Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nick Boulevard

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Nick Boulevard | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

This is a complaint about User:Nick Boulevard for issues including POV, personal attacks, and persistent copyright violation.

Description

This dispute concerns the conduct of User:Nick Boulevard, who has had a Wikipedia account since May 2004, alongside pre-existing anonymous access. He exclusively edits articles about Birmingham and (often tenuously) related subjects, where he has been a major initiator of editing conflicts.

Many of his Birmingham-related contributions are, or contain, flagrant copyright violations, and none are sourced. He engages in frequent revert wars, refusing to allow others to change 'his' pages without his prior agreement, and referring to edits he dislikes as "vandalism". He often reverts to remove corrections - and some necessary deletions - on grounds of fact, spelling, grammar and POV bias (Birmingham is currently protected, in large part because of his behaviour).

He has engaged in repeated abuse of other users, and has repeatedly claimed that several of them are sockpuppets of User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett).

A repeated specific area of conflict is neutrality. He would like Wikipedia to promote an exclusively positive view of Birmingham. This means that what other editors view as edits toward NPOV, he views as reflecting a bias against, even hatred of, Birmingham. His user page in May 2004 [1] stated that there should be one "guardian" of each city page, a role which he seems to want to fulfil in relation to the Birmingham page.

He continues to use anonymous access, claiming to often be "too busy" to log in, and to be using a computer which won't allow him to remain logged in [2]. This results in many of his edits appearing under various IP addresses in the range 195.92.67.* - for instance, 195.92.67.65. (These are automatically assigned by one of the UK's largest dialup access providers; occasionally others have used the same addresses to edit the same pages).

Evidence of disputed behavior

Copyvio

Many of the copyright violations have been reported and removed - Telecommunication in Birmingham, Chinatown, Birmingham, Valor Company Ltd, William Bown, Jewellery Quarter, Halfords, Calthorpe Motor Company Ltd., GW Hands Motor Company, Music Wire (English), Imperial Wire Gage & British Standard Gage, Perry Motor Company Ltd..

Their removal by copyvio administrators is evidence that they were significant undiluted violations rather than mixed with original material or "copying and posting a few short sentences". Some are still in existence. In May 2004 NB admitted making copyright violations when he first started[3], but note the recent dates of these (many of those listed above were also from earlier this year).

1. Gun Quarter from [4] (Feb 2005 creation)
2. Birmingham military history (see copyvio version) from [5], [6] and [7] (Feb 2005 creation)
3. Joseph Henry Hughes from [8] (Mar 2005 creation)
4. GEC - addition of material from [9] (Mar 2005)
5. Midland Red - [10] The copyvio in question was added 00:13, 19 April 2004 by [[11]] from a Tiscali IP address in the same block as [[12]], which Nick admits to having used two days previously to create Spencer Davis Group. He used [[13]] from the same block in May 2004: [14] and [15] and signed another edit [16] from the same block on 19 April 2005. See also Talk:Midland Red. The full Tiscali range is 80.225.88.0 – 80.225.232.255.
6. Spencer Davis Group - [17], again April 2004. Nick admits on his home page that he was the originator of this article.
7. Velocette (80.225.165.6 19 April 2004) - original article and [18]
8. Alexander Parkes (User:Nick Boulevard 17 December 2004) - early version of article and [19]

Revert wars - see history of Birmingham, Brummie, Brummagem, Science and invention in Birmingham.

1. Gun Quarter/Temp - revert to restore a second block of copyvio material which was clearly flagged at the time of deletion and on the talk page.
2. Arts in Birmingham - revert to restore factual inaccuracies which other editors had clearly explained.
3. Science and Invention in Birmingham - restoration of material previously the subject of dispute and revert wars, and thoroughly debunked on talk page.
4. User:Pigsonthewing - Persistent alteration of another user's page, against that user's wishes.

Abuse

Attempts to discuss matters rationally, personal abuse:

1. Talk:Birmingham/archive6 - Andy Mabbett is "snake like" and "officially spying on me to delete my contributions" (after most of the copyright violations listed above were reported). Elsewhere on the talk page, Mabbett and other users are described as "pathetic creature", "extremely arrogant and ignorant", "snake like" (again), "sneaky and destructive" (for removing copyvio material), "snide".
2. Talk:Thomas Ridgway - "condescending idiot" (in response to User:Raygirvan's attempt to explain, as a detailed example, why the article was edited for NPOV and removal of peacock terms); also initial comment which is simply abuse aimed at User:Pigsonthewing.
3. Brummie and again - comments on reversion (removal of a hybrid RP English speaker, on linguistic grounds, from a list of characteristic examples of the Brummie regional accent is ascribed to "Andy hates Brum being shown in a positive light").
4. Talk:Brummagem - a topic contentious for NB because of the term's factual history as a negative allusion to Birmingham. Plenty of attempts to reason calmly with NB, resulting in accusations of arrogance, ignorance, bad faith, megalomania, psychopathy, sockpuppetry.
5. Talk:Brummie - again, plenty of attempts to reason calmly, met with accusations of bad faith and ignorance; a rejection of NPOV ("I feel EXTREMELY passionate that if an article about Brummie and the accent should exist it is represented in a positive light"); refusal to permit mention of published academic research reporting a negative perception of the Brummie regional accent; a statement that could be read as a veiled threat to delete other users' work elsewhere (see Talk:Brummie#Dispute); insistence that personal experience of accents of friends and family is evidence suitable for inclusion in a linguistic account; and further abuse.
6. Accusations of stalking [20] over discussions of IP address. (For the record, this topic was discussed a) in relation to suspicions, unproven so not included in the complaint, that the variable IP address assignment was being exploited to sidestep the three-reverts rule; b) to assess the feasibility of a block by IP address should this option be raised in future RayGirvan 02:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)).
7. Abuse here: [21].
8. Further accusations of sockpuppetry: [22]
9. Sockpuppetry accusations, conspiracy theories, claims of "ownership" of an article, claims that removal of copyright violation is "unfair", abuse of an administrator for removal of copyright violation: [23] [24]
10. Further abuse: [25]
11. And more abuse (July 2005): [26]

Applicable policies

All four of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, avoid bias, don't infringe copyrights, respect other contributors).

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (and especially Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox)
2. Wikipedia:NPOV
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Guidelines:

1. Revert#Avoid_collateral_damage
2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
3. Wikipedia:Cite sources
4. Wikipedia:Stay on topic
5. Wikipedia:Accountability
6. Wikipedia:Verifiability
7. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

• See the Talk pages Talk:Birmingham, Talk:Brummie, and Talk:Brummagem.
• Mediation attempted by User:Andrew Norman over Brummie (see Talk:Brummie#Dispute). No serious attempt made by NB to engage in the process (which he describes as "an attempt to force me into mediation" in Talk:Birmingham#Abusive_reverts).
• Advice from the Admin Angela to read the NPOV tutorial, "Following that might help to avoid some of the criticism you've been receiving" and accompanying advice on copyright (assuming good faith and simple misunderstanding) by RayGirvan. No response to the former; to the latter, the response "I actually understand copyright better than you may ever imagine, I am definately pro Birmingham but in an honest way IMO" and a diatribe including repetition of the suggestion that all NB's critics are the same person: I can tell this from his dedication at editing many mainly Brum topics in a... Andy Mabbet way, which is uncanny to an anonymous user and pigs on the wing and Andy Norman and Ray Girvan.
• User talk:Nick Boulevard/Archive 1#Tips - advice by G-Man and RayGirvan on Wikipedia principles. Apparently accepted (but with repetition of claim that "Andy Mabbett has a history of craftily deleting (not just editing) my work to suit himself, he always adds a negative slant also which if anything seems to severely un-balance the article"). However, NB then continued reversion in Arts in Birmingham (see history) of material factually debunked in Talk:Arts_in_Birmingham by reference to original sources.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Brumburger 20:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. RayGirvan 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Andy Mabbett 21:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Joolz 15:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm not disputing the accurarcy of this summary, but I've chosen to endorse an outside view which more accurately reflects my current feelings -- Joolz 29 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

1. I think I stumbled across this dispute when I joined Wikipedia, at the tail end of 2004; I was looking at Slade, and I wandered to the page about Birmingham. I definitely remember the least sympathetic half using the word 'Mabbett' a lot. Reminds me of the "I am LOOOSING my PATIENTS" person, if anyone else recalls him. The impression I get is that Mr Boulevard means well, but is... limited, to put it diplomatically.-Ashley Pomeroy 10:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. This is long, long overdue. I suspect I am not the only one to give up and take pages like Brummie and Brummagem off my watchlist because of the total deadlock and endless fruitless discussion. Just when it appears someone is getting somewhere with Nick he goes and makes edits like this. Apparently unable to grasp the concept of NPOV. A major obstacle to producing good encyclopedic content relating to Birmingham. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Firstly:

When to use RFC

RFC is appropriate when you want other wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first. For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

I do not recall being approached by any of the accusing users on my talk page with an attempt to resolve any disputes at all, infact all comments from the accusers have so far been quite condesending on article pages. I only stumbled across a page in preperation for this by chance, that IMO is extremely underhanded.

I believe that Andy Mabbett could be BrumBurger or associated with him at least, Andy Mabbett has stalked my every move on wikipedia since I first visited and now he Brumburger and RayGirvan have discussed openly their detailed efforts to trace my IP address which in my opinion is a little more serious than other things discussed on this page, it is a type of obssesive behaviour and I do not welcome the attention.

FYI, Nick B. seems to have used all the IPs in the range 195.92.67.65 - 78, plus 195.92.67.208 - 209. comment by Andy Mabbett.

The difficulty being, then, that the address block (195.92.67.0 - 195.92.67.255) is the Energis UK backbone. I don't know how specific the sub-blocks get, but some of my edits before I signed up came out as 195.92.67.70, and I'm logging on via Wanadoo from Devon. comment made by RayGirvan

I'd noticed that, and assumed it was Wanadoo (the numbers show up as the Planet Online webcache when you look them up, Planet being the ancestor of Freeserve and Wanadoo). comment made by Bumburgler.

Andy Mabbett has a history of editing (no problem) but also deleting my work, his personal vendetta has sometimes wound me up which is why I become irritated, he has been blocked for ignoring warnings on his talk page, he is in constant dispute on his talk page whereas I actually get on with most people here, albeit thinly at times, I am reasonable provided I am approached in a respectful manner and in Andy and Rays case, lets just say that they rub me up the wrong way and I have never used profein or threatening language in my annoyance at their many reverts and deletions. By listing some of my articles as copyright they have actually lost much of my original material and I think that they know that only too well.

Basically the fact that this page exists at all is quite ridiculous and a waste of your time Andy, Ray whoever you all may be, you should hope that I do not find the time and patience to make a page like this about you, maybe that is the difference, I just don't hold this kind of malice you seem to let fester :) Nick Boulevard 21:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that the first three characters to sign Brumburgers page are the three people who I have suspected to being the same person, how strange, no link there then. Nick Boulevard 21:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An example of Brumburger dedicating his time here to watching me, nearly every article he has edited there has been related to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brumburger

An example of Andy Mabbett reverting my work and dedicating his time to "edit" me out of existance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pigsonthewing

People cannot understand why he does this but I just can't be bothered to explain anymore. See last post on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pigsonthewing thats the second time I've tried to create an article on Jewellery Quarter but Andy doesn't like it.

To be honest I am fast losing interest in Wikipedia at this moment in time.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Nick Boulevard 21:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Carnildo

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Looks hopeless to me. Judging by Nick Boulevard's response, he's unwilling to admit that he's made mistakes. In that case, the best option for this RfC is to use it to organize evidence for an arbitration request.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Carnildo 19:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by TheoClarke

Nick's behaviour has been regrettable. Unfortunately, so has that of some of his accusers. Nick has a POV, which he was pushing hard. That appears to have moderated lately and some of his harshness is a response to harsh treatment, which in turn seems to spring from frustration at his intransigence. I deduce that Nick is opinionated, passionate, too quick to take offense, and aggressive in defence. He is, however, learning and adopting more appropriate behaviour—albeit inconsistently and slowly. The problem with co-ordinated and well-prepared RFCs of this nature is that the subject can feel bullied. This is not conducive to resolution. All four participants agreeing to treat the others with care and respect would be a good start, however, and we are already seeing some rapprochement between Nick and Ray. I am aware that this opinion delivered solely through text may appear condescending; it is not intended that way.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Theo (Talk) 09:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Joolz 29 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Leonig Mig

I think the core underlying issues at stake in this RfC are co-operation and civility, and I would hesitate to suggest it is only Nick at fault.

Nick seems to have been a little over zealous in submitting work which turns out to have been copyrighted, but now seems to have accepted the community consensus that this can be damaging so this issue should be dropped.

Rather, the meat of this seems to be a personal vendetta between him and User:Pigsonthewing. I have conflicted with POTW myself and find he is skilled at subtle transmission of abuse and resentful feelings (User talk:Nick Boulevard).

I would argue that both are at fault, but POTW is more artful, so often Nick is painted as the solely guilty party. By no means do I blame POTW in totality - but it takes two to tango - so to speak.

More recently I have noticed less of the problematic behaviour from both users. I think POTW and Nick have both reflected on the issues this conflict has raised and have become better wikipedians for it.

At least that is what I hope.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Leonig Mig 10:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Theo (Talk) 21:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Nick Boulevard
4. G-Man 18:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note

Leonig Mig, the author of the above comment, has since admitted "Regards Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing), well, perhaps I should come clean. My edits against his are done purely for the purpose of stalking him." [27]. Andy Mabbett 09:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Leonig Mig, this statement has been taken out of context. Please read the cited diff to see that context. —Theo (Talk) 00:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Denni☯

My involvement with Nick Boulevard has been limited to the articles Jewellery Quarter and Dip pen. I initially contributed a stub to hold a place for the Jewellery Quarter article after some copyvio material was removed. Shortly thereafter, Nick Boulevard added substantially to the article, including a great deal of information on pen manufacture in the same area. I edited this material out and merged it with dip pen. Throughout the entire process, Nick was willing to listen to arguments, did not attempt to revert or sabotage my edits, and was colleagual in his actions. In fact, the only instance in which I felt a little hostility was in an edit summary comment by Pigsonthewing to the effect that I had ought to read the "panel", when in fact I already had. It may well be that Nick Boulevard has demonstrated less than admirable behavior in this series of actions, but after reading Pigsonthewing's user talk, it is apparent that this is another person who has issues with civillity and cannot always play well with others. In short, there is plenty of room for pointing fingers here, and they should not all be aimed at Nick. Denni☯ 20:30, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

comment to Carnildo moved from above - should it be moved to Talk page?

Earlier discussion

For earlier discussion, see /archive001

Update 22 June 2005

Further problems here: Talk:Arts in Birmingham#Musical comparisons. POV obstruction of edits about UK musical history. RayGirvan 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain these problems further... I have not touched the article and I am in discussion with users trying to reach a compromise to the intro to the brum popular music section (what a crime), I have not used abuse or copyright vio... what is it now then Ray??? annoyed that I am not deleted or do you actually have something worthwile to complain about? obviously not, the more you actually side with Pigs on the wing... strange behaviour in favour of an user that has previously been banned for his "edits" here, not that I am counting, where is brumburger lately?

There seems to be a disturbing pattern of behaviour and edits (time wise and article wise) from three users in wikipedia. Nick Boulevard 23:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am in discussion with users trying to reach a compromise No you're not: you're arguing the toss (yet again) about a generally-agreed statement, simply because it doesn't fit your view that the sun shines out of Birmingham's collective arse.

Please don't play the persecution card. You were caught in disruptive conduct (the whole point of the RfC) so naturally observation focuses on you. RayGirvan 00:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I haven't touched the article, merely discussed it :)

2. Nick Boulevard is poison to Birmingham-related articles ~ would you like to point out which brum related articles you created Ray, I notice you copy edited my gun quarter history article, also the article you are discussing about popular music in brum was written and researched by me... I would love to see you prove otherwise, I have saved my edits in plain text right from the word go, infact maybe that is something I could do to show you just how much I have "poisoned" Birmingham articles, you say that you are not a sock puppet... prove it. Nick Boulevard 00:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the last comment on this discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arts_in_Birmingham bearing in mind that I have bitten my tongue and played by the rules since this RFC, PLEASE CAN I HAVE MY SAY NOW, actually I will wait and see what happens. :) Nick Boulevard 00:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat it here. It's a caricature of the problem that led to this RfC, and which you are continuing in Talk:Arts_in_Birmingham.

NB: Whats even more annoying is that I have now lost my last reply to Theo...

RG: I don't care if it incites your gormless rage. This discussion is entirely about long-standing issues. It riles you that Birmingham isn't as iconic as somewhere else, so we get the usual w*nk along the lines of Birmingham music being iconic because your sister's aunt knew someone whose cat was vaccinated by a vet who liked Slade.

The poison comment is about your general behaviour that led to this RfC. As to your paranoid-sounding comments about sock puppets, admins can check that out; you're utterly wrong, and I've no problem in confirming my identity. But for starters, see here and here. Like someone's going to produce long-standing websites, predating participation in Wikipedia for years, just to spite you. RayGirvan 03:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, chaps, let's break it up! Nick: Your accusations appear paranoid. These guys are watching your edits because of your past behaviour. It is clear that they are not sockpuppets and your accusations are offensive to editors who believe that they are acting in good faith. Please stop making such accusations. Ray: I understand your anger but stop using abusive language. The exerpt that you cite here is abusive and goading. You are a professional writer so I know that you are skilled in your use of language. Please moderate your tone in these discussions.—Theo (Talk) 07:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theo. However, I'm slightly disturbed that once again, Nick is claiming "ownership" of articles (or at the very least a special relationship) because he started or contributed to them (see above). He is also still having problems with the concept of NPOV (and bogging down article talk pages with a lot of irrelevant discussion, often concentrating on personal motivation rather than article content, because of this). Much of what he contributes needs quite drastic copyediting on grounds of style, spelling and grammar, relevance to the subject of the article, bias, and (last but not least) factual accuracy. That's why it may appear to him that he's being "jumped on" a lot of the time and having work "deleted". Andy and Ray don't alter my contributions (much), and vice-versa, because by and large they don't need to be altered - and when they do, I can almost always appreciate why they have done what they did. Ray has spent a lot of time explaining to Nick how he could raise the standard of his contributions, and it seems to be slowly sinking in. I hope that improvement continues. --Brumburger 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am actually laughing out loud at Ray and Brumburgers comments here, I am sure Ray is a professional something, now I see he thinks I am pig-thick on Theo's talk page, well maybe that's your perception Ray and you are entitled to it. I do find it quite strange that seeing as I apologized some time ago on Rays talk page for initially thinking he may have been connected in some way to Andy Mabbett, he still seems to blindly rant about my paranoia of him and Andy being one and the same, since my apology on the 13th of June when have I ever accused you (Ray) of being Andy Mabbett, I still think that maybe Brumburger and Andy could be the same (although I don't really care) and I would suggest you and Andy have many traits in common but in all honesty you cannot tell me that you didn't read my appology on your talk page? So why become so frustrated and angry accusing me of being paranoid, I would suggest it is the other way round now and you seem to have become obsessed with thinking I am paranoid, how very bizarre. Anyway Ray, here it is again incase you did actually miss my apology first time around:

Thank you, by the way I apologise for being so pig-headed and overbearing in recent weeks, I am also sorry for assuming you were Andy Mabbett although I still thank that Brumburger and Andy are one and the same. 195.92.67.209 19:56, 13 Jun 2005(UTC)

P.S. the above post is a perfect example of me logging in as Nick Boulevard and then when I click to another page my p.c. loggs me out without me knowing and then when I go to save there is a diff IP address. Nick Boulevard 19:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Nick Boulevard 17:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway I'm still here despite all that you think of me, and however much you would like me gone it's not going to happen, and with regards to Brumburger, my spelling is quite fine thanks, grammar is poor but my articles can't be that bad as many have morphed into very well edited pages here, you see silly little comments like that would only bother me if they were actually true, I am extremely pleased with the content and research that has remained and I can assure you that this RFC has definately made me stronger on wikipedia, many thanks, Andy, Ray, Brumburger etc. :) Nick Boulevard 17:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my spelling is quite fine thanks - read the last line on your own user page. And, indeed, your last sentence above. As Theo says, stop making accusations of sockpuppetry - I am quite prepared to go for arbitration if that's what it takes to stop this nonsense. --Brumburger 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually write rather fast Brumburegr and I rarely check my words before I save page, probably my spelling could do with a little fine tuning, who cares... not me :) and I think you missed this bit matey: "I still think that maybe Brumburger and Andy could be the same (although I don't really care)..." as in I really, really couldn't give a monkeys if you are or are not all the same, let me rephrase... In my opinion Andy Mabbett, Brumburger and Ray Girvan all seem to have similar copy editing qualities on wikipedia, is that better, don't get you pants in a little twist now, I won't acuse you of being pigs on wing again, it's quite boring in fact, the end! Nick Boulevard 18:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 'last line' as just ben removed. [28]. Andy Mabbett 19:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

since my apology on the 13th of June when have I ever accused you (Ray) of being Andy Mabbett. Yesterday. [29] Andy Mabbett 18:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved here but I'm pretty much 100% certain that RayGirvan != POTW. Leonig Mig 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chiling Out

Hi Andy Mabbett, please can you explain why you have just blatantly deleted most of the article I just created early this evening about chilling out, take a look at my last edit then Pigs edit "Chill out music" came about from the phrase "just chilling out", this is why you need to explain a near total removal of an article I have just created? Nick Boulevard 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After a second look I see that you have taken half the article I wrote and then added Chill out music to a new article with your name as the starting author, fine, whatever you want. Nick Boulevard 21:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Untrue. It was shifted to a new location, retaining your material and attribution - Chill out (music) - reflecting its relation to existing usages of Chill out that you failed to check when you created the article. RayGirvan 00:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ray, I don't like to point out the obvious here but why are you talking on behalf of Andy Mabbett? Nick Boulevard 23:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of sock-puppetry

Regarding the sockpuppet thing, I can sort of see why Nick is suspicious. I too find it rather odd that Brumburger and RayGirvan suddenly appeared within days of Andy Mabbet returning, and now seem to be acting as a team. However I dont believe that they are the same people, although they could possibly know each other and are working together. It all seems to be too convenient to be a coincidence. Now I'm not neccesarily saying that this is the case, and I'm sure that you'll all deny this, but I can understand why Nick is suspicious. G-Man 21:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't buy into that stupidity. Nick is suspicious because he can't grasp that others are working on shared principles. You saw the web addresses above. Someone's going to put up long-standing websites of entirely different styles and topical interests, just to conspire aginst Nick Boulevard? The only connection is that we share an interest in Birmingham, the same general level of literacy, and the same commitment to Wikipedia guidelines. Of course this has led to a degree of cooperation - just as Nick has sought out support from, well, Leonig Mig, Angela, Rbrwr, Fastfission and G-Man. We all do, so let's not get into criticism of alliances. RayGirvan 00:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think *Brumberger* *may* (i.e. it's possible) be POTW, however critical to this assessment is the humourous value of the phrase "sock-puppet" and especially (this made me LOL) the phrase "accusations of sock-puppetry". In all seriousness this is pure drama and is below all of us. The bottom line is that Theo is admin and he has asked people to stop. Nick stop posting Copy Vio & POV, POTW- Stop stalking him!! Leonig Mig 00:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Theo is admin. So he ought to be upholding Wikipedia's stated principles, not telling us to be lenient toward a Wikipedia tumour like Boulevard. RayGirvan 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you liken me to a tumour ray (in whatever nasty little context you are trying to put over), when you say tumour it brings to mind my friend who died last friday after a short three month battle after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. At the moment I think you are making a bit of an idiot of yourself really, where is all your spite coming from Ray, this is afterall an online encyclopedia not a place to take out your hatred on the world. And regards your telling me about you being a "professional journalist", and so you know what you are talking about attidude, who do you write for?... Sunday Sport springs to mind. Nick Boulevard 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may find the phrase "sock puppet" hilarious, but it's actually a serious allegation (and, as I'm now getting tired of repeating, untrue - Andy, Ray and myself are three distinct individuals). Theo has made no accusations of stalking, he has (inappropriately, in my view) asked Andy, Ray and me to ignore Nick's continued appalling behaviour. --Brumburger 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does a "sock puppet" look like? Isn't it something that people push their hands up and pretend its talking, like Zippy or Sooty... Nick Boulevard 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I just took a look at G-mans "sockpuppet thing" link and I must admit it tickled me, love the image. Nick Boulevard 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cease personal attacks

Ray & Nick: Cease your personal attacks on each other. I asked each of the four of you to refrain from responding to attacks precisely because of this kind of escalation. This has gone on long enough. You are all poisoning the atmosphere and hindering enhancemenet of the encyclopedia. I have tried being gentle/lenient with each of you. Take this as a warning that your continuing conflict is disrupting Wikipedia and moving you closer to arbitration.—Theo (Talk) 00:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Theo, the tumour comment touched a raw nerve but Ray wasn't to know that obviously. I do not come here to bicker, and so my final stage of this RFC is to actually try and get on with Ray, Andy and Brumburger, I have taken the first step... lets see what happens. Nick Boulevard 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that apology. I think it would also be appropriate for you to apologise to Ray and retract your Sunday Sport jab, just in case Ray decides to return and so gets to read it. I further suggest that it would be a good idea for each of you to take a break from editing those articles that have become your battlegrounds or that are on related topics. Tempers are way too high here and avoiding the catalysts would allow desirable cooling. For clarity: this is my personal opinion; I make no assertion. [And do not make an apology if it is conditional or includes a reassertion of hostility or criticism.] —Theo (Talk) 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theo, I am one step ahead of you there, I have apologised to all three, so far only Brumburger has responded but I am not going to grovel, I am sure that Ray will be back and if he reads this, sorry for accusing you of writing for the Sunday Sport newspaper, and regards your "do not make an apology if it is conditional" I try but sometimes lapse, it is a useful tool in everyday life. Thanks for the reminder. Nick Boulevard 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)