Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Eep

Blocked

I'm not sure how this RFC is going to help. Eep is disruptive and unrepentant, persisting both in personal attacks and in going against consensus. I've given him a short block for disruption, if he keeps it up I believe longer blocks would be warranted. >Radiant< 09:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All he's done is post abusive comments on the RFC itself. --Core desat 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing behavior

Eep's behavior has resumed (with a vengeance) since his 24-hour block expired. I know it has only been a couple of days, but I would be willing to say that this RFC has failed, and further avenues of dispute resolution should be sought. --Core desat 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. If anything, my "behavior" has toned down. <eyeroll> Seriously, don't you have anything else better to do than do be a tattletale/narc? -Eep² 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "narc" is toned down compared to "nazi." But not enough.--Dcooper 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language may be less inflammatory, but the spirit is still the same that brought this RfC into being. Not a good sign at all. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add an Outside view section of my own to the project page, but about the only thing new I could contribute would be this discussion from Sheffield (disambiguation): Talk:Sheffield (disambiguation)#sorting. I tried a series of versions to accommodate Eep's sorting and the style guidelines, but to no avail: [1]. Since this is tangential to the dispute here, it doesn't go on the project page itself, right? -- JHunterJ 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this and other recent unvivil behavior I've warned the user that he'll get an indefinite block if he continues to make personal attacks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies, moved from main page

Per the instructions listed at the bottom of the RfC 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" — I have moved the comments in reply to here. Daniel 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to 'Evidence of disputed behavior'

Don't forget YOUR [JzG's] incivility on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Beter: "Delete Aude is right, and most of the opposition is arm-waving. Note also possible vote-stacking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, which should plainly be renamed WikiProject Anti-establishment." If anything, we're anti-oppression, from people like you. -Eep² 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to 'Outside view of MER-C'

You don't revert other people's votes/comments, MER-C. And I don't appreciate User:Radiant reverting my votes/comments either. Yes, I called you a wiktator (that's a play on wiki+dictator, in case you don't know), because that's how I felt you were (and are) acting. So what? If it's not true, stop acting like one--that simple. I have contributed PLENTY to Wikipedia since 2004 (especially with my recent contributions to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and don't need to be refrained/reprimanded by a bunch of power-mongering/-hungry admins (and their lackeys). Stop trying to bring down Wikipedia and start actually contributing to it without all the beaurocratic nonsense! Other people have "despise" userboxes about baseball teams and whatnot; why can't I have one about, who I believe, to be overzealous admins? Whatever happened to free speech? Lay off the unnecessary oppression, eh? -Eep² 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epeefleche just emailed about his experiences with Radiant doing the same thing: "He made a deletion decision (re category Jewish Figure Skaters) that I objected to. He has just removed my analytical discussion as to why I disagree with his decision from the discussion page, moving it to another page. And then went on to input his own, contrary "arguments" onto the discussion page." Time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radiant? This is getting ridiculous... I replied that he comment here, on Radiant's talk page, and we will take further aformentioned action if this persists. -Eep² 06:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, after leaving a message to MER-C on his talk page, he reverted it, removing the vowels, and implied I was trolling (and again after I restored the original comment). If simply pointing out to others that what they're doing is incorrect/offensive is trolling, then every admin/user who has ever reverted something they didn't agree with is a troll. Ridiculous. -Eep² 07:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've contributed a good deal to Wikipedia, and on behalf of others, I thank you for that. But this does not excuse you from sergeant-like authority on other users and admins. Calm down before replying to a revert or what you may consider questionable. Sr13 (T|C) 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior has escalated since RfC opened, which gives a negative impression. See [2].—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to 'Outside view by Addhoc'

Yes, there is something wrong with copying to-be-deleted articles to userspace and keeping them there, it violated GFDL and is also an end-run around deletion proces. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand on how working on a user space sandbox copy (without any fair use images) is a violation of the GFDL. Also, the advice in the introduction to deletion review indicates the practice is acceptable (under some circumstances) if " you wish to create a useful article on the same subject". Addhoc 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the GFDL, then. Copying content without edit history is a violation. This is why we fix copy and paste moves, even though it is tedious and time consuming. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't keeping copies of deleted material in userspace a violation ofWikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages? I have seen this as criteria for nom to MfD.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between temporarily creating a copy to improve an article in user space and indefinitely keeping your own rival version. In my interpretation, only the latter is a policy violation. Addhoc 11:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to 'Outside view of by Catneven' endorsement 3

Um, that comment wasn't directed to you, specifically. God damn... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not civil regardless of whom you say it was addressed to. Nor was the profane response here civil. -- JHunterJ 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are you seriously this fragile, JHunter? I mean, do you ever leave the house at all and deal with people in the real world? "Life's tough--get a freakin' helmet." All of this "civility" nonsense is just a copout. Get over it and attempt to stay on-topic with the issues at hand. Note: these aren't insults; simply comments/observations on your behavior and attitude towards, and in dealing with, me. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulted by your incivility, but it's still incivility. WP:CIVIL isn't nonsense. That's part of the topic of this RfC. -- JHunterJ 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, well, look into the mirror. I consider all of your actions, and others, towards me, quite uncivil. Civility goes both ways, you know (do you?). Ganging up on someone isn't civil. Calling their edits nonsense isn't civil. It's all relative. Hell, simply removing something someone else added could be considered uncivil. Like "consensus", "civility" is a copout political/beaurocratic term. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 18:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Cool please. -Catneven 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than taking an RfC as a cue to tone down his confrontational style, user seems to find this as a reason to be more inflammatory. Apparently not getting the picture. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat, you are repeatedly reverting edits on Mystery (disambiguation) that have not reached consensus. You are causing the disruptions by your incessant need to remove directly relevant entries from that page. That "evidence" (talk) page shows this specifically. CONSENSUS HAS NOT BEEN REACHED--STOP REMOVING ENTRIES FROM THE DAB PAGE! God damn... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep², you are doing little but demonstrating the extreme disconnect that got you into this mess to begin with.

Only you want to add those entries, against the guidelines and against consensus. --Piet Delport 06:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change and ignore all rules if it helps improve Wikipedia, which I feel does--and have explained numerous times in various discussions. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i told you here, see what "Ignore all rules" does not mean, and Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules".

IAR deters WikiLawyering; it is not a license to disrupt Wikipedia and ignore consensus. --Piet Delport 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essays--Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policy, which supersedes an essay (and guidelines). Nice try though. Again, it's not a disruption but an improvement. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point quite ironically: IAR was created to prevent exactly the kind of "wikilawyering" that you're attempting now (as profusely explained by the links provided).

The fact that (only) you think it's an improvement instead of a disruption does not make it so. --Piet Delport 10:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Outside view of ehdh

Definitely has made some fine edits, but the civility issues raised are not acceptable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to those regarding my disambiguation edits

See set index article--'nuff said (typed). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"nuff said" how? What does this mean? Are you trying to make a WP:Point? We can certainly comment on that in the RfC as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to outside view of user Gaff

Comment My outside view is not entirely outside. I did first experience user Eep by reading this RFC. Afterwards, however, I have stumbled upon Eep a number of times via the AFD processes for the numerous off-the-wall disambig type pages and lists. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the intent Eep has for making the (proposed) changes is not malicious in any way. Still, apart from the obviously overly strong attachment to certain 'owned' articles, the articles you present in his defense are also articles that I would nominate for deletion or remove a bunch of content from. He is indeed, as he announced, building a tree system of dab pages all linking to one another much like the category system. However his probable honorable intention in doing this, it should nevertheless stop. It is just simply not disambiguating that he is concerned with, it is a sort-of-dictionary-tree. Maybe he should propose a new paradigm which does exaclty what he wants, but messing with the existing paradigms should just really stop, as well as the insults.-Catneven 08:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that what Eep² is trying to do is not new: Wikipedia already has stand-alone list articles which are intended for exactly this kind of navigational aid (as a complement to disambiguation pages and categories).

Eep²'s mistake is trying to fill disambiguation pages with content that rightfully belongs on said list articles (as recently with Mystery (disambiguation) versus List of mystery-related television shows), and generally refusing to be corrected about it. --Piet Delport 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create List of titles with "Darker" in them but it was deleted. How is that different than Outer or any other single-word dab page? Oh the hypocracy! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't any different, that's the point.

The decision to delete the "Darker" list is independent of the decision over keeping the "Outer" list; so far (AfD/Outer), there doesn't seem to be consensus to delete. --Piet Delport 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, yet, Closed (disambiguation) and Enclosed (disambiguation), which are just like Outer (disambiguation), are losing the AfD--yet Mystery (disambiguation) remains, despite having compound word links on it (like Mystery Strange, Mystery play, Mystery religion, etc. Consensus is inconsistent and contradictory. What does it take for an article to make it on a dab page, all the links to only include the root word(s) with their application in parentheses?? Gimme a freakin' break! WP:MOSDAB is inconsistent, contradictory, poorly written, and needs a serious overhaul. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about it, Eep²'s Inner and Outer are not paradigm shifts, but misplacements: they should be moved/reformatted into stand-alone lists (along the lines of List of "largest" articles), where they fulfill their navigational purpose without interfering with disambiguation pages' function of disambiguating.

The same goes for the rest of the list-type content that Eep² is trying to shoehorn into disambiguation pages. --Piet Delport 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are a more logical and seamless place instead of having to create separate, duplicate list pages for every term (and spelling variation)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have already explained this for you more times than can be reasonably expected: lists of related (but not ambiguous) articles do not belong in disambiguation pages. --Piet Delport 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People still aren't getting it and, until they do, I will persist. I know what I'm doing is the correct and efficient way. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep²: do you realize that this is tantamount to signing your own ban? --Piet Delport 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activity report

As of 2007-06-13, Eep² is still reverting edits against guidelines and consensus:

When i told him (not for the first time) on Talk:Eschew that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, he responded that we must "realize Wikipedia is a dictionary". --Piet Delport 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep² reconfirmed the statement here:

"Yup, it is, basically. I've never liked having a separate Wiktionary anyway--too much of a pain in the ass switching back-and-forth (and having to create yet another Wikiwhatever account doesn't help). Plus, having to create interwiki links is annoying. There's no reason a single wiki can't contain everything--and I mean everything (including all content from all other wikis)."

I'm astounded. --Piet Delport 19:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more, in case more is needed: diff. Note that the nominator was quite calm and civil in his nomination of a page created by Eep, and apparently this is after a recent flurry of disambig page edits and conflicts, which calls to mind WP:POINT to me. I've come across this user a few times before, and I don't think I've ever seen him be entirely civil. I don't relish the idea of pointing fingers, or of suggesting lasting consequences, but how many times can one editor be warned about WP:Civil ? Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are this RfC going anywhere?

It's been over a month since the Rfc was created, and it does not seem to me that Eep is intending to change his style. Taemyr 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but this RfC has made clear the community's view of his actions. To the extent that he has continued to disrupt the project or otherwise offend he is draining the patience of other editors. Unless he makes a decisive change he may find his editing privileges suspended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have wanted to ask for some time, what is the next step to take after an RFC is so clearly failing to bring about any sort of constructive change? —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. WarpstarRider 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine a clearer statement of intent to continue ignoring consensus than this comment, just above: "People still aren't getting it and, until they do, I will persist. I know what I'm doing is the correct and efficient way. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)" At this point, it does not matter if Eep's way is the best way, if consensus is not built first. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 09:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus -is- built; against Eep's way -Catneven 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad that you know you are doing the right thing and are proud of it. Unfortunately, a lot of others aren't that proud of you or what you are doing :s-Catneven 10:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hope for reform

Summary of Eep²'s statements above:

"Wikipedia is a dictionary."

"There's no reason a single wiki can't contain everything--and I mean everything (including all content from all other wikis)."

"People still aren't getting it and, until they do, I will persist. I know what I'm doing is the correct and efficient way."

I think little more needs to be said. Eep² has made it abundantly clear that he does not wish to cooperate with fellow editors, does not wish to respect policy, guidelines, and consensus, and does not wish to consider changing his mind about it. --Piet Delport 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you seem to continue missing the official policy of ignore all rules, Piet. Ain't contradiction, inconsistency, and hypocrisy grand?? I know the rules but I don't agree with them in this case regarding dab pages. As I've stated numerous times now, I'm only trying to improve MediaWiki's horrible navigation system (of which Gaff first disagreed, then pulled a political flip-flop and agreed with, then flip-flopped again in disagreement, oddly). Just because a few outspoken Wikipedians are ganging up on me is hardly a reason for me to stop in what I believe is to be the correct course of action. How many participiating in this RfC can say the same thing about their feelings towards me (aside from simply being gang-up mentality)? I doubt a few, if any... In fact, you all seem to be oriented more towards making Wikipedia harder to use, not easier, which is quite sad. If you don't like this type of disambiguation, don't use it and stick to your more narrow (anal) and inconsistent "semi-sorta-pseudo-disambiguation" pages that selectively include compound word and concatenated entries and whatnot (like on Concatenation (disambiguation), which includes such entries). Oh the continued and everpresent hypocrisy! <eyeroll> Are you people getting it yet?? I've tried discussing it, I've tried showing examples--there's only so much one can do to try and illustrate/explain something to people who just can't see the light for whatever reason... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're on Usenet, or Wikipedia, or anywhere else, it seems you follow your own inner logic in everything you do, ignoring externally-set standards where they don't suit you. This is not necessarily always a bad thing; maybe sometimes your own logic actually is better -- however, it makes it difficult for you to work constructively with others on a group project. And, unfortunately, you show an attitude problem whenever anybody requests that you follow the consensus standards, and start engaging in namecalling and telling people they "don't get it" and need to "get over it". That's not a very good way to get others to appreciate your stand on things. *Dan T.* 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eep², you are:

missing the point of IAR
not improving Wikipedia
entirely misunderstanding what disambiguation means
imagining a cabal against you
rehashing points that have been covered numerous times before

--Piet Delport 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like we keep saying, man, there's only a cabal if you want there to be one. Me, I'm doing this independent of what people have said to you, and nobody has spoken to me and invited me here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal

In view of the above discussion, and as per the banning policy, i propose seeking at least a partial ban of Eep², extending over disambiguation pages. --Piet Delport 11:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you propose this on the Community Noticeboard, however I don't agree that any sanctions are required. Addhoc 11:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing a rationale for your opinion...-Catneven 11:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale per comments in this RfC. Addhoc 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: At this point, i don't see any alternative to limited sanctions for dealing with Eep²'s resolve to continue his disruptive editing until everyone "gets" his idea of how Wikipedia should work. We've exhausted trying to remediate or reason with him. --Piet Delport 12:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example of any case where limited sanctions that haven't originated from ArbCom have worked. Addhoc 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support, per above reasons.-Catneven 11:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussion. An AfD of one of his articles {here}, which was according to Eep^2 intended as a disambiguation page, is how I've encountered this user - my concern is s/he seems to think that disambiguation includes disambiguating things that don't need it. (See my example of things that don't need it in the AFD - in this case, Closed captioned and Closed source - and the comparisons thereof.) I first thought this was an abberancy that could be corrected with an explanation, but...well, evidently it's not. What I basically see is a case of a user taking WP:IAR and following it to the letter, and blatantly ignoring the intended spirit - in short, lawyering. I admire Eep^2's enthusiasm, but that enthusiasm has to align with the rules, and there is no apparent evidence that the user wishes to follow them - and especially within the spirit of WP:IAR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support Also User:IPSOS have jumped the gun on us. The discussion is here. Taemyr 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Just an update to the above: as a result of the community sanction discussion (archive link), Eep² was:

blocked for a week (Disruptive editting, failing to respond properly to his RFC, cluttering of disambiguation pages and other pages)
blocked indefinitely (Persistent incivility, personal attacks, and against other editors despite multiple warnings and blocks in the past, with seemingly no intention to stop.)
un/reblocked for a day (pithy sarcasm is not worth an indefinite block), (mild incivility though abrasive talk page comments)

So far, since being unblocked again (2007-06-26), Eep² doesn't seem to have resumed disruptive editing.

Judging from talk page discussion, and the creation of User:Eep²/Wikinavigation, Eep²'s stated desire to turn Wikipedia into an "integrated wikipedictionaria" is as strong as ever, but if he can prevent this from turning into edit warring again and can keep up his constructive behavior instead, things are looking hopeful. --Piet Delport 08:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't done anything block-worthy, but he still doesn't realize that starting a comment with "um" or "uh" is uncivil (and snotty and immature) [6]. He has also made at least one bad faith edit, i.e. putting a link to Wikipedia:Consensus in the "see also" section of begging the question [7]. On the other hand, he has not called anyone a hypocrite or a nazi for some time.--Dcooper 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do accusations of catch-22 count? :) --Piet Delport 10:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't last; he was reblocked indefinitely on 2007-07-09. --Piet Delport 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess this is done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban evasion?

I've been spotting edits that are highly reminiscent of Eep² by a new account, Eeky. Eeky hasn't responded to my request for clarification, so i've opened a suspected sock puppet case: Suspected sock puppets/Eep². —Piet Delport 2007-08-07 12:26

...and apparently again, as Gamer Eek (talk · contribs). Spotted by Paul Erik. —Piet Delport 2007-08-26 07:28

Eeky and Gamer Eek have both been blocked for being sock puppets of Eep². --Paul Erik 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]