Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Redirects

Mostly because i'm lazy, WP:RFC/POTW will now redirect to the RFC, and WP:RFAr/POTW will redirect to the RFAr. --Phroziac(talk) 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the former as an inappropriate use of articlespace (which in any case doesn't seem to have been employed widely). I've created a new shortcut Wikipedia:RFC/POTW in project space, and I'm still umming and ahing about the appropriateness of an articlespace redirect to an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars for evidence

What's the best way to submit long revert wars as evidence? The evidence page says not to submit page histories, which is obviously a good idea. But, I'm sure arbcom would prefer not to see dozen+ diffs for a month long edit war, such as what happened at Bill Oddie. --Phroziac(talk) 15:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Count them, provide diffs for the first, a couple in the middle and the last one. Fred Bauder 16:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Boulevard

Nick Boulevard is once again claiming that Andy Mabbett and myself are the same person. See here for proof that we are not. We do share a concern that Boulevard should not return to his former large-scale copyright violation, addition of nonsense and irrelevant trivia to Birmingham-related articles, and obstructive edit warring (see here), none of which any of the admins who had dealings with him ever tried to prevent. We have not, to my recollection, ever communicated with each other outside of Wikipedia. And before Boulevard starts, I am not Ray Girvan either. --Brumburger 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I love how he refers to QED as a "signature" and seems to think it's unique to Andy. Andy is a pain and all but that doesn't do much for Nick's credibility. PurplePlatypus 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether Andy and Brumburger are one and the same is not really what concerns me, as I have stated, Andy Mabbett has followed me outside of wikipedia and sent a threatening email to a friend which is a serious issue and can be regarded as stalking, I have completely cleaned up my act after my RFC, unlike Andy Mabbett who has ignored his and yet is still here.
My reference to QED as a signature was correct in the case of the anonymouse user, QED WAS his signature.
Please show me a post on the Birmingham related pages that ends in QED other than by Andy Mabbett and a user whom I suspected to be Andy Mabbett some time ago... I do not wish to insult anyone's inteligence here but it does not take a genius to work it out. I find Brumburger's aspersions here a feeble attempt at trying to distract people from the issue in hand, do not be fooled. Nick Boulevard 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The point PurplePlatypus is trying to make, I think, is that QED is not a signature (at least not in the diffs you mentioned). As the wikipedia page of QED explains, it's a way to conclude a proof or, in those diffs, an argument. What 82.96.100.100 means with QED, is that what you said proves what he claimed. The same probably goes for the case of Pigsonthewing using it:
  • He claimed something about you.
  • You say "that is how i have seen it whether it is true or not"
  • Pigsonthewing says that proves what he claimed.
(I said 'probably' as I don't want to go searching through the history of the talk page for this: some of the beginning of that discussion appear to have gone missing.) Perhaps you were already familiar with the meaning of Q.E.D., either way Q.E.D. is certainly not unique to Pigsonthewing. However, in the case of Pigsonthewing, it seems to be a good example of how he (sometimes?) responds on talk pages: very minimalistic. Rather using an abbreviation than the complete expression (Q.E.D. rather than 'this proves what I just said'). Rather repeating himself than rephrasing or elaborating (a discussion on 'Die Lustige Witwe'). Rather saying he explained/said something earlier than repeating himself (same discussion on 'Die Lustige Witwe'). 131.155.229.224 23:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I should have made myself a little clearer, one of my downfalls and I apologise. I fully understand what QED means, as I stated on the main page, maybe it is just a huge coincidence but... the fact remains, if we disregard the meaning of the abreviation and concentrate on who has used it on wikipedia pages relating to Birmingham we still end up with just two users, Andy Mabbett and an annonymous user whom I assumed to be a sock puppet for Andy prior to his use of QED, not only that but a user who has taken steps to stalk me outside of wikipedia and send a threatening email to someone who had kindly offered me an outlet for my work, an outlet that Andy Mabbett had no control over. The evidence is there I am afraid and thus far, I have not heard a single argument to convince me that Andy Mabbett did not carry out these cowardly and yet dangerous actions, he is dishonest and a down right liar as my evidence has shown (re: my user page and his comment to Angela), if someone accused me of such a crime and I was innocent I would make it my business to clear my name wouldn't you? If I had known that editing wikipedia would result in my being stalked outside of the website I honestly do not think I would have joined, the fact that people can get away with it and still edit here is a complete farce IMO, what next... threatening phone calls in the middle of the night? He has tried to bully me since I first edited wikipedia but to his frustration it has had no effect, I am still here and his RFC against me has just made me stronger, does anybody know what actions can be taken against wikipedia editors who stalk others outside of wikipedia boundaries. Nick Boulevard 12:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finally

Good evidence! Will there be a vote? Mousha Pippick 03:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)