Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing

Central page to coordinate probation

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Request renewal of revert parole for User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbet) is subject to indefinite probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He was also placed on revert parole for one year, which has expired, and was banned for one year, which has also expired. However, he continues to be (or has resumed being) disruptive. Following this report I banned Andy from making userbox-related edits for one month [1]. Today he was reported for making four reversions on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andy persists in calling the edits "POV vandalism" and insists that reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I and others see this as a content dispute. Since the edits involved infoboxes again, I extended and expanded Andy's ban from infobox-related edits [2]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) shows no sign of learning to resolve disputes by other methods than edit-warring and stubborn persistence, I support this. Extend for a year, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a vote? Thatcher131 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support this, per many time-consuming "discussions" at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, talk:Sheffield Town Hall#coordinates, Talk:Sheffield City Hall, Talk:Meersbrook#Coord, Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal#Table of features and I'm sure many more. Pigsonthewing is almost invariably highly uncooperative when he doesn't get his way (see for example this edit summary with no explanation of why the revert was made - only that I'd not explained why I made mine!) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

unwilling to compromise. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: This is a unique case given that the ruling was amended, but it would seem to me that the revert parole should have been frozen when the one year ban was implemented, meaning that the revert parole would continue until December 9, 2007. Perhaps this isn't the case, but in my opinion it should be- a ban shouldn't be meant to supersede previous remedies, it should be an additional, consecutive remedy. Ral315 » 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought so. It seems daft to me that a one-year ban and a one-year revert parole should run concurrently - what's the point of that? Perhaps we need to contact the closing admin(s)? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when someone is banned, all parole are frozen? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To then recur upon the expiration of the ban? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if it's not worded such right now, it should be. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole runs for a year after the one year ban, otherwise it would be a nullity. Fred Bauder 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it must. Does the user need to be banned therefore for multiple violations? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will inform him about the continuation of the revert parole. Future violations may be reported for blocking at arbitration enforcement or the 3RR noticeboard. Note that banning is normally only an option after repeated offenses. The normal response would be brief blocks, escalating if necessary for repeat offenses. Thatcher131 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems have also unfortunately been, and are still being, experienced at Template:Infobox Swiss town. Uncooperative talk page edits, for example: Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town#Transclusion_of_doc_subpage, and several reversions of the template itself, with untrue claims of consensus, and "as per talk page". — BillC ^talk 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like content argument with neither side compromising. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, one party has never been seen editing the test version, despite promises the contrary. -- User:Docu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing

Initiated by MBisanz ^talk at 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1

Statement by MBisanz

In 2005, Pigsonthewing (POTW) was placed on probation and banned for a year by Arbcom for edit warring, harassment, gaming 3RR, and stirring up trouble link. In 2007, part of his restrictions were lifted. Later in 2007, POTW was banned for another year for showing contempt of the Wiki process. Since then he has been blocked five times. Presently, he is not listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. When the original WP:Probation page was transformed in late 2007, his name was not carried over to the WP:Editing restrictions page. I am inquiring if the probation from his first arbcom case survived his second banning and can be thus actioned on upon at requests filed on WP:AE? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To RexxS

I'm not actually asking Arbcom about the current situation or POTW's work at Infoboxes. I don't believe I've mentioned anything currently going on at ANI or about infoboxes in my statement above. I'm asking what is the appropriate way to handle future disruption by POTW. Should it go to ANI for community discussion or is POTW's behavior of the divisive nature that is better handled at AE pursuant to Arbcom sanctions? MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Statement by uninvolved RexxS

Isn't this "asking the other parent" (see WP:Administrators' notice board/IncidentArchive748#Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban)? The locus of this is a content dispute across several articles about whether there should be an {{Infobox person}}, or an {{Infobox musical artist}}, or an {{Infobox classical composer}}, or perhaps no infobox at all. The factions involved are displaying a battleground mentality and one group are looking to silence one of their "opponents" rather than deal with his objections to their limited consensus.

If you choose to involve yourselves, you will be faced with ruling on the belief that a consensus developed at a wikiproject can then be rolled out across every article within its scope, without taking the time to answer criticisms that the change in any particular article may be detrimental. I'm prepared to offer diffs to support each of my assertions here, although reading the ANI thread would avoid unnecessary duplication. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To MBisanz

You don't need to ask ArbCom how to react when you perceive a problem with Andy in the future. The answer is always the same: talk to him first as you would to any responsible adult, and try to see his point of view. Andy is not unintelligent, nor is he malicious, and it behoves us to treat him with the same sort of respect that any editor with 80,000 contributions over 8 years deserves. He does, however, seem to become frustrated when his observations on a problem are dismissed or ignored. Andy is capable of excellent contributions to our project, and the key issue is for folks like you to find ways of assisting him to interact in ways that produce positive outcomes. I assure you that we are not so overwhelmed with top-notch contributors that we can afford to throw away potentially valuable skills, just because we're not competent enough to harness the energies of those who don't always agree with the mainstream. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As far as I am concerned, the indefinite probation has never been lifted; the fact that it's not on a list does not negate it. It can go through WP:AE. Risker (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Per Risker, I am unaware of any lifting of those previous sanctions. If anyone believes there is a different answer, now would be a great time to bring it up... Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Like my colleagues, I see no procedural basis for the probation to have expired. Therefore, requests for enforcement of the sanction can go to Arbitration Enforcement as usual. I appreciate RexxS's concern, but the scope of the clarification is to resolve the omission at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions of POTW's sanction, and like this request for clarification any enforcement proceedings would relate exclusively to the sanctioned editor's conduct—not the validity of a legitimate position with regards to Infoboxes or other aspects of content. Pigsonthewing's probation should be added to the list of restrictions (at the latest) upon this thread's completion. AGK [•] 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unless they come with an explicit sunset provision, restrictions do not time expire. The purpose of a list, as Risker intimates, is for quick reference only and forms no part of the process. The authority is the case page. Per my colleagues, WP:AE is the proper venue here.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.