Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

Procedure for bans
I just wanted to note that it seems one minor step in the banning procedures hasn't been followed yet: Probation. It's also worth noting that despite being put on indefinite probation, Pigsonthewing isn't listed as being on probation. —Locke Cole 10:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Achiving future discussion here
Rather than letting Firestorms blow up all over Wikipedia, I am going to be encouraging all potw discussion to focus itself to this page or to the Arbcom page itself, if the case is re-opened by the Arbitration Commitee. Thank you. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Evilphoenix
Sorry, but this point needs to be made - Karmafist calling User talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive the "troll gulag" and edits like this are what I mean about Karmafist being the instigator of hostilities here and not 'leaving Pigsonthewing alone' as has been claimed. If calling Pigsonthewing a "troll" doesn't violate this arbitration decision then there is no way the various 'personal attack' blocks against Pigsonthewing himself (for much less severe comments) were valid. When you guys banned Pigsonthewing from responding on either of those pages I told you that only covered half the problem. Karmafist should also be stopped from his continued harassment of Pigsonthewing. His decision to post insults on pages Pigsonthewing is banned from responding to makes it all the more egregious. Andy was not involved in the incident sparking Karmafist's comments here at all. Karmafist just felt like gratuituously insulting him. Again. And no admin said boo about it. Again. I keep hearing about how I shouldn't 'claim Andy is completely innocent'... I've never actually done that. From day one I have taken issue with his behaviour as well. What I do have a problem with are the false claims that Karmafist isn't doing anything wrong. He's been blatantly violating WP:NPA, WP:HA, and a host of restrictions on use of admin powers for a couple of months now. I don't think that means he should be de-sysoped, but I do think people need to stop making excuses for him and get him to play by some set of rules other than WP:IAR. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 14:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how comments like that would even be discovered by Pigsonthewing unless he was reading Karmafist's contribs. In other words: how does it instigate anything unless POTW is stalking Karmafist? (Note that this is in stark contrast to POTW stalking Karmafist at his ArbCom election page, or to other users talk pages. The big difference being that POTW actively engages Karmafist, while Karmafist merely generally stays within his own spaces). —Locke Cole 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reading someone's contribs is not stalking... that's why the 'User contributions' link is right there on every user page. It isn't stalking until you start responding to all/most of those contributions with an apparent intent to harass the person. Pigsonthewing is not trying to disrupt Karmafist's work on Wikiproject:New Hampshire. He isn't following Karmafist around and reverting/challenging virtually every edit which is open to personal interpretation/preference (ahem). In short, he isn't 'stalking' Karmafist. Any more than you are me... by following my edits. Following people's edits is common and accepted. Doing so to harass them on all of those pages is not. Pigsonthewing is following Karmafist's edits and complaining when Karmafist insults him. If that is 'harassment' then it is harassment which can be cured by stopping the insults. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't get it: Karmafist isn't insulting him. Karmafist is saying something to someone else that shouldn't even be read by Pigsonthewing unless he's stalking Karmafist. Are you saying that Karmafist can never tell anyone else on Wikipedia what he thinks about Pigsonthewing because doing so would be "instigate" things? That's utterly ridiculous. I'd agree if Karmafist were posting these kinds of things on POTW's talk page. Or maybe if Karmafist were going to other talk pages of users who POTW interacts with and insulting him. But he's not. He mentioned him a few times on ArbCom nomination page. He talked about him on another admins talk page (no doubt trying to blow off steam). But instead of being left alone, he gets stalked to just about any page he edits. I honestly don't understand how you can't see how POTW is gaming Wikipedia. —Locke Cole 15:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So... if I were to go around calling you a 'troll who is trying to destroy Wikipedia' (or something equally ridiculous) it would be ok so long as I did it 'behind your back' on pages you weren't likely to see? And if you then found some of these and checked my contributions to track them all down and defend yourself / complain you would be harassing me? I really don't see it that way. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have enough faith in Wikipedians to know that if someone makes an assertion about me that they'll investigate it before jumping to conclusions. Or are you now saying that everyone believes everything they hear? —Locke Cole 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses forthcoming. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok to respond to your comments. First, again, please direct all comments and discussion here. You're welcome to post any announcements to WP:AN asking for review of any discussion here, but things are flaring up all over the Wikipedia, and that needs to stop. Now, in the first edit you cite, I agree that karmafist could have chosen a better term than "troll gulag", but I will also point out that the particular discussion he was archiving did not involve Pigsonthewing. As I have said to you somewhere else, probably Linuxbeak's Talk page, I'm not going to get aggressive on things Karmafist says or does in his Userspace or what Pigsonthewings says or does on his userspace...indeed I refuse to comment on anything Pigsonthewing posts on his userspace, his habit of blanking comments demonstrates a lack of respect for what other people say, and I'm not going to participate in that. I will however be aggressive on actions I observe outside of their respective userspaces. However, if you feel that calling that space a "troll gulag" was a personal attack, I would like to invite you to point others towards this discussion, and if there is a consensus that that comment was a personal attack, I will encourage a response. To repeat a point I have made earlier however, there is a difference between a personal attack and a negative comment. For example, if I call Willy on Wheels a vandal, it's not a personal attack, because he is a vandal. If I call Jimmy Wales a vandal, it's a personal attack, because he's not a vandal. Pigsonthewing today called Karmafist a vandal, which consensus is that he is not, and argued with the administrator who ruled that Karmafists actions were not vandalism. That is a personal attack, because Karmafist is not a vandal. However, Pigsonthewings behavior is very troll-like, and frankly, in my personal opinion he is acting like a troll. He can call this a personal attack till his face turns blue, but the evidence against him, and my feeling is that consensus would agree with me on that one. Now, the second post you cite, Karmafist claims in his personal user space that Pigsonthewing is one of "Those who wish to further an argument rather than further our Encyclopedia and Community.". Again, do you dispute that that is a true statement? Pigsonthewing continues to fight and argue, and has not returned to positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and indeed this comment seems to make it clear that Andy isn't interested in positive contributions, and if that is the case, he should leave, and come back when he is. If you find a personal attack by Karmafist, outside his userspace, bring it here, and we'll see if there is a consensus that it is a personal attack. I'm not going to block him for calling Andy a troll, because it's hardly untrue. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I disagree that Andy is a troll who is not interested in positive contributions. That's a plainly ludicrous assertion in the face of his thousands of positive contributions over the past three years. You'd suggest that he wasn't really interested in contributing to the encyclopedia all that time... he was just laying the groundwork to cunningly troll the community the first time someone abusively blocked him to win a content dispute? Diabolical.
 * This idea that it is ok to call someone a troll if they get pissed off when you call them "obnoxious", "scum", and "dick" is mind-boggling. Your argument essentially comes down to, 'personal attacks on people I do not like are ok'... and I am sorry, but that's inherently poisonous to the very concept of civility. You can't harass and abuse someone and then say, 'hey look... he got mad about it so he is a troll'. He is not a troll. He is a positive contributor with some rough edges who was blatantly mistreated and took it badly.
 * Things are 'flaring up all over the Wikipedia' because some people are trying to set themselves above WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and all other standards of community and fairness. An admin bit does not come with the right to pick out 'less than perfect' editors and abuse them at will. When someone does something wrong that's a reason to help them get it right... not an excuse to belittle, harass, and set out to destroy them.
 * I'm sure you don't agree with my description of events. However, chew on this... Have the 'aggressive tactics' used against Pigsonthewing, Freestylefrappe, Rbj, et cetera made things better... or worse? Has the quality of their contributions improved as a result of these actions? Have disruptions to Wikipedia in general decreased? I think any reasoned evaluation would have to conclude that things have gotten worse. Hostility and abuse breed resentment and disruption. So please... stop defending the right of admins to be hostile and abusive. It only makes things worse for the 'less than perfect' users, worse for the (mythical) 'perfect' users, and worse for Wikipedia. I understand that Karmafist and like-minded individuals honestly believe that they are 'defending Wikipedia' by their actions... but you need to take a good long look at the results of that 'defense'. Identifying people as 'bad users to be destroyed by any means possible' just leads to endless disruption. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 20:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)