Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard/archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] To 12 June

Go look at my talk page, I have said a million times that copyright damage is not my aim, go read my user page, I am fighting against a couple? of users who have the audacity to think that what they write is somehow more important than what I am contributing and without explaining their edits in a reasonable sense. I had serious doubts about Wikipedia being a den for elitist editors when I first joined, go read the first response from Angela in the first ever reply on my talk page then go and read RayGirvans support of elitism on his user page, this issue is not about copyright, it is about Andy Mabbett and Ray Girvan not liking the fact that anybody (i.e. me) can contribute to articles as Ray keeps explaining at every oportunity... he's a professional journalist didn't you know. Nick Boulevard 10:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If copyright damage isn't your aim, why repeatedly breach copyright? I viewed it originally as a genuine mistake, but you continued to do it after being given an explanation of how copyright works (and I mentioned my job in that context, as evidence of why you should listen to my views on that subject).

I've no interest in whether anyone here is literally professional or not - just whether their edits attempt to abide by the professional standards expected by Wikipedia. If that's elitism, I'm elitist.

As I've said, there's no obligation on Wikipedia to explain edits in the detail you expect (that's what edit summaries are for) - and certainly not to discuss them in advance: Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages. RayGirvan 11:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ray, I have litteraly been driven to a revert without caring attitude because of Andy Mabbett, If I reverted copyright it was unintentional and I apologise for that (of course) and maybe in future I will make a specific point of reading why a page has been reverted before clicking, an example of Andy Mabbetts revert war history extends to my own user page which he reverted and was eventually warned by Angela then amazingly he denied it while the evidence was right there. That is why I have sometimes lost my cool, how would any user here feel if I went and reverted their user page then I added them to my watch list and over a period of time I systematically picked at every single article they worked on, it is bizarre behaviour and it definately brings out the worst in me in acts of self defence and to try and keep some of what I have written at least, anyway I have decided to take Theo's advice to not let Andy Mabbetts behaviour drive mine. Nick Boulevard 14:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basically I have apologised for abuse and Reverting copyright and I feel that I have explained some of the reasons why I have done this, I will bite a wet sock next time I feel vexed, just out of interest I have recently written a new article here with no copyright :) just to prove that I do not need to copy anybody elses work to claim as my own (not that I ever have anyway). Nick Boulevard 14:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I saw this pop up on RfC, the first thing I did was look at Nick Boulevard's edit history. Among his most recent edits at the time was this one, which contains text lifted directly from here and here. I find it very hard to believe that this was unintentional. --Carnildo 06:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is it with certain people here who seem to have lost the ability to actually address people directly as oposed to over their head, it is ignorant and rude IMO. As I have already said Carnildo, I am passionate about creating articles here and I admit that it was wrong of me to ever copy and paste anything, I certainly will not be copy and pasting anything again, to be honest I usually get carried away with what I am researching and have a whole load of text on my page, I sometimes save an article before it is finished which is usually when I've had enough and am about to turn off my p.c., let me rephrase... I have never intentionally set out to create a duplication of any article any where... at all... something that hasn't been listed in my public hanging here is that I often don't include my sources and so my work can seem difficult to verify, this will also be improved. I have good intentions I can assure you all. :) Nick Boulevard 11:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update 19 June 2005

RayGirvan 02:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) response to comments by TheoClarke and User:Leonig Mig, and general thoughts on progress.

Firstly, I think the Pigsonthewing angle and the attitudes of other editors is a side issue. Would this RfC have happened if that user didn't exist? Almostly certainly yes. Read the edit history of Brummie [1] from mid-January 2005 before Pigsonthewing began taking part in mid-May 2005, or the Talk for Brummagem, where he never took part.

The situation does seem to have improved in some areas. The copyright issue can, I hope, be dropped, as well as the complaint about failing to log in. Nick is also starting to provide sources. Dealings on some articles, such as The Pitman Vegetarian Hotel, have gone very smoothly.

However, I don't believe that such a vociferous view - that neutral writing implies a bias against Birmingham - will have disappeared overnight. Nick suggested to me on 16th June, still, the inverted view that those of us following Wikipedia guidelines are the biased ones: "I am concerned that wikipedia could end up becoming an extremely boring index of biased facts by whoever has more time to read and "work" the rules" [2]. On that basis, I think that his edits still need watching for a tendency to remove detail unfavourable to Birmingham [3] and to bring in peripheral material as if Birmingham were central.

The abusive comments about other editors haven't stopped either: see the examples cited at the Talk page, and Talk:Gun_Quarter,_Birmingham.

So, caution. RayGirvan 02:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Ray's view. Nick has stopped the daily reversion of articles other people are working on, he has toned down (though not eliminated) a lot of the personal stuff, and he now seems to finally accept that copy-and-paste from other websites is not acceptable. I'm not at all convinced that he understands or accepts NPOV and the full implications of the GNU Free Documentation License - he's still showing a tendency to treat articles which he initiated as if he has some sort of proprietary interest in them and the right to tell others how they may change them. He's very far from assuming good faith, too. On the whole, though, there is encouraging movement in the right direction. Nick has a lot to contribute if he would just stick to the standards expected of all Wikipedia editors. --Brumburger 08:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree also, this is very serious! Nick Boulevard 23:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 20 June 2005 - I've given this a lot of thought, and decided not to comment on anything regarding Pigsonthewing. I think the current discussion is an example of the well-trodden Wikipedia dynamic (see Larry Sanger's Kuro5hin article) of turning against users who object to egregious conduct. Note the particular comment about the situation if those "should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best)".

Maybe there are issues in what others may or not have done. But as I said, the problem was ongoing in forums where Pigsonthewing wasn't present. This RfC is about Nick Boulevard's conduct. As Brumburger said, Nick has a lot to contribute - if he works by Wikipedia guidelines, he's as welcome as flowers in May. If he can't or won't, and wastes all our time and energy, I've no interest in "care and respect". RayGirvan 01:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ray: I am not certain of what you mean by your last sentence; it can be read as a warning that you will treat harshly any misstep by Nick. Please make it explicit whether you are issuing him with some final warning or not. I am sure that you are aware that an ultimatum increases the probability of Nick transgressing; we know that he feels beleaguered and reacts badly to such stress. I am not challenging your prerogative to adopt such a stance; this has run for some time and I can understand why your patience may be thin.

I think that your parallel with Sanger's anti-elitism dynamic is inappropriate. Seven people made or entirely endorsed the complaint. Two people (of whom I am one) deprecate Nick's behaviour (that is, we largely endorsed the complaint), noted his improvement and suggested that the complainants recognise this. Nick himself has endorsed a comment that criticises his behaviour. This means that there is unanimity about Nick having misbehaved. You have already found ways to help him to behave appropriately and he has responded constructively to this. Many of us have moments of unreason and Nick has more such moments than most but he is not completely unreasonable. His behaviour is least appropriate when he responds to the intransigence of others. I understand Sanger to be complaining about requests to cooperate with the hopeless. I will not argue for cooperation with the uncooperative. I do not see Nick in that light.—Theo (Talk) 09:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Dealing with Nick is hopeless, and we certainly shouldn't tolerate editors who are only reasonable when we agree with them. Nick Boulevard is poison to Birmingham-related articles. How bluntly do want it put? He is biased, behaves in a paranoid manner with his claims that we are all sock-puppets of Andy Mabbett, and has shown little grasp of the fundamental (and well-stated) requirements of working here. I hope you agree that we want to produce professional-quality product. On that basis, why should anyone bother dealing with him, except to say "FOAD"? RayGirvan 23:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with Nick is hopeless, and we certainly shouldn't tolerate editors who are only reasonable when we agree with them. ~ You have missed a fundamental point here Ray.. since I have admitted my wrongs I haven't touched the article that you are getting so IMO ridiculously irate about. Not only do I edit but more importantly I contribute, are you suggesting that just because I do not agree with your "edits" I have no right to be here? would you like to censor and control what I say? What was it you were saying about elitism Ray...

Nick Boulevard is poison to Birmingham-related articles. ~ two things here, one is that I am amazed that you could ever substantiate any claim against me being abusive when you have just typed that, secondly I actually created majority of the Brum articles you seem to think I have poisoned? I do not claim to be un-biased but I am learning to be, my paranoia over Andy Mabbett etc is quite fair considering Pigs on the wing, Ray Girvan and Brum Burger have been watching me and editing my work all within minutes of oneanother. Nick Boulevard 00:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok I have ceased all copyright violation so that is no longer an issue. Direct abuse although distasteful to the target (i.e. Andy Mabbett, Andrew Norman, Brum Burger, Andy Mabbet, Ray Girvan) is never meant with malice whereas I think that certain other users have much more contrived ways of trying to p1ss me off.

I think that it is time to admit that any abuse used by myself has been merely Tongue in cheek and part of my sense of humour but until now I really could not be bothered to explain myself, why should I no one else ever does as Andy tells me.. it's not a chat site (forum), Ray didn't ever explain the reason for his condesending behaviour in the first instance, I found that quite rude but I didn't whine and get all vexed, I simply stood my ground as you would against a bully or group of bullies which I admit should have been less offensive (I didn't mean to hurt Ray and Andy's feelings). Many things that Andy Mabbett does is calculated like reverting my user page, lets face it my only reason for being here is to add contenet that wasn't here previously, I don't need to make any friends in an online encyclopedia although I think I probably have and am happy with that.

Unfortunately there are some extremely anal and irritating people congregating in wikipedia who do seem to be developing a bullying like nature, maybe this is a lack of something in their lives away from a computer... lack of control maybe? I am not being nasty it's merely a personal observation.

In contrast I am discovering many users who seem to be quite cordial, open and even handed, one being on this page (not me :) ). To suggest that I loose my cool more often than others here is a bit unfair as to be honest I find most complaints like this inane but I do realise that it is important for the health of wikipedia.

If Ray or Andy believe that they have me over a barrel then they really are fooling only themselves here, I have admitted my wrongs and apologized, there is more to this story as they well know, I will continue to contribute happily, abuse and copy vio free for as long as I wish but one thing I should make clear, I often respond in like to how I am approached and so If a user is rude or snide then I will always defend myself, after having said that I am still trying Theo's kind advice at not letting one persons behaviour drive my own, seem sto be working so far (touches head). Thankyou. Nick Boulevard 19:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)