Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epbr123

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Notifying [[User:Epbr123]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: SandyGeorgia did defend him, and she was informed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And User:Tony1? Epbr123 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to tell; he archives frequently. Feel free to tell him yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible [[WP:CANVASS]] Issue

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, an honest goof I would imagine. Xihr 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Rypcord]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A quick note 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Anyone is entitled to comment, apparently. Epbr123 10:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up for us. Epbr123 22:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Damn, I thought people who bothered me would be barred. ;) Epbr123 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Just pointing out facts. Epbr123 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just hurry up and block me now. Epbr123 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree. Epbr123 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Feel the love, Xihr. Epbr123 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did the cabal accusation come from? This must be a wind-up. Epbr123 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Pmanderson]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can see why you're upset, but I stick to my original statement. Epbr123 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And events that happened long after the RfC/U was filed. --Cheeser1 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Interesting. You haven't actually looked at all the examples, yet you claim they have no relevance. Epbr123 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Mass stub creation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: I find dismissing my FA work as making adjustments to hyphens, commas and colons, extremely incivil. Epbr123 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now watch me ignore the bait. Dekkappai 23:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ball 2. Xihr 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty words 

message: So..... what came of this whole thing? The Rypcord. 14:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's basically a matter of somebody having enough time to escalate this to the arbcom. --Cheeser1 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is? The Rypcord. 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ARBCOM. --Cheeser1 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So What Came Of This? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes.  It's not exactly a big surprise. Xihr (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Epbr123 adminship