Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. --Phroziac(talk) 14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: uhm...

message: POTW Discussion Scott 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Phroziac(talk) 14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please see POTW discussion Some from months ago 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks - my mistake.  --Brumburger 08:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I am almost certain that Brumburger IS Andy Mabbett, they work together systematically. Nick Boulevard 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About outside views...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Admins cannot see if you are a sockpuppet any more then regular users. Developers can. --Phroziac(talk) 19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: View by Leonig Mig

message: Now harrasing another user, Should be blocked so we all can get real work done, Thank-You  Scott 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: USER POTW Needs blocking until makes a commitment for proper behavior

message: There were some accusations that Brumburger is a sockpuppet of Pigsonthewing. I had a developer look into thus, and there is no technical evidence to support it. They are most likely different people. They're probably friends and agree on a lot of things, and act similar though. --Phroziac(talk) 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Heh, I tend to ignore typos unless I'm fixing them. And, you're welcome. --Phroziac(talk) 22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. *shrug*. --Phroziac(talk) 22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry 

message: What happens if Andy just ignores the RFC? Proto t c 08:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I just had a cordial, but sometimes less-than-helpful and ultimately fruitless, discussion with Andy on some edits which seem to form part of the pattern discussed in this RfC.  Is it appropriate to put my comments on this dialogue as part of my own outside view? -- SCZenz 22:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question about outside views