Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

message: ====Statement by Semi-Involved SirFozzie====
I agree that ArbCom should pick up this case with an eye to determining how to handle Andy's behavior. He still is insisting that his latest escapades, that it's everyone else that's wrong, not him, and has shown no better behavior now then that which earned him his one year ban already.) He brought the latest dispute out from an archive and insisted on having the last word, refusing to accept what people were telling him. I finally gave up trying to discuss the case with him, because his insistence on hanving the last word. SirFozzie 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

message: I agree that ArbCom should pick up this case with an eye to determining how to handle Andy's behavior. He still is insisting that his latest escapades, that it's everyone else that's wrong, not him, and has shown no better behavior now then that which earned him his one year ban already.) He brought the latest dispute out from an archive and insisted on having the last word, refusing to accept what people were telling him. I finally gave up trying to discuss the case with him, because his insistence on hanving the last word. SirFozzie 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Semi-Involved SirFozzie

message: I saw this come up at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing and reviewed for myself what was happening. I made a posting on the matter to the thread, noting that PoTW rapidly embroils people in the conflict, when they came to the conflict as uninvolved parties hoping to help resolve the matter. Subsequent to that post of mine, three other editors who responded were attacked by PoTW as being dishonest, making ad hominen attacks and censoring PoTW, which I noted in a subsequent post. 
PoTW conducted more than a dozen reverts over several days of the removal of a personal attack from his userpage. Three of the users conducting the removals are administrators. I am deeply troubled that despite being warned he would be blocked for continuing to place what was widely regarded as a personal attack on his userpage , PoTW once again put the text back on his userpage just three minutes later . When he was blocked for this, he then put the text on his talk page , in the process referring to the people against him as "the lynchmob". When this was removed from his talk page, PoTW complained calling it a "totally unacceptable act of censorship" .  Even now, he's placed a message on his userpage saying it is being censored and people should review the history of his userpage for what was censored . 
It is clear from the recent and past record both that PoTW does not respond well to feedback, and insists on taking to task anyone who disagrees with him. He is not amenable to making changes in his manner, and seems singularly incapable of working in a cooperative editing environment when he comes into conflict with other users. --Durin 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by slightly involved [[User:Durin|Durin]]

message: The above statement "Three of the users conducting the removals are administrators." is irrelevant because it has not been shown that they identified themselves as such.  A single one used "I will block" phrasing.  But this is ArbCom, where truth is irrelevant.  (SEWilco 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction by [[User:SEWilco]]

message: This is perhaps the single identifiable thing which Wikipedia is worst at handling... users who hold steadfastly to their views. Andy Mabbet can be stubborn to the point of being a major pain in the ass. Moreschi above calls him "a lone voice in the wilderness" - continuing to protest a decision he doesn't agree with seemingly ad infinitum. How dare he! Clearly we must stomp this foul miscreant into paste. Disagreement is not allowed! Or so it would seem. Do we block people just because we (or some of us) don't like what they have to say?
Let's look at the accusations being made here:
#Feud with User:Leonig Mig - Both users had long (as in many MONTHS now) denounced each other on their respective user pages. This was incivil and IMO petty, but also in my opinion not worth making a brouhaha over. There are worse statements than either of those on thousands of pages throughout Wikipedia... including this one. Notably, both users also allowed the statements to be removed before this arbitration case was filed.
#Infoboxes / Microformats dispute - Andy Mabbet wants to embed microformat data into articles for machine reading and indexing purposes. To that end he wants them included in infoboxes and the infoboxes used consistently on articles. Others disagree. He argues. They don't like that. They get him banned from editing infoboxes. He abides by that, but continues to present his views (as the Arbcom ban encouraged him to do). Therefor we must now have an Arbitration to 'muzzle' him?
#Not here to write an encyclopedia - This statement from an admin, quoted and endorsed by Folantin in his statement above, is not only a clear personal attack, but so utterly and obviously untrue as to insult the intelligence. Anyone who looks at Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing and says that this person is not trying to improve the encyclopedia is lying... either to all of us or to themselves. These false claims serve no purpose except to inflame the situation.
#Claims 'censorship' - Andy Mabbet described the removal of his complaints about Leonig Mig as, "censorship". Guess what... he's right. That's exactly what it is. Whether we agree that the statements should be removed or not... forcibly doing so IS censorship. Look it up. The edit war over whether he is allowed to say so is typical of the problem here. People get so annoyed with Andy's dogged advocacy of his views that they go out of their way to antagonize and dispute him. Indeed, the fact that he had that denouncement of Leonig Mig on his user page only became an issue after these many months because people were looking for ways to 'get' him. (Note: This is not a criticism of the admins who were trying to stomp out the incivility - rather of the whole, 'look what he did! Get him!', finger pointing.)
What should be done? It'd be nice if people had thicker skins and could just say, 'I disagree' and not feel the need to 'win' / get Andy to stop disputing them. Unfortunately, historically we have seen over and over again that there is always someone (or several someones) who casts themself in the role of 'defender of Wikipedia' and goes after Andy and others who dare to disagree with their 'consensus'. It'd be nice if Andy could just accept 'defeat' and move on, but we've seen that while he abides by blocks and restrictions he will criticize the decisions and continue to press his viewpoint long past the point that most would give up.
So do we 'criminalize' dissent? Do we block people who object to and try to stifle the dissent? Or do we allow the argument to go on forever? That's the essential question here. Personally, I'd choose the last and keep the role of blocks as checks on actions and behaviour which are crossing the line into disruption and insults. We should not be getting rid of people, either temporarily or permanently, just for disagreeing... no matter how long they do so. --CBD 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by previously involved [[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]]

message: ====Statement by slightly involved Eusebeus====
I came across this user as part of the Composers project, which was discussing the use and value of user boxes. Andy's behaviour in the face of good faith engagement, reasoned and expansive arguments, and clear consensus was so belligerent that it comes across as if he enjoys and relishes confrontation and driving other editors to despair and frustration. His actions and comments are practically troll-like in this respect - simply repeating the same mantra over and over again without respect to how others reply. While he may a prodigious editor, his behaviour where I have observed it is simply despicable. He was previously banned for such actions and I think such remedial action would again be appropriate. To CBD's comments above, I would note the difference between dissent (which implies some kind of reasoned argument in defense of a position) and simply provocative gainsaying of other people while repeating the same tired cant in an increasingly insistent fashion. There may, for example, be other ways to provide the information Andy sought to collect via infoboxes. Instead of working for some kind of solution, or even presenting the reasoning behind his views, he acted in a way that was incomprehensibly rude and needlessly disruptive. Eusebeus 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tivedshambo pointed out on your talk page, VanTucky, you misunderstood a mistake which Andy had made, and Andy denied that he had done something which he had not. What is really a problem is the fact that you'd rather turn this into a pissing contest than stay calm about it; and you'd rather that this be seen as evidence of problems with Andy, rather than problems with the both of you for not figuring out what the underlying issue was. I note your "as it was easier for him to re-add his comment than me create a new request after it had been responded to imo"; that seems as lacking in civility as anything Andy may or may not have done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies, it was not him who put it back, it was someone else. I would like to make it clear that Andy Mabbett in my view has directly and deliberately antagonised me on an off for two years now and in my opinion he is a sociopath. Whether he is allowed to remain on Wikipedia has to be a question for more active editors, but in my view he will never change. Leonig Mig 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot kettle black, Leonig.  --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This case has been closed now. No further posts should be made to this (or any other) thread. Newyorkbrad 11:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional statements

message: I came across this user as part of the Composers project, which was discussing the use and value of user boxes. Andy's behaviour in the face of good faith engagement, reasoned and expansive arguments, and clear consensus was so belligerent that it comes across as if he enjoys and relishes confrontation and driving other editors to despair and frustration. His actions and comments are practically troll-like in this respect - simply repeating the same mantra over and over again without respect to how others reply. While he may a prodigious editor, his behaviour where I have observed it is simply despicable. He was previously banned for such actions and I think such remedial action would again be appropriate. To CBD's comments above, I would note the difference between dissent (which implies some kind of reasoned argument in defense of a position) and simply provocative gainsaying of other people while repeating the same tired cant in an increasingly insistent fashion. There may, for example, be other ways to provide the information Andy sought to collect via infoboxes. Instead of working for some kind of solution, or even presenting the reasoning behind his views, he acted in a way that was incomprehensibly rude and needlessly disruptive. Eusebeus 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by slightly involved [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]]

message: I have had long experience of dealing with Andy. I have clashed with him on a number of occasions on a number of articles including Birmingham, Coleshill, Warwickshire and West Midlands conurbation to name but a few. Some of the consistant behavioral traits which I have seen from him over this time include:
* An almost total refusal to accept not getting his own way, even when a clear majority of users are in disagreement with him. He often just reverts and reverts regardless of what anyone else thinks.
* A refusal to discuss any issues in a remotely adequate or constructive way. When I have tried to discuss things in a sensible way with him I usually get single sentence replies, usually involving repitition of the same arguments over and over again like a broken record, and nothing else. Even when I have attempted provided a clear rationale for my actions he appears to take no notice, and keep reverting.
*Refusal to discuss issues often leads to edit wars as people, in frustration, have no other way to respond to him. Which often eventually leads to him getting blocked. And then when he is unblocked it starts all over again.
I am clearly not the only one who has experienced this and I can well understand people's frustration. It is a shame really as Andy has done a lot of good work. Unfortunately he seems to be incapable of working with other people, which on a collaborative encyclopedia is not a perticularly helpful charateristic. I would like to think he could change his ways, but that doesn't seem to be happening. I have sometimes wondered whether he has a problem articulating himself, as he doesn't seem to be very fluent or tactful in arguing his case. It would be a shame in a way to see him blocked permanently. I don't know what solutions there are to this, perhaps blocking him from editing articles where he is causing trouble might help. G-Man ! 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by slightly involved [[User:G-Man|G-Man]]

message: I have to mention to the community that Andy Mabbett shows a great deal of similarity to a Usenet poster with a very similar name (on two fronts) who has been annoying the UK usenet community for about ten years.  Appeals to rules which only apply to others, running to RFD, refusing to answer comments, all there.  Wikipedia will have to either put up with him or show him the door permanently.  You will not change him.  Steve.CCC 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by un-involved SPA Steve.CCC 

message: I endorse in its entirety the statement by CBDunkerson.
I've been keeping an eye on Andy's work, since I had a run-in with him regarding the application of the LocateMe template, some months ago. I watched the WP:Composers Infobox "discussion", and despite being unimpressed with infoboxes, came away with the strong view that the debate was bad tempered, fullstop. It appeared to me that a group of WP:Composers editors argued that they had special rights to be heard, and that Andy had little or no rights. I was unimpressed by the arguments against infoboxes presented on that page. 
I am very unimpressed that that dispute has been carried by the WP:Composer faction into ArbCom. Lord help any of us if we fall foul of that particular kabal.
I've seen the LocateMe dispute; and the Tinsely Viaduct dispute; and the Coord discussions. And a number of challenges and responses to issues on Andy's page. And I've studied Andy's work rate and contributions as evidenced by his contributions record. The vast majority of his work is unremarkably positive in nature; those elements which form the basis for his ArbCom are at the margins of his contributions.
I'm unhappy that on the disputed evidence of a storm in a WP:Composers tea-cup, we could even be contemplating banning a productive editor. It looks to me like a brutal and vindictive form of coercion, something I want no part in, and something I think has no place on WP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by "not sure if I'm involved" [[user:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]]

message: I am not really a party to this case, but I just want to present one personal anecdote. I recently requested a new template, and in his rush to edit something or other in a lengthy discussion, Pigsonthewing deleted my entire request accidentally. I reverted this, as it was easier for him to re-add his comment than me create a new request after it had been responded to imo. He reverted this with the comment of "what the hell?" Then, after he asked me, and I told him why I did this edit, he responded that he "deleted nothing". This is pretty minor, but I found his lack of caution in editing, his knee-jerk reaction to revert rather than talk to me, and his refusal to acknowledge a mistake all to be a microcosm of the problems evidenced in this case. VanTucky (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tivedshambo pointed out on your talk page, VanTucky, you misunderstood a mistake which Andy had made, and Andy denied that he had done something which he had not. What is really a problem is the fact that you'd rather turn this into a pissing contest than stay calm about it; and you'd rather that this be seen as evidence of problems with Andy, rather than problems with the both of you for not figuring out what the underlying issue was. I note your "as it was easier for him to re-add his comment than me create a new request after it had been responded to imo"; that seems as lacking in civility as anything Andy may or may not have done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 

message: In my dealings with Andy he has not been particularly polite. His behaviour is borderline impolite. He is insisting on his own ways, not open to constructive discussion, and asumes ignorance and/or bad faith in users disagreeing with him. I must emphasize that I have not experienced a clear-cut personal attack, but his behaviour is counterproductive in a collaborative environment like WP. Nearly all of my run-ins have been frustrating. Andy is very vocal projects such as WP:GEO effectively monopolizing the discussion there. --Dschwen 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Dschwen

message: I cannot see why I have to put up with this bloke having not nice and in my view mis-representive "sign" on his user page over 2 years after the original conflict! If he had a sign in his garden saying "Jo Bloggs and I had an argument two years ago and therefore I will not talk to him or listen to his voice"- well, it's absurd. Stupid!! What on earth is the matter with this man?? Leonig Mig 18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, it was not him who put it back, it was someone else. I would like to make it clear that Andy Mabbett in my view has directly and deliberately antagonised me on an off for two years now and in my opinion he is a sociopath. Whether he is allowed to remain on Wikipedia has to be a question for more active editors, but in my view he will never change. Leonig Mig 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot kettle black, Leonig.  --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This case has been closed now. No further posts should be made to this (or any other) thread. Newyorkbrad 11:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outburst by Leonig Mig