, I agree there is consensus for a ban from editing Karmafist's talk, or userpage, or subpages. Enacting ban from User:Karmafist, User talk:Karmafist and related subpages to run concurrently with bans from Jeremy Clarkson and Longbridge. If he edits these pages before then, the enforcement clause will apply. He may be blocked for up to one week. After five such blocks (one has already been executed, so he has four left) the maximum period of the block rises to one year. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be a peace, Pigsonthewing needs to stop stalking karmafist's comments. A ban on karmafist's user/talk pages is insufficient, for example this is a personal attack on karmafist. The behavior needs to stop, and banning Pigsonthewing from particular pages is not doing the trick. Demi ^T/_C 00:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support that wholeheartedly. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know there is no basis under general policy or the current arbitration ruling for any action in this regard. There is currently a motion to reopen the arbitration which you might want to voice support for if you feel this is warranted, but given the continuing personal attacks by Karmafist I would certainly move that any such restriction be mutual. Enough with this game of banning Pigsonthewing from various pages so that Karmafist can insult him there (as he did at both AN/I and his user space just after Pigsonthewing was banned from each). The above accusation of "bad faith" 'personal attack' was clearly in reference to Karmafist calling Usenet users in general and Pigsonthewing in particular 'trolls'. Which, strangely, is ajudged not a personal attack, not 'bad faith', and not a violation of the arbitration ruling against Karmafist. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 03:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much better solution. Merely banning POTW from Karmafist's userspace will lead to him enjoying the loopholes that ban leaves open (following Karmafist around to userpages by others, leaving his "desist"-style comments on article talk pages, and so on). Perhaps if POTW was banned from being at all involved with Karmafist (a Wiki-restraining order?) he might consider contributing to Wikipedia rather than trying to provoke Karmafist. —Locke Cole 05:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is far, far too vague a suggestion, and based on very poor evidence. Referring to Demi's link, I see that Andy Mabbett correctly identifies a rather extreme anti-Usenet attitude behind two comments by Karmafist--amongst others, Karmafist deleted a reference to Kibo from an article about Usenet, and in the other edit Karmafist suggested that "We should use some of the money from the current donation drive to get rid of USENET somehow, that place is a troll breeding ground.". This kind of behavior is not good for the wiki and it doesn't make any difference if it is I or Andy Mabbett or I who points it out. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Pigsonthewing is the best person to review and report on Karmafist's attitude. In fact I think it crucial that he not do that. Secondly, this is not a trial, RFC or arbitration case, and I'm submitting an example of characteristic behavior, not "evidence." I'm just saying that a ban on Karmafist's user/talk is insufficient, as Pigsonthewing will simply engage in the same behavior on another page. [12] [13] And I'm nowhere endorsing Karmafist's attitude toward Usenet or stub-sorting; that's not the point here. Demi ^T/_C 15:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and all subpages

• Longbridge
• Jeremy Clarkson
• User:Karmafist, User talk:Karmafist and other subpages.