Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep

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: 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Eep² displays a number of behaviours which are problematic for the community.

In short: it appears to be Eep²'s view that where consensus conflicts with his own agenda, consensus is wrong.

[edit] Desired outcome

  • an end to the "wiktators" crap and similar aggressive posturing, including the "despises dictators" anti-admin userbox
  • acceptance of consensus ins respect of deletions etc.
  • a substantial reduction in "dick quotient" in debates.

[edit] Description

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

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  • characterises admins as "wiktators" [6], pretends this is not incivil [7].
  • asserts that those who remove content he likes are "wiki nazis/trolls/vultures" [8]
  • deliberate end-runs around deletion policy [9], User:Eep²/todo
  • incivility [10]
  1. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

civility, deletion policy, consensus, user space usage.

  1. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User:BillC requests an end to the wiktator nonsense; Eep pretends innocence, uses distraction fallacies [11]
  2. User:Coredesat notes issues with behaviour on MfD [12]
  3. User:Ruhrfisch originally left a message on Eep's talk page concerning an edit to York, Pennsylvania, found the User Page problem and asked that it be fixed too, or else s/he would ask for its removal [13]. Two days later, when the edit to York was fixed and the Eep User Page was not, s/he opened an MfD and notified Eep [14].

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Coredesat 18:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ruhrfisch 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Modemac 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dcooper 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. MER-C 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Will Beback · † · 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Gaff ταλκ 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. JHunterJ 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. --Steven J. Anderson 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I endorse with the sole caveat that the "Desired outcome" seems to call for voluntary reform on User's part. I have seen nothing in his conduct that points toward that being likely.
  8. Piet Delport 06:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I agree that no reform seems likely.
  9. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Krimpet (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. *Dan T.* 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) His/her behavior patterns are familiar for anybody who's encountered him/her on Usenet or other online communities and forums, where he/she has a similarly idiosyncratic style, always acting like he/she is the one empowered to set formatting standards regardless of what consensus policy says.
  12. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 15 June 2007 (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.

{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:

[edit] Outside view by Addhoc

OK, his user page probably should be modified and there isn't any excuse for incivility, however there is nothing wrong with making a user space copy of a deleted article. Also in the Peter Beter AfD, he gives his opinion of keep and discusses sources to demonstrate notability, which is acceptable. Addhoc 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --WooyiTalk to me? 01:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Dcooper

I'd like to add some more examples of the incivility of this user:

  • Attacking admins [15]
  • Calling users idiots [16], [17]. He loves to say duh to other editors.
  • Attacks users who have warned him about his incivility: [18]
  • There are many examples on User talk:Eep² of him calling users nazis, wiktators, etc.

Eep2 needs to completely stop being uncivil. However, he has been warned before and based on his response I doubt that he will

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Dcooper 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Coredesat 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Ruhrfisch 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. MER-C 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Chuck Sirloin 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. --Sr13 (T|C) 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Totally unacceptable behavior from an editor. --Haemo 00:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. -Amarkov moo! 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Daniel Bryant 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Gaff ταλκ 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. ---Steven J. Anderson 09:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. - Æon Insanity Now! 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of MER-C

It's not stopping: I reverted some trolling/personal attacks directed at me by this user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Condé - [19] - only to have it restored [20] with a vague threat posted on my talk page: [21]. I don't see this user changing.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MER-C 03:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. -Will Beback · † · 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (I've issued a level-3 NPA warning to the user.)
  3. -Dcooper 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Coredesat 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. -Sr13 (T|C) 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Daniel Bryant 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. —Gaff ταλκ 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. ---Steven J. Anderson 09:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. - Æon Insanity Now! 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of ehdh

I ran into this user during the Michael Tsarion AfD. I am not an expert on that individual, but he alerted me on my talk page that it was up for deletion, and I really didn't understand why, so I decided to help. I did a very basic copyedit, reccommended keep in the AfD, and suggested more diverse sources be added. Eep² did that. My observation of Eep² is that he is a very passionate editor that sometimes takes comments and actions the wrong way and becomes defensive, leading to civility problems. I think that Eep² is a good editor, but certain personalities need to be approached in different ways. Eep² should be reminded to calm himself before he feels an urge to make a potentially uncivil reply, and remember that people are not out to get him personally. Wikipedia is not that important. ehdh 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Addhoc 10:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Will Beback · † · 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC). Yes, and perhaps this user has just been in a cranky mood recently (we all have those times). He has made good edits, sometimes with prompting. Perhaps if the editor can commit to being non-combative he can return to editing here productively. -Will Beback · † · 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Chuck Sirloin 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC). I agree that, in most of the things I read, it was his/her quick conclusion that anyone who disagreed with them was after them personally (or the things in which they believe) when this is not usually the case.
  4. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC) I think there seems to be more bark than bite here. In limited exposure, I've also seen Eep work constructively for the benefit of the article, and seen shown willingness to change tack and listen in light of content-related discussions. There are other less confrontational editors sometimes seen holding on to positions much more stubbornly.
  5. Sr13 (T|C) 07:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC). I guess that this user is a little on the down side at the moment. Eep's done a lot of good here, and I want him/her to stay.
  6. Ruhrfisch 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC) My complaint was with Eep's User Page, not Eep personally. I do think assume good faith always has an element of cost/benefit analysis to it - if an editor becomes too disruptive, the cost to the encyclopedia becomes too high. I hope very much this does not happen with Eep. Ruhrfisch 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. —Gaff ταλκ 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. IPSOS (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View of User:Nick mallory

I completely disagree with Eep²'s views about literally everything and have clashed with him [[22]] on several occasions, most recently [[23]], however I'm certainly not in 'dispute' with him and feel I must write in his support here. We should all be prepared to engage in robust debate and though he can come across as rude Wikipedia would be a much less colourful place without him. A dull, stifled, politically correct attitude to everything kills the inventive spirit which Wikipedia should exemplify and though Eep² can be infuriating in his manner I personally don't feel he's done anything which warrants punitive action against him. Nick mallory 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view of User:Steven J. Anderson

I think if I were in Eep²'s position I would make every effort to show good faith by, at minimum, avoiding controversial editing during the pendency of this RfC. Instead, in just the last few days, he has repeatedly reverted [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] the efforts of multiple editors, including an admin, to repair links to disambiguation (dab) pages, frequently placing that endearing little duh in his edit summary. (Is this the sort of "robust debate" we must be prepared to engage in when interacting with Eep?) There's currently a major Wikipedia project to repair links to dab pages, which are almost always erroneous, clearly so in the cases mentioned. Eep continues to insist upon retaining these clearly erroneous links. I can't see any sign that he has any likelihood of modifying his behavior in response to entreaties from other editors and admins, warnings, or 24 hour blocks. Even the existence of this RfC hasn't accomplished that. He continues to edit-war, make uncivil edit summaries and engage in personal attacks, including this one toward an admin who tried to help him, in the mildest possible terms, to understand the guideline regarding links to dab pages.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. As one of the guys involved in the DAB project, running into the mentioned reverts, I endorse this summary -Catneven 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Having reviewed Eeps edits made during the pendency of the RfA (which have led to his block). —Gaff ταλκ 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. IPSOS (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Piet Delport 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Eep² seems to have endured more attempts at patient mentoring and remediation than most Wikipedians could hope for, to little apparent effect.
  5. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC) - see my statement below as well.

[edit] Outside view of User:Catneven

Since I only just now found out he re-reverted my DAB edits again calling me a punk [29], only to get reverted by somebody else. Eep does not respond to outlining the guidelines and is very, very rude. I think punitive steps are becoming quite an option.-Catneven 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Restarted the duh behavior, and is now at the point of outright cursing [30]. 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Gaff ταλκ 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Steven J. Anderson 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I will also point out that while involved in a dispute regarding the guideline at WP:D Eep has taken the rather creative step of actually editing the guideline to empahsize a section that he (erroneously) thinks bolsters his view.
  3. -- JHunterJ 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The post-block insults continue: [31]
  4. Dcooper 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Piet Delport 07:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I do not mind tuning out incivility, but the user's prolific revisioning of disambiguation pages is sucking up needless amounts of editing resources to clean up: this has to stop.

Can we restart the RfC about this user? His disruptive behavior (going in against disambiguation guidelines/policies) and insults continue. I would like to propose more permanent or longer punitive steps against him.

  1. I agree. —Gaff ταλκ 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence:[32][33][34]

[edit] Outside view of User:Gaff

This user ΣɛÞ² has some very controversial views on how Wikipedia can be a better place. This user has run itno some major issues with civility in dealing with other users. Nonetheless, ΣɛÞ² is deep down working towards improving the project. Specifically, through pages such as Outer and Inner ΣɛÞ² works to bring about a paradigm shift in the flawed search/browsing features of Wikipedia. This is an argument of Relativism as ΣɛÞ² has asserted, even if the claim was not done very tactfully. While I cannot endorse the incivitly and attacking style of ΣɛÞ² I do agree that this user works towards making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. —Gaff ταλκ 05:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Comment At this point, not even I endorse this summary. Forget it. —Gaff ταλκ 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of User:Zero1328

It doesn't appear to be said how far back the problem has been going, but I can see that the bad behavior is appearing all over the place. Though Eep's intentions may be fairly good, it's clear that Eep has a fairly negative view of fellow contributors, and assumes bad faith all over the place. WP:TINC.

On another related note, I would think most of these outside views are invalid. My interpretation of an "outside view" is a neutral view from a person who has not been involved with the user. If you want to add evidence, amend the summary. Add yourself to the list of users certifying the basis. - Zero1328 Talk? 13:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Piet Delport 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC) - though I disagree a touch with the second observation about the outside views.

[edit] Outside view of User:DennisTheTiger

I'm not sure if this qualifies as an outside view since I've encountered him during the course of an AfD, but this comes after looking at him closer.

My initial encounter of Eep left me with the impression that he was unclear as to the purpose of disambiguation pages, and that they did not need to be created for things that needed no such disambiguation - in this case, I used the comparison of Closed captioned and Closed source, two things that are in no need of a dabbing whatsoever, but were on this page nevertheless. Closer examination, however, tells me that this behavior is pretty much par for the course. Eep^2 seems to hold tightly to WP:IAR and flagrantly ignores the spirit thereof - and while I'm all for being different and iconoclastic, what he wants is, in my opinion, against the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole.

Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Piet Delport 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an 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.