Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Moreschi

Wikipedia is a community project. If someone can't work with others, eventually it has to end in tears.

User:Pigsonthewing, hereafter known as Andy Mabbett, has a long history of problems with the rest of Wikipedia's community. Previous dramas culminated in the requests for comment and arbitration linked above, where he was sanctioned heavily by the ArbCom of the time. He has also been blocked a considerable number of times, including a one-year arbitration committee ban after the initial case. Since then, he has recently accumulated further blocks for revert-warring and repeatedly adding insults against other users to his userpage, after multiple uninvolved administrators had removed the offending material. He has also been in several tussles that have lead to multiple reports to WP:AE, and my personal involvement with this user has come over a move to remove infoboxes, where they are inappropriate, from classical composer and opera-related articles. After a self-evident consensus to do just this was reached, Andy Mabbett has continued to bang the drum against this for months on end, a lone voice in the wilderness, working on the principle that "no consensus == I disagree", and all because a lack of infoboxes mess up his Microformats. Others will go into that in more detail later.

Andy Mabbett has a singularly lengthy and entirely infamous history of disruption to the project. Recent events have brought this to boiling point. Given Mabbett's past history and current refusal to acknowledge, in multiple incidents, when he might possibly be wrong, I am asking the ArbCom to re-open the previous case to consider further sanctions at the very least. An outright indefinite ban, in my opinion, is to be preferred. Thank you. Moreschi Talk 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: I have no problem with dissent. Excessive dissent is disruption, and that, we block and ban for. Anything to the contrary is nonsense. Moreschi Talk 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Statement by Folantin

I second what Moreschi has written. As one of the admins writes in Andy Mabbett's block log, "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributors; not to write an encyclopedia". AM is a belligerent editor who insists disputes cannot be concluded until he has his own way, even though majority opinion is clearly against him. This is true of his activities on the infobox topic (as documented by Moreschi). Mabbett has used various techniques, including violation of WP:POINT, canvassing and forum-shopping to keep that argument going for over two months and has tried to block any moratorium on the subject. I can provide evidence of this if necessary but I think this thread at WP:ANI shows AM's arguing technique in a nutshell [1]. AM refused to remove inflammatory material from his user page, engaged in an edit war and was blocked for 72 hours [2]. The material in question was intended to keep a quarrel he had with User:Leonig Mig still burning, although it is over 18 months old. The first thing he did on his return yesterday was to dig the dispute out of the ANI archives, insisting it was not over, to the frustration of other users involved. This is the same method he has used elsewhere and it is an enormous waste of time for other editors who simply want to get on with writing an encyclopaedia rather than using WP as a battleground. Since AM seems incapable of learning from experience, I think a lengthy (possibly permanent) enforced absence is in order. --Folantin 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, and I'm really not impressed by CBDunkerson's rhetoric. Now I understand why the AMA was disbanded by popular demand. WP has an effective system for dealing with vandals, but it's woefully inadequate where trolls, cranks and other disruptive elements are concerned and these are the people who drive good editors - both actual and potential - away. Mabbett's supposedly wonderful contribution history this year seems to consist mainly of inserting microformats everywhere possible and quarrelling at enormous length with anyone who dissents). --Folantin 12:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept as new case; this can't properly be considered a direct continuation of the old one, considering the other parties involved there. Kirill 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. - SimonP 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] Compliance

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good faith effort to comply with policy.

Passed 7-0 at 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Contempt

1) Evidence has shown that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation.

Passed 7-0 at 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Ban

1) Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.

Passed 7-0 at 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

  • 18:14, 19 August 2007 User:Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "User:Pigsonthewing (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year (Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, Pigsonthewing's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.)