Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Shortcut:
Wikipedia:RFC/POTW

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:58, September 28, 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other then to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section, other then to endorse it.

[edit] Description

Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, except to endorse them.

This user aggressively and repeatedly reverts, with no explanation. When asked to explain, he usually gives a grumpy response, and often says he doesn't have to explain. He has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past. He's constantly removing negative comments about him from everyones user talk pages, as personal attacks, and refuses to stop. Additionally, he has a not-nice paragraph on his userpage about User:Leonig Mig[1], and a revert war recently ensued over this. To display this on a user page is incivil.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Especially when POTW plays a timing thing with edits, Example being will tag something and instantaneously wait to change in a matter of seconds.

  1. Not-nice talk page stuff[2][3]
  2. Grumpy comment[4].
  3. Marking articles with unexplained "tags" as user follows seeming more concerned about being argumentive, more than a concern for Wikipedia[5][6] [7][8]
  4. Removing "personal attack" from TheoClarke's user talk[9].
  5. Good faith reverts, but with no summaries[10][11].
  6. Minor revert wars, started with a grumpy edit summary[12], [13][14]
  7. Unexplained deletion of Wiki material w/o asking or such[15] [16][17]
  8. Unexplained revert[18][19][20][21][22]
  9. Removing more "personal attack" material[23][24].
  10. Character [25][26]
  11. Not interested in opinions [27]
  12. Revert war with 3RR violation over where the subject is a native on Bill Oddie, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46][47]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Civility
  2. WP:FAITH
  3. WP:3RR

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Phroziac asks Pigsonthewing if he needs the not-nice stuff on his userpage, Andy says he does[48].
  2. POTW always seems to claim personal attacts by others of innocense[49][50][51]
  3. Same with Proto[52][53].
  4. Really bad attempt, but has a point anyway[54].
  5. Joolz confronts Pigsonthewing about removing personal attacks[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Phroziac(talk) 03:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Leonig Mig 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ral315 WS 05:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Sound Off) 19:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Leonig Mig 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Scott 19:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Proto t c 09:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Scimitar parley 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. SqueakBox 14:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. My experiences were similar on Cold War. 172 | Talk 07:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. G-Man 21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Karmafist 21:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC) , per experiences with user below.
  11. Jiang 11:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC) i had similar experiences with this user (ref)
  12. Banes 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Nick Boulevard 17:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Nandesuka 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by Ral315

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Pigsonthewing looks like he is a controversial editor, but he does not look like a deliberate vandal. The links that Phroziac cites are damning, but only to the point of showing that Pigsonthewing does not have a clear grasp on Wikipolicy. I think in this case, a voluntary mentorship may be in order. If this doesn't work, or Pigsonthewing rejects this, we need to make sure that he does at least learn policy. A continuing pattern of this behavior may need mediation, but it looks like Pigsonthewing just needs a little reminder of certain Wikipolicies that he may forget about (WP:3RR, WP:FAITH), and explain to him some others that he seems to be misapplying (WP:NPA, etc.)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ral315 WS 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Phroziac(talk) 05:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Sound Off) 19:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Scott 20:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Proto t c 09:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Given how experienced a Wikipedian Andy is, I consider it extremely likely he doesn't have a grasp of policy. Pcb21| Pete 08:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by McClenon

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have reviewed this Request for Comments briefly. It appears that, as "user conduct" disputes go, this is minor. I agree that the user in question, Pigsonthewing is less than civil, and needs to provide better edit summaries. It also appears that the users who are taking issue with Pigsonthewing have made only a minimal effort to resolve their issues before this RfC.

I see that a user has left Wikipedia due to what he claims is a personal attack by Pigsonthewing. That appears to me to be a case of two thin-skinned editors each overreacting to each other. I see that Pigsonthewing suggested mediation as a prior step in that dispute. Is there any reason why this dispute cannot be resolved by mediation? Robert McClenon 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 12:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Acetic'Acid 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Brumburger 08:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Tearlach 13:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. this rfc is an over-reaction Derex 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly "endorse" this view, but it sounds reasonable, and I appreciate McClenon's effort to try to resolve this thing. Uncle Ed 04:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a member of the MedCom, but it appears that Uncle Ed is suggesting that I try to mediate this dispute. If the principals are willing to try mediation, I am willing to mediate informally. Robert McClenon 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Brumburger

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

What do we have here relating to the people who are actually making the complaint? One "grumpy" comment (point 2) which strikes me as typically curt, but not exactly grumpy. I'm not going to defend point 1, I think it's well over the top (but not inaccurate). Point 3 clearly is removal of a personal attack, unless you think being described as a "prick" by another user is acceptable (the person whose talk page was edited has removed similar attacks himself in the past). Point 4 covers two reverts without reasons given in the edit summary, but clearly justified - one is removal of trivia, the other is removal of a link to a non-standard media format. The revert war on the Aaron Neville page (point 5) seems to relate to User:Scottfisher wanting to add links to his appalling fanpage to the entry, and to include a picture of himself with Aaron Neville in the background. Point 6 is an "unexplained revert" to restore a birthdate changed to an incorrect one by a well-known vandal (see User talk:RandyRhoadsRonnieDio). And point 7 - well, I suppose calling someone "pig headed" is better than calling them a "prick". This really is pathetic.

I don't think Andy Mabbett is always as civil as he could be, or that he always provides enough information about edits. On the other hand, the vast majority of the edits he makes are right - the talk pages and edit summaries and slapping people on the back with barnstars and all the rest of it are secondary to producing an encyclopaedia. This isn't a place to practice HTML, or to put up vanity pictures of yourself hanging out with rock stars, or to hang out and chat with people. Andy gets drawn in to arguments, and maybe he shouldn't, but it takes two to tango, and very few of the people he has fallen out with have made the solid contributions to the encyclopaedia that he has.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Brumburger 11:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tearlach 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yup, I think the diffs given as "evidence" rather support Andy's actions. Lupo 10:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Kaldari

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have only had limited interaction with Andy, but from what I've seen, he seems like a useful and prolific contributor. If he has any fault that I've noticed, it would be lack of patience when dealing with other editors. Andy will often make completely valid reversions of other people's edits, but not offer much in the way of explanation or discussion. This can be especially problematic when dealing with newbie mistakes as it turns a learning opportunity into a confrontation, and sometimes results in pointless edit wars. I would say, however, that Andy does seem to edit in good faith. If he can just assume the same of other editors, he'll be in good shape. My only recommendation would be that he review WP:AGF, WP:Civility, and WP:bite.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Kaldari 19:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Brumburger 08:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Tearlach 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yes, but query whether good faith is always present in Andy's edits Proto t c 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Lupo 10:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Tearlach

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I'm an outsider to the specific topic of this RfC, but as others have said, it is the latest spat in long-running dispute (which I encountered mostly via the recent Scott Fisher episode). I agree broadly with the summaries of Ral315, McClenon, Brumburger and Kaldari.

Looking back at edit histories, in my view the dispute can be summed up as a nearly unfailingly rational editor (but one more than a bit short on tact and explanation) versus a succession of incorrigibles who have cried "stalker" because their persistently problematic contributions have been persistently edited

Anyone who is new to this dispute should consider that much of the evidence of disputed behaviour is utterly misguided. Check out the list of "unexplained reverts":

  • [62] Reverting known vandal
  • [63] Not sure what this is about
  • [64] Creating red links - mistaken objection to normal procedure
  • [65] Reasonable edit of klunky text
  • [66] Deletion of POV text - "The transistor is the biggest revolution since the invention of the automobile".

Or this example of "Unexplained deletion of Wiki material w/o asking or such [67]" - which turns out to be utterly justified (in my view) removal of a bunch of superfluous poor-quality images, including a vanity shot where the poster is more prominent than the subject [68].

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tearlach 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry - but please explain which of my edits or contributions has ever been "incorrigible" or even "problematic". I refer you to the list of articles on my user page. Leonig Mig 20:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
On looking down the list, I would say that you have been intensely resistant to the possibility that your style is lumpen, archaic and unencyclopaedic. Check out this edit that you called a "spiteful revert". [69]
Your version: "Other's memory remains most confidently in the obelisk (visible from Bromsgrove) situated in the Lickey Hills Country Park which stands and is enblazened with his name" Do you really think that this archaic pompous wank (with its pathetic fallacy - an obelisk isn't confident) - is better style than POTW's amendment, "Other is commemorated by an obelisk bearing his name, situated in the Lickey Hills Country Park and visible from Bromsgrove"? Tearlach 23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And you think the way of remedying that is bullying? Stalking? Anatagonism? The issue has never been if he is right - it's that he deliberately victimizes editors. Leonig Mig 08:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tearlach. Whilst the edit may have indeed been poor, describing it as 'pompous wank' isn't helpful. Andy did the right thing in reverting it, but it is the manner in which he goes about this that does not help. See below for my view on why Andy's comments are not helpful, either. Proto t c 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. I think this whole RfC is petty, and the diffs given as "evidence" rather support Andy's actions. Lupo 10:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update by Tearlach

it's probably pissing in the wind to say so, but I think this is turning into a witch-hunt. A couple of further comments:

1) It's about time the guideline about kicking editors while they're down was invoked: "Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided". There seem to be plenty of blind eyes turned to the abusive nicknames (the user isn't called "Pigs") and abusive edit summaries that are creeping into the discussion.

2) As I said above, a deal of this evidence increasingly needs caution and investigation. Some posters are omitting a crucial detail: that these disputes arose over Pigsonthewing's response, backed up by other editors, to genuine Wikipedia misdemeanours. Scottfisher: copyright breaches, vanity images, and failure to label copyright status of images (for which he was recently blocked). Karmafist: told by others that his action was inappropriate. Saltywater: this "Birdgate" was over POTW's objection to his trying to suppress the full names, a photo, and some widely published background about a band, on grounds rooted in original research [70]. And now Nick Boulevard, subject of an RFC that looks pretty justified to me, for copyvios, POV warrioring and personal attacks.

This is not good vs evil, then, but about the appropriateness of Pigsonthewing's response to editors with faults of their own. I'd like to see some constructive ideas. We've heard plenty about how it's so wrong to follow an editor and focus on their edits. So how are we supposed to deal with editors who keep making the same mistakes or pushing the same viewpoints despite being told? Tearlach 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What utter absurd nonsense, there is one crucial thing missing from this RFC Tearlach, the cause of it, i.e. Andy Mabbett himself. Please do not stray from this fact.
You mention my own RFC, may I point out that I voluntarily came to the discussion table and admitted my copyright violations and harsh words needed to come to an end, they have and I even appologised for it sp please do not mention this again as it has no bearing whatsoever on this page. This debate is not about character assasination of those who are sick to the back teeth of Andy Mabbett, it is about Andy Mabbett's lack of civility and his refusal to "play nice", he takes advantage of those who are keen to add new material and expand wikipedia but know little of it's legalities, this is without doubt going to deter many potential wikipedians who could be put off by his constant stalking and rude remarks, Andy does not show this place in a good light I am afraid. Nick Boulevard 12:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
the cause of it, i.e. Andy Mabbett himself.
But it's funny how often it manifests in relation to problem users.
You mention my own RFC
You chose to mention it in your Outside View. Its bearing is that you cite it as an example of your being persecuted by Andy Mabbett. It appears not to be: the links given show it was about editing habits that others had criticized.
This debate is not about character assasination ...
Background is relevant if people are presenting one-sided evidence that omits that they were part of the problem. Tearlach 14:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
But it's funny how often it manifests in relation to problem users.
No, what's "funny" is that you seem to be fighting a battle on behalf of the biggest "problem user" I have ever seen on Wikipedia ?
Background is relevant if people are presenting one-sided evidence that omits that they were part of the problem.
True, if that were the case but it isn't, to be honest no one here is ever going to be perfect but what you so naivly fail to see is that, in most cases, Andy Mabbett was the initial cause of stirring up "problem users" (your opinion) who are then systematically brow beaten by his capaigns of stalking.
The most important issue here is that the focus of the RFC is not allowed to slip through the net, where is Andy Mabbett and where is his assurance that he is willing to change his behaviour? Nick Boulevard 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Proto

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Andy is an excellent editor, and is very knowledgeble about the articles he chooses to edit. However, his excellence is tempered by his inability to accept that sometimes a fellow editor (or a significant number of his fellow editors - the edit history on the Birmingham article is an excellent example [71]) have a differing opinion to his own, and that his may not always be the correct one. His message on his user page towards Leonig Mig is not helpful, nor is it civil.

Andy also has a habit, which many Wikipedians who have encountered him will be familiar with, of 'stalking' (quotes intended) their edits, reverting many of their changes and doing everything he can - within Wikipedia guidelines - to deter them in their efforts to improve Wikipedia. Often, he has performed the correct action, but has carried it out in an uncivil, flippant and unhelpful manner. His edit summaries can be particularly dismissive of others contributions. He can be very quick to revert. I have noticed, and it is not reflected as yet in this RFC, that Andy has also been blocked on multiple occasions for violations of the 3RR rule. He also needs to cease misapplying the no personal attacks rule, when the editors he quotes it to ('Please refrain from personal attacks') have often been the subject of his snide edit comments.

I do not think that Andy is a troll, or a vandal. I think he can be arrogant, and ignorant of the sensibilities of others (particularly newer editors) but is a valuable member of the Wikipedia community, and merely needs to work on concentrating his efforts in a more productive manner. Proto t c 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Me, I guess. Proto t c 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Leonig Mig 10:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Scott 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Also he responds unhelpfully and obstructively even to polite requests to modify his behavior [72] -- SCZenz 16:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. This seems to me to be the best summary here, though others have said wise things as well. PurplePlatypus 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC) This was reasonable at the time, but he has since gone right off the deep end. PurplePlatypus 09:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Although I have only been a member a while I have edited the British Sea Power article for some time anonymously. Recently, I came into a minor dispute with Pigs (first time I have encounted him) over birdwatching in the article (see "birdgate" on the talk page). I feel that he has since been 'stalking' me, and undermiming edits I make. It may be an over-reaction, but I do feel threatened and bullied by him and his actions. He has also accused me to trying to remove a "rival" website (I own a BSP fansite linked on the BSP page) but refuses to notice the link is merely an single interview with the band on a broadly scoped music site, whereas mine and the other links on the page are BSP-specific. Also note he lowered my website below another one despite mine containing more thorough information and being updated on a more regular basis. I'm not bothered by this obviously but I believe he was just being petty. Through my short experience, he seems to hold grudges over minor disagreements. SaltyWater 15:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jacqui ★ 15:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Karmafist

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I don't know User:Pigsonthewing, but I did see him involved in a revert war with User:G-Man at Coleshill, Warwickshire, to which Pigs has initiated a 3RR request that can be percieved as in bad faith here. Whoever's "right" is irrelevant, both sides need to stop this, and i've protected the page until both sides can make some compromises to end the edit wars while striving towards factual accuracy. Karmafist 03:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updates by Karmafist

Two things from Coleshill, Warwickshire.

  • A comment by Pig after asking for consensus be used to achieve resolution to the dispute.

How can this be solved by "meeting halfway"? Do you suggest that "Coleshill is half in the WM conurbation"? Or perhaps "Coleshill is in the WM conurbation on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?"

[73]

From these actions, i'm beginning to believe that he is the instigator of the problem there, and I will block him if he causes anymore problems there. Karmafist 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Apparent Consensus edit was applied, there were a few minor changes, and then Pigs reverted to his POV.[74]. Leonig Mig tried very hard to accomodate Pig's uncooperative behavior [75], and then Pig just decided to ignore that and revert yet again, which I believe by now is the 8th time. [76]. Quid pro quo, I rolled back to the revision by Grutness yesterday [77] and blocked Pigs 24 hours for edit warring. It was basically a slap on the wrist since this RfC is still open and would prefer for this process to deal with his behavioral problems. From what i've seen, I'd be willing to bet that he will eventually be indefinately banned at some point if he doesn't learn to cooperate with others. Karmafist 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • After the block he sent this e-mail to me, apparently typical of his tit for tat nature that I have noticed of him so far.

How dare you accuse me of vandalism, or block me! I intend to report ths as soon as the block is listed.
I welcomed him to do so if he felt my actions were inappropriate, which I believe weren't since he was not interested in working with the rest of the community in what i've shown above, which is against policy per Key Policy #4 at WP:RULES and WP:WQT. He's been warned of those policies, he broke them, if he breaks them again, he'll get a longer block. Karmafist 01:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    • True to his word, he responded here. My response can be seen at the same link and I talked to each commenter on his response.

Karmafist 15:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Since the end of the block, he's made a few more ominous remarks on my my talk page on Tony Sidaway's Talk Page and on the talk page of the article in question. No need to show them all, I think you get the gist by now. Attempts to alleviate Pigs' uncooperative behavior continue on. Karmafist 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Pigs has brought his WP:POINT("down with anyone who disagrees with me") crusade to my user space here. I then got a request to do something about Pigs behavior from another user on my Talk Page, so I asked Linuxbeak for assistance and he looked into the situation and made a comment here [[78]]

I don't know how to reach Pigs, an Rfar seems imminent. Karmafist 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Pigs continues to campaign against my actions, and so far no user has agreed with him. Several accusations appeared on my talk page today from him, as well as this. Tony Sidaway has now stepped in to assist. Karmafist 16:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Pigs campaign against me has gone way across the line of WP:STALK, as he continues to harp on about me doing my job again here. I await Linuxbeak's Rfar. Pigs cannot be reasoned with. Karmafist 05:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Karmafist 03:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Phroziac(talk) 02:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Scott 13:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC) endorsed
  4. Nick Boulevard 12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update by Linuxbeak

I have also stepped in and attempted to knock sense into this user. I say give him a couple of days to respond to this already stale RFC, and if he refuses to act, send the case to the ArbCom. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Nick Boulevard

My first unpleasant experience of Andy Mabbett was him reverting my own user page to a version I had written whilst drunk, I believe that he picked up on my embarrassment and spitefully reverted, he was warned by user Angela for doing this and then blatantly lied to her that he had reverted at all?.

More recently, Andy Mabbett, Ray Girvan and Brumburger discussed tracing my IP address whilst all three were creating an RFC against me which I found disturbing. Andy Mabbett was then warned for his almost obsessive listing of my petty errors well after my RFC had fizzled out, he is still doing this as we speak and he is the only person still following my every move here with bad intent and IMO and Brumburger are deliberately trying to wind me up further so that they can use my own retaliation to further attack me.

I have never fallen out with anyone on the net apart from here and I have only ever had one ongoing battle on wikipedia and that is with Andy Mabbett. Our biggest battle has been over the music scene of Birmingham, over a dispute about Nick Mason some time ago Andy told me to "go and build your own website" or words to that effect. Another battle recently took place here when Andy Mabbett and User:82.96.100.100 (whom I suspected to be Andy Mabbet anyway, both users use the same "QED" signature) picked an argument with the owner of the Virtual Brum website over material that I had added to the Military history article. Later I befriended the V-Brum user and I created an article for his site on the music history of Birmingham, I listed my wiki name of Nick Boulevard as the author, I had a feeling Andy Mabbett would follow me there, then the V-Brum owner received this threatening email from an annonymous source who is obviously not just familiar with Wikipedia but me also, please take note of the IP address which is discussed here and then here again immediately followed by an Andy Mabbett reply.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject:  VB Feedback (For webmaster)

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:31:05 +0200 From: not@important.at.all To: feedback@virtualbrum.co.uk

Senders Name : Not important Email address : Not@important.at.all >From : Not important Subject : Article on Birmingham Music Scene

Comment : The article on the Birmingham music scene, allegedly written by Nick Boulevard, and on which you are claiming copyright, is in fact substantially taken from Wikipedia. This was originally published under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence, which means you cannot claim copyright on it. It will be listed on the Wikipedia page for legal action to be taken against sites illegally using Wikipedia content, unless it is removed within 48 hours. Be wary of accepting any contributions from Nick Boulevard, he does not understand copyright law or the legal conditions for reuse of material taken from Wikipedia (regardless of who initially contributed it).

Senders System Information :

  + Date : June 27, 2005
  + Time : 17:31
  + User IP Address : 82.96.100.100


This is now beyond Wikipedia and as such I feel threatened by these actions, I have my suspicions as to who the email was from. Nick Boulevard 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Other Misc:

1. Constant reverting and controling of discussion on my user/talk page by Andy Mabbett, and then when I asked him not to... this!.

2. Andy reads something he doesn't like from G-man, claims it as abusive and then removes it from a discussion thus manipulating claims against him.

3. Request made by Theo on the 4 July 2005 for Andy to cease listing his idea of abuse and whatever else he thinks is going to wind me up after my RFC has gone cold, Andy Mabbett has made 13 edits to my RFC page since this request.

4. Andy deletes Theo's factual comment on an RFC claiming it to be fallacious

5. Andy shows early signs of ignoring discussion and reverting peoples work

6. Early evidence of Andy following another user, deliberatly reverting his edits for no good reason and then accusing the user of being paranoid, mmm, sounds familiar

7. Targetting my work

Overall I would like to think that both Angela and Theo would confirm that I have tried endlessly to get on with Andy Mabbett here and all I have ever received from him is abuse in one form or another, I have even tried appologising for past arguments which I have never received a response, he just is not interested in civility of any kind. Nick Boulevard 18:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Pigsonthewing has completely ignored this RFC, despite multiple attempts to ask him to respond. He also continues to demonstrate the disruptive behavior that has been identified. As such, a RFAr has been filed against Pigsonthewing, and this RFC will be used as evidence. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Pigsonthewing_a37a.html"