Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erwin Walsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

This RfC is now closed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

---

• (Erwin Walsh | talk | contributions)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.4.1 Evidence of misconduct after the opening of this RfC 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 1.7 Reform ? 2 Response 3 Outside view 4 Outside view by McClenon 5 Outside View by User:ElvisThePrince 6 Outside View by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 7 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Erwin Walsh has been disrupting the community by opening VfDs in bad faith. He has also made personal attacks against users who vote to keep the articles he nominated.

[edit] Description

Erwin Walsh participates heavily in VfD. While some of the articles he nominates are eventually deleted, several nominations were made in bad faith. He's only been here for a week, but he has already nominated at least 27 articles for deletion. During the nomination, he often makes rude comments toward either the article or the users voting to keep the article. He appears to be have a prejudice against homosexuality, a factor that provides an explanation for his votes on anal masturbation and the Blow Brothers. (Evidence listed below).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

1. Keeps a record of VfD he participates in here.
2. Puts MathPlayer up for VfD. Says MathPlayer should be moved to "geekpedia." Is opposed unanimously. [1]
3. Puts Dark Lords Council up for VfD. While many users agree that it isn't notable, Erwin Walsh begins by saying, "Get a life." [2]
4. Nominates anal masturbation for VfD. His comments indicate a prejudice against homosexuality. [3]. Tells user to "Shut the fuck up" [4]
5. Votes on the Blow Brothers VfD, simply by calling it "Ghey." [5]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:AGF
4. WP:POINT
5. WP:CIV

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Removes warning from Gorgonzilla. [6]
2. Gorgonzilla upgrades Test2a warning to Test4 warning. Erwin removes. [7]

[edit] Evidence of misconduct after the opening of this RfC

1. Removes notice of the ongoing Rfc from his user page, [8] re-reverts after it is replaced [9]
2. Removes link to this RfC from the RfC main page. [10]
3. Makes a personal attack on Acetic Acid on Gorgonzilla's talk page. [11]
4. Comments on Final Fantasy VI's FA nomination, calling the game 'shit.' [12]

Walsh has changed the notice of the Rfc

Request for Comment: Due to your distruptive behavior during recent VfDs, I've opened a RfC against you. Please go to it and provide a response. You can find it here. Acetic Acid 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

to a comment that entirely and deliberately misleads. This is bad faith.

Hey: Thanks for your great contributions! Acetic Acid 05:33, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

--Gorgonzilla 17:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Walsh has removed the WP:NPOV item from the list of policies involved [13] Walsh's edit comment claims that this is a 'troll', however it is not for him to decide what the charges against him are. He has conspicuously failled to take advantage of the opportunity to reply. This is yet another example of failing to take the complaints against him seriously. --Gorgonzilla 14:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing that NPOV does infact apply to users? Erwin

Speaking solely for myself, on reflection I suspect you may have a valid defense in the NPOV matter in regard to talk pages (although other policy violations may have been involved), in that it is not clear (to me at least) what extent the policy applies to talk pages or not. I would encourage you to elaborate on that in the proper place. However, the protocol for RfC's requires you to place any response in the Response section, and not edit the charges themselves — a matter which the policy is quite clear about. The first time you could plead ignorance of the policy, and might be excusable since the notice about that was removed from the template at RfC creation. Once replaced, the second edit cannot be excused by ignorance, and is certainly "Evidence of misconduct after the opening of this RfC".

In a related matter, Hipocrite's and Acetic Acid's comments in Erwin's Response section seem inconsistent with the RfC "proper forms", although (in my biased view) less egregious, and Erwin's comment above (but struck out) is also inappropriate. All three should review the note at the end of the RfC about Discussion. Further such commenting by Hipocrite of Acetic Acid might count against their position if the matter goes to Arbitration. In this case, Erwin's comment may not be excused by ignorance, as that portion has remained intact from creation, and this would count as another (comparatively trivial) instance of his misconduct. Abb3w 12:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Walsh has repeatedly accused me of sending threatening emails, this is completely untrue as an examination of the email logs will demonstrate. [14] --Gorgonzilla 00:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Walsh has also posted insulting messages to other users talk pages. [15]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Acetic Acid 05:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. --Gorgonzilla 12:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Marskell 11:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
2. I especially support Gorgonzilla's sentiments below. Meelar (talk) 15:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. It is highly unlikely that Walsh is a sincere deletionist. He is either a troll or an anti-deletionist making a WP:POINT. The account is freshly created although it is obvious that he is a very experienced Wikipedia user. Mirror Vax 23:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
4. ESkog 00:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
5. RSpeer 01:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. In addition to endorsing the summary of the issues above, I find the claim added on his talk page (still there as of most recent edit) to be "taking a two month Wikibreak to Bermuda" as an excuse for not responding to talk page criticism to be a blatant problem, despite the clear evidence that no such WikiBreak is occuring. This is compounded by his habit of removing comments about it, either from context within the page or from the page entirely. If Wikipedia supports administrator examination of the IP addresses which registered users sign in from, I suspect research on his /24 block might support Mirror Vax's allegations. Abb3w 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) _{User had under 100 edits at time of endorsing this RFC.} (Unsigned comment by Erwin Walsh)
7. Explodicle 04:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC) _{User had under 100 edits at time of endorsing this RFC.} (Unsigned comment by Erwin Walsh)
8. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Erwin has been rather mean to Acetic Acid from what I've seen.
9. Norvy 16:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reform ?

Walsh's early behavior had been very disrptive, tagging articles with VfD minutes after creation without bothering to do the simplest checks such as looking up a person on Google. He tagged one article as a copyvio a minute after creation even though it was simply being split off from the Jack Abramoff article and the material had been copied from Wikipedia.

More worrying was his reaction to complaints, instead of saying oops sorry I will try to be a little more careful he put a notice on his user page stating that his 'policy' for handling criticism was to ignore all criticism. He currently has a notice stating that he is on a two month wikibreak and won't be able to answer any criticism and deleted my note pointing out that since he had posted frequently afterwards that this was obviously untrue.

More recently Erwin has largely desisted from bulk VfD nominations. But the homophobic nature of his VfD on anal masturbation is not acceptable.

At this point I think that Walsh is capable of making a positive contribution but he may not be willing to do so. I think it really depends on what his reaction to this RfC is.--Gorgonzilla 12:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Walsh just deleted the criticism of him from his User page and in particular the link to this Rfc. That and the deliberate lie on his user page that is clearly there to try to deflect criticism means that I now change my vote to delete. --Gorgonzilla 16:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

An excerpt taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:

An RfC filed in bad faith would include an editor using the RFC process to make false accusations of policy violations, and then getting their friends to help certify the RFC, or finding people who have had arguments elsewhere with the accused, and inviting them to certify or endorse the RfC in an attempt to snowball the process.

Pretty much sums up this RFC.

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

1. Erwin

[edit] 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{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 ~~~~):

1. "Shut the fuck up" on VfD caught me. Rude, bad-faith user. Marskell 11:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
2. I have been keeping an eye on this user for a while as his erratic, disruptive and abusive manner was evident. The reverts to his talkpage of anything critical are the signs of an unhealthy attitude towards this project. --Lomedae 08:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I think that Erwin Walsh has been guilty of not being civil. I do not see any other obvious violation of Wikiquette. Keeping a log of votes for deletion that he proposed is a statement of his encyclopedic philosophy: "When in doubt, delete." As to any alleged prejudice, I concur with the comments of User:ElvisThePrince that prejudice is undesirable, but is not an offense against Wikiquette unless it leads to non-neutral editing or personal attacks.

I suggest that "Please do not bite the newcomers" applies, and that this user should be aware that he needs to refrain from foul comments, and should be given a chance to do that. Robert McClenon 20:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Robert McClenon 20:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
2. --ElvisThePrince 21:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Kyle Andrew Brown 04:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Erwin
5. Septentrionalis 20:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
6. -- Soir (say hi) 22:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by User:ElvisThePrince

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

1. (In response to Summary and evidence of disputed behavior points 1,2,3) I don't think the number of VFD's in itself is nessecarily a problem (especialy as a fair proportion 60% end up as delete) and neithier is keeping a list of VFD's he is involved in, although placing articles on VFD minutes after they have first been created probably is and it would appear a voilation of WP:POINT.
2. (In response to evidence of disputed behavior point 4) Being Homophobic whilst not exactly a particularly plesant character trait (in my view) is not nessecarily a problem provided it dosn't spill over into personal attacks are which (and thus a violation of WP:NPAand WP:AGF), and if once a VFD was resolved as KEEP if he bitched about it (which I have seen no evidence of but didn't look too hard)
3. (In response to Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute points 1, 2) In my view the removal of the variouse warnings is not a problem in itself, if he is removeing them you have to assume that he has read them and their audiance would appear to be him (although the placement is obviouse evidence of an attempt to resolve the issue).
4. (In response to Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute point 3) It seems to me that a persons "User:" space is their own so the deletion of conversations is up to him, perhaps the content of them could be mirrored elsewhere if participants feel the need to retain them for any purpose (the talk page of this RFC for instance), however the "editing" of User:Acetic Acid's comments is a problem and probably against WP:AGF, WP:NPA and arguably vandalism.

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

1. Robert McClenon 20:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
2. --ElvisThePrince 21:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have not followed the VfD's much, so have not observed Erwin Walsh's poor behavior there. However, I happen to be following a rather contentious Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. To sum up the contention, the project was initially started as "Wikipedians for decency", and was basically devoted to trying to censor sexual images on WP. A number of members joined who wanted to help reformulate the project as something that was of actual value to WP, such as creating a system for voluntary annotation of content.

Some of the earlier signers, those who like Erwin Walsh who were devoted to a more Comstockian vision of the Wikiproject, had the wrong impression that a Wikiproject belongs to the first few members who join. Erwin Walsh (and unfortunately, several other users), launched into a program of mass deleting the membership statments and comments by any Wikipedians whom he disagreed with. This is a clear WP-abuse, probably vandalism. For example:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

There are a bunch more too. And some more that are comment deletions on the talk page.

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

1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:56, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Acetic'^Acid 18:54, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.