Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] Evidence presented by Phroziac

[edit] Edit war to remove personal attack from User talk:Nick Boulevard

[edit] 15 August

  • 08:27
    • Andy removes so-called "personal attack" by 80.255 from Nick's user talk[2], though it should be noted that 80.255's message could have been worded better.
  • 13:56
    • Andy begins a revert war to keep the offending message deleted[3].
  • 14:35
    • Andy continues the edit war[4].
  • 14:49
    • Andy violates 3RR[5], final revert.

[edit] Bill Oddie Edit war

[edit] 19 August

  • 15:56
    • Andy removes a category from page[6], because he believes Bill Oddie is not a native of Birmingham.
  • 16:23
  • 17:00
    • Andy reverts and adds that Bill was born in Lancashire to the lead of the article[8].
  • 17:19
    • Andy reverts again[9].

[edit] 23 August

  • 19:41
    • Andy reverts again[10].

[edit] 28 August

  • 22:22
    • Andy reverts again[11]. Also shows the not-useful edit summary being used by one of the other parties.
      • Also, notice the strange attempt at a compromise that has been inserted by now, "(born on July 7, 1941 in Rochdale, (then in Lancashire), England)", which is *still* in the article (permlink[12]). Not sure if that's evidence of anything, but it's funny. :)

[edit] 6 September

[edit] Coleshill, Warwickshire edit war(s)

[edit] 18 August

  • 23:25
    • G-Man uses rollback on an edit by Andy[14], which initiates an edit war
  • 23:27

[edit] 19 August

  • 07:24

[edit] 25 August

  • 11:50
    • Andy reverts....again[17]
  • 20:11
  • 19:19
    • Andy's final revert for a while, [19].

[edit] 3 October

  • 09:53
    • Andy attempts to revert again[20].

[edit] 4 October

  • 20:22

[edit] 7 October

  • 19:16
    • Andy reverts the same thing, again[22].

[edit] 17 October

  • 21:09
    • Andy reverts again, both revert warriors (jokingly?) accuse eachother of being automated revert devices[23].
  • 21:19
    • Andy's final revert for a while[24], page gets protected the first of several times, by Karmafist[25].


[edit] Andy's involvement with Karmafist

[edit] 05 December

  • 10:47
    • Andy makes an accusation on a user talk archive of karmafist's[26].
  • 20:50
    • I mistakenly blocked Andy for violating an arbcom injunction, when it was a user talk page.[27]
  • 20:53
    • I notified him about the block on his talk page[28].
  • 20:56
    • I unblocked, after seeing my mistake[29]
  • 20:57
    • I notified him of the unblock and struck my original comment, while suggesting he leave Karmafist alone[30].
  • 21:08
    • He asks what i would do if someone posted lies and abuse about me[31]
  • 21:18
    • After being reverted, Andy reverts the archive page[32].
  • 21:30
    • I suggest to Andy that he not do this, and that nobody is likely to notice the message he's adding anyway (because it's an archive)[33]

[edit] Evidence presented by Karmafist

[edit] 7-9 November

Edit War on Birmingham

  • 9:49 on 7 November POTW restores anon comments, w/ sandpaper summary
  • 15:39 on 8 November: revert w/ sandpaper summary
  • [35],
  • 23:08 on 8 November: POTW reverts the revert
  • 21:58 on 9 November: POTW reverts again w/ another sandpaper summary

[edit] 7 November

  • 11:09 Blanking my evidence page out of spite.

[edit] Die Lustige Witwe

POTW has recently gotten into an edit war with Figaro on the article above over something as trivial as a cleanup tag. below are the edits of the war in chronological order oldest to newest.

  • 10:19 9 November(Figaro makes a good faith attempt to fix things)
  • 10:29 9 November(Still not enough for Pigs)
  • 11:03 9 November (Nunh Huh removes Pigs' Cleanup Tag, after an apparent compromise tag as an internal comment in the tag stating that Pigs' is the only one who has a problem with the article)
  • 11:09 9 November (Pigs puts it back 6 minutes later)
  • 11:45 10 November (Pigs waits a day to avoid 3RR)
  • 12:07 10 November (Figaro removed it again with an explanation, and this time Pigs has a more volatile edit summary)
  • 12:27 10 November (Figaro removes the Tag again, and Pigs waits until the next day again to revert to loophole through 3RR)
  • 12:47 11 November (And he puts it back, once again...)
  • 13:01 11 November (Android79 tries to compromise after POTW complains at WP:AN/I#Die Lustige Witwe again)
  • 14:31 11 November (And Pigs just can't leave it alone)
  • 16:20 11 November (Figaro is Frustrated)
  • 16:35 11 November (Pigs adds to the Frustration)
  • 16:43 11 November (Figaro reverts again)
  • And then Pigs spends about a day trying to force Nunh Huh trying to see things his way.
  • 12:21 12 November (Pigs drastically cuts content, which leads to more edit warring later between him and Figaro)
  • 14 November (Nobody listens to him at the first WP:AN/I notice, so he makes another request a few days later that nobody listens to.)

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson

[edit] Accomplished Googlebombs

This one lies somewhere in between unorthodox and a WP:POINT vio, in all likelyhood to find a loophole around another edit war while still winning that war.

  • 23:50 UTC (POTW takes a large amount of content out of Google bomb)
  • Near Midnight UTC (POTW creates Accomplished Googlebombs from the content and then afds it shortly after.)
  • Over a period of time (It appears that the consensus there is merge with...you guessed it, the original article, Google bomb. Only one editor as of this edit Carnildo agrees with Andy completely, another agrees on the content, but slaps Andy with a fish regarding the method he used to try and get rid of it.
  • 17 November (Gets into an edit war with Calton, nearly breaking 3RR, with the fourth revert a vandalism revert that could have been done by someone)

,[60],[61]

  • 2:49 18 November Phroziac blocks POTW to a lesser extent for a vio of WP:EW, which is the theory behind WP:3RR

[62]

[edit] Talk Pages

POTW has had issues with talk page abuse, both on his own and on other talk pages. It got so bad, that I felt that I had to move all of his comments to a centralized location at User talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive, both for the convience of the arbcom and to help alleviate some of the air of hostility he brings there without deleting the content.

[edit] His Talk Page

At WP:TP, it's considered a hostile act to delete content from a talk page without notice. However, POTW does this often.

[63],[64], [65],[66], [67],[68], [69],[70], [71],[72]

among many more. One of them was even an attempt on my behalf to spin his bad faith actions into a positive, civil result by thanking him for the cessation of possible hostilities regarding two users. Many of the comments above predate me ever meeting him, to the contrary of CBDunkerson's supposition below.


[edit] Other Talk Pages

POTW sends many sandpaper, and often unsubstantiated messages/demands to the talk pages of others, my new POTW Archive holding many examples, but not all. He often uses the term "Personal Attack" to indicate displeasure with anyone he disagrees with stating their opinion, as best evidenced at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard.

[edit] User:Nunh-huh

[73],[74],

[edit] User:Fvw in regards to Scott Fisher

[75]

[edit] User:Scottfisher

He seems to mean well here at first, but it goes downhill. This is a few days before I met him. POTW eventually makes user talk:Pigsonthewing/Scottfisher, which was something of a hybridization of my evidence page and the recently made POTW talk archive, although made up of comments on Scott's talk page. It seems here that he acted to Scott very similiarly to my efforts with him, in AGF, but ultimately not getting the point across. [76],[77], [78](advice similiar to what I gave him today, which he ironically enough deleted)[79],[80] [81],[82], [83],[84], [85],[86],[87], [88] Please correct me if I missed any.

[edit] User:Figaro

[89],[90]

[edit] Attacks

He's also tried to attack my character through my now former scratch page. [91],[92],[93],[94] [95],[96](this one to a user who had already been indef blocked), [97],[98],[99], [100],[101],[102]

Of the friendly and courteous users who I didn't have alot of contact with, but wanted to remember in case of wanted to contact them again? Nada.

[edit] Andy's Tactic Regarding Edit Wars

Although it's been done before, no other has found ways around WP:3RR so masterfully as Pigsonthewing. Perhaps the best example of this can be found at British Sea Power, one of his favorite haunts.

  • 14-16 November(Andy sets the stage with an edit war over a link)

[105],[106]

  • 16-17 November(This is where the tactic comes in. The first revert in this chain is 19:02 16 November, and the third is at 11:02 the Next Day)

[109],[110]

  • 17 November 22:00(And then comes the fourth revert, just under 26 hours later, waiting 2 hours after the limit for the 4th RR in the 3RR rule, likely because he knows I will notify someone that he broke the rule since my return to the original was his last revert)
  • This tactic is actually discussed as the impetus for a potential change in policy here.

[edit] My Worst Fear, Realized

Almost since I met Andy, I said that every day, every minute, even every second he is allowed to go unchecked on Wikipedia is a ticking time bomb that will go off in the face of a user. That time bomb has gone off it seems with Leonig Mig, the user who POTW assumes bad faith with on his user page.

Even after leaving, Andy reverted his page time and time again, so many times that it required protection, which he waited out in order to continue his reverting until he was recently blocked again earlier today.[112] I should have blocked him, something I regret, but I believe that some people have seen me as "out to get" Andy, so I had to pass it off again to any admin available, and Proziac took the call.

I don't think I even need to show you all of the reverts, since from all the evidence i've shown you above, Andy's actions are usually small, trifling and spiteful. Instead, i'll just give you the link to the history on Leonig Mig's user page[113], and Leonig's most recent contribs, most of which came on this page. [114].

We may yet see Leonig back some day, but I fear that's unlikely at this point, bringing me to believe that Andy's actions regarding Leonig are very similiar to the Wikipedia version of Murder. Arbcom members, the responsibility to bring justice to this situation lies in your hands, what happened to Leonig must not be allowed to happen again, and the fact that Andy shows no remorse for the loss of Leonig, despite Leonig's attempts at kindness towards him, shows that it is likely to happen again if nothing happens from this rfar.

I contribute under a different name, so as to keep myself disguised from POTW. Don't over play this - I've said some hotheaded things to POTW in the past [115]. I've reverted pages. As per late august tho I couldn't bear the conflict, having him edit or revert every single thing I ever did on this site, so I've changed my name and avoid articles he's interested in.
Shame is I'd love to add to the North Worcestershire and UK Transport history articles - but many of the interesting articles are on his watch list and he'd soon un-cover me, like he's uncovered other user's aliases. Funny thing is this all started because he thinks my writing style is too florid!!!! Hardly crime of the century! This man is a socio-path!! Leonig Mig 22:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Leonig Mig

[edit] 8th June 2005

  • Leonig Mig creates draft quality non-wikipedia style article called Hewell Grange without signing in. POTW nowhere to be seen. [116]

[edit] 13th June 2005

  • 10:30
    • Leonig Mig signs in to add photos he has taken and further historical notes from secondary sources to several articles he has been working on. Especially Hewell Grange, which he has researched at local library and taken photos of. POTW intervenes whilst Leonig Mig is in process of editing pages and uploading sources causing frustration for LM. POTW has very active day of editing such that his edits systematically follow LM for 12 hour period.
  • 10.58
    • User POTW discovers Bittell Reservoir article, written by LM and makes changes: [117]
  • 15.03
    • Amends "cofton hackett" [118]
  • 15.18
    • Makes edit to LM user page, making clear he is aware of list of articles and is specifically targetting user. [119]
  • 15.19
  • 15.32
    • gets stuck into “Barnt Green” [121]
  • 15.53
    • Splits Barnt Green article in two to form very short stub, [122]
  • 17.50
    • In response to plea to stop, POTW advises user 'not to contribute' if he cannot accept POTW's power of approval of his contributions, in violation of 'don't bite newbies' guidelines. [123]
  • 21.51
    • Amends longbridge, again a reasonable edit - but disturbing after LM has already expressed his distress to POTW. [124]
  • 22.10
    • substantial amendments hours later with explaination “wikify” [125]
    • Short article previously edited article edited by Leonig Mig ‘Corrected’ after several hours by user POTW [126]
  • 22.53
    • Makes veiled accusation of Copyvio to Leonig Mig [127]
  • 23.53
    • Persists with "hot" revision war late on into the night- on article Hewell Grange. [128]


[edit] Evidence presented by User:CBDunkerson

General principles

  1. Much has been made of Pigsonthewing not responding to this arbitration request, and it has been suggested (repeatedly) that this should result in a lengthy ban. However, arbitration policy specifically allows for comment by the individual(s) named OR an advocate. -> Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing. I requested and received Pigsonthewings' permission to speak on his behalf here and am therefor acting as his advocate in this matter.
  2. I believe a review of the evidence presented by Leonig Mig will show that in terms of 'wiki-stalking' policy it falls under "False accusations of stalking" -> [129]. This section of the 'Stalking' article was not carried over into WP:HA when they were merged, but that was after the cited dispute and indeed after Leonig Mig declared he was 'leaving'. The principles there stated also appear sound to me - performing standard cleanup tasks should not be considered 'stalking'. The diff links Leonig Mig provided show Andy bolding the article title in the first sentence, changing links to redirects to go directly to the right page, converting '&' to 'and', et cetera. Standard maintenance work which Leonig Mig labelled "vandalism".
  3. Finally, it has been argued that this page is only for 'evidence about Pigsonthewing' and material relating to behaviour by others should be removed. I am disputing this on the grounds that Pigsonthewings' actions were inevitably influenced by the actions of others and this should be taken into account. Especially given that there is evidence of deliberate efforts to provoke a hostile response from Pigsonthewing.

[edit] 26 January 2003 - Present

    • Andy makes more than 18,000 edits, most of them uncontroversial, including creating and developing many new articles: [130][131][132][133][134]

Information provided to show that user makes many positive contributions.

I wouldn't mind betting that most of those 18,000 edits relate to removing or reverting other peoples hard work and I don't like to state the obvious but he has only started welcoming new users since this arb case. Nick Boulevard 23:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't make edits in the evidence sections of other users (see notes at top of page). As to 'the obvious'... one of the linked welcomes is from September. --CBD T C @ 00:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse and Harassment

[edit] 17 October

  • 22:27:06

[edit] 19 October

  • 11:13:12
    • Karmafist claims that Pigsonthewing violated three revert rule and threatens to block as "punishment" unless Andy accepts Karmafist's most recent edit or 'provides proof' for any changes -> [146]. Andy had already cited what he considered to be proof (a map and the fact that the official UK government census agreed with his position). Also, Karmafist's claim of Andy violating three reverts was false (Karmafist, if you disagree please post diffs proving your claim as evidence). It is impossible to show diffs for the ABSENCE of 3RR, but the edit history is here -> [147]. This is the first instance of negative personal comments made by either of them against the other. It is my understanding that admins are not allowed to block to enforce their version of a page, and thus this threat was improper. My apologies if that is incorrect.

[edit] 20 October

  • 03:52:49
    • Andy puts complaint about the threatened block on the incident noticeboard -> [148].
  • 05:18:36
    • User:Who makes good faith assumption and repeats Karmafist's false claim of 3RR violation as justification for block on Andy -> [149]
  • 06:58:18
  • 16:02:54
    • After Andy rejects his version Karmafist declares "It's clear that Pig is the problem" -> [151]. First use of "Pig" / "Pigs".
  • 16:32:51
    • Karmafist blocks Andy with a "vandalism" template, citing failure to follow civility and wikiquette -> [152]. Review of Andy's contributions to the page between the time of it being protected and his being blocked ([153] [154] [155]) shows no POSSIBLE instances of vandalism, incivility, or failure to follow wikiquette. Review of talk page discussion for the same time period ([156] [157] [158] [159]) shows disagreement and some hostility (on all sides), but nothing approaching the infractions accused (Karmafist, if you disagree please post diffs proving your claim as evidence). Reasons given for block thus appear false. Previously stated intent to block if Andy did not accept Karmafist's version of the page (10/19 11:13:12 evidence above) seems to be the actual reason for the block. This block was issued after approximately ten edits were exchanged over the course of three days with no prior history between the two users according to Karmafist. Not one of those edits rose to the level of a personal attack.

[edit] 21 October

  • 08:25:28
    • Karmafist responds to criticism from other admins by repeating false claim of Andy's 3RR violation. Says consensus was reached by both sides, but ignored by Andy... which is self-contradictory given that the only disputants were G-Man and Andy. Also states that he will block Andy indefinitely if he feels it is warranted... despite suggestions that he should leave this to other admins -> [160]
  • 09:03:10
    • Karmafist again repeats false 3RR claim -> [161]

[edit] 23 October

  • 06:32:56
    • Andy complains about block - noting charges were false -> [162]
  • 08:21:04
    • User:Shauri repeats Karmafist's false claim of 3RR violation based on good faith assumption it was true -> [163]

[edit] 24 October

  • 20:00:44
    • User:Linuxbeak asserts that Karmafist has not done "a single thing that is against policy", that Andy is falsely claiming to be a victim, and that his actions make him look like a troll -> [164]

Evidence provided to show that hostilities between these two users were initiated by Karmafist, that he abused his admin powers to enforce his version of a page, and that when Andy tried to reach out to the admin community they generally assumed that Karmafist's false charges against him were true. He committed no vandalism, no violation of 3RR, no personal attacks, no disruption... NOTHING accept refusing to accept the page as Karmafist wanted it to appear. He was then blocked, mocked, and dismissed. Each of these accusations made against him in that dispute were false. Yet accepted by many without question. Suggesting a possible reason for being less than willing to participate in a formal complaint process again. It is perhaps understandable that admins would accept the word of one of their own number over a regular user, but they should check before endorsing it. Also, given this history of false charges I'd encourage the arbiters to carefully consider claims which have been made on this page with no evidence links to back them up. For instance, the 'murder' and miraculous recovery, the 'SS' claim without the link where it was actually made (by someone else), claims of excessive abuse on talk pages with no difflinks to such, et cetera.

[edit] 15 November

  • 12:52:26
    • Karmafist says that he uses the nickname 'Pigs' in an effort to (amongst other things) make Andy angry and keep him arguing on talk pages -> [165].

[edit] 16 November

  • 23:25:36
    • Karmafist says that he is going to give up the pleasure of calling Andy "Pigs" for the good of Wikipedia -> [166].

[edit] 22 November

  • ll:28:03
    • Karmafist resumes using "Pigs" in edit summaries -> [167]
  • 11:43:29
    • Karmafist edit summary "Pig Patrol" -> [168]

[edit] 23 November

  • 13:45:21
    • Karmafist responds to Andy as "Pigs" -> [169]

[edit] 24 November

  • 13:23:31
    • Karmafist tells me he is now "going to start" calling Andy 'Pigs' again because he enjoys it -> [170]. Also that he is pleased to see another user doing so.

Information provided to show that Andy's behavior may have been influenced by intentional provocation. Deliberately insulting and provoking someone for personal enjoyment seems like a textbook violation of WP:HA.

  • 14:27:44
    • Karmafist blocks Andy for 'harassment' due to ArbCom 'taking their sweet time', threatens indefinite block -> [171]
  • 14:38:03
  • 14:45:57
    • Karmafist calls Andy "the scum of Wikipedia" -> [173]
  • 15:00:27
    • Andy disputes Karmafist's claim that he has 'been nice' up to this point -> [174]
  • 15:06:59
    • Karmafist blocks Andy specifically for comments above -> [175]. Exactly what policy was this block issued under? Certainly looks like a "vendetta" to me.
  • 16:01:52
    • Karmafist calls Andy a "dick" and again threatens indefinite block -> [176]
  • 21:58:43
    • Karmafist states that he blocked Andy because other admins had declined to do so "about a billion times" -> [177]

I cannot recall EVER having seen Andy using words like 'scum', 'dick', 'murderer', and 'socio-path' (see 'evidence' above for the latter two of those). This also makes three times Karmafist has blocked Andy as part of personal disputes... two of which with no real justification and one based on 'harassment'... which if anything he was far more guilty of himself. Also, these repeated threats of an indefinite block (two above, one under 10/21 evidence above, and several others in between) again constitute harassment. Acting against his opponent in a personal dispute when other admins decline to do so and faulting the ArbCom for failing to impose the 'indefinite block' he has been campaigning for also suggest the extent of hostility and bias involved here.

[edit] Coleshill, Warwickshire, 10 November

  • 07:23:17
    • Andy reverts text -> [178]. This is continuation of dispute going back nearly three months (see Phroziac evidence above for partial history).

[edit] 12 November

  • 21:46:11
    • I rewrite text in effort to incorporate both viewpoints with details-> [179].

[edit] 13 November

  • 16:20:05
    • Andy reverts, challenging existence of dispute outside talk pages -> [180]
  • 17:16:19
    • After extensive search I concede no evidence of dispute outside Wikipedia - suggest new text retaining explanation of confusion -> [181].

Dispute resolved. After dozens of edits, 3RR complaints, blocks, page protection, et cetera... four edits and no more reverting / argument.

  • 19:02:11
    • Karmafist gives me credit for the resolution, asks why Andy couldn't have done that -> [182]. Overlooks that Andy took part in ironing out and accepting the text. By definition, one person cannot achieve consensus. Not even me. :]

[edit] Birmingham, 10 November

  • 03:59:10
    • Andy reverts population/size text again -> [183]. This is continuation of dispute going back two weeks (see Karmafist evidence above for partial history).
  • 09:47:18
    • Handful of minor edits are made to adjust the wording -> [184]

Dispute resolved. Andy and opposing parties accept the new wording.

[edit] The Merry Widow (aka 'Die Lustige Witwe'), 13 November

  • 15:32:54
    • Andy restores tag -> [185]. This is continuation of a dispute going back nearly two weeks (see Karmafist evidence above for partial history).
  • 16:33:01
    • I dispute need for tag with detailed edit summary noting I was unable to determine what it applies to -> [186].
  • 16:57:59
    • Andy restores tag, but more fully explains information sought -> [187].
  • 17:25:12
    • I add requested information and again remove tag -> [188].

Dispute resolved. The tag has not re-appeared despite many subsequent edits. Note that many people had made numerous improvements to the page prior to this, contributing to resolution. See results before/after tag-> [189] to judge whether Andy's cleanup request was justified and/or beneficial.

Above three sections provided to show that user can be worked WITH to resolve disputes.

[edit] Jeremy Clarkson, 4 November

  • 03:07:38
    • User 72.234.99.65 makes NPOV complaint about article, mentions SS, but does not sign -> [190]
  • 04:57:14
    • Andy responds that he has added NPOV tag -> [191]
  • 09:09:59
    • Squeakbox accuses Andy of making SS comment and says he should have put NPOV tag on earlier -> [192]
  • 10:00:21
    • Andy states that he did not make the SS comment -> [193]

[edit] 7 November

  • 05:33:00
    • Andy again denies writing SS comment and provides link to page history (though not specific edit) -> [194]

[edit] 14 November

  • 10:21:25
    • Andy asserts that removal of material makes article POV biased -> [195]
  • 11:12:52
    • User Nandesuka asserts that restoring material violates NPOV -> [196]
  • 13:29:38
    • Karmafist posts incorrect (as above) evidence to this page that Andy made 'SS' remark and then falsely denied doing so -> [197]
  • 15:29:45
    • User 72.234.99.65 (of 'SS' fame) again disputes neutrality -> [198]

[edit] 15 November

  • 11:27:37
    • User 'The wub' tells Karmafist that his SS evidence is false and provides link to proof -> [199]
  • 13:55:56
    • Karmafist concedes error but changes evidence to suggest Andy was at fault for confusion & adds incorrect (as above) evidence that only Andy has NPOV dispute with page -> [200]

[edit] 17 November

  • 07:49:38
    • I tell Karmafist his 'only Andy' evidence is incorrect and question continued inclusion of 'SS' -> [201]
  • 09:54:05
    • Karmafist removes(?) my workshop comments to talk page and suggests Andy encouraged false 'SS' accusations against himself to discredit those making them (?!) -> [202]. Does not respond on 'only Andy has NPOV issue', but leaves incorrect evidence in place. Also states belief that banning is only way to deal with Andy.

[edit] Rebuttal by Karmafist

I find it saddening that POTW has ensnared another good user like CBdunkerson into believing his positive contributions are outweighed by his continuing negative contributions. Unfortunately, due to the continuing misconceptions(the Workshop conversation was moved to the adjoining talk page, not removed, me calling him a dick was a link to WP:DICK [203], which I think you'd agree from from all of the evidence here outside of CBd's evidence not aimed at me fits him to a tee, etc.) If CBD would like put these comments at an rfc towards me, that's fine, but this rfar is about POTW, not me, and like I said earlier today here, i'll do what I feel I have to do in order to make Wikipedia a safe place for users like Leonig Mig. Karmafist 00:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence provided by User:Evilphoenix

[edit] Bill Oddie

I'm expanding on Phrozaic's evidence for this section somewhat, trying to explain some of the missing gaps and sequence of the debate.

[edit] 19 August

  • 15:56
    • Pigsonthewings initial edit [204]
  • 16:23
    • Squeakbox reverts [205]
  • 17:00
    • Pigsonthewings reverts [206]
  • 17:03
    • Squeakbox reverts for the second time [207]
  • 17:14
    • Squeakbox posts to the Talk page, asserting that if the article subject grew up in Birmingham, subject is a native [208]
  • 17:18
    • Pigsonthewings replies, asserting that place of birth counts more for determining Native-ness [209].
  • 17:19
    • Pigsonthewings removes the category again [210]
  • 17:22
    • Squeakbox replaces the category for the third time [211]
  • 17:31
    • Pigsonthewings reverts again [212]

[edit] 20 August

  • 17:24
    • Squeakbox replaces the text [213].

[edit] 22 August

  • 11:25
    • Pigsonthewings removes text [214].
  • 13:50
    • Squeakbox replaces text [215].
  • 12:05
    • Pigsonthewings removes [216].
  • 14:12
    • Squeakbox replaces test [217].
  • 14:37
    • Pigsonthewings removes [218].
  • 15:11
    • Squeakbox replaces text [219].

[edit] 23 August

  • 19:41
    • Pigsonthewings removes [220].
  • 20:16
    • Squeakbox replaces [221].
  • 20:44
  • 21:00
    • Pigsonthewings adjusts the text to mention Lancashire again, in a slightly better way, and also removes Birmingham category again: [223].

[edit] 24 August

  • 02:24
    • 80.255 (talk · contribs) adjusts the opening text, and adds back in the birmingham category, but also adds a Lancashire category [224].

[edit] Evidence provided by User:Titoxd

[edit] Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

[edit] 22 November

  • 08:58
    • Pigsonthewing complains about Karmafist asking him to post at a subpage in his userspace on WP:AN/I: [225]
  • 09:43
    • Karmafist gives a link to this RFAr: [226]
  • 15:36
    • POTW replies to Dmcdevit's and Calton's complaints about posting frivolously, ignoring the reference to this RfAr: [227]

[edit] Evidence presented by Locke Cole

[edit] User:Scottfisher

Scottfisher is a user who ran afoul of the recent clampdown on unsourced copyrighted images. He has been indefinitely blocked for his activities. It seems however that Pigsonthewing has a personal vendetta against Scottfisher, because he's spent a considerable amount of time attempting to track down any anon sockpuppets used by Scott and revert every edit they make, no matter how trivial.

[edit] 22 November

  • 15:32
    • Here we see that Pigsonthewing understands the difference between being banned and just being blocked. [228] (Note that he cites the rules and acknowledges that blocked users are different from banned users).

[edit] 23 November

  • 09:44
    • Adds an IP to WP:AN/I that he believes is a Scottfisher sock. [229]

[edit] 24 November

  • 08:45
    • First anon Scottfisher revert of the day (only change is a wikilink on a date). [230]
  • 09:23
    • After realizing that I'm reverting his harassing reverts, he attempts to put a stop to it by trying to intimidate me. [241] Had this been a vandal that had been indefinitely banned/blocked, I could see his point, but these edits weren't vandalism and were harmless. (And as an anon editor, he is incapable of uploading images; the primary problem he had to begin with).
  • 10:30
    • Tony Sidaway (an admin) attempts to clarify the situation for Pigsonthewing: [242].
  • 10:32
    • Pigsonthewing responds to Tony Sidaway: [243].

Pigsonthewing also seems to maintain a dirt page of sorts at User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Scottfisher. Granted, not all of Scott's edits have been perfect or without problem (no editor is perfect), but his most recent anon edits (above) have been harmless and helpful.

The following diffs are presented as evidence of his continued long term revert war attitude.

[edit] 30 November

  • 04:54
    • Pigsonthewing reverts it less than an hour later with no edit summary. [245]
  • 05:57
    • Pigsonthewing reverts again (and again with no edit summary). [247]
  • 07:01
    • Scottfisher makes multiple edits again over a span of about 38 minutes, with a new message at the top of his talk page. [248] (this diff link covers the period from the last revert to Scottfisher's last edit).
  • 09:18
    • Pigsonthewing reverts again. [249]
  • 11:53
    • Evilphoenix reverts Pigsonthewings revert with the edit summary "Pigsonthewing, leave this page alone.". [250] Evilphoenix is the admin who indefinitely blocked Scottfisher.

[edit] 1 December

  • 07:27
    • Pigsonthewing reverts again with the edit summary "Scottfisher had not 'left', he is banend/ blocked by, er, user Evilphoenix". [251] Note here that Pigsonthewing skirts WP:3RR by a little over two hours (if one believes 3RR applies to userpage edits made by anyone other than the user whose talk page it is; at the very least, it's edit warring).
  • 07:40
    • Calton reverts Pigsonthewings revert with the edit summary "rv - Get a life, Bucko -- or maybe YOU COULD RESPOND TO YOUR RFAr?". [252]
  • 11:39
    • Pigsonthewing again reverts with the edit summary "rv., noting abusive edit summary". [253]
  • 17:09
    • Evilphoenix blocks Pigsonthewing for 36 hours. [255]

[edit] 2 December

  • 06:57
    • Evilphoenix tells Pigsonthewing to not edit Scottfisher's user or talk page. [256]

[edit] 5 December

  • 02:37 – 02:41
    • Pigsonthewing edits Scottfisher's talk page. [257]
  • 04:15
  • 04:28
    • Pigsonthewing reverts his edit back in. [259]
  • 05:05
    • Nandesuka reverts. [260]

[edit] Response to temporary injunction

Pigsonthewing responded to the notices of his injunction, showing a complete lack of respect for the conclusions the Arbitration Committee have reached so far.

[edit] 28 November

  • 02:27
    • Pigsonthewing responds on his own talk page stating he'd never made personal attacks. [261]
  • 02:36
    • He then responds (identically as above) on Karmafist's talk page. [262] This latter response almost seems like baiting (especially given the injunction against Karmafist currently being voted upon).
  • 03:21
    • James F. responds saying that if that's the case, Pigsonthewing should have no problem with a personal attack parole. [263]
  • 03:45
    • He then proceeds to claim the attacks are imagined by "trigger-happy admins". [264]
  • 08:25
    • Noticing that he passed up one of James F.'s notices, he finally leaves an additional denial on Phroziac's talk page. [265]

If he refuses to accept that he's done something wrong now, it's hard to believe he'll accept the final decision of the Arbitration Committee and work to correct his inappropriate behavior (assuming the Committee concludes any of his behavior was inappropriate).

[edit] Leonig Mig

More post-temporary injunction misbehavior.

[edit] 30 November

  • 02:31
  • 04:15
    • Pigsonthewing reverts again with the edit summary "rm fallacious abuse": [267].
  • 04:27
    • Pigsonthewing reverts again with the edit summary "rm fallacious abuse": [268].

[edit] Karmafist

[edit] 1 December

  • 11:52
    • Karmafist is currently running for a position on the ArbCom. Pigsonthewing posts this unhelpful and harassing message at the candidate statement article for Karmafist: [269]. Pigsonthewings message consists of "Cease making personal attacks. I have harassed no-one." and does not further the discussion, instead it seems like an attempt to bait a drawn out argument that Karmafist could never win (because any answer would, invariably, not convince Pigsonthewing that he's harassed anyone). The only intent behind this kind of response is disruption.

[edit] Evidence provided by Nick Boulevard

[edit] Hatred and Stalking outside of wikipedia

Andy Mabbett somehow traces me to a piece of work regarding Birmingham music at VirtualBrum (I originally signed the article with my wiki user name but removed it after the email to prevent further stalking). Andy then attempts to intimidate the owner of VirtualBrum with the following threatening email. I would like to point out that I had written the article seperately from wikipedia and besides I wrote most of the wikipedia version anyway as Andy knows.

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 user, whom I assumed to be Andy some time ago, has the same IP address as the sender of the email, please note also the QED signature

It may be a ridiculously huge coincidence, Andy and brumburger (who I am sure are either the same person or in some way linked) are the only people on wikipedia that have objected to my music related edits and Andy is the only person that has used the QED signature on Birmingham pages to my knowledge, taken from this link: "that is how i have seen it whether it is true or not - QED". Andy Mabbett 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)"

Funny also how, after the Vbrum user brings the email to our attention Andy seemed to take an immediate interest spitefully explaining... "What do you think anyone can do for you here?"

I bring this to Andys attention and he attempts to hide the evidence away without even bothering to explain the situation, hence this is the only place that I feel the evidence will remain for all to see.

Please note also that Andy Mabbett is dishonest, he reverted my user page to an edit that I did not like after picking up that I was embarrassed, when Angela confronted him about this he lied and said he did not do it, the evidence is here:

reverting my own user page to a version I had written whilst drunk

warned by user Angela for doing this and then blatantly lied to her that he had reverted at all.

Nick Boulevard 13:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)