Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

1) Wikipedia requires reasonable courtesy toward other users, including assumption of good faith on their part, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Furthermore, editors are expected to be cooperative with other users. Wikipedia users are encouraged to responsibly identify problems, discuss them with other users and, if possible without violating Wikipedia policy, solve them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Personally, I am more concerned about the reasonableness factory. Pigsonthewing has not been cooperative in terms of answering his RFC or his RFAr. It only causes unnecessary tension when an editor intentionally ignores attempts at reasoning or understanding. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 21:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Likewise to Linuxbeak. This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. karmafist 17:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Copied. See Pigsonthewing's user page, where he says that with User:Leonig Mig, he assumes bad faith. See also some of the incidents cited above. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This applies to all editors. Both Pigsonthewing and Karmafist have failed to act civily and assume good faith. the wub "?!" 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

1) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yep. Fred Bauder 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This should go without saying. Dispute resolution means cooperation from both parties, not just the party bringing the complaint. The inability or the unwillingness to cooperate with a complaining party will cause unnecessary rifts. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Likewise to Linuxbeak and the wub. karmafist 18:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Pigsonthewing's refusal to even acknowledge this RFAr or the previous RFC is unacceptable. the wub "?!" 19:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful

2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Definitely relevant Fred Bauder 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I'd like to mention that Andy also has a habit of editwarring without "breaking 3RR". IE, the Bill Oddie edit war. --Phroziac^(talk) 15:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Likewise. POTW has a loophole which he denied despite agreement by multiple non-involved editors looking at the evidence and inclusion of this evidence to the rfar, which he decided to use the ostrich method towards (sticking your head in the sand, and hoping it goes away). karmafist 18:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Copied. Pigsonthewing has been blocked a few times for 3RR, part of this dispute. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Users expected to heed warnings

3) At the very least, users are expected to respond to administrators' warnings about improper behavior. Users are generally expected to heed such warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Not sure what this refers to, but being warned repeatedly about violating an established policy is relevant. Fred Bauder 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. In regards to this, POTW uses the Ostrich Method(sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away if you can't see it). And usually, this has worked for him, so he figured he could keep on acting with impunity if he kept on not regarding anyone who disagreed with him, admin or otherwise, as "relevant". karmafist 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Copied. Pigsonthewing has been warned numerous times on his talk page about many different incidents, but has for all intents and purposes ignored these warnings. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks

4) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [1]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. '

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't think much of this. Fred Bauder 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. POTW not only removes real personal attacks, but basically sees any statement he disagrees with as a personal attack, threat, or other hostile word he can use to disavow the viability of the statement made that disagrees with him, per the Ostrich method. karmafist 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 He's been blocked for removing what he views as "personal attacks" in violation of 3RR. Ral315 (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Removing another persons comments should be strongly discouraged, and editors (even admins) should be encouraged to get someone else to remove comments they believe are offensive. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 04:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nature of categories

5) Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact. For example, Golan Heights can legitimately be included in both the categories Geography of Syria and Geography of Israel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This relates to the Bill Oddie edit war which revolved about use of Category:Natives of Birmingham when he grew up there but was not born there. Fred Bauder 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Hmm, never thought about it like that. I definitely agree with this. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Agreed as well. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Andy Mabbet is Pigsonthewing

1) Pigsonthewing generally uses the signature User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Clear up any ambiguity Fred Bauder 16:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring by Pigsonthewing

2) Pigsonthewing has engaged in sustained edit wars over trivial matters, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Bill_Oddie, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Coleshill.2C_Warwickshire_edit_war.28s.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Die_Lustige_Witwe.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Categories are guides intended as an aid to readers, not statements of definitive fact. A person who was born in one town, grew up in another and has lived in a third for 20 years might reasonably fall into three categories. Fred Bauder 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Pigsonthewing was technically right about Coleshill but a sustained edit war over a triviality like this is wrong.

Comment by parties:

1. Thank you! That was the whole point of that. What CBDunkerson did at Colehill could have been done easily by me or pretty much anyone else, but since i'm an admin, I saw my job as trying to help the warring parties(POTW and G-Man) do this themselves(POTW could easily have done this considering his local expertise and nearly 20,000 edits now) so they could avoid things like this in the future. G-Man understood this there, POTW didn't and remained obstinent not only at Coleshill, but later on at Die Lustige Witwe. Coleshill has been the core of my belief that POTW is basically not out to improve the encyclopedia, but to intimidate others into seeing things his way. Compromise is not an option with POTW, it never has been up to now, and any decision made by the arbcom has to make him understand that compromise is necessary on Wikipedia, or these proceedings have been worthless. karmafist 17:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Concur. Andy needs to explain his objections in more detail and work harder to achieve compromise solutions. However, I only got involved in this case after confirming for myself that he could do both those things if people work with him. See Coleshill and De Lustige Witwe for evidence of how easily two of the issues above were resolved. --CBD 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Conflict between Karmafist and Pigsonethewing

3) Karmafist and Pigsonthewing have been engaged in sustained personal conflict [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I've definately lost track of what this was originally about. This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig.karmafist 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of the epithet "Pigs"

4) Karmafist has habitually used the epithet "Pigs" in referring to Pigsonthewing, see links from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#15_November, and this typical example: *For users who don't know Pigs reading this comment, please check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing.Karmafist 04:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC). There have been other personal attacks as Karmafist has lost his patience [8]. These attacks continued despite repeated requests by Pigsonthewing to Karmafist to stop the attacks User_talk:Karmafist/POTW_Archive#Personal_attacks and are even included on the /Evidence page of this arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Die_Lustige_Witwe.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. No good Fred Bauder 16:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Yes. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. That's my goal, not a nickname. karmafist 17:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just don't get so carried away. You are not driving cattle here Fred Bauder 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Despite the fact that Pigsonthewing has repeatedly stated he does not wish to be called "Pigs". Karmafist has admitted [9] he continued to do it for his own amusement. the wub "?!" 18:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Loss of patience by Karmafist

5) Karmafist, an administrator, has lost his patience with Pigsonthewing and has resorted to namecalling and threats [10], [11] [12],

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Too much Fred Bauder 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I agree with Fred. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I concur. While I understand why Karmafist has lost his cool (and appreciate said reason), namecalling doesn't accomplish anything. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Agreed. the wub "?!" 16:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Likewise, This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. karmafist 17:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Concur, but note that namecalling and threats began almost immediately. --CBD 17:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing stirs up trouble

6) Finding out about notes Karmafist was making on a user page, Pigsonthewing contacted those mentioned on Karmafist's user page, describing it as a "hate page" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Attacks

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Use of the edit summary "The Hate Page" [13] did not help. Fred Bauder 15:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Ultimately, the term "Hate Page" came as a jest against (hmm, trying to think of an adjective here that POTW and company won't percieve as a PA....) Ral315's stuffy behavior. And ultimately, since similiar pages survived votes for deletion in the cases of Sam Spade, Klonimus and Cool Cat(although he ultimately deleted his page as a good faith measure after harrassment by Davenbelle and others, as I did after harrassment from Ral315 and POTW.) I tried renaming it to alleviate tensions, considering it also included links to friends and instances of textbook examples of what Wikipedians should do. However, that's not acceptable considering the apparent unwritten rules of Wikipedia. After this and POTW's incursions on my templates designed for his defammation of me after every edit I make recently that were only stopped with the arbcom's injunction, it seems like user space is far less inviolate than it used to be. However, This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. karmafist 17:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And he's back at it again. karmafist 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like ask the arbcom to add this measure as an injunction, his disruptive/hostile attitude has continued [14], unabated. karmafist 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Clarification - Karmafist himself referred to it as "The Hate Page", as shown by the diff Fred Bauder cites. The original designation of it as a "hate page" was by Ral315 [15], during discussion of Karmafist's second attempt to join the mediation committee (of which Ral135 is a member). Ral315 was added to the list of "users to watch" by Karmafist shortly afterwards[16]. Pigsonthewing referred to that designation in his notification of the people listed (including Ral135 him/herself) [17]. --Brumburger 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Gaming of 3RR

7) Pigsonthewing while engaging in edit warring has often successfully skirted the bright line of 3 reverts within 24 hours while carrying on lengthy edit wars, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Andy.27s_Tactic_Regarding_Edit_Wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. POTW has made circumvention of 3RR into an artform. A stronger enforcement of WP:EW should apply to POTW here, perhaps a 1RR. karmafist 18:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Harassment of Leonig Mig

8) Pigsonthewing engaged in sustained harassment of the new user Leonig_Mig (talk · contribs) whose editing style did not suit him [18]. Eventually Leonig Mig gave up and left Wikipedia [19], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#My_Worst_Fear.2C_Realized and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Leonig_Mig.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Totally unacceptable. This may sound harsh, but when a user creates trouble and eventually causes a contributor to leave the project, that user is harmful to the project. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Likewise. No matter what POTW or those he's decieved into believing that he's justified in his bad faith in regards to Leonig Mig, no user should ever feel afraid to edit under a certain user name because of another editor if they are following policy. Indeed, lately I believe I might have been making POTW feel as he did with Leonig Mig, which was originally meant to help him understand what he did, but has ultimately only made me turn into another POTW, which doesn't help anything. This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. karmafist 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. As it is now stated this 'finding of fact' is incorrect. The person who used the Leonig Mig account has not left. They are just now using a different account name... this fact is established by the cited evidence. Also, I would dispute that EVIDENCE of harassment has been given. CLAIMS of harassment have been made, but that is not the same thing. This 'harassment' was essentially the editing of Leonig Mig's contributions to conform with WP:MOS and refusing to stop doing so when Leonig Mig complained. See also "False accusations of stalking" --CBD 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This legitimate copyediting is also one of the sources of friction with several other users (e.g. on The Merry Widow and related articles). People who start articles or make major additions to them often feel they "own" the article, and others may not edit it (ignoring "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it."). Pigsonthewing does a hell of a lot of copyediting to bring hundreds of articles into line with the manual of style, and occasionally he bumps against people who feel they have a proprietorial interest in an article and the right to say what may and may not be changed. Tough luck, they don't. He could negotiate and discuss more, but in the overwhelming majority of cases the changes he makes are correct and justifiable. --Brumburger 17:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Seconded (thirded rather). Also I think the statement of this section heading - whose editing style did not suit him - is biased. The diff cited shows Pigsonthewing's argument to be that the style was inappropriate for Wikipedia, not for "him".

Although the "False accusations of stalking" section CBD cited was only at proposal stage, it's altogether worth reading for its recognition that "Following" does not necessarily mean "stalking". Whatever Pigsonthewing's style, he shouldn't be wrongly castigated for following users or topics, and applying reasonable edits (haven't we all run into users whose every damn edit has some grammatical error or is cranking out the same bias?) Yes, Pigsonthewing shouldn't get into edit wars. Yes, he should be more polite and give better explanations. But we've only heard one side of the story, about the upsets he has supposedly caused. The other side of most of these disputes is the collective long-term irritation, nuisance and wasted effort, for many editors, caused by POV warriors, recidivist copyright breakers and would-be article owners. Am I really supposed to believe that such editors feeling deterred, simply because they don't like justified edits, is bad for the project? Tearlach 18:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pigsonthewing placed on probation

1) Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is fine with me, and ultimately my goal from this whole affair. karmafist 22:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Karmafist restricted with respect to Pigsonthewing

2) Karmafist is prohibited from any activity whatever which relates to Pigsonthewing, including posting to his talk page, reverting any edit he has made, blocking him, or enforcing his probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Sounds slightly too harsh to me, and should definitely be two directional. It's a big Wikipedia, and if they for the most part leave eachother alone, they'll probably be a lot happier. I'd hate to see this turn into a Davenbelle vs Cool Cat or Andy Mabbet vs Scottfisher type of disaster. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I have no problem with 1,2 and 4. karmafist 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

   It seems to me that 4 is a bit of a clarification to 3 though...they aren't that different. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 17:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Caveat on this - there should be some mechanism for Karmafist to respond to the reversion of one of his edits by Pigsonthewing. Possibly the edit reverting portion of the ban should be two directional. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Ok, "wide discretion" on the 'disruption' issue covers any potential gaps. --CBD 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
   • I agree the provisions regarding reversion and talk page posting should apply equally to both parties. A ban on editing in each other's user space would also probably be apropriate as well. Thryduulf 18:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Pigsonthewing will be on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation and may be banned from any page he makes trouble on by any administrator. Fred Bauder 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
     • (after edit conflict) I still think that it would be best to be explicit. That way there can be no gaming the system as to what is or isn't disruption. If the penalty is the same then it doesn't matter which point it falls under. Thryduulf 18:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrators in enforcing probation have wide discretion so long as they act in good faith. There is no way to list all possibilities. Fred Bauder 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Should be reworded to apply to both IMO. Keeping them apart is going to be key to solving POTW's problems. the wub "?!" 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist banned from Wikipedia for one day

3) Karmafist is banned from Wikipedia for one day for incivility and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Erm? One day? I giggled when I saw this. He probably either wouldn't care or wouldn't notice it. If we ban him at all, it should be slightly longer, maybe a week. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC) I thought this was for pigsonthewing. I strongly oppose banning karmafist. Sorry for any confusion and offense I may have caused! --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This is a joke right? I should lauded for IARing and trying to deal with this problem which has gone on for so long, not Blocked for doing so. I am extremely insulted by this. karmafist 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I disagree with this here. First off, a one day ban is stupid. It's not going to accomplish anything, and if anything it's going to cause unnecessary fingerpointing. While Karmafist hasn't dealt with this situation in the best possible manner, I don't think it's even worth entertaining a ban. After all, it's Pigsonthewing that has been causing trouble, not Karmafist. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. This feels just like a token ban. Thryduulf 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
   1. What do you mean by token ban? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Pointless. the wub "?!" 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
3. How insulting; was this a mistake? Where's the block for Pigsonthewing? —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
   • Pigsonthewing has BEEN blocked in this dispute... six times. And repeated requests for justification of four of those blocks have been ignored. If Andy violated 3RR for the 10/20 block... where are the diffs and why wasn't G-Man also blocked? If he harassed "several people" for the three 11/24 blocks... who were these people, where is the evidence, and why weren't Karmafist and Locke Cole blocked for harassing Andy? In any case, he has already been blocked for five days and seven hours in relation to issues listed here. --CBD 10:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
     • I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence. And as to his previous blocks, it's readily apparent that those 5 days and 7 hours haven't convinced him of his mistakes (see my newly presented evidence where he responds to one of the Arbitrators stating he's never made personal attacks, despite the ArbCom stating that his temporary PAP is because of his various personal attacks). Why would I be blocked? I'm not a party to this. There's been no evidence presented of my alleged harassment against him. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
       • Frankly... he has a point. When I suggested that it was inequitable to have PAP on Andy for 'personal attacks' but not Karmafist I was told no action could be taken without difflinks. Entirely reasonable. Yet also therefor reasonable for Andy to question where the difflinks upon which his injunction was based are located. Pointing to the evidence page does not answer that. I have looked, and did not see any negative comments directed at Karmafist there which, in my view, rose even to the level of some of those BY Karmafist which were adjudged NOT personal attacks. As to you, while the three blocks on Andy for harassment were related to issues here they were not an outcome of this arbitration... they were the work of two admins acting independantly. I was suggesting that if those admins reviewed the situation and found Andy's actions to be harassment it would, in my opinion, have been difficult not to so adjudge the actions by you and Karmafist as well if the same standards were applied. To be blunt, I was implying that the reason no justification has been given is because the same standards WEREN'T applied. --CBD 11:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
       • I agree with CBD. Several of these blocks might or might not have been justified, but there has been no evidence presented - it's a failure of the blocking system as it stands, admins have to give a reason but they don't have to provide justification. Ignoring all rules, far from being something people should be "lauded" for doing, is not policy or a guideline, and is at best a risky business, and at worst an invitation for people to abuse powers they have been granted. Someone's been watching too many "he's a tough cop who sometimes breaks the rules" TV shows. --Brumburger 16:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned for stirring up trouble

4) Pigsonthewing is banned one day for stirring up trouble by pointing other users to User:Karmafist/users to watch.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Not for balance Fred Bauder 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

   Not sure what you mean by that, Fred. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

2. The point is to get his attention. Next time he does this sort of thing it will be more like a month. Fred Bauder 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. One day wouldn't affect anything in regards to him, he's been blocked longer and his behavior has continued. karmafist 18:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I don't like this for the same as the struck-out reason i left on the karmafist ban. It's kinda silly to go through a lengthy arbcom process and then ban someone for a day, unless it's to add with numerous other short-ish bans into a halfway decent one. And I doubt Andy's done anything to need that. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Actually, Fred's got a very good point. Not sure what to think, but it sounds like something I shouldn't strongly oppose. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Agree with Karmafist, please see the new evidence I've presented in the past few days where he remains defiant even in the face of temporary injunctions from the ArbCom. Note his repeated vandalism on User:Leonig Mig. The ban should be at least a week in length, with provisions to be extended should his misbehavior continue. Locke Cole 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. The above refers to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Leonig Mig: "Pigsonthewing again vandalized Leonig Migs userpage: [20]" etc. The Administrators' noticeboard discussion shows this isn't universally agreed. Tearlach 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing prohibited from reverting

5) Pigsonthewing is prohibited from reverting any article for one year; any 3 administrators, for good cause, may extend this ban on reverting in one year intervals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. One tendentious revert a month is too much if it is gaming. Fred Bauder 15:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Indefinate with any editor would be better here. He's a good editor excluding when he interacts with others or reverts. karmafist 17:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. CBD makes a valid point here. I am not against Pigsonthewing reverting clear vandalism. However, I believe with anything else, Pigsonthewing doesn't need to make reverts in order to make his point; he can just point to the appropriate diffs. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
   • The average time of vandalism staying up in Wikipedia is 6 minutes. We have thousands of other editors doing this, no need to tempt POTW into reverting things he doesn't agree with in order to allow him to assist with reverting vandalism. If he can reform into not getting into revert wars at some point, i'd change my mind, but right now he's not ready and not needed with this. karmafist 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Actually, I think he should be able to revert clear vandalism. It's a big problem, we need all the help we can get. It wouldn't take much more effort to enforce this, since it would be pretty obvious when you check the diffs. He might argue what constitutes vandalism, but i don't think it would give him a lot of leverage. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Agree with Phroziac. Why stop him from doing something helpful to the wiki, it may even keep him away from conflict. the wub "?!" 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I've found that he usually gets into conflict when dealing with other users. No dice on that "harmless reversion" idea for me. Letting him revert anything is just asking for trouble. It makes him feel like he has justification for his little agenda of the moment, whatever that may be. karmafist 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Does "any"="all" or "any specific article"? Thryduulf 16:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This seems somewhat unworkable. Is he not allowed to revert clear vandalism? To make even a single revert so that he can explain his reasoning / point to the talk page? Or is this prevention of 'revert warring'?--CBD 17:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. If he's allowed to revert vandalism, then he'll just lable his reverts as vandalism (forcing the issue to become subjective). By disallowing all reverts, he'll be forced to compromise on his edits. Locke Cole 17:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   He's already doing that, actually. :) I don't think it would be that hard to enforce though. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block of Pigsonethewing

1) Pigsonthewing may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he edit any article from which he has been banned. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block of Karmafist

2) Should Karmafist engage in personal attacks or threats toward Pigsonthewing he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This rfar is about POTW and his behavior, not me, and if i've detracted from that, please let me know so I can remove myself as a party so we can avoid another instance of what POTW did to Leonig Mig. I've definately lost track of this, and it seems that i've finally shone enough sunlight on this to make sure that other editors can reign in Andy when he gets out of line. karmafist 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
   • All parties in an arbcom case are vulnerable to whatever arbcom wants to do to them. :) You just need to make sure you're either completely in the right, or in your case, far enough that only minimal damage will be done. It's a really big Wikipedia, and if you two leave eachother alone, you'll both be happier. I doubt there anyone will need to enforce this on you, to be honest. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
     • I'm trying Phro, but he's still at it [21]. I doubt anybody would either since i'm clearly the good faith side here, but it frustrates me that nothing has been done other than the injunction so far to say "whoa, hold up, you're being disruptive here" by the arbcom. I mean, in a real life court case(which arbcom basically resembles), you don't hold the trial without the defendant while the defendant is still doing what they were alleged towards doing, you drag them in there or at least keep a hard eye on what they're doing. So far, me and a few others have had to do that, thus precipitating this whole "karmafist is a bad admin" myth POTW is still propagating. karmafist 23:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Checkuser reveals that CBDunkerson is not Pigsonthewing Fred Bauder 04:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That Karmafist should request such a check is evidence of his paranoia (for want of a better word) about Pigsonthewing and further failing to assume good faith. the wub "?!" 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with requesting a checkuser. It's a ton more civil then running around screaming "SOCKPUPPET!". :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ditto on Phroziac there, especially considering that other than Brumberger(who hasn't been around since the rfc), CBDunkerson has been POTW's only advocate for the most part, and I found this suspicious considering he's refused to participate in this rfar at all, and since I know POTW well enough now not to need assumption on his goal being defaming or intimidating any editors that disagree with him(as shown by the evidence page), AGF doesn't apply here. karmafist 17:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree with Phroziac on this. Besides, if I had been Pigsonthewing... that would have meant he, or rather 'I', responded to the arbitration. :) Karmafist could have ended up helping Andy. Since sockpuppets are disallowed only for things like vote slanting and getting around bans it shouldn't have had any other implication. --CBD 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I seem to be helping him out alot ;-) karmafist 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) P.S- Despite all of this above, CBD is an outstanding wikipedian IMO, despite the fact that we disagree on this entire situation. Who knows, maybe Andy had split-personality disorder? karmafist 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Explain. Are you insinuating, despite the check by Fred Bauder, that CBD is a sockpuppet of Pigsonthewing? Tearlach 00:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh... I'm pretty sure that's not it. Karmafist was just extending the hypothetical I had posed. --CBD ✉ 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it would be deliberately sneaky to use a sockpuppet to discuss an RFAr on yourself like you're someone else. Couldn't be too much of a big deal though. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 05:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Frankly, this entire ordeal is a perfect example of why I withdrew from the ArbCom race. I think some people are using Karmafist's reactions to put blame on him. This is not the place to do that. I am not disagreeing that Karmafist didn't act entirely appropriately; in fact, I think he indeed should be called up regarding him continuing to call Pigsonthewing "Pigs" after Pigsonthewing made it clear that he didn't want to be called that. However, a.) it's not THAT big of a deal, all things considered, and b.) this is about Pigsonthewing, not Karmafist. It is this type of stuff that bogs down ArbCom cases, and this is why it takes two months just to end a single case. I think something is wrong here. Perhaps we have reached the point that the current way of arbitration is obsolete? I don't know. Anyway, I want to remind people that this is about Pigsonthewing, not Karmafist. Let's keep to the point. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 23:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Thanks Alex, ultimately it's that kind of stuff that made me want to run for it even though I don't want to win and I know i'm not going to. karmafist 00:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I'd like to point out that Karmafist, a complaining party, has taken some negative actions in this area. For example, he created a page, User:Karmafist/users to watch, which contained a list of many users that he agreed, or disagreed, with. However, many users complained that this appeared to be an attack list, Pigsonthewing (who was on the list) being one of them. When Pigsonthewing pointed this out to me during Karmafist's MedCom application, I questioned Karmafist on it, and he maintained that it was not a "bad user" list, later adding me to this list after his MedCom nomination failed. When Pigsonthewing posted a message on the talk pages of all users mentioned on it, explaining the situation, Karmafist deleted this page, and recreated it at User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine, leaving no redirect, and deleting all prior page histories. This strikes me as an attempt to "cover it up", as if Karmafist understands that the page may have been questionable, but was not willing to get rid of it outright.

1. Also, note the way Karmafist has repeatedly addressed Pigsonthewing as 'Pigs', rather than by his username, or his real name, 'Andy' or 'Andy Mabbett'. Pigsonthewing has requested that Karmafist stop this, but the practice has continued. This seems to me as an unnecessary, degrading tactic used to annoy and/or bait Pigsonthewing. I'm not saying that Pigsonthewing is innocent (far from it), but Karmafist's behavior in no way has helped this situation. Ral315 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Ral315 that these two actions/behaviors by Karmafist have been troublesome. android79 14:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Ral315. Karmafist's actions are not exactly conducive to the resolution of the dispute. However, I don't think that the construction of a list of users to watch is in itself necessarily harmful. Care needs to be taken when building such a list to ensure that it is not misinterpreted. I myself have a list of possible linkspammers at User:GraemeL/Watchlist and I am a lot more conservative when considering adding registered users to the list than I am in the addition of IP addresses. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Ral315. Karmafist is a great guy, but he does seem to be out to get Andy. See Talk:British Sea Power/Archive01, especially this section. Continuing to call him "Pigs" despite his protestations also seems to be a deliberate attempt to provoke him. In addition looking at the old edit history for the "users to watch" page ([22], admins only unfortunately) Karmafist has referred to it as "The Hate Page" in edit summaries. Whilst this may well be tongue in cheek it is rather hard to tell. the wub "?!" 16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rest of this conversation moved to the talk page. Please put all new comments there to save space.

1. Linuxbeak, what you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying, 'Pigsonthewing punched Karmafist! He is violent and should be punished! Pay no attention to the fact that Karmafist punched Pigsonthewing... this isn't about Karmafist. It's about Pigsonthewing. He attacked Karmafist for no reason - all the evidence to the contrary is just bogging this down.' We should not ignore that Pigsonthewing had legitimate reasons for being angry. I haven't tried to 'make this about Karmafist'. If I had then I seriously doubt ANYBODY would be saying that what he did was 'no big deal'. I have focused on Karmafist's actions only to the extent that they influenced and instigated the behaviours for which Pigsonthewing is being criticized... and I've gone easy on him at that. I haven't urged that Karmafist be blocked on any of the elements where that is being discussed. I haven't suggested proposed findings of fact for issues where I can prove he did things wrong. Because I am not interested in seeing Karmafist 'punished'. My interest is in seeing that Pigsonthewing not be punished more than he ought to be... based on a one-sided presentation of the evidence. --CBD ✉ 01:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion

Text copied here from talk page discussion
If the enjoined party is being attacked by another party to the RfAr, then perhaps the ArbCom needs to enter another injunction. Feel free to make a motion to do so. I would, at a bare minimum, need a diff to look at. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pursuant to this I am making this motion that Karmafist be similarly enjoined against making personal attacks or that the (2nd) injunction upon Pigsonthewing be lifted in the interests of equity.

Diffs showing negative comments by Karmafist against Pigsonthewing -> 'scum/crap', 'dick', 'Pig patrol/sordid/bully', 'Pig pen', 'obnoxious/nonsense' & taking enjoyment in insulting and MANY others in similar vein.

Diffs showing negative comments by Karmafist AFTER the injunction was imposed on Pigsonthewing -> 'rude/abrasive/intimidation', generally denigrating attitude

The final personal attack I referenced, Karmafist calling Pigsonthewing "a douchebag", took place yesterday around 21:00 UTC on the #wikipedia IRC channel and thus cannot be diff linked to. However, I note that there were over 200 witnesses (including arbiter Raul654, who responded to say that Karmafist could not expect the ArbCom to 'read his mind' about there being a problem) and Karmafist has not disputed it in his responses on this issue.

I believe that these comments constitute a clear and continuing pattern of personal attacks. I have seen no diffs showing similar comments being made by Pigsonthewing. He certainly never referred to Karmafist as anything like "scum", "dick", or "douchebag".

Thank you for your time. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 17:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

While not all of the cited diffs illustrate what I consider to be personal attacks, enough of them do to justify a temporary PAP to me (e.g. [23], [24]). Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Temp PAP sounds perfectly reasonable to me, since we really shouldn't make personal attacks anyway. While arbcom isn't exactly required to be NPOV, it would be NPOV. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, although it would be need to be clarified considering CBDunkerson has taken this far out of context in an attempt to make me the subject of this rfar in regards to IRC, which does not have the same rules as Wikipedia, construing "Dick" as WP:DICK(which was linked to the statement he's making), which fits POTW's behavior to a tee, and scum, which is what many editors here feel towards any editor who would try to intimidate an editor off Wikipedia, as with Leonig Mig, but are afraid to say due to POTW's defammation campaign, the ambiguity of WP:NPA and now, CBDunkerson's misunderstanding or attempt at censorship, considering that he's the only one disputing that POTW's behavior has been rude, abrasive, intimidating, and so on. karmafist 18:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist, as I understand the process, you made yourself a subject of this arbitration when you signed on as a 'party'. My citations of your actions have been in reference to how your behaviour influenced this situation... not matters external to this case. Frankly, I included them as mitigation and evidence of inaccuracies in the case as you presented it. Pigsonthewing's actions are more understandable when viewed in the context of actions taken against him. I have no interest in seeing you 'punished'... though acknowledgement of your own part in creating these problems would likely be beneficial to you. As to Pigsonthewing... actually I DON'T dispute that he has been rude and abrasive. He has also engaged in edit warring, is not good at explaining things to newbies gently, and gets hostile when attacked or mistreated. I haven't seen him engage in what I'd consider intimidation. In my opinion you, Leonig Mig, and others behaved as badly or worse and provoked (sometimes deliberately) a good deal of the behaviour you are denouncing. --CBD 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry CBD, you gotta check the title there, it's not "Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing AND karmafist... karmafist 00:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"The committee does have power to find complainants guilty, and has on several occasions -- filing a complaint is no guarantee of immunity from sentencing. Jwrosenzweig 23:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)" [25] (currently at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 3#...and so on ad infinitum?). Thryduulf 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Reopening

There seems to be a consensus to reopen this case to discuss possible significant actions against Karmafist (desysoping) and/or Pigsonthewing (banning). I don't think either is neccessarily called for at this point:

• Karmafist - In the initial discussion several arbitrators stated that Karmafist had not done anything particularly wrong and/or that they felt no action should be taken against him. While I did not agree that the problems with his behaviour were minor I would point out that this might well have amounted to a tacit endorsement of such in Karmafist's eyes. To this point Karmafist was under no restrictions in regards to his general admin abilities (only in regards to actions against Pigsonthewing) and theoretically had no reason to suspect that there was anything wrong with his actions. I would argue therefor that some sort of warning short of 'desysoping' is called for.
• Pigsonthewing - He has continued to express anger towards Karmafist, the arbitration commitee, and admins in general. However, when he attempted to return to normal editing during and after the end of the arbitration his edits were repeatedly reverted by detractors who had never previously contributed to those pages. Since the arbitration Karmafist has repeatedly made negative comments about him without suffering any block (despite an 'enforcement' finding prohibitting him from making personal attacks) while Pigsonthewing has been blocked for the 'personal attack' of calling something "censorship" (despite there NOT being any 'enforcement' or 'remedy' stating that he should not do so). He has cause to perceive unequal treatment and might be less disruptive if he were allowed to edit without fear of ongoing stalking and harassment.

These are two users who have each contributed a great deal, but who are both lacking in their capacity for forgiveness and toleration of perceived sleights against them. Their shared stubbornness and inability to 'move on' has created a downward spiral for both - with further sometimes disruptive influences from third parties (Locke Cole, Nandesuka, Myself, et cetera). There should be ways to keep these two apart and allow them to continue their positive contributions while restricting the negatives and shielding them from aggravating influences. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)