Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh

The originator of this RfC should have posted a subpage. They have not done this. I think that I could instead delete the link. I will instead do them a favor and create the subpage. I am not endorsing the complaint, and have no idea what it is. I will wait for about 24 hours. If the proper page is not created, then I will assume that this is another bad-faith RfC. Robert McClenon 03:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know who filed the previous RfC. I filed this one without even knowing about that one. Acetic Acid 05:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I attempted making a RfC, so possibly me. After spending six hours trying to work out the relevant policies, and searching through to document all of the relevant diffs, my computer crashed. At that point, I got fed up, and went to bed. Work got much busier, and my spare time went away, so I never got back to trying it again. Tonight I have insomnia, so I checked back on it. Glad someone did it. Abb3w 06:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Highly suspect
Does this bad faith RFC even meet the requirements?

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page.

Acetic Acid made no such efforts before launching this highly biassed and unhelpful personal attack, thus he/she is in no position to certify any dispute. Erwin Walsh


 * I posted a message on your talk page, urging you to watch your language. You removed it. Acetic Acid 00:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link from main RFC page
Just wanted to mention that Erwin Walsh removed the link to this RFC from the main WP:RFC page. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that up. This is further evidence that Erwin is unwilling to cooperate. I wonder if that counts as vandalism. Acetic Acid 20:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder what your IQ is...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Walsh (talk • contribs) 21:01, August 26, 2005
 * That's not very nice. Explodicle 23:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal page of VFD nominations
Actually, this is something I do too, at User:Sjakkalle/Vfd. I don't do this to keep a "trophy cabinet", but it has been useful sometimes as a way of catching recreations of deleted material. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really against it. I just wanted to list it to show his overeagerness to nominate articles. The first edit he ever made was a VFD nomination. Acetic Acid 06:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The first edit he ever made as a user who knows he may have been spending time editing here and there as an anon IP user before he made the leap to register. --ElvisThePrince 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but still. He has made it known that his Wikimission is to delete articles. Acetic Acid 20:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you know? Oh, right, nothing.  Erwin 
 * We only know what we read in the newspaper Wikipedia. =) Abb3w 01:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Marginal Improvement Appearing
Erwin seems to have begun to moderate his behavior somewhat. After my latest attempt to neutral-POV edit his "Vacation" claim, rather than a complete reversion (as has been his usual wont), he has simply added a " " signed request for me to "Troll off back where you came from." While a trifle truculent, it is mild by my standards of internet flames, and more importantly was not a revert without comment to the original notice. He has at least temporarily slowed his massive deletion campaign, presuming he is not continuing to do so from sock puppet accounts. While he has yet to make a formal response himself, on the RfC, he has at least signed off (albeit without the indicated formal timestamped signature) on an outside comment.

While I strongly believe he ought to begin archiving of his old talk comments as seems standard practice, rather than deleting them outright without response, this is a marked improvement in his level of civility towards such comments. Not to say that level is much better than a surly teenager... but he might have the partial excuse of being a surly teenager. Abb3w 01:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still unacceptable behavior. Look at this . His comments on VfDs have not improved much. Acetic  ' Acid  18:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * His comments elsewhere have not improved either:  - that's after I reverted this incredibly innapropriate statement once before. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll conceed that Erwin's behavior is something that I feel ought not be considered acceptable. However, I'm not an experienced enough Wikipedian to feel authoritative in judging it (or the User Page he put up) a serious violation of the Civility policy. I've also spent too many years hanging with the SCA to consider levels of expected civility to be a universal social norm. Still, he's neither Emily Post nor Miss Manners.


 * I'll also note that Acetic Acid's citation above is prior to Erwin getting thwacked by an admin, after which he seems a smidgin more restrained. Hipocrite's citation is better evidence of an ongoing problem, occuring after the thwack. Furthermore, Erwin went and reverted the talk page back again (well, almost; his leaving the "New Policy" changed to "Personal Policy" indicates he's at least subconciously considering phrasing suggestions). It looks like the next thing to try is putting  and {(dubious}}  tags on it, resulting in the creation of a meta-talk page to handle that. But I'm hesitant to do that without checking with an admin, as at least one admin has already removed a  tag as inappropriate for a talk page... not to mention the idea of a User_talk_talk page striking me as borderline insane. Asking for Mediation or Arbitration over a talk page seems almost as bad... although there are larger issues and, unfortunately, this seems the next logical step after this RfC. The most appropriate thing to do at this point, IMHO, would be for an admin to place a block on Erwin's account that expires 15:17, 13 October 2005... thereby making his WikiVacation claim become true (although whether he then goes to Bermuda would be up to him). But as poetic (if not Solomonic) a resolution as this would be, I'm not an admin. =)  Abb3w 19:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't try and portray that incident as admins agreeing with your twisted version of events. The block was a mistake, which is why it was reversed after an exchange of emails.  Erwin 


 * On the contrary, the Admin has made it clear that he intended to block your account. The mistake that he made was when he tried to unblock your account and got confused with a sockpuppet account it appears you created. --Gorgonzilla 14:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

. This is blockable behavior. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 01:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See [] for an example of blockable behaviour. Erwin 


 * Could you be more specific? Explodicle 00:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be difficult to be less specific, anyway. While the pseudonym "Hipocrite" isn't overly assuring of the character of the individual behind it, anyone a user hasn't personally pissed off yet is unlikely to be inclined to do an item-by-item examination of said user's entire contribution history. A timestamp or two and/or an article title would be helpful. Abb3w 16:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The moniker "Hipocrite," which I have been using since someone called me a "Hipocrite who can't spell," is merely a moniker that makes me laugh. I'm laughing now just thinking about when I picked it up. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
The list of applicable policies include "NPOV". None of the evidence shows (or even mentions) NPOV violations. Either some evidence needs to be provided that applies to NPOV, or an explanation should be provided to show how the current evidence applies to NPOV, or "NPOV" should be removed from the list of applicable policies. FuelWagon 15:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly but Walsh should not be removing the tag himself, or for that matter altering any part of the Rfc that is describing the behavior complained about. --Gorgonzilla 17:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Walsh should not be doing it, but the certifiers should. FuelWagon 19:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)\


 * Removing it seems less appropriate than the certifiers striking it out, or perhaps adding to the supporting evidence in the complaint (from items existing prior to the initial complaint), noting when (and that) said evidence was added. Or should it be added to "Evidence of misconduct after the opening of this RfC"? A non-standard seperate section of "Supplemental evidence?" I'm not sure. They should aim for transparancy, however they do it. Abb3w 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's time I addressed this. I put the NPOV tag up because I felt his comments on VFDs were rather POV. There were really personal attacks on the topic, which is odd, so I thought WP:NPOV summed it up best. It's probably a stretch to call it that, so if anyone still wants it removed, let me know. Acetic  ' Acid  03:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved from RFC
Abb3w is correct - I should not have requested clarification on the RFC page. I have moved said request and it's followup here:


 * To be clear, then, you believe that this was a bad faith RFC, but that you have "been guilty of not being civil?" You believe that all of the people who signed the initial RFC were "their friends," and that they solicited all of the other endorsers? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pathetic.  Erwin 
 * Thank you for finally providing a response. Just to let you know, I don't know half of the people who endorsed the summary I wrote. Acetic  ' Acid  01:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)