Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Further abuse

  • Further abuse, further allegations of sock-puppetry, and blaming others for his own behaviour, at [1]. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Attempt to pass off abuse as "tongue in cheek" [4] (since overwritten). Andy Mabbett 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Andy, I am honestly not being nasty now but you need to let this go, it is obviously eating you up and that may not be good for your health, I am concerned for you, you seem to be concentrating on trivia and the past now that I have ceased copy vio and "abuse". Nick Boulevard 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Further accusations of sock-puppetry, including a claim that his view is suported by another user [6]. Andy Mabbett 11:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Claims authorship of another collaborative article (on edit summary) [7]. Andy Mabbett 23:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion (made anonymously) that he should approve edits before they are made; and that copyvio notification should have been discussed with him before being posted. [8]. Andy Mabbett 08:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Another unfounded accsuation of sock-puppetry [9]. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Andy: Please cease this vendetta. Your last post misrepresents the diff that it cites. Your apparently relentless stalking of Nick is looking like harassment to me. Please stop.—Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the fallacious interpretation you choose to place on my edits; but there is no vendetta. This is the page for discussion of a Request for comments, is it not? Andy Mabbett 4 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
I apologise for the word "vendetta". Please cease posting misrepresentative descriptions of Nick's behaviour. It is now some ten days since Nick agreed to behave appropriately and has conformed to that agreement. Your continued postings of this nature may not be calculated to goad Nick into misbehaviour but it seems probable that they will eventually have that effect. If you have not already realised this, then I hope that this alone will persuade you to be much more cautious about the allegations that you are making. It is my opinion that your behaviour appears aggressive. Continuing to list accusations after the RFC has, as it were, "gone cold" is a form of harassment. Please stop.—Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
Hi Andy/ Theo, to be honest I have only just read this by chance after user Deni has given support to me here, which I might add I didn't ask for. I am quite chilled out about all this now and so long as Andy acts this way on Wikipedia I don't much care. Theo, your words of not letting others drive my behaviour is a good bit of advice and is currently working for me, thanks. :) Nick Boulevard 22:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • More lies, paranoia, accusations of sock-puppetry and threats; also describes the above as "petty errors"; claims this RFC has "fizzled out": [14]. Andy Mabbett 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You've been warned about this already Andy, time to get a grip Nick Boulevard 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Further imnsinuation of sock- puppetry [16]. Andy Mabbett 20:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
oops, silly me, that was a slip of the tongue so to speak, I am so used to you and brumburger arguing over the same things, one after another, almost in synconicity that I am getting really confused as to which is which or who is who? sorry mate :) Nick Boulevard 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • False (and hence unsubstantiated) allegations [18]. Andy Mabbett 20:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Further false (and hence unsubstantiated) allegations; admission of abusiveness [19]. Andy Mabbett 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of removals

I have removed some recent additions to this RFC because they are not demonstrably relevant. The Midland Red copyvio was added by an anon Tiscali customer (Nick's known anon contributions have been from Energis IP addresses) and there has been no suggestion that Leonig Mig is Nick's sock puppet. The assumption that an anonymous Birmingham-related copyvio must be doiwn to Nick is mere name-calling unless the fact that it is mere suspicion is made explicit. Likewise, User:Leonig Mig's behaviour is not the subject of this RFC. If you have a problem with Leonig Mig take it up with him directly or raise a separate RFC/Wikiquette report. —Theo (Talk) 10:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your censorship. Andy Mabbett 10:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a can of worms. Some of the copyright violations from 2004 discovered at around the time that Nick's came to light were from this range of IP numbers, and were suspiciously similar to Nick's cut-and-paste copying of Birmingham-related articles, but were not reported as such. I strongly suspected at the time that these were Nick, either using another computer or a dialup account he has not since used. His comment on Talk:Midland Red confirms that suspicion. As does Spencer Davis Group, which Nick claims on his user page to have created using a different IP address - the SDG page was created two days before Midland Red by User:80.225.165.2 --Brumburger 13:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
And lo and behold, the Spencer Davis Group page, which Nick so proudly claims as his own work, is in fact copied from here. --Brumburger 13:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
See also: Velocette, this, and this. There are many edits to Birmingham from addresses in this IP block which are also clearly Nick. --Brumburger 14:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Three points really,
1. Any copyright vio that I may have done before the RFC is in the past full stop.
2. Second point is that to be honest I have contributed so many articles to Wikipedia that I am half guessing those that I started which are not signed by me... who really knows, If I'm not sure then? If something is copyright vio then do what you feel is best for wiki! :) Nick Boulevard 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Didn't realise that a twat could also mean a pregnant fish. Nick Boulevard 23:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. You are still claiming authorship/ownership of at least one copyvio article on your user page.
Ok I will remove them :) Nick Boulevard 13:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. If you had any honour or integrity after the RfC you would have gone back and removed those articles yourself, instead of leaving it to others. Indeed, you would have done this last year when you first claimed to realise that stealing other people's copyrighted work is wrong, instead of which you carried on doing it.
I think you are getting yourself all worked up again Brumburger, my honour and integrity is all in order and working quite fine thank you :) Nick Boulevard 13:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. You know very well which articles you started, in fact you appear to be slightly obsessive on the subject.
So obsessive they're all gone now, just to please you Brumburger, I can see it's really upsetting you :)
Actually, on second thoughts, I will not remove them, even the copyright articles that I started before my RFC, it's a good example of how the RFC has improved my wiki articles. Nick Boulevard 14:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Although then again, you do admit to having added many articles while drunk [20], so perhaps that's the explanation.
I know, I have a pretty good social life, drinking alcohol in moderation is part of that fun for me, do you ever enjoy a drink Brumburger or are you T-total? Nick Boulevard 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. "Twat" does not mean a pregnant fish
You said it. Nick Boulevard 13:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. [21]. Abuse noted, and added to the ever-growing list in the RfC.

--Brumburger 06:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I find it incredulous that you are wasting so much time following me on here and listing things that happened months and months ago, it's obviously eating you up and for what? I'm always going to be here Andy, I enjoy adding new articles, what do you enjoy doing here? Nick Boulevard 12:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Further dishonest claims [22] (How does he think he knows what someone else did or did not "look into"? Andy Mabbett 17:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
How can you claim that an alegation I have made is dishonest when I honestly believe that alegation, you could say "Further claims that in my opinion are false" but the fact that you suggest that I am making the claims dishonestly is in itself a dishonest remark, those alegations are in fact made in good faith and I do not believe that you looked into Punch Records, why did you list it to be deleted as soon as I created it, you do pay me a lot of attention don't you, stop it please. Nick Boulevard 14:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy, it is my opinion that your logging here of every one of Nick's edits that offends you, coupled with your repeated deletion of Gman's critical comments on your behaviour, diminishes your credibility. I also think that it creates a pattern in which it would be reasonable for others to imagine that Nick is your victim. Please stop making repeated deletions/reversions and please stop using uppercase edit summaries (which I find shrill and akin to shouting). —Theo (Talk) 23:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this RFC has gone way beyond it's usefulness and is only a focus for more bad blood, I think it should be brought to a close. Is there any proccess for that? -- Joolz 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Revert, removing Wikilinks, and with PoV edit sumamry [23]. Andy Mabbett 07:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal attack in edit summary [27]. Andy Mabbett 11:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Nick_Boulevard_f908.html"