User:G-Man/POTW RFC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- (Pigsonthewing | talk | contributions)
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.
[edit] Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
- Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) makes frequent and aggressive use of repeated reversion and engages in edit wars, sometimes reverting unvandalised user pages.
- These are often part of continuing personal conflicts with other (albeit not blameless) individual editors.
- These reversions are often not explained (simply "rv") or explained with apparent hostility: pointed, snide or dismissive remarks.
- Discussion of these reversions is often frustrating and fruitless as his answers are most frequently no longer than one line.
- The repeated reversion of articles combined with the hostile summaries leads to ill-feeling, which spreads to talk pages, where the same pattern of aggressive reversion is combined with aggressive commentary, which hinders discussion. This combination of reversion and aggression on user pages is particularly inflammatory; it largely arises when Pigsonthewing dissagrees with a comment about him or his behaviour.
- Several editors believe that some of these reversions arise from Pigsonthewing's systematic stalking of all their edits and that this stalking is a form of harassment.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Applicable policies
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
[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
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.
{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] 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.
- Mr Andy- Alias Pigsonthewings; It is evident you've had more problems in the past than I'll ever have and you know it. You really want to be sneaky and staulk on wikipedia rather than contribute. People have tried to talk to you in the past and you seem to want to show a power thing or something. Not sure what your real problem is with good editors. If you wish I will post the evidence here now as I made a good effort to comprimise with you as others have:
1)Your user page
2)Scroll to bottom
3)POTW user page-this one is a real shame
4)POTW
6)You also removed several other items. Frankly, given your recent behaviour, and the above ludicrous and fallacious allegation, I'm not really interested in hearing your personal opinions, nor your threats. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
7)[See Ok, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are following my every move on wikipedia and they are tracing my IP addresses. No different Nick Boulevard 16:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Boulevard]
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit§ion=4 See Pigsonthewing Hi Nick, I've been having the same problems as you I think. I've decided to move away from the wikipedia page but I still think something needs to be done about Andy Mabbett. I hope you'll agree that the problem is not what Pigsonthewing does for the wikipedia, which is of reasonable quality, but the following:
Stalking. He will target work by specific users instead of finding new articles to work on. this happened to me, and I think has also happened to you. Obsessive. Once he has made an edit he will watch the page, and revert any changes made. He gets involved in revision wars all the time. Once he has made his mind up nobody else gets a lookin. Rude. His comments in the revision section are very snide. After you have reseached something to have it described as irrelavant hurts. Destructive. He removes from the wikipedia much more than he puts in. I think it's very easy to beleive the internet is a kind of bubble, however he should realise he is interacting with real people and we all do it as a kind of therapy, as a kind of entertainment- we do it because we enjoy it! His work is not of low quality- rather his behavior is deliberatly anti-social- he obviously enjoys putting people's noses out of joint. If you want someone to join in a test case for this I would be willing to contribute. I don't think he should be banned, but certainly I think his brand of abusive, bullying behaviour should be frowned upon by wikipedia as strongly as 'peacock terms' or 'copy violations'. Leonig Mig 18:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just shameful! Letting things go Nick: Please would you disregard any accusations or criticisms that Andy, Brumberger, or Ray may level against you, however unfair. If we could all focus on the articles instead of the editors we can all spend more time building the encyclopedia.—Theo (Talk) 19:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Boulevard&action=edit§ion=7 A negative response attempting to create a more sense of aggrevation: Ok, no probs. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) That lasted about 22 hours - and one edit. [1]. Andy Mabbett 19:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Get over it Andy, concentrate on other things and your/our time here will be much more rewarding. Nick Boulevard 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)] I also think he might have multiple alias's. Scott 21:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Signed Scott 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
