Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents 1 Epbr123 1.1 Questions for the candidate 1.2 General comments 1.3 Discussion 1.3.1 Support 1.3.2 Oppose 1.3.3 Neutral

[edit] Epbr123

Final: (160/2/1); ended 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC) by Kingturtle.

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - Epbr123 has been active on this project since August 2006 and has made 65,000 edits in that time. His contributions to the project are not only numerous but they are also of a high quality: Epbr123 has made significant contributions to 7 featured articles, a featured list and 5 good articles. I particularly enjoyed reading the article on Birchington-on-Sea, which was virtually written by him alone.

Epbr123 has plenty of experience in the areas that administrators routinely deal with. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and deletion policy. His deleted contributions show over 1000 pages deleted following being identified and tagged by him this year. He is an effective vandal reverter and has made over 600 reports to WP:AIV. Where I have come across his reports they have always been full and accurate, with vandals warned appropriately. His efficiency in these areas generates a lot of requests for admin action, and I think the project would benefit were he able to block vandals and delete obviously inappropriate content himself.

He had a previous unsuccessful RfA about 3 months ago, where most of the opposition stemmed from an RfC about him from October last year. Concerns were raised in that RfC that he had failed to assumed good faith and badgered opponents in deletion discussions. I have reviewed Epbr123's contributions over the last months and find no issues of civility or AGF. I believe Epbr123 has learned from the mistakes he made last year and has grown as a contributor. People should have the opportunity to learn and improve, and I believe that is what he has done. I have no reservations in putting him forwards as a candidate for adminship. WjBscribe 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Late co-nom by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs): I nominated Epbr123 back in March, and I'm pleased to have seen that Epbr has changed his ways for a much better way. Some of you may recall his previous RFC, due to a perceived arrogance. This and his previous RFA has humbled him immensely. His great contributions still stand, and now he has added a new depth to them with his newfound maturity and humility. I believe that Epbr has shown a tremendous new strength to learn, an invaluable trait for an admin.

Yet another co-nom by OhanaUnited (talk · contribs): As I have nominated Epbr for adminship last time, this time will be no different. Epbr is a versatile editor and knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia. I have no reservations to nominate Epbr to become an admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept this nomination. Thank you, WJBscribe. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to be involved with vandal fighting and speedy deletion. As WJBscribe has said, I have made over 600 reports to WP:AIV and have tagged about 1,000 pages for speedy deletion; I can only recall one occassion when a speedy deletion request of mine was rejected. It would save other admins' time if I was able to block vandals and delete inappropriate pages myself, and it is sometimes frustrating not being able to block a rampant vandal or delete an attack page when there are no admins around.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think the best have been my contributions to seven featured articles, a featured list and five good articles, the most recent of which was Canterbury, which reached GA a few days ago. I am also honoured to have been the nominator of 19 successful RfA candidates. My other activities have included cleaning up Manual of Style issues with Featured Article candidates, handing out GAN Reviewer of the Week awards at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for seven months, adding images to Kent settlement articles, assessing articles for WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Kent, and participating in about 300 AfDs.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I had a Requests for comment last October due to unfriendly comments I made during an AfD. During the RfC, I received some good constructive criticism about my behaviour from editors I had a high amount of respect for, and since then I have made a big effort to improve the way I deal with conflict. I feel my last RfA failed because I needed more time to demonstrate that my attitudes had changed. I think I have now achieved this, as I have remained civil throughout the time since my last RfA.

Optional questions from MrPrada:

4a. What is the difference between WP:AFD and WP:DRV?

A:

Comment from Maxim_(talk): Do you seriously think that Epbr123 doesn't know the difference between AFD and DRV? Maxim_(talk) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked this question before, and you would be suprised by the answers I receive. I understand the candidate does not plan to take part in them, and the questions are optional, but when I see an RFA for a user whose previously had AFD-related concerns, I like to ask this one. MrPrada (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD is where articles, which don't fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion or prodding, can be nominated for deletion. DRV is where users can request a deletion decision to be overturned. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

4b. In your opinion, which of the two is more important to the process?

A: I think they're equally important. On the one hand, there wouldn't be a process without AfD. On the other hand, AfD needs DRV for the process to work well. It's similar to how the FA and GA processes wouldn't work without FAR and GAR. Epbr123 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just voted to support you, but I do have a bone to pick with your answer here. Clearly, the AfD process is more important. The AfD process is, essentially, the main deletion mechanism on Wikipedia, while only a small fraction of deletion cases ever go to DRV. So it is much more important that the AfD process be designed and organized well and run smoothly, while DRV (which is basically a fail-safe mechanism) is allowed to have a few quirks and ad-hoc procedures. The GA/FA analogy is not really correct here. Rather AfD is like a car engine and DRV is like an airbag. Regarding the answer to 4a, let me also point out that DRV is for challenging any outcome of the deletion process, whether it was delete, keep or no consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends what he meant by important. They are both vital components of the process, so in a way they are equally important. Regarding your last point, I deliberately said deletion decision rather than deletion to take into account keeps and no consensuses, although I admit I could have made this clearer. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking to start an argument, but I agree with Epbr123's analogy, particularly with respect to GA/GAR. It too is for challenging any outcome of a GA review, whether a pass or a fail. Just wanted to clear up that misunderstanding. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken regarding GA/FA, I had actually misread the original answer here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Epbr gave a fine answer. The insight I'm really looking to gain when I ask this one is does the potential administrator see DRV as AFD round 2 (which it is not), or do they understand it as a way for the community to evaluate if administrators are correctly evaluating consensus during AFD? I also like to see the candidate associate DRV with {{prod}} and CSD, which are the only means for the community to review unilateral decisions. In that sense, I think DRV can be more important then AFD. MrPrada (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Ddstretch:

5. If you had the power and means to change one policy or guideline of wikipedia to bring about an overall improvement in the quality of either the encyclopaedia or the working environment of its editors (or both, jointly), which one would you alter, what would be the alterations, and why?

A: I would like to improve the working environment by creating clearer guidelines on what constitutes incivility, and for more action to be taken against those who are incivil. I think the word incivility is currently meaningless on Wikipedia, as it's too subjective, and whether action is taken against a user who is uncivil often depends on who their friends are. Epbr123 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Malleus Fatuorum:

6. If successful in this RfA, would you be open to recall?

A: Yes, I would. I haven't decided what criteria I'd use yet though; probably something like if two admins requested it. Epbr123 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Apis:

7. There have been concerns about incivility in the past and it seems you agree with these concerns today. Why do you think civility is considered so important?

Because incivility can drive editors away from Wikipedia, and because people work better in a happy environment. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

8. One of the policies on Wikipedia is WP:IAR, what is your opinion on it, how would you enforce it?

I would ignore a rule if by using common sense I can see it's clearly wrong. The policies and guidelines are still evolving, and there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. Whenever I've disagreed with a guideline, I've tried to change the guideline rather than blindly follow it. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

9. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?

A: I wouldn't delete it, but if it was a borderline case I would send it to AfD. I would only delete articles that clearly deserved to be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

10. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?

A: No, it wouldn't be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy if there is any reasonable doubt that the article should be deleted, whether or not the evidence is presented in the article or at the AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

11. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?

A: The most recent example is that when I check FACs for Manual of Style errors, I ignore the guidance given in the "Inside or outside" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks as the second example given there seems to be wrong. There's apparant consensus on the talk page that it's wrong, but nobody seems to have gotten around to changing the guideline yet. Epbr123 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

12. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?

A: No, I wouldn't speedy close an AfD due to a technicality like this. The AfD should be left to carry on as normal, whether or not the nominator is clearly wrong. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

13. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?

A: AfDs aren't the place to discuss merges, so I'd close the AfD and open a merge discussion on the relevent pages. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

14. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?

A: If the entire article is a copyvio or if the article is entirely unsourced negative or dubious information. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Avi

15. Your comments here imply that you are of the belief that there needs to be a minimum time between candidacies for various wikipedia janitorial positions, yet you are submitting your own candidacy after a break of a similar order of magnitude. What do you believe is an appropriate length of time. Does it depend on the reasons for the initial oppose, is there a fundamental difference between RfAs and RfBs, is the time between two months and three months significant, or is there another explanation? Thank you, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A: I think about three months was an appropriate length of time for that particular RfB. Three months is 50% more than two months so there is a significant difference between the two. Although, if there weren't also other concerns, I wouldn't have opposed solely due to the time. Epbr123 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Hellboy2hell

16. If you become an Admin, would you eventually go for bureaucratship or will you stay as an Admin?

A: It's possible I would go for bureaucratship some day, but that would be a long long way off. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

17. If your RfA Nomination was unsucessful, what will you do?

A: If this RfA was unsucessful, I would be surprised and disappointed, but I would take on board the criticisms and try again for adminship in a few months. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Piotrus

18. According to WP:EDITS, you have been one of the most active Wikipedia editors in the past month, with about 15k edits. Why, and is it likely to last? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because I've just started using Huggle. I intend to carry on using Huggle for a while, so it probably will stay at this level. Epbr123 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from SlimVirgin

19. Hi Epbr, I have a question about your approach to FACs. I've read elswhere that you're inclined to oppose on MoS grounds alone i.e. for non-compliance. This is one of my pet dislikes, so I'd like to ask whether it's true that you have opposed an article for FA simply because it doesn't fully comply with the MoS, and if not, how much weight you accord the MoS when you're reviewing an article SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever opposed just based on MoS grounds. Whenever I just have MoS concerns, I put comment instead of oppose, although I usually fix MoS problems myself without commenting at the FAC. However, I don't think an FAC should be promoted with MoS issues, unless someone's likely to clean them up soon after the promotion. MoS problems are quick and easy to fix, so there's no harm in insisting they're fixed. They're never likely to hold-up an FAC's promotion for long, or cause it to fail. Epbr123 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My issue with the MoS is that it's a guideline i.e. an advisory that no one is obliged to follow. Editors might disagree with what it says, and that's particularly likely to happen given that it changes so often. I feel that someone writing an FA should be allowed to ignore whatever the MoS says, and focus on the substantive content; and that, so long as the article is internally consistent regarding style (and I suppose also so long as it doesn't veer too far from the WP norm), then it should be able to pass without the MoS rearing its head. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the guidelines in the MOS, such as adding non-breaking spaces and unit conversions, are the there to help the readers, so it is beneficial if these are followed. I do acknowledge however that the MOS possibly goes too far and includes guidelines that probably do not affect the reader, such as not allowing spaced em-dashes, and also that there are times when it is common sense to ignore the MOS. Regardless of my personal opinions towards the MOS, I know that an FAC will not pass unless it complies with the MOS, which it is obliged to do per the FAC criteria, and therefore I either let the editors know in FAC what needs to be fixed or fix it myself in order to help the FAC achieve promotion. When I do this, I am not necessarily endorsing that the guideline is right. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on about this, but the MoS itself says it need not be followed, and there is no guideline anywhere on Wikipedia that is allowed to say another guideline must be adhered to; if the FAC criteria say this, they are wrong. As you say yourself, the MoS often goes too far, and indeed recommends certain things where many, if not most, good editors do the opposite. FA reviewers on the MoS talk page have said it isn't true that an article would fail only because of MoS issues, so if you have an example of that happening, I'd appreciate a link. As I say, I'm sorry to be focusing on this one point — I can see that you're a good editor, of course — it's just that I've seen some articles questioned at FA for reasons that were entirely spurious, and the culprit is usually over-adherence to the MoS. All it achieves is to discourage people from writing FAs. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do feel the MOS does more good than harm, but it is unfortunate if it discourages people from writing FAs. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, FACs do have to follow MOS, with very good reason (or a nominator needs to provide cogent reasons why MOS is not followed in a particular instance). If, overall, a MOS guideline does not help our readers or have another cogent reason for existence, it should be challenged at MOS. This discussion is occurring at the wrong place. And SV, discouraging people from writing FAs is not necessarily a bad thing; inflation in the number of FAs at the expense of standards would be a bad thing: there's always a risk of diluting the "currency". I suggest we discuss this elsewhere. TONY (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, no one has to follow the MoS, because it's a guideline. If we want people to have to follow it, it needs to be promoted to policy, but that would never fly. I feel an over-reliance on it is bad for two reasons: first, because I've seen people object to very good articles because of MoS non-compliance; and secondly, because I've seen a couple of very badly written articles get promoted once the MoS objections were satisfied. What the MoS offers FA reviewers is a simple frame of reference through which they can view the articles, but it's simplistic and doesn't help them judge whether they're looking at a high-quality piece of work — though some reviewers seem to think it does. That's my main objection to it. Epbr, sorry for hijacking your RfA page with this. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are correct that nobody has to follow the MoS, in the same way that nobody has to follow anything. WP:IAR. However, if one is to make an action with the justification of "I did it because I don't have to follow the rules everyone else follows", this justification will be notably weaker. The rules apply to everyone, and people shouldn't bail out of abiding them because of personal preference or because they don't have to. To allow this would create a dangerous slippery slope. I fully support Epbr123's support of the MoS. giggy _(:O) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you are satisfied with Epbr123's response, but still have issues with MOS and FAC perhaps you could take those issues elsewhere, and place a pointer here? I share your concerns about mechanical evaluations but don't think this candidate's RfA is the place to solve them. ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See Epbr123's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Epbr123: Epbr123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Epbr123 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• I don't see the fact that Epbr123 has made numerous machine-assisted edits as a bad thing. He has written a lot of recognized content, as well as reverted tons of vandalism. Epbr123 has the experience and abilities to be an effective administrator. Maxim_(talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur. After 68457 edits, you eventually pick up something. bibliomaniac15 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A headache? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nothing a pillbox of asprin can't help. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do these discussions on RfAs always turn to random somewhat off-topic babbling (not offended by it, just wondering)?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • To the uninitiated ear, it looks like random babbling. But to people with the ULTRA-SECRET CABAL CODEBOOK™, it's actually a hidden message. bibliomaniac15 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support, quietly indispensable at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
2. ec I'm angry no users give me a chance, but I think you will make a good admin (like I would!). So definite support. StewieGriffin! • Talk 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support as nom. WjBscribe 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Support as a good candidate unlikely to abuse the tools or the trust of the community. I'm seeing a lot of good work at FAC, as noted by SandyGeorgia, above, and the candidate's CSD tagging (on review of a random sampling) looks good. No objections. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support He is extremely active at WP:AIV, in an almost scary kind of way. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Joke oppose which is actually a huge support since he's always so annoyingly quick at reverting vandalism, often beating me. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I was one of the people who had doubts during the last RfA, and stated that I thought Epbr123 needed to spend more time showing that real changes in his behaviour had occurred. Since then, I have watched his contributions, and I think real changes are evident. Everyone should be allowed to demonstrate that they have learned, and Epbr123 seems to have done this. We still seem to have differences of opinion, but a healthy disagreement can lead to improvements in what it is one disagrees about, and I do not think this will jeopardise any administrative duties he will perform and learn to carry out. Consequently, I support this nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support without hesitation. An excellent user who I've encountered a couple times, and I see him all over. His vandal fighting work is terrific. Per the reasons above, as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Nominator last time, I know Epbr will utilise the bit effectively. Rudget (Help?) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I have had several run-ins with Epbr123 in the past – some may not find that altogether surprising – and I do not always find myself in agreement with him. Nevertheless it seems obvious that his outstanding work in dealing with vandalism and speedy deletions would be enhanced by his access to the administrator toolbelt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Impressive article work. There was some other interaction I had with him that I was impressed by, but I can't remember, so I decided to check out his contributions to see if I could find it...which was a mistake. There's so much there that I probably couldn't find it if I spent all day. Ah well, that's a plus. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Support, thought he already was one. He beats me to the revert far, far too often :). FusionMix 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Support I have had many, many run-ins with Epbr at AFD and I do have concerns over his (I think) overenthusiastic deletionism - but I do trust him not to delete anything he's not sure of, and a block button would obviously be useful to him. — iridescent 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Has my complete trust, seen editer on numerous times, very good. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support seen Epbr around vandal-fighting a lot. Will not misuse the buttons. --Rodhullandemu 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - of course! - Alison ^❤ 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong Support This candidate would be a great asset to the project. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from Epbr123 having the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. dorftrottel (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support All of my encounters with him and what I have read lead me to believe he is mop worthy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Very impressive contribs. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. Excellent article contribs balanced with excellent vandalism/protection efforts. And knowing a bit of the "history", if Malleus can support this, I would be daft not to. No hesitation on my part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Support I've watched Epbr123 in many FAC discussions. He has shown a solid knowledge of policy and an ability to keep calm in the face of the inevitable disgruntled comments from FAC nominators. I'm also highly impressed by his willingness to do tedious tasks (such as copyedit FAC candidates for MOS compliance) without seeking any recognition of his efforts at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Observations of and encounters with contributions at FAC have left only the impression that Epbr123 is helpful, knowledgeable and competent. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong support as user has never been blocked, has contributed to 7 featured articles, 1 featured list, and 5 good articles, and makes good arguments as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - Good guy, great article writer, deserving. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
26. A good, second RFA support. It's good, because this how a second RFA ought to be. At first, the editor got entangled in some brushfires, had a few arguments, and failed his first RFA attempt. OK, that happens. But he's continued to show his commitment, his cool, and his desire to help in editing. I don't doubt at this point that Epbr can be trusted with the tools. Marskell (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Support, a dedicated encyclopedia builder who displays great judgment. I have seen this editor make the difference on countless FACs, sneaking in with a key copy-edit when it counts. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - I've seen only good things from this user. Our Encyclopaedia would definitely profit from him gaining the tools. "Net positive" as some would say :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Seen his name more times than anybody else's at AIV. As I said at the last RfA, his work at FAC is impressive and as Sandy said, indispensable. The project will benefit with Epbr123 armed with the sysop flag, and the issues brought up at the last RfA are evidently resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
30. naerii - talk 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Support A superb editor, and have had pleasant experiences with him at WP:GA. I trust him with the tools and believe he will be a great asset as an admin. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Should've been an admin the first time around. Wizardman 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Support just like last time. Trustworthy user, excellent content work. Woody (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. You should've received the mop on your last RFA IMO, but all should be good this time around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. Trustworthy anti-vandalism work and a thorough understanding of what makes wiki-tick. The mop and bucket can only make him more effective. Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Support - a good editor who is constructive in potentially confrontational situations. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Very useful against vandalism. Also support per the answers to the questions. Your mainspace edits are impressive and your deleted edit count is huge. Good luck! Razorflame 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per ddstretch. Looks like this user has learned from his conflicts, and has continued to build on his considerable mainspace experience. GlassCobra 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
39. Edit-conflicted Support - Good vandalism reversions, good content creation, and I'm always encouraged to see newpage patrollers try to save pages from deletion, such as Epbr did with Kacey (porn star). It doesn't always work out (as in this case), but it speaks volumes about the editor. --jonny-mt 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
40. Support (Changed from neutral) Per discussion below and excellent contribution history despite excessive Mechanism. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
41. Support A pleasure to add my support, as this user's work in vandalism reverts on many articles I watch is outstanding. Worthy of being trusted with the mop. JGHowes ^talk - 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
42. Good user, though you will be running up that hill after this closes, won't you? Acalamari 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
43. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
44. Certainly. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
45. Support a most prolific, vibrant contributor - a role model. Vishnava _talk 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
46. Yep i said just yday i was going to do it and here it is Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
47. Support lotsa evidence of good 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
48. Support, per SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
49. A great editor. Al Tally ^talk 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Strong support - great work with cleaning up articles as well as writing them. Strong in the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Per nom. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
52. To be honest, I had already assumed he was an administrator, given his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Valtoras (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
53. Support A pleasure to as well. Good luck. Further - I've spent time today at WP:AIV and every report of Epbr's was spot on. Thanks you.Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Strong candidate. Johnfos (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
55. giggy _(:O) 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
56. Support There is such thing as too much vandalism reverting, but your article work balances it off. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
57. Support I've worked with this guy many times and he's a great asset to the project. ——Ryan | t • c 10:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
58. —Dark ^talk 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
59. Super support An excellent contributor. If only others contributed so little, so thoughtlessly and mechanically to mainspace. Mind you, Sandy and Raul would be pretty busy. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
60. Support without hesitation George The Dragon (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
61. Strong Support without hesitation. Good editor. Has often edited articles which are not his own to save them from speedy deletion. Will be a strong asset to the project (I'm surprised he's not an admin already). Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Excellent article writer, great work in administrator-related tasks. This user is well qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
63. Strong Support - Great content work both in article building and grooming. Having worked with this editor in GA, I was always impressed with professionalism that came across in his edits. Nothing I've seen from Epbr has ever given me pause. Will make a great administrator. Lara❤Love 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
64. Edit-conflicted Very Strong Support <--Can't let anyone beat me, now can I? :P I have seen Epbr around on vandal patrol, and I have actually opened his talk page a few times to ask him for "admin" help, only to realize (again) that he is not an admin. I have no reservations whatsoever to giving him the mop. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - Although I expect most AIV reports are automated with Huggle and things, there are lots of great contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia-space, and also some good article building. A good candidate. Lradrama 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Neıl 龱 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
67. Support per Dweller. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
68. Support — for sure! →Christian.И 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
69. Support. A very level-headed and experienced editor with a good track record both in main space and in project space and a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will definitely be an asset in managing various disputes. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
70. Support, valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. --MPerel 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
71. Support User has demonstrated behavior that at this point indicates that he would not abuse the tools, and thus may be trusted with them, even if we may disagree as to other minor points. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
72. Support An impressive record as an editor...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
73. Strong support wonderful vandalfighter, brilliant contributer! Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
74. Support. A paragon of adminship. Why aren't you an administrator already? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
75. Support Of course. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. If he would be better about edit summaries, I'd vote for him in November. Tan | 39 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
77. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. WP:200? Don't bet against it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
78. Support: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Great, well-rounded user. Spencer^T♦C 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Looks like admin tools would come to good use, agree with the nomination by WjBscribe. —Apis (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. He looks like a great editor and should make an excellent administrator. --Carioca (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
82. Support Just saw him in action on vandal-patrol. Good job! Yechiel (Shalom) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
83. Support I think you are really useful, especially anti-vandalism and NPOV. I appreciate all your contributions. Best wishes to you, Epbr123.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
84. Support All things appear to be in order for this candidate! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
85. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Hard working, trustworthy candidate. It's important to have well-rounded admins who know policy, have article-building experience, and have helped in admin areas like vandal-fighting. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
87. Support - would do great use of the tools. macy^talk 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Any concerns from the previous nom have since been addressed, and the candidate is well qualified. MrPrada (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
89. Support. Intelligent and thoughtful vandal fighter. Fairly good answers to questions and good article contributions. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
90. Support Solid and helpful contrib history. Shows great judgement. Good, knowledgable answers to questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
91. Support yeah, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
92. Support no reason to suspect he might misuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
93. Support as co-nom of this RfA and last RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
94. Yep. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
95. Support - Solid user who will use the tools wisely. --CapitalR (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
96. Support - Ok, I finally found the time after my experiments (graduate school) to go through the contributions, and you know what? Yes, they are great things to be found amid the ten of thousands of reversions :). I still maintain that my neutral stance was justified, and I don't appreciate the swipes taken, however, that is unrelated to the candidate's overall performance, which is pretty darn good. So yes, my support is extended. Good luck, this will surely pass and you'll make a good admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
97. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - Solid candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
99. Support Great candidate. Midorihana みどりはな 03:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
100. Support - Looks good here. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
101. Support Absolutely support; great editor. Ceoil (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
102. Support Of course. Besides, if he's kept busy with admin stuff maybe he finally stops beating me at reverting vandalism. ;-)  Channel ®   10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
103. Support per gurch and nom's. — _Maggot^Syn 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
104. Support. Great amount of participation across Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~AH1^(TCU) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
105. Support. Dedicated and valuable contributor to the project. Cla68 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
106. Support. Great editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
107. Support Solid content contributor and hard worker, and meets all my criteria. The FAs are truly impressive. Orderinchaos 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
108. Support. Good luck. AfD hero (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
109. Time to return the favour. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
110. Support - Looks like a good editor who is unlikely to abuse tools. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
111. Strong Support. Excellent vandal fighter & editor; could really use the mop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
112. Support Great editor, and will be a great admin. --Chetblong (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
113. Support At the prior RFA, I cast a vote for oppose due to a RFC related matter, but I've watched him working very hard, especially fighting against vandalism, and giving great contributions to articles as well. I have no lingering feeling about his ability as an admin. He will be good. --Appletrees (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
114. Support Hard-working, conscientious and civil. He'll make a good admin. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
115. Support—Excellent candidate indeed. He will be an asset. TONY (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
116. Strong Support after answering My Questions 16&17 {Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}
117. Support Piling on support. Good recommendations above. Exceeds thresholds for experience, judgment and trust. For proficiency's sake, I'd like to see the candidate get more portal and image edits, but that should never be a deal killer. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

     Just to let you know, I have actually made about 200 image edits and 20 portal edits, but the Wannabe Kate tool only counts the past 45,000 edits. Epbr123 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

118. Support Well above the standards of most successful candidates - hard-working, impressive GA and FA contributions, can certainly be trusted with the tools. NSH001 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
119. Support great edits/work - going to use the tools wellTiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
120. Support With all of the featured/good content, and the massive amount of vandalism reverts, he has shown he is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
121. Support After reading the various comments on the page, I see no need to oppose a good candidate. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
122. Support: Can certainly be trusted, and that's enough for me!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
123. Support We don't always agree, but Epbr is absolutely trustworthy. VanTucky 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
124. Support as per above. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
125. Support per lots of the above. Trebor (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
126. Support. Looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose. JeanLatore (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
127. Support. I see no problems, and this is clearly a valuable contributor to the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
128. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
129. Support I've done two thorough editor reviews of Epbr and have been pleased to see what progress he's made. I've looked closely and haven't seen a hint of incivility since the problem I brought up at the last RfA, and I've been impressed by his handling of several situations. Not to mention all the excellent work he does for the project. delldot talk 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
130. Support You are an exceptional candidate from what I can see, I see no other thing to do but support. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
131. UBER Support As my firend steve has pointed out you are an excellent candidate.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
132. Support Seen this name popping up all the time, including content writing and vandalism reverting. Will be very valueable having this user as an admin here. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
133. Support. Admin-quality candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
134. Support Should be an excellent admin. DGG (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
135. Support I'm sure he will be an outstanding administrator. Arienh4^(Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
136. Support Good experience of the candidate at AIV, and I liked the tone of the answers to questions (content in this matter irrelevant, the consideration and respect was great). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
137. Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
138. Support A wonderful editor who will make an even more wonderful admin. Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
139. Support I've only come across this user a couple times at FAC, but overall he's been helpful and a pleasure to work with. This user is valuable to the project and will surely be even more so with admin privileges. Drewcifer (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
140. Support. I trust this editor.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
141. Support. Great user with great contributions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
142. Support Epbr123 is a fine editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
143. Support of course. --Taubblindheit (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
144. Unlikely to blow up the wiki. ++Lar: t/c 10:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
145. Support of course. Moondyne 11:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
146. Support - oppose reasons from last rfa seem to have gone away --T-rex 13:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
147. Pile-on support, I see no reason to oppose. Shereth 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
148. Support, after having a good look at a variety of Epbr123's contributions. Pinkville (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
149. Support. With over 65,000 edits, You definitely deserve the tools. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
150. Support Seems to be good user. He deserves adminship :p Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
151. Support. -Dureo (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
152. Support Assuming I haven't done so already. Like what I saw when I checked the contributions. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
153. Per Lar. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
154. Seen Epbr everywhere. And of course the triple nominations by users I trust. · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
155. If Sandy calls him indispensable, then it's impossible not to support. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
156. Support Had meant to support a few days ago, but was interrupted in the process. Doesn't make any difference at this point, but better late than never, right? faithless (^speak) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
157. Support No arguments here. Looks like a good contributer. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
158. Support: No reason to believe he will misuse the tools or the power buttons. With 65K edits and " still " no block history , I will blindly vote for you. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
159. Support committed editor with clear ideas. Shyamal (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
160. Support for the many reasons stated above. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - But of course. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Such an obvious choice that you voted already! ;) indented. ~ mazca ^talk 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

Weak Oppose The answers to questions 5 and 8 demonstrate a mindset that "there ought to be a rule for everything, with only a set list of explicitly laid out exceptions". Quoting: there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. The implication is that all exceptions to the rules should be written down as new rules, and we just haven't thought of all the exceptions yet. This bureaucratic mindset is the source of instruction creep, and is contrary to the spirit of WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and the wiki philosophy in general. The answer to question 11 didn't help either - Epbr123's example of when he/she IAR'ed was a trivial quotation style issue. My oppose is softened somewhat by the good answer to question 12, but not enough to support. Edit: A conversation with Epbr123 on our talk pages has convinced me to change my vote to support. AfD hero (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Reluctant oppose Not as strong an oppose as last time, but an oppose nevertheless. I had intended to support Epbr123's second bid for Adminship, but this one comes before I see much improvement in some areas of concern left over from the previous RfA. There were several aspects to Epbr123's disruptions which I think need to be addressed before I would support an RfA. 1) Incivility. He appears to have shown that he can be civil when he wants to, so this concern is addressed. 2) An overly-strict and literalistic interpretation of Wiki Guidelines which all state right up front that they are to be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This concern remains as strong as ever. Even statements he has made here show that he thinks "Ignore All Rules"-- a policy, not a guideline-- applies when a guideline is clearly in error. This is an invalid application of "IAR" because a guideline which is clearly wrong should be changed and never followed. Epr123 continues to show hostility towards any interpretation of a guideline for any exceptional case, claiming that instead the guideline must be changed to accomidate that-- and every-- exception before he will consider it. (I notice AfD hero has changed his opposed based on conversation on this matter with Epbr123. Epbr123's claim that he does not think every exception need be written down, "to avoid instruction creep" does not satisfy me. It still seems a concern with the guidelines-- i.e., keeping them nice and tidy-- not with their common sense interpretation and application.) 3) Epbr123 combined concerns 1 and 2 with a bot-like, mechanical, repetitive editing technique which can be good or bad. This technique, when employed to create valid stubs or to fight vandalism, is good. When it is done to strictly and mechanically enforce guidelines, ignoring all exceptions, and ignoring continued complaint from multiple editors, it is disruptive, leads to time wasted in arguments, and, ultimately, good editors leaving this volunteer project. It needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, which depends on its volunteers feeling welcomed and valued. A welcoming atmosphere is destroyed when "Rules" are strictly, coldly, and (because not all Admins behave in this manner) inconsistently enforced. Epbr123 and I have had many disagreements in the past, and he has characterized these as "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist" differences. I disagree with this characterization. Epbr123 has created by now probably tens of thousands of stubs, while I work very slowly, on few articles... I think our differences are in our concern with form and content. Epbr123 is an extreme formalist. The letter of the law must be followed exactly, without regard to real-world interpretations or outcomes. This is a tolerable attitude, perhaps, in an editor, but one that will lead to conflict, disruption and other trouble in the hands of an Administrator. Dekkappai (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

   • I had the same concerns as you when I voiced my oppose - is Epbr123 a rigid formalist, or can he/she take a more commonsense approach to the rules. Here is the evidence that made me change my mind:

   • In question 12, Epbr123 explains that he wouldn't close an AfD over a technicality, even if that is technically what the rules would specify.
   • In the Eiffel tower in popular culture AfD, he defended the article splitoff, recognizing that even though notability of the section by itself was questionable, it was for the good of the project since the Eiffel tower article was far too long and needed to be split.
   • He wants to shift the civility codes from a strict set of unyielding rules towards a more commonsense community approach that judges incidents case-by-case. [1]
   • He supported the idea that a template that adds to an article but technically violates template rules should not be deleted.
   • His answer to question 6 of the last RfA addresses IAR very well.[2].

   AfD hero (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   • Well, it would be pointless for me to go through and answer every point, AfD hero-- obviously, he'd going to get Adminship. I remain unconvinced that my concerns-- or the concerns mentioned at the previous RfA or the RfC-- have really been addressed. Perhaps living through the last few U.S. elections have soured me to the words, actions and motives of anyone seeking a position of power-- especially one who has caused as much ill-will in the past as Epbr123 has done. Forgiving him for those past actions is one thing, handing him Adminship is another. Recent conversations I've had with Epbr123 do not alleviate my concerns, they only indicate that he has learned how to choose his words better. One of my main editing interests is in Japanese pop-culture, a subject which is widely covered in that country but notoriously difficult to find that coverage if you are not there, at the time. Just last month a Japanese actress made international news over a certain incident. I'd planned to start an article on her. Within a couple weeks, however, the news articles had been taken down, and the sources-- the mainstream Japanese news-- routinely block archiving. Why? I have no idea, but that's what happens. So, not willing to do work on a subject which would likely be deleted, and tired of time-wasting AfDs, I just give up on this notable subject. Now, in recent conversation Epbr123 asserted that U.S. subject don't require sourcing because "everybody" just knows they're notable. Imagine how that impresses someone who has to fight tooth-and-nail to save articles on Japanese subject I know are notable, because I've seen the sourcing, but now it's gone... Anyway, sure he's going to become an Admin, and, sure, I'm in the clear minority here. I just hope that, unlike in the recent elections, I am wrong this time... Dekkappai (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Today I had or another editor had to revert changes you made to two articles which were to the detriment of the articles. Both articles are currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. This leads me to think that you do not have good editing judment. Reading the rest of your nomination, it seems like you should know better. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you wikilink October 11 in this edit [3]? Plus you should know that in the beginning of a sentence you spell out a number. In this edit [4] the editor clearly states his objections to the edit and he is right. You just "happened" to edit two articles I was editing today but this reflects poorly on you in my opinion. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. A quick comment. Months and dates such as October 11 are, in fact, supposed to be Wikilinked, so the date will show up formated correctly per a user's specific preference. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, in the first case, Mattisse's reversion of Epbr's changes did not conform to MoS; there's a reason I trust Epbr123 at FAC. And the second diff is not a revert of Epbr, rather someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just so I get the FAC rules, you support using a number instead of spelling out a number at the beginning of a sentence (in the first example) and you support using IMDB as a reliable source for the article subjects name (in the second example)? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of your descriptions of the edits in question is accurate; it might be better to continue this on the talk page of this RfA, where this can be clarified in detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed [5] and noted as an incorrect edit on the part of this nominee. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably think of a dozen better reasons to oppose Epbr123 than over a misunderstanding over date formatting, without even breaking sweat. For goodness sake, let's treat the RfA process with whatever respect it still has left. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It was the three other lapses in judgment that I am concerned about. The date was not the overriding reason, and as you point out. was correct, but what about the stylistic changes and using IMDB as a major source for an FAC article. If I am wrong about IMDB, please correct me. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, to be honest I haven't looked at your diffs. As to IMDB, I wasn't aware that there was any doubt as to its unreliability. My primary concern though is your opposition to a candidate which is apparently based on some disagreement over a recent content dispute. Had you claimed that Epbr123 was abusive, or had in some other way behaved inappropriately during your disagreement, then I might have been inclined to take the trouble to follow your diffs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using or spelling a number are both fine by WP:MOSNUM, and wikilinking the date was definitely correct. You are mistaken over the second edit, link to his diff [6] Trebor (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! This is the second diff[7] –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct: a revert that had nothing to do with Epbr123's editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You are still mistaken: Epbr13 did not introduce the IMDB reference. I linked above what he actually did (which was add a "The" in front of "New York Times"). Trebor (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This misunderstanding on the part of Mattisse is now disrupting both a FAC and an RfA; I hope someone will step in and clarify, as I need to step out now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB reference was introduced by myself on May 11, 2007 as can be seen here, not by Epbr123. – Nurmsook! (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

Neutral - For now, but from taking a look at the last few thousand edits, all I see are huggle reverts. Mechanical. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Takes one to know one. Al Tally ^talk 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, Al Tally, I'm kind of ashamed to see that statement. RfA is not a place to lable people hipocrytes. All sorts of people have their own criteria, regardless of wether they themselves meet them. Does everyone in the U.S. fit the criteria to be the President? No. But they can still appoint one.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They can indeed appoint one, but if they didn't fulfil the criteria they set for others, I wouldn't expect them to run three times. Al Tally ^talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Majorly actually makes a fairly good point here. naerii - talk 03:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OUCH, considering whats gone on in recent days I thought people would be more willing to bite their lip and let things be. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind about the above comments. To be candid for a moment (and no offense to the candidate), comparing Epbr123's contributions to my own is absolutely laughable. There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits. The only reason I'm not opposing is because I don't fault people for using Huggle. Unfortunately, this is even stretching it. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I also do not expect anything more or less from Majorly anyway. His participation at RfA is usually restricted to casting a short aspersion instead of...you know...actually putting any effort into judging a candidate or making a thoughtful !vote. If we're going immaturely play the blame game, be prepared to answer for your own foibles. Just some observations. The bottom line is this. Epbr's edits are perfunctory, mechanical, robotic, thoughtless, and seem to have nothing more to say rather than "I want my edit count as high as possible". If you do not like this opinion, please feel free to pout about it elsewhere. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits." I'm confused, by "these edits" do you also mean the page histories of Birchington-on-Sea and Canterbury? I agree the vandal reverts are mechanical - it's hard to revert vandalism in a creative manner - but wouldn't you agree that Epbr123 also has very significant non-mechanical content contributions? WjBscribe 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's thought into vandal reverting as well you know ^_^ though not nearly as much as actually building up an article. If it was thoughtless, he could just set it going and go off and actually do some article work. But thought is required, and it's not "mechanical" and "thoughtless" as you put it. You are quite mistaken. In any case, he has 7 FAs and 5 GAs. So-called mechanical editing won't get you 12 top standard articles. Al Tally ^talk 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This reply is for Majorly and Scribe. Scribe, by "these edits", I was referring specifically (I should have chosen my words more carefully as to avoid ambiguity) to the huggle reverts, of which there are thousands upon thousands to sift through. However, as I've stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:RFA), I will never oppose for such a reason, in this case, the preference of using an app for mass revert automation. Besides, as you've pointed out, there is great article work to be found. However, I haven't had the time to properly go through the contributions, hence the "for now" part of my stance. The reason for this divergence in conversation stems from Majorly's swipe, which, I admit, I became defensive against. Majorly, I understand what you were trying to get at, but the tact just wasn't there. Secondly, yes, some thought goes into anti-vandalism, however, let's be realistic for a moment. If one uses, say, TWINKLE, and another Huggle. Who is giving more thought to their reversions? Now, I don't want to stray much further from the initial topic, and as a candidate's RfA really isn't the place to discuss the pitfalls of scripts, but the answer should be fairly obvious. Huggle does everything for you, scaling up the appropriate reports and even reporting the vandal (and extending the report with diffs) automatically. Twinkle, on the other hand, makes you stop and think about which rollback is appropriate, and more or less forces you to give an edit summary. Anyway, my point is this, there is little in the way of effort in anti-vandalism huggle edits. I will be revisiting later though. As per my userpage, I am busy with grad school. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

However, does Huggle make the decision to revert? —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm with Wisdom here. Had to look through five days of Mechanized edits (several thousand as impressive as that is) to find any kind of actual mainspace work. I'm sure it must exist but I'm not seeing an inclination towards collaboration beyond vandal fighting. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still not a fan of the vast amount of mechanistic editing (4-10 edits/min) but the work on Canterbury has me considering support. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since two of you have brought it up, here are some articles where Epbr123 demonstrated his dedication to mainspace collaboration and his edits helped attain FA status: USS Bridgeport (AD-10) FAC [8][9], Tyrone Wheatley FAC [10] [11] [12], Parallel computing FAC [13] [14] [15]. These are just random picks from FACs from the last few months. His edits might not seem "major" but they are crucial for an FA candidate. I can find few FACs in my watchlist where he didn't help out in a collaborative environment. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, besides the seven FAs he's principle author on, I actually call on Epbr123 when an article at FAC is almost there but the editors need help bringing it over the hump; he's a jack of all trades type, and he does his work quietly, with little fanfare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Gnomism (I'd be a hypocrite if I did). It's the mechanistic nature of the edits that bothers me. I'm having issues finding real critical thinking or creative work. Point me to that and I'd support. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I 'spose you have a point; writing seven featured articles takes no critical thought or creative ability, and is a purely mechanistic undertaking ... so, will every other editor on Wiki please write a half dozen or so? I'd like to see the stats go up; thanks :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All sarcasm aside, that he contributed to their success I don't doubt, but "wrote" them? how much of the content did he write? How much of it was truly new content and how much the work of a dedicated application of a grammatical/syntax algorithm? Just because someone edits an FA article doesn't show any more creativity than having edited a Start article. If he alone had brought the articles all the way from bare stub to FA I might say he wrote them but short of that I'm looking at the edits and aside from Canterbury which seems to be a standout, I don't see a lot. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. The FAs, GAs and FLs I have been a main contributor to are Kate Bush, Sheerness, Herne Bay, Kent, Westgate-on-Sea, Whitstable, Birchington-on-Sea, Shaw and Crompton, List of U2 awards, Sale, Greater Manchester, Kent, Vanadinite‎, Jenna Haze, Canterbury. On the majority of these, I have been by far the biggest contributor. You can see this by either looking at their history pages or using this to find the number of edits by each user on each article. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing that evidence is so much more convincing than sarcasm... I can support that level of article work. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I was aiming for funny, not sarcastic, and obviously I missed. (And I would have left this message on your talk page, but I can't figure out the weird coding there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Uses Huggle -- Gurch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   I ♥ irony :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   You'll note I'm not an administrator... -- Gurch (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

   Yet — iridescent 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   "any more" would be more accurate [16] -- Gurch (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ouch, Irid. bibliomaniac15 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

   I think I've more than used up my quota of Gurch-flattering this week... — iridescent 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.