Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Eep

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. All he's done is post abusive comments on the RFC itself. --Coredesat 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked

message: 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. --Coredesat 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I guess "narc" is toned down compared to "nazi."  But not enough.--Dcooper 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Continuing behavior 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Responses to 'Evidence of disputed behavior' 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Responses to 'Outside view of [[User:MER-C|MER-C]]'

message: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Responses to 'Outside view by [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]]'

message: Definitely has made some fine edits, but the civility issues raised are not acceptable. —Gaff ταλκ 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Outside view of [[User:El_hombre_de_haha|ehdh]]

message: See set index article--'nuff said (typed). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * "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)
thread_title:  Responses to those regarding my disambiguation edits 

message: As of 2007-06-13, Eep² is still reverting edits against guidelines and consensus:
*  at Mystery (disambiguation)
*  at Outside
*  at Eschew
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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Activity report 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. WarpstarRider 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  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. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus -is- built; against Eep's way -Catneven 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Are this RfC going anywhere? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm missing a rationale for your opinion...-Catneven 11:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale per comments in this RfC. Addhoc 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ban proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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) .  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 .  On the other hand, he has not called anyone a hypocrite or a nazi for some time.--Dcooper 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do accusations of catch-22 count? :)  --Piet Delport 10:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title:  Ban evasion?