Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

uhm...

Scott, can you just post a link to where that was originally, instead of copying/pasting it? --Phroziac^(talk) 14:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see POTW discussion Some from months ago

POTW Discussion Scott 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Phroziac^(talk)

14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About outside views...

Bramburger removed Ral315's outside view because he signed my summary. There's a lot of instruction creep here, but he didn't edit the summary, just his outside view. You can endorse any view, but you're only supposed to edit your own. I restored his outside view. --Phroziac^(talk) 14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - my mistake. --Brumburger 08:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I am almost certain that Brumburger IS Andy Mabbett, they work together systematically. Nick Boulevard 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improper copyvio tagging?

Hex signs is given as a link on the evidence for "Impulsive deletion of entire article with incorrect manner of tagging". We shouldn't give links to articles as evidence, please provide a diff for where he did this. Articles tend to change. And, it currently shows a copyvio tag, which looks fine to me. Also, when linking to an article, just put it in double brackets, like this. Much easier and nicer looking then using a URL link. --Phroziac^(talk) 19:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac, Question: Do we just delete or blotch out the whole article with a tag?

Hex signs

Scott 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We blotch out the whole article with a tag, then list it on WP:CP. Then it sits there for a month or so (it has a huge backlog), and people look at it and, if it's an actual copyvio, then they delete it. Most of this is so pages don't accidently get deleted because they're identical to a site that copied us, or if the contributer owns the original site. Also, don't forget only admins can delete articles, and Andy isn't an admin. --Phroziac^(talk)

20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that Phroziac, The tag is sooooo big. It's hard to make a comparison now. If there was a smaller tag it would be much easier to correlate the two? Thanks Phroziac Scott 20:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself about Leon

(Discussion should go on this talk page. I moved these from under the Leonig Mig outside view. Also, I should mention I left him a message saying that he's not on the outside at all, and suggested he should move that here, add the extra stuff to the main summary, and maybe certify the dispute and add some evidence. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Speaking for myself, I understand your feelings Leon, because I went as far as you, and further. I went MAD attempting to delete all the contributions so he could not rectify them and continue to harrass. I was so mad, still am, because of it. So what we are saying here is he attempts to get one mad, succeeds, then it looks like it is the original person attempting to cause harm. Heck, they even had to put me in the box for about twelve hours. It's not fun being blocked out in the cold. I was hungry, discouraged, and committed to leave Wikipedia! PO'd

(I do understand, and hope no one else reaches that point)

Then I started investigating, and I saw he was doing the same likeness to others before me. He is a cling-on. Following people around. So here I am, hoping this is the place to come forth. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia just as much as everyone else. He just did another today that pisses me off, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reflectometer&diff=24226650&oldid=24208276] I ask you why would someone bracket something that goes nowhere? It was fine the way it was. Damn. Thanks, Scott 23:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that edit. We add redlinks in articles to encourage people to click them and make articles there. Additionally, when there is an article there, we don't have to add the link. :) --Phroziac^(talk)

00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But logically would you put a brackets with nothing to go to? Do you not understand the following pattern here? He did the same thing to Leon Scott 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the edit itself. By nothing to go to, you mean a red link? Or is there something I'm missing? Yes, stalking you is bad, and I have noticed indications of it, but have not directly investigated it. --Phroziac^(talk)

04:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac's comment on red links seconded. They are actively encouraged, and it's right up front in the Tutorial for new users: Help:Starting a new page#Creating links to other pages

While you are editing some existing article, if a word or phrase you are typing strikes you as if it ought to have an article of its own linked from here, just put it in double square brackets, like this. We call that "wikifying" the text. When you save the present article, that word will either magically link to an article if one exists, or it will become one of those red links mentioned above which allow you to create the article. This is a great way to build new articles.

So this particular complaint is based on a misunderstanding. Tearlach 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure most of his edits are 'right', many of the one which wound me up I would have made myself when I came back to review them. However this example is endemic of the kind of petty thing he does which winds people up so much. Imagine being followed - it's not pleasant. It implies you are a child in need of supervision, and becuase of the way he reverts, the only way to avoid conflict is to yeild to him in every case. It's a power thing - Leonig Mig 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I completely understand and agree with Leon Scott 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

View by Leonig Mig

I am 'outside' in the sense that I am nothing to do with the process of this RFC, although I am very much 'inside' of the wider issue. I used to write articles, from written sources, about local history. POTW made an edit and we got into a pretty standard edit war. So far so normal - except then he "rewrote" every single article I had written over a period of months in a single 12 hour sitting.

I felt violated by that so I got a bit hot headed with him, which was a bad move as it was then he started stalking me. Basically watching my contribution page and putting all the articles I touched onto 'watch'. Literally I would be editing an article and he would "turn up" and begin live edit wars. I found this an absolutely huge wind-up, and he knew that. I wrote some pretty cross stuff, and got very angry about it.

Anyway, to cut a long story short I started treated him the same way he treated me, to show him a taste of his own medicine. That's when he put that message on his user page and the worst of the conflict began. It was this point I realised that I was interested in editing the Encyclopedia and not personal conflict with someone who obviously has serious "issues".

I have stopped using Leonig Mig and registered as another user, all because of this editor. However I would prefer none of this had ever happened. Also note that Brumberger is widely believed to be a POTW sock puppett. Leonig Mig 19:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am "widely" believed to be Andy's sock puppet by Mig, and Nick "copyright violation king" Boulevard. I am not, as any admin can check. --Brumburger 08:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndyBurger, please withdraw your comment, since my RFC (which was many months ago) I have made no copyright vio's, you are lieing to move the spotlight away from yourself again. Nick Boulevard 10:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, anyone can log on from another PC. Simply by looking at your contribution page it is clear to anyone that you only edit in support of your POTW alias. Leonig Mig 11:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another computer does not change your IP address. Another internet connection will. Of course, in most cases reconnecting to the internet will too... --Phroziac^(talk)

19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your edit summaries: "(Removed unsubstantiated and absurd "argument".)". Sound like someone we know? Leonig Mig 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admins cannot see if you are a sockpuppet any more then regular users. Developers can. --Phroziac^(talk)

19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USER POTW Needs blocking until makes a commitment for proper behavior

RFCs can't block users any more then they can get blocked normally. Also, I should mention i'm on a wikibreak for a while. --Phroziac^(talk)

01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I've also checked this out via general stylistic evidence. There are users who make similar edits simply because they're literate and have bothered to read and digest Wikipedia guidelines. It does not mean they are friends. Sockpuppetry is a standard accusation from those who don't grasp this. Tearlach 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If nothing else, Andy's far higher rate of typos should have tipped people off (and the fact that, as I indicated in my response to the RfC, I support him in some areas and not in others). We're not friends, by the way - I've never met him, I can't recall ever having emailed him. Tearlach's explanation is correct. --Brumburger 06:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is it just a coincidence that you appeared just at the time Andy Mabbett was coming under fire from me and G-man about his constant revert and edit wars and that you picked up exactly where Andy left off and then as soon as you seemed to have done the dirty work that Andy would have carried out Andy Mabbett suddenly appears again, copy edits and then it is back to you, I had some hillarious evidence of you and Andy carrying out a barrage of edits and then all of a sudden you go quite for ages, Andy also goes quiet for roughly the same amount of time (we are talking days on end) and then Andy reapears alone until he needs a helping hand so as to divert the attention away from his poor efforts at disruption and then you miraculously reapear, to be honest even if you were two completely different people which I very much doubt, this RFC should apply to both names IMO, has anyone ever done a check on Andy Mabbett on the net, throws up some interesting reading and it appears claims of stalking have been made before, this is actually quite a serious issue. Nick Boulevard 10:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I tend to ignore typos unless I'm fixing them. And, you're welcome. --Phroziac^(talk)

22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. *shrug*. --Phroziac^(talk)

22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Question about outside views

I have done so, Andy is unwilling to admit he has ever acted in any unsavoury manner, he is unwilling to change his stalking behaviour and constant reverts often with little or no explanation, basically as far as I have seen on wikipedia, Andy Mabbett believes that he is always right, unwilling to listen to others or attempt to reach a compromise for the good of an article and he seems to delude himself that he is some kind of chief editor to the point that (IMO) he has followed me elsewhere to "punish" me for standing up to his bullying ways. Nick Boulevard 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]