Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epbr123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notifying User:Epbr123

Just to let everyone know, I've notified User:Epbr123 of this RfC. However, he's sought fit to remove it from his talk page minutes after I've posted it. While I do believe it should stay on his talk page, at least until the RfC ends, I don't care to go down that road -- particularly since I don't see anything in the RfC guidelines regarding the user's right (or lack thereof) of removing RfC notification messages from their own user talk page. On the other hand, the user has clearly seen it and knows of its existence, and thus cannot feign ignorance to these proceedings, so I guess the point is more or less moot. Regardless, what it boils down to is that the user has been notified and knows. Any questions, comments, or concerns are more than welcome. So say we all. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You've told him = he's been told. Don't revert his removal of the notification! Epbr123 has a right to remove any posts he chooses from his page. You don't ever want to edit war in somebody else's userspace. And the removal is reckoned to be proof that he's seen it, yes. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, the goal of putting it on his talk page is to notify him, not to act as a badge of shame (which it is) that he can't remove. You've told him, he elected to remove it; so be it. (I did notice his nice rearranging of his barnstars after the fact, though ... :-) Xihr 04:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The guy is pretty much just off his rocker. He wants the articles to meet HIS requirements, and if they don't, they should just be deleted. The Rypcord. 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible WP:CANVASS Issue

The initiator of this RfC sought the participation of at least 11 other editors through messages on their talk pages. The messages appear to be neutral, but judging by the views of the five who have weighed in here so far, it appears that the recipients were handpicked among people who had expressed a negative view of the subject. If so, the audience is partisan and this may have been improper votestacking. I haven't had any contact with the subject, so I'm not taking any position on the underlying RfC. -- But|seriously|folks  04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not a vote; it's not canvassing people who have been commenting to or warning an editor to notify them that the incident has escalated to an RFC, any more than telling people about a WP:ANI discussion or arbcom request would be... RFC is about generating more comments and input and reviews of an incident, user, or article. Certainly all the people already involved are key participants. More uninvolved observers, reviewers, and commentators are helpful, of course. Georgewilliamherbert 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose if someone has no explicit defenders, notification could not be done in a nonpartisan fashion. (I'm not saying that's the case here, just thinking through it.) Also, it doesn't have to be a "vote" for votestacking to apply. (Maybe it should be called !votestacking.) WP:CANVASS refers to an attempt to swing the debate (and apparent consensus) by enlisting people known to be on one side. Is there established precedent on this anywhere? -- But|seriously|folks  04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to list this at WP:AN, the wiki ettiquette noticeboard, notify other users/admins he's worked with in the past, etc. Outside views would be helpful. The different nature of user behavior reviews on Wikipedia makes the interested audience thing a different problem than it is on the "vote" things like RFA or AFD, so Canvassing is somewhat murkier here. Georgewilliamherbert 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The only people I've contacted where those from the WP:WQA page, where people commented on this user's conduct from all sides of the issue. I did not "canvass" from anywhere else, and certainly not the contested AfDs. Last I checked, the point of an RfC is to be noticed and to allow people who have legitimate concerns about the user; everyone I contacted has already expressed opinions regarding the user's conduct. I should also note that the actions of everyone in the RfC, according to WP:RFC "may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors". What I'm looking for here is an external point of view that can look at this as objectively as possible; I also, per guidelines, left a notification on the user's talk page (which was removed not 2 minutes after the fact). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you left a note at WQA, which is great. Did you give notification on the talk page of anybody who defended the subject's conduct (or at least took issue with criticism)? If not, your best bet would be to do just that so it does not appear one-sided. That should solve any problem. -- But|seriously|folks  05:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll go through and double check, but I believe I contacted everyone who commented in Epbr123's WQA, and even those who commented on Epbr's WQA of George William Herbert. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem was that no one was siding with him on the WQA. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, I just re-skimmed, and may have missed something). So given that, I don't see how we could reasonably notify people from each side (aside from the subject of the RfC). I doubt that there's any burden to go digging through someone's past contributions to other articles in an attempt to search for their potential allies. Thoughts? --Bfigura (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the WQA discussion, but I definitely agree with the rest of what you said. -- But|seriously|folks  05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really see anyone defend him on WQA; those that did tended to switch their views, though. There were a few defenders on the recent AfD on the List of big-bust models and performers, however I didn't want to go contacting people in the AfD since that's a powder keg I didn't want to light. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Now I've reviewed part of the WQA discussion, and there were at least three people defending the subject at the top of the discussion, and I know at least two of them were notified when this RfC was started, so I'm satisfied there isn't a problem here. Thanks for helping me work through this issue with you. -- But|seriously|folks  05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thank you for following through with the canvassing concern, since oversight is necessary to ensure that everything is on the up-and-up. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia did defend him, and she was informed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And User:Tony1? Epbr123 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hard to tell; he archives frequently. Feel free to tell him yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rypcord

This user seems to have added himself to the list of people who endorse the outside view. At this point, there is no outside view, and he has also endorsed the basis for the RfC/U. I would guess that this is an error and have notified the user. I assume he will soon fix it, but I'm just letting everybody know what's going on. I expect this matter to be resolved soon enough, with no problems - it seems to be an honest mistake of some sort. --Cheeser1 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an honest goof I would imagine. Xihr 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note

Just wanted to note that I am preparing an 'Outside view' statement which should be up later today. Maralia 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Outside feedback is something we're all looking for. Much obliged. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pmanderson

I slightly object to User:Pmanderson being an outside commentator, but as he hasn't said much damaging against me, I'm not too bothered. Epbr123 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone (literally) is welcome to contribute to RFCs. Nobody is prevented. Everyone who has interacted with you, and any uninvolved third party who wants to review the situation and comment, is welcome. That's how RFCs work. Georgewilliamherbert 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, he's in the "outside view" section though, and one of my discussions with him is being used as evidence against me. But as I said, I'm not too bothered. In response to Pmanderson, I think you misunderstood the mastedon joke and criterion sounds weird. Epbr123 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Pmanderson addressed this when he stated that his comment on the WQA is not at issue here. Indeed, it is not mentioned in the summary of the dispute, except to contextualize an alleged personal attack in a line of discussion in which he was not involved. Your edits in question, and responses to those edits, do not directly involve Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (if I missed something, and Pmanderson was involved in the dispute, then it is my mistake and your objection would clearly have merit). --Cheeser1 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit dodgy - "Pmanderson files a WQA complaint against Epbr123 in an attempt to resolve the AfD and behavioral disputes". Epbr123 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can ask him to join the RFC as a party if you feel it's a problem, or add a comment below his outside view to the effect that you think he does have some sort of conflict of interest. Georgewilliamherbert 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah. I also don't know what Cheeser1, The Rypcord and Xihr are doing in the "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" section (although, in reality I'm the only person who's attempted to resolve the dispute). Epbr123 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"I'm the only person who's attempted to resolve the dispute" is hardly an objective statement, Epbr, and I'd ask that you not make such statements on the talk page of your own RfC/U. It's fairly inappropriate (here or anywhere). It is not up to you to decide who has and has not tried to resolve these disputes. --Cheeser1 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone is entitled to comment, apparently. Epbr123 10:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... the WQA comment isn't any too relevant, Cheeser1. Anyone who wants to comment on this dispute, and who doesn't choose to endorse the "Statement of the dispute," gets to write an Outside view. That's how RFC's work. The conflgt of COI isn't relevant, doesn't have anything to do with it. Writing an "Outside" view is not a question of being somehow "outside" the issues /conflicts discussed, but purely of commenting outside of the "Statement of the dispute" section. Anybody can do it (except indeed the people who have endorsed the top statement.) Epbr123, it's great that you're not "too bothered", about PMAnderson, but you might as well get used to the idea that even Outside views that might bother you are appropriate here. Are requested' by the community. That's what the procedure does: it requests comments. From literally everyone, as Georgewilliamherbert points out. Please don't discourage users from commenting if they want too Bishonen | talk 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for clearing that up for us. Epbr123 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
An excellent explanation, thanks for clearing up/elaborating on things. That clears it up pretty well, I'd say. --Cheeser1 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"you might as well get used to the idea that even Outside views that might bother you are appropriate" - only people in the "Other users who endorse this summary" section would bother me. Epbr123 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, it doesn't matter who bothers you. Everyone is encouraged to comment - that's what a Request For Comment is for. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I thought people who bothered me would be barred. ;) Epbr123 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied by the neutrality of this. User:Maralia seems chummy with User:Georgewilliamherbert, and User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. and User:SlanderPanic‎ are both members of Battlestar Galactica Wiki. I know everyone is entitled to comment, but this needs to be considered when establishing consensus. Epbr123 10:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Try and gather as much support as possible pal, it ain't gonna help, not with how you're acting. The Rypcord. 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no conspiracy of people out to get you. No secret group of "chummy" editors is massing to bring you down. It's an RfC/U with several parties, most of whom probably didn't start coming together on anything until this RfC/U. I for example have had no interaction with any of them up until now, except Pmanderson (and we had a bitter content dispute, no less - a thing of the past, of course, but I'd hardly consider it "chummy"). --Cheeser1 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As KieferSkunk stated, everyone is encouraged to comment, regardless of any potential affiliations with each other. Also, for the record, I don't know SlanderPanic personally and have never talked to him about this RfC at all. So your point is moot. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Georgewilliamherbert and I have interacted on precisely one issue: I fact-tagged a sentence on a random article; he happened to resolve the tag; I thanked him on his talk page and pointed out an unclear word for further clarification. You can read this interaction in its entirety on his talk page, or check the history on the article that prompted it. He is apparently a member of WP:Ships, as am I, but I have never seen a single post by him on the project page (his last edit there appears to have been in November 2006). I assure you we have no 'chummy' relationship, or indeed, relationship of any kind. Maralia 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:Ships is too concentrated on history; my background is Naval Architecture / ship design (though that's not what I do for a living anymore). But yes, as far as I know, there's been no interaction between us outside these Epbr123 things besides that one minor bit over the B43. Georgewilliamherbert 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me put it another way: Epbr, if you continue to fight the process, accuse people of ganging up on you, and ignoring the directions on counter-endorsing views (you've done that to both of the Outside views in this RFC so far), you're likely to have this issue escalated to ArbCom and have action taken against you. I understand your desire and need to defend yourself, but the way you're going about it is less than helpful to your cause. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Just pointing out facts. Epbr123 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By their very nature, the arguments being made against you and your counter-arguments against them cannot be facts - they are opinions, and both sides are certainly entitled to them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fact 1: User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. and User:SlanderPanic‎ are both members of Battlestar Galactica Wiki. Fact 2: User:Maralia seemed to be friendly with User:Georgewilliamherbert. I hope you're not the judge. Epbr123 18:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not a judge. If I were a member of ArbCom, I wouldn't be participating here. But I don't see how Fact 1 is at all relevant to this discussion, and "Fact 2" is your opinion. There is no factual basis for such a comment, and again, it isn't terribly relevant to the discussion anyway. Whether two editors happen to be friends or help each other out elsewhere on Wikipedia has no bearing on their individual opinions about a dispute involving an unrelated editor (yourself, in this case). To make such a statement: (a) assumes or implies bad faith on their part, and (b) attempts to discourage the RFC/U process from continuing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Just hurry up and block me now. Epbr123 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the fact that I'm not an administrator, I am also not going to be baited into responding to that statement in an uncivil manner. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to define 'friendly' as 'having had one instance of crossing paths that was unconfrontational' then, by that token, you and I are also 'friendly'. Maralia 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your two "facts" are highly suspect. That two editors both contribute to the same wiki is about as relevant as the fact that all of us contribute to the same wiki: the English Wikipedia. So what? Your second fact isn't a fact at all. Hint: actual facts don't contain with the phrase seemed to be ... Xihr 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Epbr123 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"You seem to be being difficult deliberately in order to drag this process out instead of changing your ways." Would that hypothetical statement be a fact? Xihr 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was true, it would be. Am I the only one who's noticed this process encourages more conflict and incivility? Epbr123 19:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You're the one accusing people of engaging in conspiracies against you, so you can answer that question better than the rest of us. Xihr 20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See? More conflict. I know occassional fighting helps to keep editting Wikipedia entertaining, but can't we just be friends, Xihr? Epbr123 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I merely pointed out that your "facts" did not seem to actually be relevant facts (as others have), and continued the Socratic dialogue (of which you seem to be fond) to see what you thought of similar questions. I don't see how that constitutes "fighting." You're the one accusing other people of engaging in incivility, not me. The fact that I'm disagreeing with your characterization of other people doesn't mean that we're not "friends," or that I'm "mad," or any other such thing. Xihr 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel the love, Xihr. Epbr123 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

←Okay guys, break it up. All that's happening here is another argument of the type that RFCs like this are intended to help resolve. Time to back yourselves off and refocus the discussion on the RFC's original intent. Getting mad at each other and responding to baiting statements and questions isn't going to help either side here - all it's going to do is add fuel to the fire. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did the cabal accusation come from? This must be a wind-up. Epbr123 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a general term that I'm borrowing from the discussion below to characterize the apparent "You all are teaming up against me" defense I was seeing you use. If need be, I'll change the wording in my Outside View to more explicitly state this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to input that I'm highly amused by the cabal inference. Joe and I are both on Battlestar Wiki, it's true. I also contribute to Uncyclopedia, Teletraan-1, Memory Alpha, and Walkypedia. I'm three or fewer degrees of separation from damn-near everyone on the Internet. While Joe and I are certainly on the same page here, he and I aren't friends any more than Tom is your friend on MySpace. I gave my opinion because I had an opinion to give, not because someone I'm vaguely acquainted with is involved. It's childish and in bad faith to presume otherwise, but such behavior seems to be par for the course with Epbr. --Slander 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-complaints.

I have not participated in an RfC/U before. Is Epbr allowed to file counter-complaints against us in his defense? Where and how are we supposed to defend ourselves? Do we even have such recourse? For example, he claims that this is uncivil. I disagree strongly, and presume that others (Dekkappai included) would agree - it was a simple, straightforward comment about the topic at hand, particularly focused on content. --Cheeser1 16:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users: An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. Maralia 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I do realize that, but my question was not just whether our actions would also be reviewed. Is Epbr allowed to make specific accusations in his response? (Accusing us of bad faith and incivility is not a direct response to any of our claims, nor could it serve as a defense for anyone's behavior, as I see it.) Where, if anywhere, are we supposed to defend ourselves? (He does get to defend himself, and some of his claims are pretty unfair, like the one I mentioned above.) I know our actions are reviewed too, but he's got enough leeway to even make a point-by-point denial of virtually every diff posted in the statement of dispute. Do we have the chance to defend ourselves (perhaps not as meticulously), or must these accusations sit without response? --Cheeser1 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I missed where he called that statement uncivil, but in Epbr123's place, and given his past actions and attitude, I can't say I'm at all surprised that he would attack those who testify against him. I see no point in trying to defend that statement, because I see nothing at all uncivil about it. It came at the end of a long attempt at discussion with Epbr123, and it is the point at which he broke off discussion. This endless, pointless arguing is just part of Epbr's routine. I am preparing a statement for this RfC on his conduct, past and present, which I hope will shed some light on Epbr123's career, and hope to have it ready sometime today. Dekkappai 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He is entitled to do so; it is relatively rare that anyone is much moved by "you're another" and "I was provoked", but it does happen; it happens more often with an admission and apology, of course. It's more persuasive that "You're all a WP:CABAL", anyway. He will be certainly entitled to do so at any future Arbitration. As for answering him, I've seen several ways to do so: some people set up individual subsections in the original statement of complaint; others have had separate reply sections below or on the talkpage. I'm not sure what is most common. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I honestly don't think his accusations have any merit, so I see no reason to personally respond to any of them (although I'd certainly advise anyone who wants to respond to do so - appropriately, of course). --Cheeser1 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If this isn't judged to have merit, this process is a mockery. Epbr123 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a point there; I think the substance of his comment was reasonable, but the way he expressed it was pretty rude.
Btw, why do you still think I know Maralia? He commented above and I believe he stated the facts correctly - I hadn't even recalled the B43 stuff until he checked. I don't know him/her. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that now. Epbr123 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be the one responding to your claims against someone else, would I? Your accusations against me have no merit. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. --Cheeser1 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisited

Epbr has recently been digging through my contributions (and others') to find things to accuse me (and others) of in this RfC. While he's are entitled to see what everyone has contributed, and entitled to mount a defense, I believe it's gone well beyond either, and he's instead done his best to find every conflict or disagreement I've ever had, and lay it all out as if I'm the one whose been found, by the community, to be disruptive. I would ask that he stop doing this to me (or to others - he's got quite a list of random, unrelated, marginally bad things Pmanderson has done). An RfC is not the place for the user-in-question to dig up every single shred of possible dirt you can find on anyone who's participated in the RfC - especially when, in all honesty, virtually none of what he's recently added to his list of accusations (1) has anything to do with the RfCU here and (2) has merited any sort of action or intervention. I was going to take the time to spell out exactly what's going on in each case, but I shouldn't have to. He isn't supposed to be dragging outside conflicts into this RfC in an attempt to discredit or accuse others about unrelated issues. Sufficed to say, my contributions at Talk: Emo (slang) are a part of a long, drawn out, and fairly silly WP:RS dispute. It would be easy to point to four sections (on the same talk page no less) and say I've "assumed bad faith" four times, but you could manipulate any drawn-out dispute into something that looks like someone hasn't assumed good faith. My comments to Precious Roy were part of an etiquette complaint against him, a complaint that he and I have professionally, if not amicably, worked through. I think these contributions reflect Epbr's continued perception of this process as some sort of conflict in which he must attack or discredit others, instead of an opportunity to accept the constructive criticism of the community and improve his editing. He seems to still regard this as a process in which he can help himself by accusing or discrediting others, by digging up unrelated or unimportant things, taking them out of context, and turning them into counter-accusations. This is seriously inappropriate, and I think it needs to stop. Other thoughts? --Cheeser1 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe he's taking things out of context and he's attacking (nearly) everyone who's written things against him... unfortunately for him, it'll more than likely backfire. Let me be blunt when I say let him dig his own wikigrave without interference. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty transparent what he's up to, and strongly suspect that anyone else (ArbCom member or not) viewing this material will see right through it. He's grasping at straws to try to get the mud on him to stick to someone else -- anyone else. I seriously doubt it will work; after all, he's had no defenders show up to this RfC, and it's not because of a cabal as he has repeatedly tried to imply; it's because his behavior is clearly inappropriate and indefensible. He has, after all, not even acknowledged the clear misbehavior that he's engaged in, to the extent of promising to "stop" doing things he denies he's even done. It seems like an ArbCom case is inevitable, whether it's regarding this set of issues or some later set, and all of his POINTy misbehavior, this included, will weigh heavily against him when the time comes. Trying to refute each of his weak counter-claims seems like a waste of time to me. Xihr 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Joe Beaudoin Jr.C). However, as I haven't heavily participated in an RFC/U before: what's the next step? Do we wait for a gradual consensus to go to ArbComm, or ...? Asking out of curiosity, since while I think further steps need to be take, I don't know what those steps are or should be. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He's still sticking in unrelated/irrelevant accusations in order to discredit those who have endorsed this RfC/U. How do we move this process along? I don't want this RfC/U to sit here for weeks while Epbr continues to use it as a repository for unfounded/unrelated/irrelevant accusations (against which we have no opportunity to defend ourselves). --Cheeser1 00:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the case needs to go to ArbCom. Therefore, someone needs to make that happen... My time is extremely limited now, so I don't have the time to read up on how to do that; someone else will have to take the reins from here to get that rolling. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I know it's frustrating, Cheeser1, but I wouldn't pay much attention to it. As I already indicated, I think it's quite transparent what he's up to, and I don't see how any third party, ArbCom or not, viewing the goings-on regarding this RfC and come to any other conclusion that he's grasping at straws ... especially since he's still ticking off as many things as he can. Xihr 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note here asking him to stop, in the most formal, polite tone I can. I have explicitly asked that we not debate the issue - I don't think it would be at all constructive for anyone to engage in an argument with him about whether or not he's allowed to chock the RfC/U full of counter-complaints. I'm doing it basically so that he has had a nice, official, formal request that he stop, making clear the fact that this goes out-of-bounds and is . I've also added it to the complaint here. I'm having less and less free time, so I don't know how much I can do about this stuff in the coming weeks. --Cheeser1 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • You guys come up with a list of things I've done wrong, so I come up with a list of things you've done wrong; that's how RfC works, I'm afraid. Anyway, so what if I've made accusations against you? It's nothing to be worried about; it's not as if anyone's going to get permanently blocked over this. It will do you good to have pointed out things you've done wrong. Epbr123 10:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a request for comment regarding you. Our actions are in question only insofar as they relate to incidents regarding you. You might think this means open season on everybody you seem to have a beef with, but it's not. We have no place to defend, contextualize, or explain our actions. By drawing other conflicts into here, you are able to decontextualize our actions in order to discredit us and our complaint against you, which is the sole subject of this RfC/U. The fact that everyone but you seems to understand this indicates to me that this is a convenient misunderstanding of the RfC/U process that just so happens to allow you to abuse the process to make out-of-place accusations. You say you'd like to "point out things [we]'ve done wrong" but we haven't. You're just making up incidents where you think we've done wrong, but where there is no consensus or administrative presence making such a determination. It's unfair and shows your absolute unwillingness to participate this process in good-faith. I'm truly disappointed. --Cheeser1 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see why you're upset, but I stick to my original statement. Epbr123 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
An additional comment... The content that Epbr123 brings up is, by and large, irrelevant in so far as this RFC/U is concerned. It would be different if the user was bringing up direct counterpoints to the complaints (such as interactions that pertain directly to his AfDs or his conduct on the List of big-bust models and performers), but he's not and is digging back into past events that have no direct correlation to the events mentioned. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, all the points I have raised are very relevant. Most of the points directly relate to the disputed articles, so I'm not going to bother explaining the reasons for those. In defence of the more subtle of my points, the facts that I've been accused of bad faith by someone who appears to frivalously accuse people of bad faith, and that the criticism of my FA reviews has come from an anti-WP:MOS campaigner, is actually relevant. Epbr123 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And events that happened long after the RfC/U was filed. --Cheeser1 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I still stand by my original comments regarding this subject. I think it's really obvious to any third parties viewing his additions that they are either have very little relevance to the claims against him, or clearly have no relevance as they've happened long after. (Several of his examples that I bothered looking at, for instance, I couldn't even discern what he thought was amiss.) After simply pointing this out, which you've done, I don't think anyone -- ArbCom or otherwise -- will be confused about his intention. He's just trying to make himself look less muddy by throwing more mud around. I doubt it will work. Xihr 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. You haven't actually looked at all the examples, yet you claim they have no relevance. Epbr123 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcome

I think the only use for this process is to form an agreement on my future behaviour. The desired outcome section states:

The desired outcome is that User:Epbr123 desist in engaging in personal attacks, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and coached in the proper methods employed by civil, level-headed contributors with regard to conflict resolution and constructively contributing to Wikipedia without disrupting or assaulting fellow editors who do not agree. Failing this, the user should be placed on probation or banned from Wikipedia for a period of time as determined by those commenting on this RfC.

It would also be appropriate for Epbr123 to form a better, more appropriate understanding of when and how to nominate article(s) for deletion, because many of his AfD-related contributions are disruptive and seem to stem from a spiteful or bad-faith attempt to settle disputes that do not require AfDs, or to get articles deleted (as opposed to a more objective goal: deleting articles if they honestly should be deleted). His actions in the future should reflect a better understanding of deletion policy and how to participate in deletion discussions properly (regarding to deletion policy specifically, as well as regarding personal attacks and disruptive editing in general).

  1. I will agree to avoid making personal attacks, and admit to making them in the past.
  2. I will agree to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, however, someone needs to clarify to me what points I have been making in the past.
  3. I don't mind someone coaching me in the proper methods of conflict resolution and constructively contributing to Wikipedia.
  4. I don't mind someone teaching me when and how to nominate article for deletion. I admit I sometimes AfD articles without thoroughly checking on their notability.
  5. I will not make any spiteful or bad-faith AfDs, but I haven't done this before.
  6. I will learn how to participate in deletion discussions properly. I was unaware that there was a rule that nominators aren't allowed to try to change other's minds. Epbr123 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Epbr. This looks like a step in the right direction. I don't have any particular judgement on the original issues in this dispute, but I can say from past experience with other disputes that this will likely open the door for more civil discussion between you and the other editors in the dispute. As necessary, I'll try to help facilitate that discussion so that you all can move on. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in points 2, 5, and 6 he is explicitly stating that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. How can he stop engaging in activities he's not even acknowledging he's done? Since issues about not being disruptive to make a point, not engaging in obvious bad-faith nominations, and his bizarre behavior during the AfD process itself are part of the crux of this RfC -- the content of those three points -- I'm not sure how positive a step this really is. Xihr 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reply to above

Personally, I am happy that you are willing to begin admitting your mistakes. We all make them, but it's even better if we admit them, learn from them, and not repeat them. The last two are the hardest for all of us.

Now, having said that, I have a few words of advise for you. They've made my "wiki" life easier and I hope they can do the same for others.

On point #4, the easiest way to ensure that you don't nominate articles without thoroughly checking on their notability is to bring the subject up on the talk page, or even the project that oversees such an article. (For instance, articles on porn actors fall under WikiProject Porn stars.) I've personally done this before nominating article's for deletion. Remember, the goal of Wikipedia is to collaborate with others to create and enhance articles. Deletion is a last resort... or for nonsense spam articles.

Obviously, if you don't get any response, then at least you can say that you at least tried to make the article better. I should also point out that, back in the day, I would take it upon myself to do research for the article. Not only does this prepare you better for any arguments on AfD, but it may also improve the article so that it never faces the process.

On point #5, bad-faith comes in various forms. Initially, it may come from good faith (or something looking like good faith), making the axiom "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" quite true.

To better explain my comment in layman's terms, one form of bad faith comes from forcing your POV on others, instead of simply presenting your views and letting the people decide for themselves. In your overzealous attempt to change people's minds, such as your comments and exercise in Socratic method (I'm glad someone found that article, because I thought the methodical questioning looked familiar), you actually made them more resistant to your point of view. By hounding every "keep" vote or motion to dismiss the AfD, you we're seen as peddling your own POV and you became, in essence, John Quixote knocking over windmills. Instead of allowing others to judge the worthiness of the article on its merits, or lack thereof, it became about "Epbr123's AfD" instead of "the Afd on List of big-bust models and performers". (And this part happened before you ever nominated the article, unfortunately, per your edits before and during said AfD. The mess just showed itself publicly via the AfD.)

Simply put, say what you say then get out.

Be terse. Be succinct. Make your points salient. No need to belabor the point, no need to reiterate it. You're not talking to someone on the phone here who may forget what you said less than 30 seconds ago. Your words are, for better or for worse, in print. People can read them -- or not read them -- as they so choose.

Now this isn't to say that you shouldn't ask questions, but too much questioning becomes nettlesome and, yes, even pedantic. Also, if you're going to ask questions to clarify people's votes, you should also ask the people who voted delete as well. You never know, you might very well learn something. There are even times where delete voters aren't on the same wavelength -- it's really interesting to boot, and it may even change your mind in the process in ways you never thought of. Basically, you need to be comfortable enough in letting your views stand on their own merit with your smothering them, not to mention being humble enough to admit defeat and move on. Nothing here is worth the melodrama.

Also, just remember... If enough people do make the same point, it's more likely that they may be on to something, even if you don't see it initially. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally concur with this, and moreso with Xihr's point above about a lack of admission of any wrongdoing. I don't see how a constructive resolution to this process is "I will learn how to participate in deletion discussions properly. I was unaware that there was a rule that nominators aren't allowed to try to change other's minds." I may be reading it wrong, but that sounds like sarcasm to me. "Change other's [sic] minds"? His "replies" were not mind-changing; they were basically "This is a bad faith keep, please ignore it" or "Administrators please ignore this ILIKEIT vote." That's not trying to change minds, those are frivolous and false accusations levied against people who disagree with him. I could elaborate on each point, but I won't. I don't think this can be settled with "I won't break the rules again (and I never have)." By that measure, he could essentially go out and do the same thing all over again. --Cheeser1 01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
At best, this RfC would probably result in Epbr123 being observed and coached -- both are things that must be done in my view, since he hasn't admitted to comprehending any wrong-doing.
Also, I should note that earlier today, the user blanked his user page (leaving the edit summary of "left") then reverted himself not six hours later. A part of me was honestly hoping that he would take a wikibreak to reflect on his actions. Perhaps he may still do so. Regardless, the issues at hand still need to be definitively addressed by a third party -- and I do feel that this may very well go to ArbCom. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It might also show a better comprehension of the Wikipedia ethic if he removed the "I got all these articles deleted" brag section from his user page. It's like cutting tallymarks on his gun for each man a gunfighter killed. --Orange Mike 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How about if I just promise to never make counter-arguments on AfDs? Epbr123 15:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that sidesteps the problem. The problem isn't that you made counter-!votes (after all, in some cases that makes sense, and might be a good thing). It's more the nature and tone of your contributions in AfD's. Fixing that is more important than having you follow an arbitrary constrain I think. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this reflects a fundamental problem here - there doesn't have to be some absolute rule. The fact that "never comment" plays it safe and never gets you in trouble doesn't mean you aren't appropriately allowed to contribute to AfDs. The fact that drawing the line is either subjective or hard for you to determine doesn't mean you have to just not do it. This is exactly the same reasoning that led you to AfD that porn article/list - just because you can't come up with a totally objective way to do it besides "delete" doesn't mean deletion is the answer. Sometimes inclusion criteria are hard to pin down. The point is still to contribute to the list constructively. --Cheeser1 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dekkappai's statement

Moved to main page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123#Outside view by Dekkappai per permission, and hope I correctly interpreted 2 of the responses as endorsements. If that was not correct, please move the responses back; but I'm pretty sure the statement itself deserves to be on the main page of the RFC. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if those were endorsements or anything of the sort - I'm going to endorse it myself, but I am going to remove Epbr's response. Responses to others' views should stay confined to the talk page, and it's already there. He can't have any comment on Dekkappai's statement, even if it was originally on the talk page (except as it exists still, on the talk page). That's why I've included it all below, again. --Cheeser1 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

Well, obviously I haven't been around to see most of this, but I'm beginning to get a wider picture. Which is why this RfC was sorely needed, in my view. This is a complex issue that spans the past 5 months or so. I'll admit, I've lost a lot of faith in Epbr123 as an editor just from my brief interaction with him, the comments he's made about my person, and his recent insinuations about the whole cabal thing -- but at the same time I feel I can look upon some other facets of this issue as well.
My view is that he's using the old "letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law" method, although I'm admittedly not wholly convinced this is maliciously deliberate. He seems to have a rote understanding of guidelines and procedures of Wikipedia; whether his understanding is deliberately slanted is something that needs to be addressed by the higher powers, so to speak. I'll admit, he takes a very "black and white" approach when he wants it to be, as evidenced by his behavior, actions and language towards other editors. With him, there doesn't seem to be a middle ground at all -- the very fertile ground where Wikipedia thrives. Basically, the issue is that "the ends must justify the means"; his means haven't justified the ends, at least not recently.
My recommendation is that he solely focus on what he's strongest in. This seems to be the whole FA/GA arena. He should really stay clear of AfD and prodding articles, since he's proven that he can't handle those who don't share his thoughts on AfD. (AfD is already a volatile process as it is and it needs level headed people who can divorce themselves from emotion, at least as much as humanly possible.) I would like to see Epbr123 contribute to Wikipedia, because he can do great work. However, he needs coaching, and he needs to understand that Wikipedia is a collaboration of minds and that ego should be left at the door. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that my AfDing of porn star articles is damaging to Wikipedia. It damages Wikipedia's reputation to be littered with unsourced articles on non-notable people. If you look at [1] you will notice that my AfDs have been supported by members of WikiProject Pornography, and the vast majority of AfDs which ended in a "keep" were made by other people, despite most of the AfDs in total being made by myself. The differences between Dekkapai and myself arise because he is a inclusionist while I am a deletion; it could be argued that Dekkapai's AfD arguments, such as this are damaging Wikipedia. If Dekkapai has a problem with WP:PORNBIO, he should lobby for it to be changed rather than insist it should be ignored. My AfDing started around the same time as one of my articles was AfDed merely because I was unaware of AfD before then. This AfD demonstrates why it is necessary to make counter-arguments to people who disagree with you; User:Kaaveh Ahangar copied User:Trojanian argument believing that it was valid as no-one had challenged it. I believe he wouldn't have made the vote if I had have challenged Trojanian's comment. This AfD shows it is sometimes necessary to counter-argue in order to clarify your position (also note The Rypcord's frivolous vote). It is important that an article shouldn't pass its first AfD due to !voters being unaware of guidelines or from misunderstanding the nominator, because subsequent AfDs will be tainted by people who think the article should be kept just because it passed its previous AfD. Counter-arguing was especially necessary in the big-bust AfD as few people would have read the whole debate, due to it's length, and may not have understood my side of the argument. Also, creating stubs is not a bad thing; some of them are already being groomed by other people into decent articles. Epbr123 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It is very well established that you don't see that your AfDing is more disruptive than it is helpful, so I'm not going to belabor that point. That decision now lies with the higher powers. Secondly, you comments belie your failure to realize that AfD is not a vote; all votes are weighted due to their substance not by their number. Third, your comments in this AfDs are atrocious -- and the links given above don't actually help your case, sir. Responses like "Nah" and "I just knew someone would copy Trojanian's comment if I didn't rebut it straight away." (when there is absolutely no definitive empirical evidence on the user copying another user's argument) are unhelpful and downright condescending. Again, apparently you are not getting the fact that it's not what you do, it's how' you go about doing it.
As corollary to that point, it's also not what you say, it's how you say it. Frankly, your tact needs work if you are ever going to continue to contribute on Wikipedia. This is something I do not say that lightly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I pretty much concur here. (Not entirely, as Epbr123 has made good contributions in the FA/GA area, and I'm sure he's doing good work there, and will continue to do so Perhaps I spoke too soon, see Dekkappai's comments below). But Epbr123 strongly needs to re-examine his AfD behavior before continuing on there. At this point, his(her?) actions are starting to seem like a willful refusal to get the point. --Bfigura (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. The user is definitely best in the FA/GA arena. I'd have no objection to the user staying there -- not every editor is suited for debating on AfD, no more than every editor is suited for FA/GA work. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please, no. (At least not FA; the faster he breaks GA the better.) His edit I discussed is not alone; he spends his whole time on FA quibbling over dashes, as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that Epbr123 participates at the GA FA discussions, but haven't looked into what he's actually doing there. However, PMAnderson's experiences with Epbr seem to be consistent with those I've had, if at least a little less disruptive. I've only participated in one FA discussion so far, so I don't know what the norm is there, but I would think it would be more appropriate to just fix the dashes, make a passing comment like, "I had some very minor punctuation concerns, which I have fixed..." and then make some effort to discuss the actual article. I have been a witness to the disruptive actions and behavior of Epbr in my own area of editing. As, I assume, an editor with experience in the GA/FA area, I take PMAnderson's concerns with Epbr123's actions there to be worth full consideration.
Also, I have no intention of being side-tracked into a personal or off-the-point argument with the subject of this RfC, but I must say that I find his mischaracterization of our differences at those between inclusionism and deletionism to be stupendifyingly ironic. His edit history shows that between August 13 and August 21 alone, Epbr created probably over 1,000 1-sentence stubs. Since making my first edit at Wikipedia in January of 2006, I have created 26 articles in the area of Japanese erotic cinema, and 6 (and a template) in Russian opera. (In the interest of full-disclosure, I also started this stub on an amazing Kinji Fukasaku anti-war movie, which I could not believe did not yet have an article started.) So who is the "inclusionist" and who is the "deletionist"?
The insinuations of "inclusionism" seem to stem from the fact that, when encountering a less-than-perfect article, I'd rather have it improved, if possible, than deleted. When I noticed that the Category:Japanese porn stars was full of unsourced, stubby articles, I spent a year improving those articles. However, for articles for which I could not find adequate sourcing or notability, I voted to delete.
In starting articles, my policy is usually to find a subject that appears to be interesting, gather sources, and if it looks like there's enough material for an interesting article, I put it together and submit it. I don't use fine points in WP:N policies to start up huge number of stubs. In fact, blasphemous as this may be to some, I generally don't give WP:N much thought at all during the planning, writing, or polishing of an article. I'm just out to write an interesting article on an interesting subject. Given this huge area of stubbery (all perfectly condoned by WP:N, of course) created by Epbr, I have a hard time believing he spent much thought on any one of them. But do I think it should all deleted? Though I do believe he should submit articles individually, after he's done some actual work on them, here's the crucial point where Epbr123 and I differ: I don't think it's a good idea to delete other people's work when it can be left in place and improved and expanded by the creator or other editors.
One last point: There seems to be a feeling starting up that Epbr123 is basically a good editor who can be a little picky and gruff at times. I don't think this is the case. I think he has shown signs that he could be a good editor if he chose to be so. But I think that instead he is quite disruptive, and continues to be so both in action and in attitude, in spite of a slight toning down in his responses within the last few hours. He is not picky when it comes to spinning out hundreds of one-sentence stubs. He is only picky when it comes to applying the rules literalistically to remove other people's work. Dekkappai 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I find Dekkappai's argument that this is all an elaborate exercise in WP:POINT interesting and plausible; I haven't endorsed it, because I'm not sure. The other possibility is that he just doesn't get that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that he has found some Roolz and is enforcing them without common sense or a sense of proportion. It really doesn't matter which, except possibly to ArbCom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
True, many of the conclusions I draw from Epbr's statements and actions are just my attempts to make sense of the situation. My interpretations are only my speculations based on the editor's history. But, obviously the huge amount of bad will the editor has inspired in many other editors is not speculation. Dekkappai 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article/Good Article work

Since the major point being brought up in his defence is his work on Good and Featured articles, I would be interested in hearing more from editors involved with Epbr123 in this aspect of his career. Perhaps you know of some, Pmanderson? I have invited User:Malleus Fatuarum since this editor seems to have had interactions with Epbr123 in this area. Dekkappai 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the discussion to which Malleus links fascinating. The three FACs for Sale, Greater Manchester were, first, dismissed on the grounds of "criticisms I've already typed on other articles". The second failed largely on minor and disputable grammatical points, and in the middle of this, Epbr had the nasty discussion to which Malleus links, claiming to be an expert on FA. The third was precipitate, and was dismissed by Yomangani on various grounds, which are at least substantive. (I'm not very impressed by most of them, however.) It looks like Epbr123, being ambitious for gold stars, went along with the bullies and has adopted their methods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
"It looks like Epbr123, being ambitious for gold stars, went along with the bullies and has adopted their methods." That would be a fair summary of my impression too. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have had one FA interaction with Epbr123 at FAC. Now we a had a disagreement over the use of a single word, but the bigger issue I had was their refusal to go back and cross out those items addressed (that was even requested) as well as other editor’s requests, or at least note that those items had not been addressed to their satisfaction to leave the one item disputed. That comes across in poor taste since it comes from an experienced FA reviewer who knows the standard review procedures (yes I am aware the cross out is optional, but Epbr123 has done it before). Then I started reading through the comments at FAC and determined I did not want anything to do with FA ever again, partly do to poor comments such as this by Epbr123. Gloating is uncalled for, and I was not even involved in the discussion.
Then, on a side note, I also find it in poor taste to have an “articles I’ve deleted” section on one’s user page. I know we have wide latitude in what we can put on our pages and I have a collection of articles I’ve started, but we encourage article creation through items such as DYK and WP:BTW, and the important fact that on the main page there is a counter of how many articles Wikipedia now has. We encourage creation, not deletion. AFD is supposed to be a last resort, and someone collecting trophies of this type reeks of poor taste. It would be akin to someone collect the names of users they’ve put up for RFC. I’ve nominated a dozen or so articles for AFD with most deleted. But I see it as housekeeping, not some sort of hunt to be proud of. I hate deleting things, but it is for the greater good. Kind of like euthanizing stray cats/dogs, I’m sure the vets don’t take pride in killing off the animals and editors should not take pride in killing off other editor’s work. Aboutmovies 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Aboutmovies. I've reviewed the links you've provided, in addition to further comments made by the user on those pages. I'm now convinced that there's a larger issue here regarding the user's behavior and that ArbCom will likely need to get involved. And here I was hoping that he would actually be good at FA... Sadly, I was incorrect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass stub creation

Just a note: Epbr123's habit of creating thousands of one-sentence stubs which are safe from deletion on a notability technicality has been brought into question here. Note once again, this is a subject area in which he has repeatedly mass-AfD'ed, and now he creates and defends the mass-creation of basically useless one-sentence stubs in that same area... Dekkappai 22:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, I don't mind stubs. Frankly, I think the deletionists get gun-happy when they see stubs. If it falls in the notability guidelines, then fine, if not then get rid of it. I really don't see the big issue here... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much my opinion on stubs too. It's just that when taken with the mass-AfDing, causing others to think twice or thrice about starting up an article, mass one-sentence stub-creation by this same self-proclaimed deletionist seems a bit questionable at best. Dekkappai 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You find deleting articles on non-notable people, and starting articles on notable people questionable? I find that rather questionable, to be honest. Epbr123 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When you intentionally re-link to avoid a quote like "By the way, about Epbr123, I do think he has the makings of a good and valuable editor. His enthusiasm for the project is very admirable, and his hard work, when useful, is very much appreciated. Let's just hope that the RfC puts him on the right track to learning how to work better within the Wiki community. Epbr, wherever you are, chin up! We're all hoping for the best! Cheers!" (as you did here) to re-direct a tongue-in-cheek quote which you attempt to use as a highly, highly iffy instance of incivility... it becomes obvious that any attempt at rational discussion with you is pointless, since anything I say will be twisted as evidence of "Incivility." I'll repeat it. I think you do have the makings of a valuable editor, and I hope something-- maybe this RfC-- will get you to work more constructively within the Wikipedia community. Dekkappai 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It does seem very peculiar to me, as well. It is also strange that he seems to assert that an article qualifying as a stub somehow should have some special protection from the normal AfD process, especially in light of the fact that he has created so many stubs and AfD'd so many other articles. I mean, what else is a stub other than an article that is "very short with no context"? Xihr 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"What else is a stub other than an article that is "very short with no context"" - you don't seem to have understood the debate. An article with no context doesn't count as a stub as it's unencyclopedic and should rightly be deleted. The question is, did the article I made have context? In my opinion, it does; this would be an article without context: "Michael Zen makes things with nude people in and gets rewards for it". Whereas, what I wrote, explains clearly what he does and why he's notable. Epbr123 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty words

Epbr123's stated intentions to cut down on his incivility seem to be worth very little.

He endorsed my summary of his behaviour here, but today posted this.

If I could rewrite my statement I would also say that I have now seen quite enough evidence to convince me that Epbr123 is deliberately attempting to disrupt the FA process. So as far as his good work in GA/FA is concerned, that seems to be in the past. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your words towards him ("rude, arrogant, intimidating") have been somewhat harsher than his towards you ("not particularly known for his people skills"). I would consider moving from the former to the latter to be a step forward at least. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget that rude is as rude does. I'm not saying it's not a harsher judgment, but MF is not up for an RfC/U, so harsher words may not be as appropriate to describe him/her. --Cheeser1 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't see anywhere in either Wikipedia:Civility or WP:RFC/U where it says a person up for Requests for comments can be treated any less civilly because of it, outside the RFC itself. Perhaps I missed it - could you point it out? If not, I would have to conclude that an RFC is not a Scarlet Letter, and should not be used as if it were. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said that. But if Epbr is rude, then Epbr is rude. I don't see how that relates. Is the "people skills" comment a pretty low-grade insult? Sure. It wouldn't matter much to me. But the fact that MF has called Epbr rude or intimidating is immaterial, because we have some pretty good evidence that Epbr is rude and intimidating (his actions speak for themselves, this is no comment on his character). --Cheeser1 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to give my opinion of Epbr123's behaviour in this RfC, which I did. In my statement I gave it as my opinion that he was "rude, arrogant, intimidating". That was not an incivility, because I was not addressing him; I was simply stating my opinion, an opinion which Epbr123 himself endorsed – a fact that curiously seems to have escaped the notice of AnonEMouse. Let's also be clear about something else. I have not, as Epbr123 has clearly done, posted on the talk pages of other editors giving any opinion of him whatosoever. Epbr123's opinion of me is very little interest. My objection is to his apparent campaign to spread his dislike in the way that he has begun to do. And to do that in the context of an ongoing RfC really does seem to be taking the piss IMO. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the consequences of Epbr123's campaign is that I have now received this, telling me that I "have a reputation for not being very nice". Again, sticks and stones don't break my bones, but at least where I live harassment is a criminal offence, and I really would prefer that it stopped before it gets out of hand. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between upsetting people by nominating their articles for deletion, and upsetting people who are coming up with ideas to improve Wikipedia. I'm also not happy with your knack of upsetting less experienced editors, such as those at Didsbury and Rugby, and then accusing them of WP:OWN. I'm not saying these things to be nasty, as I have also said quite a few nice things about you, but I do think you should consider the feelings of well-meaning users more. Epbr123 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When Epbr recently FA reviewed an article in which Malleus and I were both involved, I distanced myself and did not reengage until Epbr's concerns had been addressed and he had supported the article for FA. I note that Malleus did the same. When a later FA reviewer performed a string of largely terrible edits that resulted in a heated argument on the guy's talk page, Epbr not very coincidentally popped in and issued him a Reviewer's Award, later adding the comment that much of the criticism was undeserved, despite the fact that at least a handful of other people had in the meantime posted complaints on the reviewer's talk page. Epbr seems to be going out of his way to deliberately fan any flames he can find that might cause trouble for Malleus. Maralia 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've put a slightly biased slant on things there. The user in question is User talk:Leranedo and when I said some of the criticism he recieved was undeserved, I made no reference at all to the criticism from you and Malleus. There were many others who had also criticised him; I was just trying to stick up for someone who I felt was being slightly bullied. Regarding Leranedo "terrible edits", even Tony1 agreed they were an improvement. Epbr123 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oh dear... I think by now we all know that Epbr123 can be quite irritating, and sometimes it takes quite an effort to bite one's tongue and not take the bait. But in the end, that's probably the best course of action, and hopefully more Sturm und Drang can be avoided... My real purpose in inviting your comment, Malleus, was for comment on particular FA/GA articles Epbr123 has worked on. His user page gives (besides the notorious trophy wall of severed heads) a list of "Significant contributions" to FA & GA articles. Waaaay back when this RfC started, these FA/GA articles were being used as arguments in the editor's defense. At the time, I took a quick look at the edit histories of some of the articles, and didn't really see any "significant contributions" from Epbr123. Only adjustments in hyphens, commas, colons and the like, and these very minor contributions were usually done with his trademark sledgehammer touch... I saw that you seemed to have made major contributions at these articles, so dropped you a note. In all fairness, I have to admit that I do believe Epbr123 does some good work. But I remain convinced that his overly-literal application of very changeable and amorphous Wiki-rules, as well as his civility problems, can, and do, cause more disruption than is necessary. Dekkappai 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I find dismissing my FA work as making adjustments to hyphens, commas and colons, extremely incivil. Epbr123 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Now watch me ignore the bait. Dekkappai 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding my "overly-literal application of very changeable and amorphous Wiki-rules", rules are decided by consensus among the Wikipedia community; if you don't like the rules, you should try to change them, rather than attacking the people carrying them out. I know you don't like non-notable porn articles being deleted, but you'll have to learn to accept it, as that's what the community wants. Epbr123 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ball 2. Xihr 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is to be done?

I see this discussion has continued. The question at hand is what to do. I am not involved with the principal complaints here, so it's not my decision, but there are three choices I can see:

  1. Accept whatever improvement there has been in Epbr123's behaviour;
  2. Give him up as a lost cause, and learn to live with him;
  3. Go to ArbCom at WP:RfAr.

Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe that he has now become disruptive, and I have seen no evidence of any improvement in his behaviour. Quite the reverse in fact, as seen in his encouragement of Leranedo's recent disruption of the FAC. It is surely now time to escalate this to WP:RfAr. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't see how this is encouraging User:Leranedo's controversial behaviour. I think it's better to try to rehabilitate users rather than blocking them; I believe that his behaviour is down to inexperience and that he will soon be a very useful contributor. Epbr123 13:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur that this needs to be escalated to an RfAr. I also find it extremely disturbing that he has accepted a nomination for adminship. --Cheeser1 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From where I sit, he has improved a lot in the last few months. I don't see any of the huge swathes of Afd nominations. He still nominates some articles, but one at a time, they are good nominations, well researched, and meet with almost universal support, and little criticism. That's a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. In one, for example, he went to the effort of finding and adding a freely licensed picture, before finally realizing there were no unassociated references, and nominating it for Afd. That's impressive effort. You will notice that the person who wanted to nominated him for adminship was someone whom he had opposed in their RfA. That's impressive ... impression on others. How uncivil can he be if someone he opposed nominated him for adminship? You will notice that he now has 8 featured articles under his belt, several added while this RfC is going on. That's impressive dedidation; everyone know how tough it is to write FAs in general, how tough is it when under an RfC microscope? I know there is some dispute of his FA works is adjusting commas, but I can show it is more than that; I haven't looked at them all, but at least on Herne Bay, Kent, the real work is also very much his - compare the status of the article now, with the way it looked before Epbr123's first edit. The revision history between those points is overwhelmingly Epbr123 edits, and they include both style and real substance. This is a valuable editor we have here.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't claim to have done an exhaustive review, but from the brief look I took, I think I'd agree with AnonEMouse. I'd also add that Epbr123 took AnonEMouse's wise suggestion to wait on an RfA. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify-- I didn't say his FA work was just adjusting commas. During my review for preparing my statement here, I did a quick glance through some of the articles, and that's all I saw at the time. That's why I asked for input from editors who may have had more knowledge of Epbr123's FA work. I agree he does some good work. I agree, from my perspective, that he's improved. (Though, to be fair, I really haven't seen him around in my editing area lately, and don't know what he's up to.) I still maintain that he can be needlessly disruptive. Dekkappai 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
What have I done that's disruptive? Epbr123 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you miss the RfC/U that's going on, uh, right here? --Cheeser1 01:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the bad faith assumptions that have been made, but which of them have been proven? There is no proof that I have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, or have made bad-faith AfDs. I've admitted being incivil, but I was only incivil to those who were incivil first. I know that's not a good excuse, but it shows I'm not the only one who's done wrong. At least I've admitted what I have done wrong, unlike the people I've made allegations against. Epbr123 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What proof do you possibly expect? Scientific figures? Mathematical rigor? Some sort of salesman to come and convince you that the dozen or so people who object you your disruptive behavior might maybe sort of have a point, something you should at least try to take to heart, because it would make you a better Wikipedian? --Cheeser1 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What disruptive behaviour? Upsetting porn and Usenet fans who don't like their non-notable articles deleted? Epbr123 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* This is not the place for you to pretend like nothing happened. There's an entire page, attached to this one, detailing the problems in your editing. Read it or don't, I'm not going to set you up to take pot-shots like that at people, if that's going to be your only response. --Cheeser1 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That is going to be my only response as it's the truth, as you well know. Epbr123 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The last place you should be so hostile is your own RfC/U. --Cheeser1 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not being hostile, just pointing out what this RfC is really about. Epbr123 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that much of anything would or could happen here if it goes to ArbCom. After all, what is the absolute most extreme punishment he could get? Banned for a day or two? A slap on the wrist? Given his earlier response above, where he wouldn't even acknowledge any wrongdoing, I don't see much of anything changing even if he gets a formal finger wagged in his face. We've expended what, 10,000 words and about two months on this already, what's the likely end result except more expenditure of energy? Xihr 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to share in the hopelessnes of this RfC...As if the previous wasn't enough, Epbr123's recent acceptance of nomination for Adminship seems clear evidence that he sees no wrong in his actions or attitude. I find it truly distressing that the nomination wasn't seen as outrageously absurd as I see it to be, and that he only retracted his acceptance when it was pointed out to him that he's created too many enemies to pass nomination... If someone so clearly unfit to have any kind of authority here is seriously considered Admin material... Well, that says a lot, and none of it good... Dekkappai 21:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Dekkappai, Wikipedia's been on the downhill slide for a while now (although a part of me says that this was always the case, but I try to be optimistic, really, I do), so it wouldn't surprise me if a flurry of incompetent candidates made their way into the fold. Epbr123 may be a decent editor with some talent, but he is by no means leadership material; it's one thing to be a contributor, it's another to be an administrator. Frankly, the only thing I see ArbCom doing is slapping Epbr123 with a short-term block at best, which is one of the reasons why I haven't been vigorously pursuing this. That and the fact that I have neither the stomach nor the time for protracted bullshit-osity. Frankly, with all the shit that's hit the fan in regard to Wikipedia (e.g. Essjay scandal), I just really don't see the point in bothering contributing here any more.
Moreover, both the RfC and ArbCom processes have the inherent belief that a user can be reasonably rehabilitated; some users can't, and I simply think that Epbr falls in that category, and his dealing with the the recent admin nomination only reaffirms that. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. If Epbr continues to insist that he's the model editor and that a bunch of people (none of whom, as far as I can tell, have much of anything to do with each other outside of here) must be in some crazy conspiracy to frame him; well, in that case, I think there's nothing we can do. The fact that he thinks his FA work is good (and yes, some of it certainly seems to be) seems to allow him some leeway to construe all of his actions as automatically productive, appropriate, and unquestionable. To him, the AfD issues are just whiney people complaining about him trying to do his Wikipedia good works, and now he thinks he's being crucified (albeit ineffectively) for it. What can we do? Nothing. What can those up the ladder do? I don't know what they can do or what they will do, and I don't have the time to trudge through a formal process - certainly not without knowing if it'll help at all. I was hoping this RfC/U would be an opportunity to boldly and respectably admit wrong, move on like a mature person, and no one would think any less of him or his positive contributions. But that's just not happening, and it's sorely disappointing. --Cheeser1 05:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what's been said here in followup to my original comment, but User:Cheeser1 makes a good side point that I think warrants emphasizing. Of all the users I've seen involved in this RfC, the only name I consciously recognize -- other than User:Epbr123, of course -- is User:Dekkappai, and that's because we were involved in a minor dispute over the appropriateness of a link, before Epbr came along and started defacing the page (which then, after he was clearly losing the argument, escalated to him calling an AfD out of clearly bad faith). In other words, the only person I specifically recognized other than the primary target of this AfD is someone I had a disagreement with in the past. To be clear, I do not mean to suggest that I have not under other circumstances interacted with other users who have contributed to this RfC -- and, in fact, I hadn't realized how much I'd interacted with Epbr himself before this RfC took place and I went back and reviewed past AfDs, link reversions, etc. But I don't "know" basically anyone involved here -- including Epbr himself -- in any significant way, nor had I remember interacting with them before. To put it another way, the people I've agreed with in this RfC have been almost entirely people I don't remember encountering before, if I ever have, with one exception, and that's someone I previously disagreed with. I can't speak for others, and I can't prove that it's undeniably true (since that would be impossible), but I get the impression that the various people weighing in against Epbr's behavior for the most part do not know each other, or at least not well. It's certainly true in my experience, and even if I'm the only one, I think that's rather telling about the tenor of this issue so far, especially given the cabalist claims by Epbr in the past. Xihr 07:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said there was a cabal. I just noted that the thing Cheeser1, Dekkappai and yourself have in common is that you try to prevent the deletion of porn and Usenet articles, regardless of the notability of the subject,
and that possibly you are all trying to slow down my AfD activities, by branding them as destructive disruptive. I'm not sure of Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s motivation behind this, but from this and his harsh comments above, it certainly seems I've upset him somehow. I wish he would try to communicate with me more; I'm sure he must be a reasonable guy really, if he's an admin. Epbr123 11:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The examples of mine you've given show nothing other than you raising an AfD and me objecting. Objecting to your numerous (nearly countless) AfDs is not disruptive, it's part of the process. You are not the king of AfDs; if you call for an article to be deleted, you do not somehow automatically get to have your way. (You also don't bother mentioning the numerous times that I have voted delete on AfDs for porn figures, or in particular, Usenet figures, which has happened routinely.) What we did object to was the circumstances under which you raised some AfDs, e.g., in the flagship case mentioned in this RfC -- namely, when you started defacing an article, were losing the argument, and then brought the page up for AfD. There is no question that this behavior is disruptive, to use the word you've chosen correctly. Xihr 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting backpedaling you're trying to do here. Because you did say that a cabal existed. Just not in so few words. To refresh your memory, you tried to connect people together because they were "chummy" or were part of the same website. As for my "motivations", I think I've made it quite clear that I view your behaviors in editing the List of big-bust models and performers, inciting an edit war, and the resultant AFD as unnecessarily and deliberately disruptive. The fact that you are still trying to dig up dirt and tie it all together as some sort of plot against you by a cabal tells me that you're looking to a) discredit everyone's comments against you based on behaviors that have little bearing on the situation and b) bring down everyone else around you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Which of my edits to List of big-bust models and performers did you disagree with? In my opinion, the AFD was necessary, as the article is still original research 2 months after the AfD. Epbr123 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect sir, I've answered this question before, and I honestly don't see the point in going over a well-worn and well-known road in an extensive litany of detail. It's all there, and if you willingly choose not to recognize that you've done wrong, then there's no point in even discussing it further with you. I'm sorry I have to say that, but it's the truth. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I honestly can't see the problem with me removing obviously non big-bust models from the list. I can see a problem with someone reverting my edits for no reason and breaking the 3RR. Epbr123 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Because you were doing it against consensus, something which shouldn't be hard to understand given that no one involved agreed with your actions. You don't own the article; if you take actions against consensus, then your actions will not be appreciated. Your subsequent attempts to AfD the article while you were still involved in a content dispute -- clearly indicating a bad faith nomination -- didn't help your case. Xihr 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"Disruptive" and "destructive" are two different words. --Cheeser1 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Error fixed. I suppose deleting things is destructive. Epbr123 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This has never been about "deleting things" but how you go about deleting things. If you don't even realize that yet, then I have no idea what could ever be done to get through to you. --Cheeser1 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
How should I have went about deleting things differently? Epbr123 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I wonder where you could find such suggestions in an ongoing RfC/U. --Cheeser1 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
(left)"It would also be appropriate for Epbr123 to form a better, more appropriate understanding of when and how to nominate article(s) for deletion, because many of his AfD-related contributions are disruptive and seem to stem from a spiteful or bad-faith attempt to settle disputes that do not require AfDs, or to get articles deleted (as opposed to a more objective goal: deleting articles if they honestly should be deleted). His actions in the future should reflect a better understanding of deletion policy and how to participate in deletion discussions properly (regarding to deletion policy specifically, as well as regarding personal attacks and disruptive editing in general)". - The part about my AfDs being spiteful or bad-faith attempts to settle disputes is just your POV and is unproven. I think I have a good understanding of deletion policy. I admit I have made personal attacks against people I perceive to be incivil or disruptive. Do you want me to lie and agree with all those points? Epbr123 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I admit I have made personal attacks against people I perceive to be incivil or disruptive. That's an interesting way of saying that you've taken the RfC/U as a chance to sling accusations at virtually everyone who asked you to behave appropriately (regarding the AfDs). If you think you understand deletion policy and the AfD process, then why are a dozen editors, who don't have much else in common, agreeing that you were disruptive to the point that you have an RfC/U outstanding? Oh right, because we love big bust porn stars and Usenet. --Cheeser1 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"you've taken the RfC/U as a chance to sling accusations at virtually everyone" - just those who have done wrong. Civility aside, what was wrong with my AfD nominations? Epbr123 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you write this on the talk page of the RfC that is currently open against you where this subject is discussed extensively. Why not, you know, actually read it and consider what has been said? Pretending that you aren't aware of what complaints have been made against you on the talk page of the RfC where those complaints are registered is rather ... rich. Or are you instead admitting that you haven't even bothered reading the complaints? Xihr 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would rather discuss the issues here, rather than "discussing" them at the RfC. Epbr123 23:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The 9,500+ words on the main RfC page explaining our positions and what we think you should do in order to modify your behavior should be sufficient. What would be the purpose of repeating it here, except getting us to waste more time and energy on this? In fact, your behavior right now is quite a good example of the kind of difficulty we've been talking about all along. Xihr 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I've already explained on the RfC why I disagree with how you want me to modify my behavior. We can only break the deadlock if we discuss this. Epbr123 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the point? You've already stated that you don't think the comments made don't apply to you, and have flatly refused to do anything about it (or, more accurately, that you agree not to engage in such behaviors, but do not acknowledge that you've engaged in them before, when you clearly have, and despite the clear fact that a dozen or so people clearly do think you have). What could possibly be the benefit, except more stalling, and more exhaustingly pointless Socratic dialogue? Xihr 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. To change the subject, do you acknowledge it was wrong to break to 3RR? Epbr123 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hurray, more delaying, Socratic nonsense! (Hint: WP:3RR#Exceptions.) Xihr 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I now agree there's no point us two discussing anything. Epbr123 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but your constant refusals to listen to complaints, and your even more constant attempts to deflect blame, do not constitute a "discussion." Xihr 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ball 3. --Cheeser1 02:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So What Came Of This?

So..... what came of this whole thing? The Rypcord. 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a matter of somebody having enough time to escalate this to the arbcom. --Cheeser1 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
...which is? The Rypcord. 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:ARBCOM. --Cheeser1 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What links here

This RFC has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum‎ Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epbr123 adminship

Commentators here should be aware of: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Epbr123. It's currently a landslide in Epbr123's favor... after months of nominating other Admins... purely coincidentally... Dekkappai (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's not exactly a big surprise. Xihr (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)