Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Central page to coordinate probation

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request renewal of revert parole for User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbet) is subject to indefinite probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He was also placed on revert parole for one year, which has expired, and was banned for one year, which has also expired. However, he continues to be (or has resumed being) disruptive. Following this report I banned Andy from making userbox-related edits for one month [1]. Today he was reported for making four reversions on Sutton Coldfield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Andy persists in calling the edits "POV vandalism" and insists that reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I and others see this as a content dispute. Since the edits involved infoboxes again, I extended and expanded Andy's ban from infobox-related edits [2]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) shows no sign of learning to resolve disputes by other methods than edit-warring and stubborn persistence, I support this. Extend for a year, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a vote? Thatcher131 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Support this, per many time-consuming "discussions" at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, talk:Sheffield Town Hall#coordinates, Talk:Sheffield City Hall, Talk:Meersbrook#Coord, Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal#Table of features and I'm sure many more. Pigsonthewing is almost invariably highly uncooperative when he doesn't get his way (see for example this edit summary with no explanation of why the revert was made - only that I'd not explained why I made mine!) L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
unwilling to compromise. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: This is a unique case given that the ruling was amended, but it would seem to me that the revert parole should have been frozen when the one year ban was implemented, meaning that the revert parole would continue until December 9, 2007. Perhaps this isn't the case, but in my opinion it should be- a ban shouldn't be meant to supersede previous remedies, it should be an additional, consecutive remedy. Ral315 » 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought so. It seems daft to me that a one-year ban and a one-year revert parole should run concurrently - what's the point of that? Perhaps we need to contact the closing admin(s)? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that when someone is banned, all parole are frozen? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To then recur upon the expiration of the ban? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that if it's not worded such right now, it should be. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole runs for a year after the one year ban, otherwise it would be a nullity. Fred Bauder 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it must. Does the user need to be banned therefore for multiple violations? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I will inform him about the continuation of the revert parole. Future violations may be reported for blocking at arbitration enforcement or the 3RR noticeboard. Note that banning is normally only an option after repeated offenses. The normal response would be brief blocks, escalating if necessary for repeat offenses. Thatcher131 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems have also unfortunately been, and are still being, experienced at Template:Infobox Swiss town. Uncooperative talk page edits, for example: Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town#Transclusion_of_doc_subpage, and several reversions of the template itself, with untrue claims of consensus, and "as per talk page". — BillC talk 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems like content argument with neither side compromising. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, one party has never been seen editing the test version, despite promises the contrary. -- User:Docu