Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Workshop


 * I'd like to point out that Karmafist, a complaining party, has taken some negative actions in this area. For example, he created a page, User:Karmafist/users to watch, which contained a list of many users that he agreed, or disagreed, with.  However, many users complained that this appeared to be an attack list, Pigsonthewing (who was on the list) being one of them.  When Pigsonthewing pointed this out to me during Karmafist's MedCom application, I questioned Karmafist on it, and he maintained that it was not a "bad user" list, later adding me to this list after his MedCom nomination failed.  When Pigsonthewing posted a message on the talk pages of all users mentioned on it, explaining the situation, Karmafist deleted this page, and recreated it at User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine, leaving no redirect, and deleting all prior page histories.  This strikes me as an attempt to "cover it up", as if Karmafist understands that the page may have been questionable, but was not willing to get rid of it outright.


 * Also, note the way Karmafist has repeatedly addressed Pigsonthewing as 'Pigs', rather than by his username, or his real name, 'Andy' or 'Andy Mabbett'. Pigsonthewing has requested that Karmafist stop this, but the practice has continued.  This seems to me as an unnecessary, degrading tactic used to annoy and/or bait Pigsonthewing.  I'm not saying that Pigsonthewing is innocent (far from it), but Karmafist's behavior in no way has helped this situation.  Ral315 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ral315 that these two actions/behaviors by Karmafist have been troublesome.  a  ndroid 79  14:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Ral315. Karmafist's actions are not exactly conducive to the resolution of the dispute. However, I don't think that the construction of a list of users to watch is in itself necessarily harmful. Care needs to be taken when building such a list to ensure that it is not misinterpreted. I myself have a list of possible linkspammers at User:GraemeL/Watchlist and I am a lot more conservative when considering adding registered users to the list than I am in the addition of IP addresses. --GraemeL (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Ral315. Karmafist is a great guy, but he does seem to be out to get Andy. See Talk:British Sea Power/Archive01, especially this section. Continuing to call him "Pigs" despite his protestations also seems to be a deliberate attempt to provoke him. In addition looking at the old edit history for the "users to watch" page (, admins only unfortunately) Karmafist has referred to it as "The Hate Page" in edit summaries. Whilst this may well be tongue in cheek it is rather hard to tell. the wub "?!"  16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think The Wub is onto something there, i'm out to get Andy's behavior, for lack of a better term to use. My ultimate goal would be to have Andy continue his positive work and end the constant edit wars he gets into, but my skills are unable to bring that about apparently, and i've seen people like him before: basically little more than bullies, much as I have seen Ral315 to this point, although from what I've seen, Ral315 only has an axe to grind with me whereas Pigs seems to have an axe to grind with multiple people at random. My opinion of Ral315 has been formed from my dealings with him here and here, the second of which I asked him advice on a compromise on IRC, to which he wouldn't give a solution, thus hasting my usage of the term "Hate Page" in my edit summaries. I was actually thinking of renaming it the "Hate Page" to be honest, but I figured that would just worsen things, and I tried to think of a name that would lessen the "ominous nature" of the page it seemed that other users had seen, thus the tongue and cheek new name.

If anyone has any other suggestions on how to make the page less "hateful", please let me know. Although it's been deteriorating over the past few weeks, it's still provided me an opportunity for good will with two potentially harmful users just recently (Borisblue and Phatcat68), another one a few weeks ago (lawyer2b), and let me know about these comments at almost the same time I heard about them on IRC.

I am incredibly openminded(one of the people on "The Hate List" at one point was just recently nominated for adminship since he had grown so much IMO since then --MONGO), so I do hope that there's a way we can settle this, but please know that I will not be intimidated into deleting it that page. Precedent is on my side in the cases of similiar pages belonging to Klonimus and Sam Spade, and almost in the case of Cool Cat, who was basically harrassed into deleting his user sub page by Davenbelle and company. If Ral315 asked me before saying those hurtful words in the MedCom, I would have deleted it, and if he apologizes for those hurtful words, I still might do so if he apologized, but i'd have to think about it now with aforementioned usefulness of that page and because I don't think he ever would.


 * I don't believe my words were hurtful- like in an RFA, an application for MedCom is supposed to allow other mediators and users to carefully look through a user's edits and spot possible problems. I found a possible problem with that list, and showed it.  That's why I opposed your nomination.  I in no way meant to hurt your feelings, but note that being a mediator is different than being a user or an admin- different skills are needed, skills I don't feel you possess.  I have no hard feelings toward you, in any event.  Ral315 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, it's my opinion that both POTW and Ral315 are afflicted with the symptoms related to Luigi30's Law, most particular the thinking that "I'm right and you're wrong, because i've been here for longer than you so I must be smarter than you." mode of thinking, which is far more mild in Ral315 than POTW, but is still there IMO, thus giving me the concern to put him on "Kittens and Sunshine". Karmafist 22:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, for what it's worth, you've been here three months longer than me. Ral315 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, for what it's worth, I was basically an anon until Late Spring/Summer 2005 if you look back at my contribs.Karmafist 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hrm, your first edit by Kate's Tool is misleading, then. Nevertheless, I maintain that length of time here, or edit counts, have nothing to do with my experiences with you.  Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How about making it something as simple as User:Karmafist/Notepad? That's basically what you're using it as. As to the "Hate Page" edit summaries, chalk it up to experience. I'm sure you can see how others might use those sort of edit summaries against you, even though you intended them to be light hearted. --GraemeL (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Done and Done

 * Done and done. I even took Ral315 off in an attempt to bury the hatchet, but just like with Pigs, burying the hatchet doesn't seem to be part of Ral's agenda after that new edit below, right now I'd say it seems to be character assassination against myself in order to sway the arbcom from looking at my evidence as tainted. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but i'd say that so far in this discussion, i've been fairly openminded and willing to work with others as long as they don't intimidate me while those who seem to disagree with me act otherwise. Karmafist 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that you're willing to work with others. If anything, I'd say your main fault (hey, we all have faults...) is that you tend to take everything I've done extremely seriously.  You took my comments on your editing as 'hurtful' - the intention was only to review your edits carefully, and my comments were not a comment on your character.  I see the same thing happening here- all I meant by this originally was to note that I have had problems with you, that I understand why Pigsonthewing and you have had issues, and that it wasn't just Pigsonthewing's behavior that was responsible for the conflict.  I have no personal problem with you, and I hope you do understand this.  Ral315 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The very idea of "putting someone on" the Hate List Kittens and Sunshine for earlier disputes is what I find so disturbing. "You're on my list! Watch out!" This only serves to increase tensions, not decrease them.  a  ndroid 79  22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is what I was getting at. I really don't care if my name is on a list.  But others do, and I think it's inappropriate the way it was (the original heading was "users to watch out for", and you had labeled users as "Right Wing POV pushers" - this sounds like you have a vendetta, true or not).  And by deleting the page and recreating it as a copy-and-paste, you not only may have violated GFDL, it looks as if you were trying to cover up the page, after Pigsonthewing left notices on talk pages. Ral315 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ral, was that a legal threat? It sounds like you're reaching there regarding a "GFDL Violation". Karmafist 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's a GFDL violation in that you basically deleted the entire history, and despite the fact that you were the only editor to add substantial content, page histories should NEVER be deleted if they form the basis for another article by merge, move, or something else.  That's why the "move" button moves all history to the new title.  Ral315 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The deletion history is still available here and here. According to the page an admin can undelete the content. I note that POTW is now going around telling everyone that Karmafist moved his users-to-watch page, as if people can't just look at Special:Contributions/Karmafist and see where it got moved to.         I'd also like to add that I don't see the problem with Karmafist maintaining a list of "users to watch" that everyone can see. If anything, it's more transparent than someone who takes notes off-Wikipedia (it allows people who are behaving questionably to note that their activities are being monitored). It might look bad at first, but it's really a lot better IMO, than not knowing at all. --Locke Cole 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Deletion history is not contribution history. All of the edits are there, but they are not properly attributed in the page history, and the deletion. This would not be an issue if Karmafist were the sole contributor to the page, but he's not.
 * It'd be one thing if Karmafist were only keeping track of anonymous users or registered users largely viewed to be disruptive trolls. Before it was edited to decrease tensions, as he put it, there were a fair number more users who I recognize as legitimate, good-faith editors. (In fact, one good-faith editor is still listed, and I can't make any sense of the "evidence".) This only serves to increase tensions with good-faith editors. I know I wouldn't take kindly to being "watched".  a  ndroid 79  14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't take kindly to being watched then why are you here? That's exactly what people do, but as I said before, Karmafist is being more transparent and open about it than most are willing to be. In so far as who's a good-faith editor and who's not, I suspect that's part of the reason for keeping track of evidence in the first place: to determine if there's a pattern of (in his opinion) disruptive behavior. It really isn't that big of a deal, even with it's old name of "users to watch". -- Locke Cole ( talk ) 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting it's common practice for users to compile "dirt" on other users – either on Wiki or off – I think that's simply not a good thing, except in the context of collecting evidence for an intended RfC or RfAr, not potential RfArs, as Karmafist has stated was the intent of this page. Anybody is welcome to rummage through Special:Contributions/Android79 – that's what it's there for – but if I chanced upon User:UserI'veHadADisputeWith/ReasonsWhyAndroid79IsABadEditor with diffs for "evidence" that is not explained I'd rightly take serious offense at it. This sort of list has a chilling effect on edits by whomever is listed on it, especially when the list is maintained by an administrator.  a  ndroid 79  14:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd rather that someone was transparent and open, especially someone in a position of some small authority (an administrator). Certainly if I'd done nothing wrong, it wouldn't have a chilling effect on my edits. But I can't speak for everyone else of course. Similarly, just because it may be offensive or chilling to you, it may not have that effect on others. As Karmafist said, this list being brought to a number of peoples attention (seemingly as an attempt at smearing Karmafist by Pigsonthewing) has allowed him to reconcile with some of them. That's a good thing, right? -- Locke Cole ( talk ) 15:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Everybody, let's move this conversation to the talk page, this is getting rather long and we should save the arbcom the clutter. Also, I have an announcement to make. Karmafist 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I moved most of it. Wow, that's a lot of text.  a  ndroid 79  19:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Big Announcement
Me and Tony Sidaway had a long discussion about this last night, and I've decided not to call POTW "Pigs" anymore. Off the things doing that was accomplishing, the only real thing it was doing was helping me smile at his demeaning and antisocial editing style, and I would gladly sacrifice that for the good of Wikipedia.

As for "The Hate Page", the last real reason why I was keeping that was my feeling bullied by Ral315 into deleting it, but now since we've resolved the misunderstanding of the apparent disagreement we had, there's no reason to keep it -- I haven't kept it up in awhile now. Karmafist 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got a few issues with the 'Jeremy Clarkson' section on the evidence page, and the arbitration in general for that matter. Karmafist, why didn't you just remove the 'SS' accusation when it was proven false? What's this 'Appears to make SS comparison' and 'needless debate arises from the confusion'? It's HIS fault that you mistook his (properly indented) response to an unsigned edit as coming from him? That you assumed he was lying when he said he didn't write it? That you didn't check the history when he provided a link to it as evidence that he was telling the truth? That you continued to assume he was lying when I told you otherwise and provided a difflink to the proof?


 * I submit that the 'Pigs' issue isn't the only instance where you've allowed your impartiality to be compromised by the enjoyment of tormenting him ('making yourself smile', as per the talk page). Don't agree? Well, take a look at the new complaint you added to the Jeremy Clarkson section about Andy being the ONLY one making NPOV objections on the article. I guess you weren't counting the 'SS' anon that you'd confused Andy with in the first place? Or Nandesuka? Or 72.234.99.65? Or Squeakbox (who does NOW think the POV issues have been resolved)? Does it not tell you something that you are so eager to put up evidence against him that you don't stop to notice that it's false? Twice?


 * I could put all this up as 'evidence' with the links and all, but frankly the process already is too inherently conducive to 'finger pointing'. Let's just fix the damned mess. You've SAID that the last thing you want to see is for Pigsonthewing to get banned and that you wish he would respond to the RfC/RfA. Well, the way I see it... you're the one person who might be able to make that happen. He doesn't think he can get a fair shake when an admin can, as he sees it, abuse and harass him and then call an RfA to enforce it.


 * He's pissed that you called some of his contributions "vandalism". Now apparently there was some sort of automated form or template or something which inserted that text... but you still used that form and haven't told him it wasn't what you planned. If you didn't MEAN to call his work vandalism then why can't you SAY so? Heck, maybe even get wacky and apologize for the unintended insult. Maybe take another look at whether falsely accusing (on an arbitration evidence page no less) someone of making Nazi comparisons and lying about it might be an action deserving of some small apology. Admit that you 'screwed the pooch' when, in the course of 'mediating' a dispute, you declared that Pigsonthewing was the party in the wrong and told him that his "punishment" if he didn't accept your version of the text would be an arbitrary (and before you object to that word take a good long look at how 'respectful' calling him "Pigs" and "Pig" was) block under WP:POL #4, 'respect other contributors'. Maybe you really believe that's a justified use of admin powers, but it CERTAINLY wasn't 'mediation'.


 * I didn't really know Andy before this. I'd run into him a couple of times where my interest in Tolkien overlapped his interest in Birmingham. I mildly disagreed with some of his positions, found him maybe a little inflexible, but never thought it a big deal. I saw the RfA while checking up on the status of Louis Epstein's (another Tolkien fan whom I've known for many years... now LOUIS is inflexible :] ) and didn't like the whole concept of a 'trial' (yes, I know... it's not a trial... it just weighs evidence and hands down verdicts :] ) without representation. Since then I've gotten to know Andy alot better. There are issues which he needs to work on, but he isn't the only one and this isn't the way to go about it. --CBDunkerson 12:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the responses


 * The Vandalism Tag: In dealing with people like him before, I doubt he'd accept an apology. If he would, i'd give it.
 * "Mediation": At this point, i'm glad I didn't get onto the MedCom, it's just not my style. I am unorthodox, and I do things in unorthodox ways. However, I'm not going to respect someone who doesn't respect others, and Andy doesn't respect others as the evidence and his user page shows.
 * Banning: Right now, I don't think there's any other option. All I see when I see him due to that lack of respect is a potential conflict waiting to happen which may cost us valuable contributors down the line. Most of his contribs are in Edit Wars, which he is constantly getting into.
 * Jeremy Clarkson: He could have ended any confusion right there and then by showing the diff, but he let it drag on in order to discredit his detractors IMO. This is what he does from what I've seen, he has a usenet mentality and basically sees his fellow editors as opponents to be neutralized(my only explanation for his attempts to discredit me through WP:AN/I whining and contacting talk pages of the people on that list rather than coming here.)
 * "Unrepresented": He had the right to come to his rfc, and this rfar, and has been notifed multiple times. Right now, he's taking the "Ostrich Defense": Sticking your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away.

CB, if you can make him into a better editor, then please do. I've failed at that goal, and like most people who deal with him, he just annoys me too much to make any headway. Karmafist 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He is very annoying. I'm coming round to thinking maybe he should be banned, but let him come back with a different name. Like a disconnect with his editing past. 84.45.217.185 18:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice For Everyone
POTW has been sending alot of hostile talk page messages my way, so i'm just going to move them all to a separate archive to not violate WP:TP. Although i'm going to keep my pledge of above, i'm having a really hard time bringing myself not to name it "the Pig Pen" ;-) Karmafist 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)