Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Evrik

message: In response to Evrik's comments about others I asked to comment here, I would like to note that they were all people who had commented on the Administrator's notice board and who I thought would be interested in the discussion.  -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested your comments before I realised you two knew each other outside Wikipedia. Had I known this, I would not have asked for your imput (on the grounds of impartiality), but I was not able to alter my message to you until you had already commented here.  -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:PageantUpdater|PageantUpdater]] 

message: I wish to respond to a couple of Evrik's comments.  For starters, if the articles I was nominating for deletion were considered by other editors to be notable enough to be kept he would have a more valid case against me, but as it appears a number of other editors seem to agree with my deletion nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conley, Jr. and all but Evrik and SouthPhilly support deletion in this AFD. Furthermore, I have actually spent hours improving, expanding and referencing an Evrik-created article in the hope of convincing other editors that it should not be deleted.  Also, I have created afd noms for contestants whose articles Evrik hasn't even edited.
As for Evrik's contention that it was "disconcerting" that I invited other editors to comment: surely that is precisely what this RFC is for, getting other editor's opinions on the matter?  All the editors I contacted had previously commented on the Administrator's Noticeboard and I felt it important that they be alerted to this page.
I would also like to note that I find it "disconcerting" that Evrik has a habit of deleting comments from those who disagree with him from his talk page.
I fully accept that on three occasions I myself have been less than civil, but only where Evrik has pushed me to breaking point with his rash accusations and obstinance in the face of contrary opinions by other editors.  
Evrik's behaviour has made my wikilife hell over the past few weeks and I would dearly love to return to my normal editing without having to deal with his fantasies. 
You can read my comments re the objectivity of SouthPhilly on my comment under his view-- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postscript

message: #I am assuming good faith that SouthPhilly is commenting neutrally but would like people to know that according to Evrik's user page these two know each other virtually outside Wikipedia.  As such, I feel I must query SouthPhilly's objectivity, as evidenced by this message on my talk page:  "I got your request to comment on your quixotic campaign against Evrik. I have commented. You should really take your comments off of your home page".  Quite frankly, my user page is none of his business. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested your comments before I realised you two knew each other outside Wikipedia. Had I known this, I would not have asked for your imput (on the grounds of impartiality), but I was not able to alter my message to you until you had already commented here.  -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: addendum - In what appears to be retaliation for voicing our opinion in this RfC, Evrik has now posted on thirteen people's talk pages complaining that WjB and I commented here (See Evrik's contribs, 22:57 - 23:01, February 28, 2007. Sample post). The topic he is WP:CANVASSing about is unrelated to the above situation, as far as I'm concerned, but his posts are now leading to disruption in other projects (namely, WikiProject Awards).  I think this shows a disturbing pattern of WP:STALK and attempted intimidation.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Kathryn NicDhàna

message: The comments by Fut.Perf. ☼ made here are not relevant to the discussion. The disagreement about Fair Use was not the question. The question is about the expansion of the disagreement to other articles. --evrik (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two comments: Evrik, we often see ourselves in a different light than other see us. You don't see that as canvassing, but Kathryn does, Likewise, I saw the 17 messages you sent to mostly Catholic editors of articles in response to the sex abuse section of the Don Busco (sp?) article as canvassing. Wikipedia has tightened the rules about that recently, so you should be careful and perhaps reread the guideline/policy about it. Also, when were you voted Coordinator of the WikiProject Awards? I recall you being acting coordinator until a voted was called, but do not recall you having that title or official capacity. I see nothing on the page to indicate there is consensus for you having that position. Jeffpw 05:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're not objective, or fair. Vague accusations can tar a persons repututation. Why don't you cite actual policy? One wonders if you were the user Evrikwatch. Stonewall Revisited 14:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stonewall, Evrik has been the subject of a public smear campaign by the gay cabal. --South Philly 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rich, SP--agreeing with a sockpuppet created only for this Rfc, and with a subtly homophobic userpage until I nixed it). Any chance you had anything to do with that account? Jeffpw 14:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole thing has been ludicrous. Now Jeff, what do you mean did I have anything to do with it ... didn't you already accuse Nkras of creating that account as a sock? --South Philly 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Evrik

message: How long does this thing just hang open? --South Philly 14:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the originator and those endorsing it feel the message has been received. Jeffpw 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. Could you please show me where this is stated in wikipedia policy so I can read it for myself? --South Philly 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Closing and archiving. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually been thinking of motioning for a close of this RfC as no comment had been made (except by a spa) since 3 March. But a new comment was added today, so I guess its not run its course yet... WjBscribe 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure

message: I'm not sure what happened, but the edit messed up numerous wikilinks in the text. If you're going to make an edit, please do it in a way that doesn't alter the page content. Thanks. (Sorry for the lack of edit summary, btw, I was using TW and for some reason it saved before I could type it in.)  Also, Is it really appropriate to MFD RFC's?  I thought they were supposed to stay as part of the WP record. RFC's on articles are never deleted, AFAIK. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MFD edit by South Philly