This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Civility and the assumption of good faith

1) Wikipedia requires reasonable courtesy toward other users, including assumption of good faith on their part. To constantly accuse other users of policy violations or other unethical conduct without firm evidence is contrary to the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per evidence. Quite a major problem IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. (Plus waving policy in an inconsistent way at other users in order to get what you want is not acceptable). -- Folantin 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Based on my limited viewing of PoTW's comments on the ANI, I support this Statement and would recomment that an action be related to it. -- Rocksanddirt 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Edit-warring

2) Edit warring is considered harmful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the previous PoTW arbitration case. Per evidence. Pigsonthewing has not stopped to revert-war when he can. Moreschi ^Talk 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Obvious (especially the user page fight). -- Folantin 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Consensus

3) Consensus does not equate to absolute agreement from everyone concerned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obvious, but probably needs stating. Moreschi ^Talk 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Wikipedia would probably grind to a standstill were this the case. -- Folantin 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Consensus is way more complicated than agreement from all parties. It is about discussion and understanding of points on all sides of a question. -- Rocksanddirt 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Infoboxes

4) Infoboxes are a matter of style: they are not mandated by either policy or guideline. They are recommended by some WikiProjects, frowned upon by others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Infoboxes are not crucial: nor are they required by existing rules. Moreschi ^Talk 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Obvious. There is no policy saying we must have infoboxes, but we are obliged to be accurate. Infoboxes probably work well on certain scientific pages (e.g. zoological taxonomy) but less well on biographies (with the notable exception of sports stars, where they can be handy for giving statistics). As for their use for data-parsing, GIGO. -- Folantin 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Don't prove points

5) Don't disrupt Wikipedia just to illustrate a point.

5.1) (header titled "Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", the current header is confusing) Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is harmful, and considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well, he did. Moreschi ^Talk 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, per evidence (there was even more evidence but I omitted it for reasons of space). -- Folantin 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed 5.1 (from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Civility/disruption/reasonableness). Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Canvassing

6) Canvassing is harmful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Also relevant, per evidence. Moreschi ^Talk 12:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. Likewise, forum-shopping. -- Folantin 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

7) Users should not make personal attacks, and making personal attacks in userspace is not permitted either.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence concerning the userpage fuss. Moreschi ^Talk 12:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- Folantin 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

User pages are subject to WP:USER and WP:OWN

8) Editors are generally free to add what they choose to their own user pages but they do not own them and these pages are subject to Wikipedia policy. Inflammatory and disruptive material may be removed from them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Andy Mabbett seems to have little problem accepting this point when applied to inflammatory material he dislikes on other users' pages (see [1] and [2]). His continual attempts to repost material attacking another user on his own page was disruptive and wasted admins' time. Key statement from WP:USER: "if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." -- Folantin 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Obvious. Moreschi ^Talk 13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Argument ad nauseam

9) When everyone else has pretty much agreed on something, it is both disruptive and tendentious to go around shouting about that something for weeks on end, especially when consensus has already been acted upon. Victory by bludgeoning repetition is fine on Usenet: it isn't here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The wording may be a little informal, but this is the core of the problem, in addition to the fact that Mabbett proposed no compromises and made no real arguments. Probably needs tweaking to reflect this. Moreschi ^Talk 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This principle is accepted regarding AfDs, where it's considered disruptive to keep renominating an article you don't like for deletion or keep recreating an article you like after it was deleted. The general consensus among both sides (i.e. basically everybody except Andy Mabbett) was to drop the infobox debate for the foreseeable future. -- Folantin 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Battleground

10) Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor an arena for aimless fighting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: not a forum or Usenet, either. Moreschi ^Talk 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Personal attacks can be true, but still attacks

11) It is possible to attack someone by saying something that is true. Just because something is true, does not mean that you are free to say it in any way or at any place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Andy's defence of his userpage comment, in which he said that the comment was true, and that he no longer had to assume good faith as there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so there was no way that it could be considered an attack. J Milburn 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Andy Mabbett was found guilty of harassing Leonig Mig at his first ArbCom (by a vote of 8-0). His version of events wasn't backed up by third parties. Leonig Mig only added the attack on Mabbett to his user page on 16 June this year [3] after Mabbett had kept the attack on his own user page for several months. -- Folantin 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I am not saying that it was or wasn't true, I am just saying that, whether it was true or not, it was still an attack. J Milburn 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, no argument from me over that. -- Folantin 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Folantin, your statement above that Leonig Mig only added "the" attack on 16 June of this year is misleading. He only added that attack this year. The first was in 2005. On harassment, am I the only one seeing the irony in Andy Mabbett having received blocks for 'harassment' first for attempting to remove negative comments about himself from Leonig Mig's user page and then for attempting to keep such comments about Leonig Mig on his own user page? Apparently our standards of allowable user page content have changed. -- CBD 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

But as far as I can see there was no such comment on Leonig Mig's user page when Mabbett came back from his ban in January this year and decided to reinstate his attack on LM. It was on Mabbett's page all this year until the ANI incident, in spite of Leonig Mig's request to him to remove it in March [4]. It's yet another example of Mabbett perpetuating a conflict that should have been dead and buried ages ago. LM isn't whining about "censorship" on his user page either. -- Folantin 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Pigsonthewing has engaged in disruptive editing

1) Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) has engaged in editing which has been disruptive and caused unnecessary conflict with other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per all the evidence, especially the recent user page disruption where he ignored clear community consensus and several admins, as well as the infobox debate ( WP:POINT, canvassing, general belligerence). -- Folantin 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep. Agreed. Moreschi ^Talk 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Previous disruption

2) Pigsonthewing has a long history of disruptive editing. This has earned him (amongst other remedies) an indefinite probation, a revert parole, and one-year ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not in question, I think. Moreschi ^Talk 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Previous Arbitration Committee measures against him have failed to change Pigsonthewing's behaviour

3) Andy Mabbett has continued to engage in disruption despite the measures taken against him at the previous ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty obvious from all the evidence, including his block log. Andy Mabbett returned from a year-long ban earlier this year, yet he's gone back to his old disruptiveness. He's never had much respect for the ArbCom ruling anyway (he refused to turn up at his previous case) and has called one admin trying to enforce its rulings a "liar". -- Folantin 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Also endorsed. Even a one-year ban seems to have had zero effect. Moreschi ^Talk 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Has PoTW paid any attention to this proceeding? I would support this statement, he seems to only be able to be disruptive now. -- Rocksanddirt 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Revert-warring by Pigsonthewing

4) Pigsonthewing has disruptively revert-warred, both over infoboxes and over the "attack" paragraph on his userpage, for which he was blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per evidence. Moreschi ^Talk 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Canvassing by Pigsonthewing

5) Pigsonthewing has disruptively canvassed, only stopping after an uninvolved administrator told him to do (stop) so upon pain of block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per evidence. Moreschi ^Talk 13:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Substantiated. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

6) Pigsonthewing put a paragraph on his userpage that violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and revert-warred to keep it there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per evidence. Moreschi ^Talk 13:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Obvious. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Lack of faith

7) Pigsonthewing has consistently failed to assume good faith by baselessly accusing others of policy violations and unethical conduct. At no stage has he supported such allegations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence. Trying to address the problem. Moreschi ^Talk 13:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Disruption to prove a point

8) Pigsonthewing disrupted Wikipedia just to prove a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obvious, per evidence. Moreschi ^Talk 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto. -- Folantin 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Agreed. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Banned

1) Pigsonthewing is banned indefinitely.

1.1) (section titled "Pigsonthewing banned") Pigsonthewing is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. He may appeal this ban to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, my preference. A one-year ban has proved ineffective: he has continued to disrupt. Wikipedia is a community project, and over several years PoTW has shown that he cannot viably work with others on a consistent basis. I am aware that Arbitrators prefer to limit ban length, but in this case that's already been tried. Moreschi ^Talk 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Given the ineffectiveness of previous measures, this cannot be ruled out. -- Folantin 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I believe this is over harsh; Andy has made many, many good contributions, which have not been identified in this process. Neil  ╦ 14:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Proposed 1.1, better wording. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No. This is too harsh. POTW may be a disruptive editor, but he often acts in good faith and can be a valued contributor at times. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Revert parole extended

2) Pigsonthewing is placed on indefinite revert parole. He is limited to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism. Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the ban proposal is rejected, this surely is one of very few even faintly workable alternatives. Moreschi ^Talk 13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I would support this, as opposed to a ban. Neil  ╦ 14:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Probation confirmed

3) Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts. Revert-warring counts as disruption, as does tendentious editing and arguing to the point of boring everybody else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, if ban is rejected. Tweaked from last time around. Moreschi ^Talk 13:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I would prefer this option. I feel that banning him completely would be a shame given that he has done much good work. This should at least be tried. Banning completely should IMO be a last resort. G-Man ! 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Who has the time to follow him around and be the uninvolved admin to block him for a week every time he's got a few hrs to spend disrupting WP? -- Rocksanddirt 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Well if someone asks me to intervene on my talk page, I'd be happy to step in. G-Man ^? 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ditto. I would not like to see Andy blocked indefinitely. Neil  ╦ 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Pigsonthewing strongly reminded

4) Pigsonthewing is strongly reminded not to baselessly accuse everyone else of violating the rules that he is most likely violating himself. If he persistently does this in in future, he may be whacked with trouts by administrators until the message gets through.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Redundant to a ban, but relevant otherwise. Moreschi ^Talk 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I think this one is a waste of time. If whacked with trouts was going to work it would have already. He's already on one revert per week, and is so disruptive that here we are. -- Rocksanddirt 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Definitely not. This doesn't sound formal/rational, but rather a bit blunt. "baselessly accuse everyone else of violating the rules that he is most likely violating himself" is a very pov matter, and " whacked with trouts by administrators until the message gets through" is an idiotic arbitration remedy. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Pigsonthewing banned

5) Pigsonthewing is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Less heavy than an indef ban as proposed above. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: