Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Eep²


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Docg 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Eep²
Except for a brief comment and a weblink at the top, this page is a copy of deleted material from EEP, see this diff. This violates WP:User Page policy While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content. Ruhrfisch 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The brief comment on the page says, essentially, "This page was deleted by bad people who disagree with me, so I'm going to keep it here instead. HAHAHA." -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The first sentence of the page says it all. MER-C 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Um, it's a page about the origin of my name. Get over it, wikivultures. Also, I've added some things that weren't on Eep. I still think more things should be on EEP, incidentally--and that it shouldn't just be about acronyms. Perhaps I'll just create Eep (disambiguous)... Also, this isn't POLICY but a GUIDELINE. Duh. -Eep² 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What Wikipedia is not is policy and this seems to violate it as well. Ruhrfisch 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Try again. That page still links to User page, which is still a GUIDELINE. My user page is a way to show that my name can mean many things by many people (which I imply on the page with this statement: "Note: Eep is different things and, hence, its link should not be changed in such a way as to limit it to being only an expression, sound, acronym, or anything else." It's this diversity that reflects my interest in topics (see my contributions for evidence of this). Plenty of user pages have silly infoboxes all over them describing various aspects of the user--my page is no different except I take a more "Wikipedian article" approach to it. So what? Get over it. -Eep² 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is that you quite clearly state that you are keeping the information on your userpage so that you don't have to abide by AfD consensus. You are not allowed to do that. Oh, and calling everybody who wants to delete a page you created "wikivultures" does not at all help your case. -Amarkov moo! 04:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that a policy page linking to guidelines does not make it any less a policy. --Core desat 01:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It does when the guideline is disputed. -Eep² 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Amarkov above, reinforced by comments here. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but you have to be a lot more civil, and take off the sentence at the top. Ab e g92 contribs 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per MER-C, the first sentence does say it all. The user page is an attempt to circumvent the AfD system, make a point, and throw around attacks at those who were involved in the deletion of the original article. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Amarkov and WP:DISRUPT. Blatant attempt to circumvent AfD. --Core desat 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia guidelines--Dcooper 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. That first sentence says why. --Calton | Talk 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't need any more reason than the first sentence to say "delete."  The Hippie  01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep—quickly—per WP:DFT. Then start ignoring it, already. --zenohockey 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here isn't with feeding trolls; see Articles for deletion/Eep (7th nomination). The user is circumventing an AFD decision by preserving the removed content on the user page. --Core desat 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just read the first sentence. Sr13 (T|C) 09:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the first sentence is removed. Bar the first sentence, however, the content appears legitimate for a user page. Stammer 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) OK, that's enough, I support blocking this guy. Stammer 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having had to put up with Eep²'s trolling in a recent vote, I'll refrain from this particular discussion except to offer Eep² a clue.  When Wikipedia policy is listed as a "guideline," that means that it is a generally accepted policy adhered to voluntarily by many Wikipedians, because it is largely based on common sense.  These guidelines are there to encourage editors to work together towards a common goal, namely NPOV.  These guidelines do NOT mean, "I'll ignore this rule because I don't like it." --Modemac 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, "majority rule", eh? Wikipedia is a consensorship (consensus + censorship), eh? Typical dictatorial mentality--only by the masses instead of a single person (or a select few). That's rich... -Eep² 11:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - a copy was created at User:Eep²/eep. You'll need to delete that as well. MER-C 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's also User:Eep²/Cathy O'Brien, which, while a different article, is the same "evil wikivultures are going to delete it so I will circumvent the decision" idea. Not sure if it needs a seperate MfD or not, and actually, that article is probably going to be kept. -Amarkov moo! 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It should probably be deleted anyway as a blatant WP:DISRUPT creation. --Core desat 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not disruptive at all; it's simply a way to keep information on Wikipedia that should be kept, despite "consensorship". What I especially don't like about Wikipedia is that deleted pages are not viewable at all--it's as if they never existed; not even any edit history. This is blatant censorship! Too often, deletions are done arbitrarily and by "consensorship"--especially if the articles are conspiracy/paranormal-related. This has been, and remains, my major gripe with Wikipedia ever since I became a user in June 2004. Majority rule is consensorship. WP:RS is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Wikipedia policy sure is a lot of nonsense about it not being paper and then complaining about people keeping deleted articles as backups when consensorship doesn't think they're worthy of inclusion (yet they'll sure keep a lot of hole-in-the-wall Category:Electronic sports players in--categorized by country, no less--oh yes!). Feh...ridiculous hypocracy. -Eep² 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The wiktator in me urges me to judge Delete. --Pjacobi 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it does when you wikistalk me... -Eep² 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, and also User:Eep²/eep (sneaky!). Placeholder account 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, userpage violation.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, one of a long series of deliberate end-runs around deletion process by this user. It has to stop.  Now would be a good time. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No good case for keeping has been made that I can see (calling names and casting aspersions is not the same as "making a good case") by anyone. We tend to give some leeway to good and friendly contributors, and a bit less to abrasive ones, has been my experience, for the most part. Eep is a bit more abrasive than some, in fact Eep has an RfC open: Requests_for_comment/Eep... I'd tend to favour deletion of this multiply recreated (in defiance of consensus, apparently) material, with salting if necessary, and if the user persists, it may be necessary to block the user as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an editor with substantial mainspace edits should have more leeway in userspace, also it's not all "deleted material", the upper part of the page isn't. WooyiTalk to me? 03:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Leeway does not extend to allowing someone to keep a page created for the express purpose of circumventing consensus. -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a "gold membership only" club.--WaltCip 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.