Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] Epbr123

Final: (68/28/5); ended 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Epbr123 for adminship. Epbr is a very balanced editor between Wikispace and mainspace. For those in the article writing party, he has written 7 FAs, 4 GAs, and 1 FL. Epbr is very active in the realm of FAC and GAN, and is also quite active in AFD. Those active at GAN may know Epbr for the weekly Reviewer of the Week award, which can be viewed at WT:GAN. Epbr is also active in RFA, having successfully nominated some 14 users for adminship. This is not to say that Epbr has not made mistakes. Some of you may recall the RFC regarding this user, which may be found here. This event was five months ago, and since then he has learned to be more civil and respectful to other users. bibliomaniac15 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom by OhanaUnited I was shocked when I saw Epbr123's name shows up on Tangobot as he's running for RfA. I first met him during one week's GAC backlog eliminiation drive. He is an active reviewer in WP:GAN and WP:GAR. I feel that his work merits the mop and I have no reservation in nominating him as admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget - I am truly delighted to welcome (not that I need to) Epbr123 to you for your consideration. I first discussed this move back in November last year, but it was put on hold because of the RfC he has then recently undergone. However, since that time, I've been working with him on numerous occasions, especially over at good article nominations - where his work is simply delightful. Epbr has worked tirelessly for community trust, especially in the 5 months prior to 24 hours ago and has, in my opinion, succeeded. He has a very good sense of what is needed with an administrator - in consideration of the some 20+(?) he has nominated himself, so I doubt we need any sort of reservations there. Epbr has excelled in my opinion , especially in communication, discussion and article work - the figures given by Biblio exemlpifying this. I have no concerns whatsoever about Epbr, and I am once again happy to nominate him for the mop. Rudget. 12:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thank you very much, Bibliomaniac15. Epbr123 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 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: My main use for the admin tools would be for vandal fighting. I occasionally patrol recent changes when I'm not in the mood for article development, and have made about 60 reports to WP:AIV. During this time, I feel I have learnt to deal with vandals in a fair manner and in a way that doesn't scare off potential productive users, as I feel strongly against biting newbies. I like to keep my Wikipedia activities varied, so I may eventially also get involved in other areas such as page moves and protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of my significant contributions to seven FAs, especially Kate Bush, my first FA, and Sheerness, which I managed to mostly write within 2 days. I am also happy with the work I do at WP:FAC and RFA. My other activities include handing out GAN Reviewer of the Week awards at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, assessing articles for WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Kent, participating at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, adding images to Kent settlement articles, and participating at WP:AfD, where I specialise in porn star 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: In September 2007, some of my AfD activities led to a request for comment. I think the result of the RfC was that there wasn't much wrong with my nominations, but I acted too aggressively to the people that disagreed with me. I feel my level of civility has greatly improved since the RFC. At the time, I was more concerned with imposing my views at AfD than on getting on with other users. The RFC taught me the importance of working well with others, as having disputes over minor issues is a waste of time and counterproductive to improving the encyclopedia. I now get on well with some of the participants in the RFC, and I hope I am now more sensitive to the feelings of other users. I have since tried to help prevent others from making the same mistakes I made.
Question from EJF
4. Would you be willing to make yourself available for recall? What criteria would you use? Would you allow yourself to be recalled due to (for example) persistent incivility or only for issues relating directly to the usage of the sysop tools? (I hope this doesn't sound accusatory, it isn't)
A. I believe that poor behaviour in admins should not be tolerated any more than in RfA candidates. I like consistency, and I do feel that Arbcom is more lenient than RfA at deciding who should be an admin. In an ideal world, I think each admin should have to undergo a repeat RfA at least once a year, although in reality this would be too much of an administrative burden. I would like to make myself available for recall, for either incivility or tool misuse reasons, but the question of which criteria to use is difficult. To avoid requests for recall from vandals or trolls, I think a fair criteria would be if another admin asked me to undergo another RfA. I think there would also need to be a time limit of 3 months between each RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: you don't have to decide on criteria right away -- I'd give it some thought and look at what others have done. There's a default recall process but you can also tailor your own criteria as others have done. --A. B. (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Question from Jza84
5. What work or actions on Wikipedia are you least proud of and why?
A. I regret the many harsh comments I have made in the past, especially towards those I sebsequently discovered to be great users, such as AnonEMouse, SandyGeorgia and Tony1. I have learnt that there is no point using aggressive language against others, as you are more likely to get whay you want by being nice. I also regret any of my actions that have distracted other users from improving the encyclopedia, such as making the AfD which led to my RfC. Epbr123 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Question from DGG (talk)
6. Do you still hold to the opinion that "How do we judge who is notable and who isn't if we don't stick to the letter of process?"[1]? If not, when did you change your mind, and why?
No, I don't still think the "letter of process" should be rigidly stuck to, as I have since learnt that it is still evolving. I learnt this when I myself became involved with developing the notability guidelines. WP:IAR should apply when something should be in the rules but isn't, either to avoid instruction creep or because the rule has yet to be discussed. However, there are limits to WP:IAR with regards to the notability criteria, as it can lead to abuse. I object to calls to ignore the criteria when I feel there would not be projectwide consensus to do so. An example would be a user claiming an article on a porn actress shouldn't have to be backed up by independent sources because porn stars get little media attention in the country they are from. I can sympathise with the users view, but without independent coverage, how can a neutral article be written on the actress? An example of when I have ignored the notability guidelines is when I set up stub articles on towns in Africa; although these weren't supported by independant sources, the likelihood of such sources existing is high. Epbr123 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Follow up Question 6a from DGG (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC):
If an articles has been kept at AfD, how soon may it be nominated for deletion? (Im not referring to non-consensuscloses, but keeps)
If there a limit to how many AfDs on a general topic may be placed at one time? (assuming they're not essentially identical in a group nomination, but need to be considered individually)
I think about three months is a reasonable time between AfDs. If an article is kept at AfD, I don't think it should be prevented from ever having a repeat AfD, as consensus can change. On the other hand, repeat AfDs shouldn't be made frivalously, and Deletion Review would be more appropriate if the previous AfD was very recent. I think users should limit themselves on how many AfDs on a general topic they make at once, in order to give users interested in the topic enough time to form their opinion on each. I think about five nominations af once would be a fair limit, as it would give others about a day to consider each one. I admit I have been guilty in the past of nominating too many at once. Epbr123 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Note There is a discussion going on at the talk page including a question for Epbr123's supporters. Can any of the 55 "Supports" please take the time to respond? Dekkappai (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    And why did the opposes don't need to take a time to look at it and respond? I feel this statement is loaded. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose voters are equally welcome to look and equally welcome to comment. It seems that many oppose voters already are though, but not the support voters, to whom the question at the talk page was addressed. It remains unanswered. Dekkappai (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Unless I'm reading this wrong (and I may be, there looks to be a typo), I think you should take a moment and notice that most, if not all, of the "oppose" people have gone on (some at great length) to explain in detail their concerns and reasons. If those concerns are legitimate and are not addressed adequately by those who support this RfA, I think saying so and asking that someone address the concerns is perfectly reasonable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Agree. Note that most opposes have met with threaded challenges where the support votes with no real substance stand unchallenged.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    That statement is a bit ambiguous, I think. Am I correct in assuming that you mean that the support claims are largely unchallenged (certainly in comparison to the oppose claims) not because the support claims are above reproach, but rather that there really isn't much substance to address in them (e.g., "per nom," "very good editor," "excellent contributions," "nominated lots of people," "I thought he was already an admin," etc. -- paraphrasing, obviously)? Xihr (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    That's what I meant. That many supports are as you paraphrased. That Opposes have been asked to repeatedly back up their reasoning. And it wouldn't hurt for some of those supports to elaborate on their reasoning in light of the points brought up in the Oppose section. Was up way too late when I wrote that.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    (in response to OhanaUnited) As has been pointed out, many of those stating an "oppose" opinion have explained the reasons for doing so, and at length, so I'm not sure why you felt you had to allege that the statement was unfairly targetted (that's probably the better terms to use here than "loaded"). Perhaps you disagree with the idea that many of those voicing an "oppose" opinion did? I also note that you have not responded, despite being one of the nominators, as well as an administrator who (as I showed in the section on the talk page) seems to face strong encouragement to respond to reasonable requests and questions from editors, etc. I'm just posting this as you may have inadvertently forgotten to respond (it happens to all of us from time to time), and I think it quite likely you would want to fulfil what it seems you are strongly expected to do. I consider that the request is reasonable and it is made honestly. I think the issue is perhaps quite pertinent for you, since in your nomination statement you said you had "no reservations" about this nomination. In which case, your viewpoints to what was then disclosed on the talk page would be very interesting, and I would like to gently and politely invite you again to answer. One of the other nominators has replied already, which was very pleasing.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on Epbr123's answer to "Question from DGG" above. I should respond to "a user claiming an article on a porn actress shouldn't have to be backed up by independent sources because porn stars get little media attention in the country they are from," since I've had interaction with Epbr123 on this topic. First, "the country" he's referring to is Japan. Second, he completely misrepresents the argument put forth at the AfDs. Erotic entertainers in Japan, for nearly 50 years, have gotten far more mainstream coverage in their country than comparable subjects have in the U.S. (Reliable, scholarly sources have been provided at the AfDs to back up this statement.) However, mainstream Japanese media is notoriously difficult to gain access to unless you are in Japan. To use the words that Epbr123 employs to justify his thousands of unsourced stubs, "the likelihood of such sources existing is high." As high, I might add, as the thousands of unsourced stubs Epbr123 has contributed while voting to delete far better-sourced and better filled-out articles than his own. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes yes yes. Someone enthusiastic about article content is exactly what we need more of. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, indeed. Ran into s/he at FAC, saw nothing but constructive contributions. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Majorly (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support, active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. The mop and bucket can only make him/her more effective. Kbthompson (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Aye. Black Kite 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support excellent contributions. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. This user can definitely be trusted with the tools. Best of luck, SorryGuy  Talk  01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support. Very good editor, and will make a good admin. Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. AGK (contact) 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support Should have been given the mop long ago. Epbr is dedicated, knowledgeable and worthy of the highest trust. VanTucky 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Everywhere I run into this pedian, he is doing good work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - This looks excellent. I trust this user not to abuse the tools and to wield them wisely. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support will make a great admin. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support; Invariably, the candidate's contributions are a benefit to the project, and I have no concerns whatsoever about their use of the tools. Good editor. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - should get the mop.   jj137 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)-- Anonymous DissidentTalk
  19. Support - Give em' the mop! Tiptoety talk 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support as co-nom OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support have worked with him before... can be trustedBalloonman (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Even though I don't see article work as incredibly important, 7 FAs is the sign of a true experienced editor. Should be good enough with the mop. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN that one guy who buried stuff 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Per co-nom. Rudget. 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - Experienced, dedicated, and competent candidate. κaτaʟavenoTC 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Does good work, learns from mistakes. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support You mean he's not one already? I'm shocked. RC-0722 communicator/kills 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support 7 FA's look awesome, and looks like a trustworthy editor. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support An excellent editor. Jehochman Talk 17:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - great team player. Tons of experience, non BITEr. Will be just fine - Alison ❤ 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support Wikipedia needs good admin and editor like the nominee. --Appletrees (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry but I change my mind after seeing Dekkappai's explanation for opposition.--Appletrees (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support I've seen Epbr123 around for a while and have been impressed. A quality editor. Mike Christie (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - 7 FAs + 34,000 edits + will use map wisely = support. ---CWY2190TC 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  32. Strong support - great encyclopaedia builder, established editor, absolutely no reason why not. Well done, and good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Well-rounded, knowledgeable user. Will use mop well. SpencerT♦C 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support. Per the noms, per the answers to the questions, per the user's very impressive content contributions, helping to raising articles' status to FA and GA quality. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  35. Strong support - brilliant editor. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Epbr is a dependable staple of the FA and GA processes and a dedicated hard worker. I tangled with Epbr early on at FAC (can't even remember why or on what article, it was long ago), and I most certainly think Epbr learns from mistakes and has become a fine editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. thought he already was one, let's try to fix that. Ronnotel (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support From the above, he seems to be getting the job done and knows well how to handle a variety of situations.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support You're not an admin? Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  40. Yes, I thought you were an admin. Support. NHRHS2010 11:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Completely support, have seen at FAC a lot and am impressed. Woody (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support, switching from neutral after responses from Epbr here and on his talk page. Obviously a highly qualified candidate, definitely knows the ropes. His responses have left me confident that the civility issues will improve. The examples brought up by Pete in his oppose did pretty much suck, but that was a while ago, and after a very thorough look at Epbr's recent contribs, I've seen nothing like that. He's willing to accept feedback in the future, too, in case he does slip up. He knows he's got stuff to work on and has shown a lot of willingness to. Like I said in my oppose [der, I mean neutral], he's been given opportunities to get in fights lately and didn't take them. The issue that stopped me from supporting at first was pretty minor and I feel it's been addressed. delldot talk 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support per GAN/FAC work (among other reasons). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. Candidate has demonstrated a thorough and sufficient knowledge of administrative duties by nominating several previous suitable candidates. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support I thought he was already an admin - does good work in many areas and seems eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  46. Has improved his civility greatly, and has done a lot of good work here. I think Epbr123 will make a good administrator. Acalamari 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support. This editor is hardworking and has shown a willingness to listen to others. I don't see any reason to deny him the tools when we need more admins. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support looks like the right choice. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support I believe he would make a fair and impartial admin. Even when we had disagreements, we resolved them in amicable terms. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support - Epbr123 has allayed my concerns. Best of luck, EJF (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support No problems with him receiving the mop. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support Candidate should do just fine. Captain panda 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support indeed! -- Alexf42 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support, this editor's efforts are in the right place. Does great work in article processes such as FAC. Knowledgeable and trustworthy. --Laser brain (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support Though I've had no personal contact with Epbr123, his edits and contributions to FACs and their reviews have impressed me. PeterSymonds | talk 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support I can't say I knew Epbr was involved in an RfC. Personally, given a reading of the complaints listed there, it seemed that some editors got annoyed that he was nominating articles without batching. There's a lot I could say in defense of Epbr (especially since I used to batch articles, but then people would say split them off, et al) but that doesn't mean I condone him acting rashly. However my experiences with him at GAN and related pages have always been positive, and I am more inclined to support based off my interactions. David Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The central issues of the RFC are that Epbr mistakes good ideas for Rules, which he must enforce; and he does so uncivilly. The second is bad for an admin; the first is fatal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support for me, the amount of effort into 'pedia building outweighs civility issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support, without personally attacking the opposers. Dorftrottel (troll) 03:12, February 28, 2008
    I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? You surely haven't personally attacked any opposers, but you also haven't even said why you support the nomination. Xihr (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's Dorf's self-reflective attempt at humour, but what's more funny is that we're on the same side (hee hee hee) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support, user seems to have reformed himself in the months since the RfC. Wizardman 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support, I often review the same FAC noms as Epbr, and he always seems to have a good grasp of guidelines, is willing to discuss his concerns with the nominators, and is generally pleasant. FAC can be trying for reviewers at times, and I have yet to see Epbr lose his cool, no matter how...interesting...the replies have gotten. Karanacs (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support, dedicated editor. --MPerel 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support I have worked with him at GA, back when I was active there, and he showed that he is capable of doing adminsitrator like actions with skill and comportment. The RFC is somewhat troubling, but not a deal breaker for me. I honestly feel he will be a good admin, and I trust him to use the tools well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support. Epbr123 has demonstrated remarkable capacity for self-assessment. I first noticed this when I saw him updating User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist and User:Epbr123/words. Rather than dismiss all these little lessons (that we all encounter) and go about his business, he kept track of all these little things. This written record illustrates a desire to learn and work within the structures of the system. Likewise, he has demonstrated behavioural changes. At FAC he has reformed from obnoxious aggresiveness to a genuine WikiGnome (compare his last 500 article edits with the FAC list and recent promotions). At GAs he shows nothing but deference where he regularly thanks participants (since June 2007). From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123 and Wikipedia:Editor review/Epbr123, and his actions since, I see an editor learning his actions have impacts, a desire to participate, and a willingness to learn behavioural skills. I have no doubt he will be responsible with admin tasks and adapt well. --maclean 03:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  64. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  65. Just the kind of WP we need in the ranks of the janitors: honest, diligent, balanced, good editor, too. I support this strongly. Tony (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support. Happy to support this passionate and diligent editor, who has learned a great deal through difficult encounters, and whose insights will lead to a responsible and thoughtful use of the broom.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support will make a great wiki admin, opposers v weak! Good luck... --Camaeron (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    In what way are they "v weak"?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    For someone saying that the oppose opinions are weak, could you provide a better rationale than "will make a great wiki admin"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  68. good contributor --Docg 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - I don't think he learned from the RFC. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Any evidence that you wish to provide? (To closing burecrat, Aboutmovies is directly engaged in Epbr123's RfC discussion; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123#Outside view by Septentrionalis) OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Didn't know I needed evidence, people voting for above mainly do not provide any evidence to support thier comments, and how about disclaimers for any of them who have been working with him on many occasions? Anyway, if you read the comments I made here at the RFC and compare the conduct to that here you will see he refused to return to the FA discussion after making remarks, and was then questioned for those actions at the RFC, followed by the 2nd nom of the same article where he decided it would be a good idea to do the same thing, the second time while the RFC was still in progress. That shows he didn’t learn, and to me it shows poor judgment. IMO you do not get involved in an AFD/CFD/GA nomination/FAC or any other process to which the nominator is involved with an open RFC where your actions have been questioned by that nominator. To me, that is basically a conflict of interest as motives become an obvious question. It would be the same as if Epbr had made comments concerning my conduct in an RFC about me, and then I came here to his RFA and opposed. My motives could clearly be questioned. Additionally, if you read over the comments by Epbr at the RFC you get the impression that he thought his actions were fine. Has he grown since then? I don’t know, but until he owns up to those actions and responses, I cannot trust him with the tools. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    True, evidence is not necessary. But evidence can help a candidate understand better in what ways and manners she or he can improve. Kingturtle (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Not to sound to flip, but that was the whole purpose of the RFC, so he had plenty of evidence to use to improve. And going by his answers above regarding the RFC, I still don't think he gets it. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Oppose - Epbr123 hasn't the first clue how to be civil or amicable towards other Wikipedians. His RfC brings light to some of such behavior. He is condescending and not fit to be an administrator. To be more specific, in addition to this behavior the real problem is that he refuses to engage in any dialog or discussion about his behavior - instead becoming increasingly hostile and attacking other users' credibility and inappropriately questioning motives. Please note that being "directly engaged in Epbr123's RfC discussion" does not disqualify someone from opposing this user's adminship. If anything, it makes us more qualified because we were involved in a perfectly sound process by which his inappropriate behavior was brought to light. Also note that Epbr spends a large amount of his time voting/nom'ing other people for adminship. Overwhelming support may be a bit... exaggerated[2]. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Which line did my question state that I'm disqualifying (or trying to disqualify) someone from opposing this user if he/she participates in that particular RfC? OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't say that. I'm just making sure that there is no confusion as to what you may or may not have meant by saying it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, along the same lines as Aboutmovies, above. I came in on the Oregon State Capitol nomination a little late, and was puzzled by the lack of collegiality in Epbr's approach. His/her initial feedback was helpful, but the lack of followup seemed dismissive in a way that I couldn't understand. The issue was ultimately resolved, and I'd be inclined to say no harm, no foul. But this discussion concerns me. Legitimate concerns were raised by numerous editors, clearly good faith efforts to clarify what was and was not acceptable behavior, and in no way casting doubt on Epbr's character; yet Epbr's first comment was to "demand an apology" from one of the editors, unnecessarily raising the tenor of the discussion, and utterly ignoring all other comments. I will say that I've had pleasant interactions with Epbr on WP:GA, but the items listed above betray what I consider a pretty significant lack of collegiality. I would be happy to reconsider my opinion, but would need to see some specific commentary from Epbr on those two incidents that indicates an understanding of the problems I've raised. -Pete (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Regarding the Oregon State Capitol FAC, if I didn't leave a followup it was probably because I didn't get round to it, as reviewing an article does take a lot of effort. I tried to make up for it by giving a thorough review in its subsequent FAC. In the first FAC, the editors had indicated that they had addressed all my concerns, so myself not leaving feedback wouldn't have contributed to the FAC failing. Regarding incivility, I regret my behaviour in the past and am now aware that it's not acceptable here. Epbr123 (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm happy to let the OSC matter drop, that one is ancient history, and I suppose could have arisen from simple misunderstanding for all I know. But the other stuff runs pretty heavily against the grain of what I consider beneficial to the project. It would take much more than a blanket statement of regret to change my opinion. That's a good starting point, and I appreciated it -- but much more specific discussion would be necessary. Based on the number of apparently significant concerns being raised here, I'm not hopeful this can be resolved within the time frame of this RfA. -Pete (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    No longer on the fence in any way, as of this edit. Epbr appears to be dredging up some old conflict, escalating discussion unnecessarily, and taking a threatening tone with another editor in the context of his own RfA. No longer any question for me, moving from oppose to strong oppose. -Pete (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I feel that discussing that matter would be the best way to clear the air, which I would rather do than pass the RfA. I'm sorry you misinterpreted a comment of mine as a threat. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    As far as I was aware, the easiest way to "clear the air" (which I believe is a misleading way to describe the discussions involving you and myself) would be for you to admit a failure in WP:AGF and other problems on your part in your responses to my honest attempts to explain my actions and to offer positive help to you. Please, can you not step back for a moment and reflect upon your own behaviour and your own actions in your very own RfA and ask yourself what this shows others who may want to express an opinion about your nomination in this RfA. As I have said a few times, I do really wish you well, and my suggestions of how to improve your behaviour I offer up as supporting my assurance that I really do wish you well, maintained even though you have chosen to respond to me in what I consider is an inappropriate manner. I honestly think this all demonstrates that you are not ready yet, and that some more time is required before you could become an administrator. It is required to allow you (a) to reflect upon your own behaviour, (b) seriously take steps to improve your behaviour (as illustrated in these discussions) by improving your critical thinking and reasoning skills, (c) reviewing your attitudes and behaviour to criticism which have been demonstrated, I argue, in this very RfA itself when you have engaged with myself, and (d) gaining experience in dealing with hard cases for discussion (which some might even say is exemplified by these discussions.) Please, can I suggest that there are no more hasty responses from you, as I really do think reflecting hard on your actions and testing them out by yourself to see where you could have been mistaken would benefit you greatly here. You could even draw up a table on a large sheet of paper. At the top, you write "What I think about X" and on one side, you write down all the reasons why you think you are entitled to believe what you do about X, and on the other side, you seriously and ruthlessly try to defeat your own position. When done honestly and well, I certainly find doing this immensely helpful. I offer it up to you as another method of reflecting upon your own behaviour, which is what you have been asking about yourself. I draw people's attention to some other messages I have posted on [this RfA's talk page to get more details about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    A friend requested that I expand on my thinking. The oft-quoted WP:CIVIL policy makes reference to "causing an atmosphere of greater conflict or stress." I believe that a sensitivity one's own impact on the tone of discussion is vital to the success of the Wikipedia project; at times it is necessary to call a fellow editor's behavior or motives into question, but every time it is done, it comes with a cost. An RfA is a special case, in which a single editor's disposition becomes part of the focus in determining whether that person should be entrusted with expanded powers, and a title (which, whatever Jimbo Wales or anyone else may say, will frequently be viewed as a "big deal" by newbies and non-Wikipedians.)
    It's good that an editor should be actively engaged with his/her own RfA, in order to respond to questions or concerns that might arise. But if the RfA becomes contentious, as it has here, that involvement becomes a pretty telling test of the editor's judgment; in a stressful position, the editor has numerous opportunities to follow up on an issue, or let it drop. Allowing oneself to become distracted, and shifting the focus onto another editor's behavior, indicates to me a lack of perspective on the function of the RfA process. Epbr needs to let some of this stuff go, at least for the duration of the RfA. Even if it means failing to shed light on something he believes is important. Sometimes, we need to recognize that our own experience and opinions need to be swallowed in order to let the community keep its focus where it needs to be: building an encyclopedia, or in this case, determining who needs special tools in the project of building an encyclopedia.
    Ultimately, this comes down to WP:BITE concerns. Especially for an editor who has stated that his intent with admin tools is to fight vandalism. It is of course important to have administrators and vandalism fighters who are intelligent, and who are deeply familiar with WP policy, guidelines, and culture; Epbr gets excellent marks in all those areas. But when fighting vandalism, there are frequent situations where a seemingly insignificant word choice might play a strong determinative role in a newbie's entire view of Wikipedia. An editor who has a strong need to be "right" in every situation, or falls too easily into the temptation to explore every aspect of a fellow editor's behavior, in my view, is far less likely to find the appropriate balance in this sort of situation.
    As I've said before, I've had good interactions with Epbr, and I look forward to continued collaboration. At this time, however, I don't feel he's ready for the increased responsibility that comes along with administrator tools. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    In response, I feel my comments on this talk page were misunderstood. I gave an honest opinion about another users motives, backed-up by evidence, hoping that he would expand on his reasons for the oppose and prove me wrong. I did not want to discredit his vote, but just wanted to let him see my point of view that I couldn't blindly accept his advice while there were strong doubts about his neutrality. I apologize to DDStretch for this misunderstanding, as he is a user I admire. Epbr123 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    I thank you for your apology, which I accept.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    Extra clarification: I accept the apology, but I am still at a loss just what evidence there was in what I wrote that could so conclusively allow a allegation about my motives to be made in the manner it was made, and for the purpose it was made.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Epbr, if it was a misunderstanding, that's a misunderstanding for which you should take full responsibility. Bringing up another editor's motivations does not help in the evaluation of an RfA, it is at best a distraction and at worst an ad hominem attack. An RfA is not about whether or not you "accept advice," it's about whether the community decides you need more tools to continue and expand your work. Any opportunity for you to learn or improve is secondary to that. It's nice to see that your apology was well-received, but I stand by my position that this exchange did not exhibit the level of judgment, regarding Wikipedia procedures, that I'd expect in an admin. -Pete (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    For that reason, I made the comments on the talk page rather than here. Epbr123 (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    Did I read that right? Because your comments didn't exhibit the level of judgement expected of an admin, you made them on the talk page instead of here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant I commented on the talk page because an "RfA is not about whether or not you "accept advice," it's about whether the community decides you need more tools". Epbr123 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. I'm a bit disappointed to see that people are dismissing the RfC as ancient history. It was only a few months ago -- really quite a short period of time, in terms of fundamental changes to someone's behavior -- but perhaps more importantly, many seem to be characterizing it as merely a civility problem. But that was only the surface of the problems as indicated in the RfC, as well as indicated by his own behavior during the RfC. He was certainly uncivil, but he also showed complete contempt for the process, as well as vindictiveness after the fact (his long stream of pointless lists of links to edits by his detractors that had zip to do his case). His responses to the complaints struck me as massively missing the point -- the equivalent of "I promise not to do this anymore even though I never did" -- coupled with a (typically) long stream of leading questions -- even challenging people to discuss the merits of his edits and deletion proposals in his own RfC. The only reason that the RfC didn't proceed further was lack of energy on the part of the participants, not to mention the obvious point that absolutely nothing would come of it except a slap on the wrist. This is the sign of someone being difficult, not someone who should be entrusted with admin privileges. That he has both laid low for the last few months and (probably not concidentally) concentrated on nominating others for adminship is probably both not a huge shocker and shouldn't be an indication of any concrete change in his behavior. Especially since during his RfC troubles, someone else offered to nominate him for adminship and, at that time, he refused, knowing that he had no chance whatsoever. I should also point out that those who don't think much of the significance of the RfC should probably take a step back and carefully read its talk page. Xihr (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that's a very straight assessment, and somewhat true in my opinion. However I, and as those who have supported, have demonstrated, believe that Epbr has overcome these attributions and the fact that people now recognise Epbr for his material contributions rather than his mannerisms is striking. I can understand the reasoning where you say that we have been "dismissive" of his RfC, well, there's not much I can do on that account since I can only speak on behalf of myself, but five months is a long stretch in my opinion, itself a period where a user can start and be an administrator within that time, and if Epbr has not done enough in five months, I doubt there will be anything do-able to alleviate those concerns - I do however feel strongly that he has done work that is not only mature, but also intelligent, with Epbr striking a perfect balance between clue and community judgement. This RFA being an example of this. Rudget. 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The RfC was brought up-- by an Admin who had had only a brief glimpse of Epr123's activities-- in September. Up until November he was still engaging in all the civility-related issues with which he was accused on the talk page of the RfC-- escalating this sort of activity in fact. This activity would no doubt have continued, had not those Commenting begun to see the futility of the whole thing and just let it drop. In the intervening months Epbr123 has spent a large part of his time nominating others for Adminship and totally avoiding any of the areas in which has has stirred up so much enmity among so many editors. Funny how easy it is to be "civil" when you're saying, "Good work, wanna be an Admin?" Dekkappai (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Your opinion is your opinion. I don't wish to get into an argument over another user's conduct (especially when I clearly endorse this RFA by the co-nomination), but isn't the progress from incivility followed by a five month period where there have been no (to my knowledge at least) complaints show that the Epbr is willing to engage and respond in community discussion, i.e. the outcome of the RfC. Wouldn't a change of being "incivil" to a user who is respected by the people who are working on en.wp, show that the RfC was successful in its aim anyway? Rudget. 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    No. What would have indicated a positive outcome from the RfC? His response to the RfC being anything but hostile, sarcastic, uncivil, and deny-everything. His FA work, which has also been questioned at times, may be positive, but what does that have to do with mop-duty? He's shown absolute contempt for anyone or any wiki-process that asks him to reexamine his behavior. He used the RfC process inappropriately to hash out a long list of unrelated and often completely frivolous complaints about those who dare question his integrity, he responded with things denials like "I promise never to do X, but I never did X" and polemical statements like "I promise never to make counter-arguments on AfDs." The RfC may have taught him to lay low and spend his time doing things that could never be uncivil (e.g. nominating dozens of people for adminship), but it was not a moment that he took to really reexamine his conduct or his inability to work civilly with others. The fact that he blatantly misrepresents the RfC as ending with some sort of resolution is highly dishonest - it ended with a dozen editors so frustrated by his lack of good-faith participation in the RfC that they decided it would be a waste of time to take it to the ArbCom. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    In fairness, Cheeser, I think your summary is a little unfair. (and I do mean only a little.) The "mea culpa" section I'm aware of is here. He responded to some, but by no means all, of the complaints against him by saying he hadn't done anything wrong; he did admit some of the problems. To my mind, there's nothing wrong with that in itself; but like I said above, it's merely a starting point for moving forward, not a whitewash of all past behavior. -Pete (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    To further that: the first step for alcoholics and most any recovery process is to own up to the issue, then move on. He did not own up to the problem at the RFC, and as far as I am aware he has not done that since the RFC. Even his remarks above in the "Questions for the candidate" regarding the RFC tend to show a slippery politician mantra that never owns up to the issue and admits to the wrong-doing. Only once he owns up to the problem can he recover. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The others who replied here pretty much nailed it. There's no evidence he learned from the RfC, since he refused to admit any wrongdoing at the time, and showed complete contempt for the whole process. The only evidence post-RfC for his behavior is avoiding contentious article topics that he got in trouble for, cutting down on AfDs, avoiding conflicts, and nominating lots of people for admin to build up good will. That's more evidence of being tactically smart about building up his reputation to try a RfA again (since the last one was doomed to fail because of the ongoing RfC), rather than any true change in objective behavior. The RfC was only a few months ago. Why risk handing over the keys to someone like this, solely based on newly perceived civility (and, as was said, how hard is it to appear civil by nominating a bunch of people for adminship)? Xihr (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The RfC was not a long time ago, and although Epbr123 says he has learned from it, statements like this don't really provide tangible evidence of it—anyone can say that they have learned, and won't do it again, but it is their behaviour that must carry more weight. This is not an issue of failing to assume good faith on my part, but is a clear-cut issue of relative evidential power and weight in assessing, in this case, changes in behaviour. The evidence shown in his behaviour as pointed out by User:delldot (in his comment under the "Neutral" heading) occurred as recently as 17th February, 2008. Additionally, as pointed out by the other oppose opinions so far, it seems that the important changes in behaviour had not started to happen during the RfC. I also note the possibly unwise moves he made during the failed RfA of Malleus Fatuorum in November 2007, that essentially searched through and listed many of Malleus' comments to hold up as evidence of his unsuitability of being an administrator, and which additionally made some rather unwise comments about canvassing and other comments. These happened in the context of (a) Malleus making a statement against him in the RfC (b) more recent comments by Epbr123 on other RfA's indicating that, he is prepared to say (on 16th February, 2008) here that another nominee will have learned from his mistakes (and this nominee did not speak out against him.) At the least, it suggests a lack of sensitivity and/or even-handedness concerning the legitimate concerns others might have of his behaviour. Note that it does not conclusively show any evidence of partiality or bias, but in the context of other behaviour, pointed out in the opposes here, it does support and strengthen the idea that, although Epbr123 may believe quite sincerely that he has changed his behaviour since the RfC, he may not be able to assess his own behaviour in a sufficiently unbiased manner for his comments on this matter to be given much weight. I wish him well, and expect he will eventually be successful in his desire to become an administrator, but I think at the moment he needs more time to show us by his behaviour (rather than his statements about his behaviour) that he has really changed. Note that the burden of proof is not upon us to show why we think his behaviour has not changed, but it is upon him to show us that it has, and I don't think it is quite there yet.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Having read all comments, as well watching one incident with him myself (I wasn't involved, just snoopy), I feel that the nominee is very uncivil. Hazillow (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. STRONG Oppose See talk page for my essay. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Several people have suggested that Epbr is benefitting from having nominated numerous editors for admin privileges. I think it would be worthwhile to get a count of how many people in this discussion (supporters and opposers) have been nominated by Epbr. I don't think this is generally germane to an RfA, but in this case it appears to be significant, and it would be helpful to see the basis for these claims spelled out. -Pete (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The point is not that Epr123 is being appointed Admin by editors he himself has helped become Admin. The point is that Epbr123 has been "civil" recently by handing out Admin nominations (try doing that in an incivil manner) and avoiding the areas in which his attitude and actions have created so much anger. Dekkappai (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    And avoiding areas that cause one difficulty is a problem because ... ??? Isn't that what we all should do? It's certainly what I do (stay away from discussions in areas that I know may get my dander up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    As an admin, I doubt Epbr123 will be granted the luxury of only participating in non-controversial areas and passing out, "Oh, isn't that great work you're doing!" comments. He will be forced to deal in controversial areas, and, I can guarantee you, he will be forced to deal with far more objections than those he received from the long-standing, good editors and Admins he had to deal with at the RfC. His past few months of nice-talk in Admin-nominations in no way indicates that he has learned to deal with conflict in a civil manner. Dekkappai (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I also think an admin needs to know when to step away from certain situations, and call in someone else. I'd oppose someone who didn't do that, as they might misuse the tools. Epbr, according to you, has stepped away from areas of conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    An Admin needs to know how to resolve conflict, not duck it. Epbr123 repeatedly has left and then returned to areas in which he has created conflict and then dealt with it in a spectacularly inappropriate manner. There is no indication that he will not do so again, just as desruptive as he has been repeatedly in the past, only emboldened and empowered with an Adminship. Dekkappai (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that "notability" criteria are pseudoscientific at very best. If used at all, they should be applied some degree of common sense, not so rigidly that we can't even think twice about forsaking our own creations. I suspect I will have some difficulty explaining how and why the edit in the second link worries me the most. I mean, I figured if you were going to draw the line somewhere, this would be the place. I realize nobody wants to seem like a hypocrite, but it will happen anyway, both here and in the real world, so better not to worry too much about it. We're all humans here, I think. — CharlotteWebb 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think this is the place to begin a debate about notability criteria, so I'll just leave this link to a discussion which pretty much summarises my view on the issue. Epbr123 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Note that the link above points to an argument that Epbr123 and I had over repeated nominations for deletion along the lines of those of one of the complaints brought against Epbr123. Note Epbr123's subtle way of looking through the edit history of someone who has criticized him to subtly defame him. Note also that Epbr123's employment of this method was not nearly so subtle before he began seeking adminship, and it is likely to become much less subtle again once he's handed Adminship. Dekkappai (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'll just add that I have created about 1,000 UK village articles, none of which technically pass the current notability criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    ...And how Epbr123's bot-like creation of non-notable (to his admission) stubs is supposed to make up for his mass, repeated-nominations for deletion of the work of other editors, strictly, literalistically and unbendingly applying notability criteria, I don't know... But as a bloodied veteran of Epbr123's endless, condescending Socratic dialogues intended to beat the poor disbeliever into the correct view (his view), pardon me if I don't him ask the question. Dekkappai (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    I have to say, I found that remark quite bizarre myself. How does knowingly bulk creating non-notable stubs mitigate enforcing the notability guidelines with an iron fist in the past? That's not having it both ways; that's having it no way at all. Xihr (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Having read the RFC, the reply to the query about it above, and some of the diffs of subsequent behavior, it is clear to me that this editor did not learn what he should have from the RFC and that this editor does not demonstrate suitable behavior for an administrator. GRBerry 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your input. Would you mind pointing out which diffs and which of my replies you were unhappy about? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - I'm sorry to change my vote, Epbr123. I think you're an excellent editor and have contributed to Wikipedia sincerely. However, civility is one of the key factors for every editors especially admins to have. I missed to take a look at the RFC because I did not know what it is. I have worked with Dekkappai for Korean film project and trust him in many ways, so honestly, his long explanation affects to change my mind. I respect your regard toward guidelines in Wikipedia but flexibility is also required sometimes. --Appletrees (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    I understand. :) Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak oppose. I've spent an hour reviewing Epbr123's RfC of five months ago, the RfC talk page and the extensive discussions on this RfA's talk page. My observations on the RfC and other stuff:
    1. Allegations of too many individual AfDs when they should have been bundled together: a non-issue for me. There really is no established guideline as some others have tried to make it out; just instructions for template usage at Template:AfD footer (multiple). Personally, I've found the bundled AfDs I've dealt with usually had one or more articles that were sufficiently different as to require separate AfDs. Separate AfD nominations are more work for the nominator, anyway. Epbr123's response to complaints about this is another thing.
    2. Reported failure to return to Featured Article discussions after leaving comments: mostly a non-issue after a major problem he had with this almost a year ago (probably out of ignorance).
    3. Epbr123's responses to others' complaints about AfD nominations: I looked at every diff cited in the RfC and my personal opinion is that Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s RfC write-up overstated Epbr123's misbehaviour. Still the picture emerges of a oversensitive attitude to others' criticism.
    4. Epbr123's responses to the RfC itself, while staying within the broad boundaries of WP:CIVIL, were still too prickly and defensive for an admin. WP:CIVIL is setting the bar way too low for admins -- admins must always meet WP:PATIENT and and should try to hit WP:NICE at least 98% of the time.
    5. I am also concerned by his oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum. While his comments were well within his rights and on the surface reasonable, my gut tells me there was an underlying element of payback for Malleus Fatuarum's comments in Epbr123's RfC 2 months earlier.
    I believe that just a few months ago, Epbr123 was showing an attitude of impatience with others, rigid defensiveness and an overemphasis on his own self-perceived rectitude. A tendency to righteous indigination, deadly in an admin, takes more than five months to get out of your system. In my own case, I had some prickliness problems of my own in mid-2006. I chose to wait a full year to stand for admin to better get a feel for this place; I think I'm a much better, more temperate (if still imperfect) admin for having done this. I recommend Epbr123 do the same thing; if so, he can look forward to my support then. --A. B. (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I really don't feel comfortable with him having admin tools. Most of my specific concerns have already been addressed regarding his sometimes unpredictable behavior within the community, incivility, lack of tact and tendentiousness. He has improved a lot as an editor since my initial encounters with him, and he certainly contributes well to a wide variety of areas (in particular I have appreciated his pedantry about the MOS at FA/GAC for some articles I have worked on), but I think he needs at least a little more time to work on his "people skills" before I would consider him admin material. I am in no way opposed to supporting an admin candidate with a few "skeletons," but I think his need a little more time to gather dust before I would consider a support. If this RFA doesn't succeed, then maybe next time. LaMenta3 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for now. I feel that this person can be a bit too confrontational at times and under those circumstances am not comfortable with an endorsement at this time. RFerreira (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - My main reason for opposition is, as stated many times above, the RfC that the user had not too long ago. In addition, though I have not looked into this as it is only secondary and I may be wrong, his main interests seem to be in article-building. According to certain answers to the questions at the top of the nomination say that the user "has reported about 60 users to AIV". No offense but: that's it. For a user who said he wants to take part in dealing with vandalism, that does not seem like a lot of experience. As for his AfD experience, I believe that his AfD comments were what led to the RfC, which everybody, including myself, seems to be holding against him. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Seems to be a knowledgeable, motivated and productive editor, but also (as e.g per his own link above) overly rigid in his understanding of our ever changing guidelines as something disconnected from the editors who write and interpret them, as well as rather at antagonistic in relating to others with a different view. I am especially concerned about his interaction with Ddstretch on this RfA's talk who really tried hard to reach him. As longs as he finds it so difficult to appreciate the opinions of those he considers his critics without continuously questioning their motives, it is hard to be confident enough that he can learn from his mistakes. [3] --Tikiwont (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Regretful oppose. I noticed Epbr was up for admin and came here expecting to be able to support: I am familiar with Epbr through Good article nominations where his contributions are extremely helpful and valuable; I was aware of past conflicts, but was unfamiliar with the details. So, I have attempted to familiarise myself. I learned a lot. First, Epbr is an absolutely prolific contributor, dedicated to Wikipedia, and a great article builder. I hadn't realised how much he has contributed to the mainspace, and the rate at which he edits is astounding. Among those opposing this RfA, several have pointed this out, and I think such acknowledgement should be encouraged, as it is a good step towards healing old wounds.
    After this, I read the RfC and the many concerns and diffs about Epbr's interactions with other editors, his work on AfDs, and his interpretation of policy and guidelines. I also see these concerns reflected in his recent involvement in AfDs, and in some of his comments at this RfA and its talk page. I do not necessarily endorse all of these concerns, but I don't think they are frivolous either. I would also stress that an editor's concerns are not necessarily invalidated simply because the editor has failings too.
    So what to do? Well, if adminship were a pat on the back, then I would gladly support Epbr's nomination, but that is not what adminship is for. The aim is to give some editors extra tools because it will help to maintain and improve the encyclopedia. Since concerns have been raised about giving these tools to Epbr, we should ask, what are the benefits? In his answers to the questions, Epbr states that he intends to use the tools to fight vandalism, and possibly get involved with page protection. Although I imagine Epbr would do fine with IP vandalism and would not bite the newbies, it seems to me, from what I have read, that this isn't really what he is good at. When vandalism and page protection become controversial, an admin needs to stay cool, and suppress his own opinions on the content. It seems to me that this is not Epbr's strength: what he is really good at is article content.
    Lastly, I think it would be unfortunate for this process to send a signal that one can pass an RfA by lying low for a few months and making friends with the electorate. I stress that I do not believe that this was Epbr's intention, but it is an issue which has affected this RfA and has been unfortunate for Epbr. Anyway, there are many great contributors to WP who are not, or don't wish to be, administrators, and I admire them. That doesn't mean they should all be made admins. Geometry guy 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your kind words, but I would like to clarify that I don't feel I have been lying low recently, as I have continued with my AfD work, Also, only one of my supports have come from users I've nominated for admin. Epbr123 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think you make a very good point, Geometry Guy, about Adminship vs "Pat on the back." I've seen this RfA coming for a few months, and thought just that-- I wish there were a way to reward users like Epbr123 who are excellent as editors, but who would be disastrous as Admins. Some sort of a "Junior/Senior/Master Editor" ranking or something. The point looks moot by now though. Dekkappai (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    We do have those: Wikipedia:Service awards and Wikipedia:Barnstars for starters. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    But those can be taken away just as easily as they are given [4], unlike the apparently "no big deal" adminship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I'm looking for some kind of a promotion or status that carries no power with it. But then those who seek power, though they're unfit to hold it, would not be satisfied with a mere title... Dekkappai (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    The simple truth is that we, as a community, must cultivate the maturity to make the best decision for our project, rather than base our decisions on factors like a desire to reward a productive community member. Creating some kind of figurehead title dodges the challenge, which really is better met head-on. There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not distinguish among its editors, in any official way, based on the content they produce; there are good reasons why other projects like Citizendium do. Those reasons shouldn't be ignored merely for the convenience of RfA decisions. -Pete (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per the RfC; if there are examples of Epbr learning and listening to others, I would like to see them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. I had intended not to take any part in this RfA, but I have now found myself dragged into it on this article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose – Based on the concerns brought up on the discussion page. Though an advocate of Policy I do believe in IAR as the balance that brings us back to the foundation of Wikipedia. That the free dissemination of information with out regards to agendas or point of views is the rock the project is built on. If that is compromised by individuals with blinders on, than hopefully those blinders are restricted to only that individual without the tools to enforce the blinders on others. Shoessss |  Chat  01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Struck oppose and moved to Neutral , but left concerns stand, until I view responce to DGG question. Shoessss |  Chat  07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Agree with several above about the civility issue and reinforced by the response to this talk page discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Regretful Oppose... VERY regretful I wanted to support ever-so-badly, but the opposing side has shown me a few concerns that just keep me from doing so. Epbr123 is a great editor and Wikipedian, but I just cannot support at this time. Jmlk17 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Despite giving me the answers he knew I'd like. The civility problems are too important. A considerably longer period of doing things right in this respect is needed. DGG (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. The serious concerns raised in the RfC last September about this user's behaviour are too recent for the editor to have gained my trust. As many have pointed out, it takes time for behaviour to change, and a few months isn't enough. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I have read through your contributions, talk pages and count log - but the strength of the argument of those that have opposed your RFA nomination and have caused me great concern about your ability to remain civil during disputes. --Ozgod (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose The RFC wasn't that long ago, there are some long term serious civility issues that probably need some more time to see if they've cleared. RxS (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Does not realize that policy is only normative. east.718 at 07:16, March 1, 2008
  26. Weak Oppose There are some pretty serious concerns here; I don't feel comfortable supporting at the moment. GlassCobra 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose. He can obviously be a very good contributor to Wikipedia without having sysop facilities. 222.153.67.150 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    IP comment indented. You must be signed in to a Wikipedia account to comment "support", "oppose" or "neutral". EJF (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm unconvinced of the rationale of this oppose, and something's very fishy about this IP. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    As fishy as the IP might be, you must admit, it's at least as strong a rationale as "aren't you already an admin?" and "great editor." --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Biblio, as some people need a long winded explanation, let me spell it out. Epbr123 is currently a good editor/contributor regarding creating an informative encyclopedia. He hasn't needed sysop abilities in the past to be a good editor/contributor regarding creating an informative encyclopedia. He doesn't need sysop abilities in the future to be a good editor/contributor regarding creating an informative encyclopedia. Fill in the dots. Negative remarks made in this rfa indicate to me potential to apply sysop abilities to enforce his rigid interpretations of "policy", so perhaps it is better he simply continue as a good editor/contributor regarding creating an informative encyclopedia. Biblio, what on earth is "very fishy" about my IP? I get assigned a new one every day I visit Wikipedia. I have never ever edited any article where Epbr123 was involved, to my knowledge, or had any interaction with him. I read this rfa (I read most of them) and then had a look through many of his contributions. We are all allowed opinions, and mine is that he is currently a good editor/contributor regarding creating an informative encyclopedia but does not need sysop abilities to remain so. .222.153.67.150 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Bibliomaniac15, weren't you just complaining on the talk page about people not assuming good faith? Questioning someone's oppose simply because he's posting it from an IP address -- remember, on Wikipedia, originally everyone posted from an IP address as there were no accounts -- sure strikes me as not assuming good faith. Xihr (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    I know, but I'm not discriminating because they happen to be an IP. I was just interested at what interaction they happened to have with Epbr. Since they haven't and they returned to explain, I'm not going to delve any further. bibliomaniac15 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Per the concerns raised above regarding interactions with other members of the community. TigerShark (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - per concerns outlined above. More time needed for Epbr123 to be able to clearly demonstrate that these concerns have been taken on board. Zaxem (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Ambivalent [changing to support]. I did a thorough editor review for this user in which I was very pleased with their hard work and great progress with civility. I noticed several times where someone was incivil to them and they responded civilly. I came here fully wanting to support. But I was troubled by this. It was in response to a civil note from someone who had a genuine question, and I think it was an overreaction. Actually, I don't think Epbr123 meant it to sound as harsh as it did, but this is something I addressed in the editor review: you have to be careful about how you word stuff so you don't get misinterpreted as being mean. Epbr, there was absolutely no reason to turn this into a hostile thing, all you had to do was explain your reasoning. You had the opportunity to settle this in a perfectly friendly manner and you didn't take it. Stuff like this, and much worse, is going to come up again and again on your talk page when you're an admin. If you don't do well with a fairly polite question like that, how will you deescalate it when someone comes raving about how you deleted their article? The ability to deescalate conflict is an absolute must. It's good that you apologized, but "I'm sorry. Although your comments and edit summaries weren't entirely friendly" falls flat for me: you have to be able to hold yourself to a high standard regardless of what others do, it's a given that sometimes others are going to misbehave. This one event really isn't that bad of a thing in itself, it wasn't uncivil or anything, but is this you on your best behavior? ::There's no question in my mind that you've got the knowledge of the project to be an admin, and you've done terrific work. This is a really tough call for me. Everything else I saw showed you getting on in an exemplary fassion with others. Unfortunately (I guess) there wasn't much other recent potential for conflict to go on (though what there was, you handled fine). Should one very little event like this overshadow everything else? I feel like it's kind of insane not to support based on such a tiny thing, but what if it's a hint of what's to come? Epbr123, if I could hear your thoughts on this, and be convinced that this isn't a sign that this will get worse once you're an admin, I would likely support. delldot talk 13:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I had no ill feeling against the user and just wanted to ensure that in future he asked before reverting edits by established users. I admit my wording should have been gentler, but I will make an effort to be more careful about this in future. Thank you again for your feedback. I do understand if you're unable support. Epbr123 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You say that it is OK to revert newer editors but not 'established' editors - how do you define that? It sounds very elitist and arrogant to suggest that a more experienced editor is 'too good' to be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.99.72 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that an established editor should never be reverted, but if an established user makes an edit that appears odd, it is more likely that it was done for a good reason, than if an IP or new editor had made it. Epbr123 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your civil reply.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.99.72 (talk • contribs)
Thank you Epbr, your response here and to my note on your talk page have convinced me that the civility problems are in the past. I'm switching to support but leaving my comments unstruck to keep it so my thoughts are clear. delldot talk 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Civility concerns. Dlohcierekim 13:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Per Dloh until question is answered. EJF (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Move to support. EJF (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral -- unknown quantity. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, all of this user's incivility is in the past, I think. However, the user's total lack of contrition or remorse for their actions is deeply troubling. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
    As I stated in my answers to questions 3 and 5, I do regret my behaviour in the past. Epbr123 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Why, then, were you unwilling to behave as such in the RfC, which would be the right moment to apologize, regret, retract, etc. (as opposed to being increasingly unwilling to examine your own behavior). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Is there no statute of limitations where conduct is concerned? If the RfC took place five months ago, and editors that had an issue with his conduct then now forward to nominate him, that seems to speak volumes. Please WP:AGF. Regards.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Five months is not a very long time for a fundamental change in one's behavior. And it's more like three months, not five, since Epbr was still racking up adding links to his RfC comments on supposed misbehavior of his critics (behavior which had nothing to do with him or the dispute leading up to his RfC, and which took place long after the RfC was initiated). Furthermore, the RfC dealt with a great deal more than just civility problems, and that seems to be all his nominators claimed to see progress with, so saying he's started being nicer still misses crucial points regarding the problems with his behavior during the RfC. (And, as we've already said, how hard is it to seem civil while engaging in a campaign of nominating a bunch of people for adminship?) Finally, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the nominators weren't even involved in the RfC itself. So far no one who was involved with it, even tangentially, has stepped forward to support his adminship. That, I think, should tell you that there's a lot more to the RfC than many of the support votes seem to be assuming. Xihr (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    No one involved in the RfC nominated him. Please do not lie and then throw AGF in my face. Furthermore, there is no "statute of limitations" on RfCs. He had been commenting on the RfC right up until it closed, and discussion continued periodically on its talk page for some time. If he had reformed, or changed his ways, or spent any time reconsidering his behavior, why not discuss that in the obvious and most appropriate place - at the RfC or its talk page? Note that as the RfC discussion began to die down, some of the most active participation came from Epbr123 as he continued to use the RfC as a launching ground for irrelevant and frivolous complaints/attacks to discredit those who had brought the RfC to the table[5]. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Epbr123 appears to have improved significantly since the days when he had issues with incivility (I remember a couple disputes we were involved in). However, I'm still not entirely willing to support just yet, but I won't oppose. --Coredesat 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Moved from oppose. Shoessss |  Chat  13:03, 28 February 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.