Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Epbr123

Edit count for Epbr123
User:Epbr123

run at Sun Feb 24 00:03:14 2008 GMT

Category:             27 Image:                171 Mainspace             15148 Portal talk:          1 Portal:               18 Talk:                 11868 Template talk:        10 Template:             195 User talk:            2162 User:                 1041 Wikipedia talk:       674 Wikipedia:            2754 avg edits per page    1.80 earliest              20:00, 15 August 2006 number of unique pages 18949 total                 34069

2006/8  356 2006/9   11 2006/10  256 2006/11  173 2006/12  4 2007/1   142 2007/2   392 2007/3   1241 2007/4   1220 2007/5   2263 2007/6   1133 2007/7   1676 2007/8   3532 2007/9   1388 2007/10  1967 2007/11  7652 2007/12  5420 2008/1   3028 2008/2   2215

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 675 Herne Bay, Kent 369 Kate Bush 316 Westgate-on-Sea 281 Sale, Greater Manchester 252 Whitstable 250 Birchington-on-Sea 241 Kent 184 Sheerness 166 Vanadinite 101 List of people from Kent 78 Jenna Haze 74 List of schools in Kent 71 Shaw and Crompton 64 List of U2 awards 56 District of Canterbury Credit Union

Talk: 163 Sale, Greater Manchester 56 List of big-bust models and performers 40 Stretford 38 Kate Bush 22 Kent 15 Peterborough 14 Eastbourne 14 Shaw and Crompton 13 Sheerness 13 Herne Bay, Kent 13 Bellefontaine, Ohio 12 Penmon, Anglesey 12 Tel Aviv 12 Whitstable 11 Erie, Pennsylvania

Category: 4 Big-bust models and performers 2 Woodlands of Kent 2 Male porn stars 2 Female porn stars

Image: 5 Hernebaypark.JPG 4 Hernebaypier.JPG 4 Westgate's West Bay.jpg 3 The end of Herne Bay's Pier.jpg 3 PB090004.JPG 3 Kate Bush Running Up That Hill Sample.ogg 3 Sale's All Saints Church.jpg 3 Sheerness Clock Tower.jpg 3 Kate Bush Wow Sample.ogg 2 The Crispin Inn, Worth.jpg 2 Ham church and lych gate.jpg 2 Beach huts at Whitstable.jpg 2 The Crown public house, Finglesham.jpg 2 Westgate-on-Sea's St Saviour's Church.jpg 2 The Chance Inn, Guston.jpg

Portal: 3 Kent/On this Day/October 26 2 Kent/Featured article 2 Kent 2 Kent/Featured article/7 2 Kent/On this Day/June 13 2 Kent/Nominate/Selected article

Template: 21 Swale 20 Ashford, Kent 18 Dover 15 Shepway 15 Canterbury 14 GA number 14 Maidstone 12 Tonbridge and Malling 11 Tunbridge Wells 10 Dartford 10 Gravesham 8 Sevenoaks 8 Medway 7 Thanet 4 Location map Kent

Template talk: 6 Infobox UK place/Archive 4 2 Infobox UK place

User: 271 Epbr123 229 Epbr123/AVNAwards/Winners2007 188 Epbr123/Award winners and nominees 158 Epbr123/words 65 Epbr123/Sandbox 45 Epbr123/monobook.js 31  Epbr123/Notes 13 Epbr123/FAMEAwards/Nominees2007 5  Epbr123/GAN Reviewer of the Week 5  Nehrams2020/GA reviews 4  Epbr123/AVNAwards 3  Epbr123/pbiotemplate 3  Epbr123/Today's featured article 2  Epbr123/Userboxes 2  Dudesleeper/Awards

User talk: 129 Epbr123 21 Malleus Fatuarum 18 Ctjf83 16 Nev1 13 SandyGeorgia 10 Derek.cashman 10 Tony1 9  Yomangani 9  Blnguyen 9  Jza84 8  ST47 8  Xoloz 7  EncMstr 7  Retired username 7  Maclean25

Wikipedia: 152 Today's featured article/requests 95 Good article nominations 84 Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination) 56 Administrator intervention against vandalism 51 Requests for comment/Epbr123 49 Good articles 42 WikiProject Pornography/Deletion 40 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15 35 WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements 30 Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture 30 List of non-admins with high edit counts 28 WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading 27 Featured article candidates/Westgate-on-Sea 27 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 8 25 Deletion review/Log/2007 August 31

Wikipedia talk: 109 Featured article candidates 89 Good article nominations 88 Notability (pornographic actors) 83 Requests for comment/Epbr123 60 WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps 49 Today's featured article/requests 37 WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements 18 Good article criteria 17 WikiProject UK geography 13 WikiProject Pornography 11 Requests for adminship 10 Featured article candidates/Orion (mythology) 10 Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 9  Lead section 8  WikiProject Cities

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Remove to talk page
An entire essay was just entered as an Oppose; is there a procedure to get that refactored to the talk page? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dekkappai's Oppose statement
Epbr is an excellent editor in many areas of Wikipedia, and I have asked him for advice in his areas of expertise more than once. However, he has continuously shown himself to be utterly lacking in the qualities that make a good or even half-way decent Admin. A couple of months being "civil" by handing out Adminship nominations and avoiding the areas in which he previously, and for a long period, engendered so much ill-will does not come anywhere near to convincing me he has made any kind of a change.
 * First: Though his knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines is excellent, he shows an intensely, almost fetishistic obedience to the letter of the law at the expense of its spirit. He has continuously shown himself to be totally incapable of, and actually hostile to any interpretation of those guidelines, which stress that they are to be interpreted "with common sense," and one of the fundamental pillars of which is WP:IAR. (Just one recent example on a Japanese AfD which had to pass U.S.-centric notability criteria: "Dekkappai should campaign to change the criteria if he wants the article to stay." The guideline explicitly says it is to be interpreted with common sense, yet Epbr123 insists that the letter of the rule must be followed. And if it doesn't address this single exceptional case?-- Tough. You change the rules, or I delete the article.) Again, Epbr's knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines is helpful as a resource for editors seeking advice, but he seems to regard these guidelines as the equivalent of Moses' tablets, permanently set in stone and to be obeyed without question. In the past he has repeatedly applied his strict interpretation of these guidelines with a coldly bot-like literalism which, if it isn't done to make a WP:POINT stretches to the point of absurdity. Authority in the hands of such a person at a volunteer project such as Wikipedia, which depends on a spirit of goodwill and freedom, will be disastrous.
 * Second: Has anyone voting "Support" even looked at the RfC and Epbr123's behavior at it? This RfC was nearly a year in coming. Epbr123 stirred up anger among many unrelated editors in many parts of Wikipedia, and it was brought by an Admin who had just seen a very little of his activity. If the RfC is seen as some sort of lynch-mob action to crucify Epbr123, let me point this out: None of the issues raised at this the RfC-- which Epbr123 now shows off like some sort of Purple Heart he earned battling the enemy-- were ever addressed constructively or in any way satisfactorily. The RfC just faded out, leaving a lot of bitterness in its wake due to the obvious lack of any kind of result, and due to Epbr's continued stubborn inability to reflect on his attitude or his actions. ArbCom was expected to be the next step, but nobody involved in the RfC saw any point in pursuing that option. Epbr123 did not, and has still never admitted to the slightest wrong-doing on his part. Instead, as late as November when the last comments were made, rather than examine himself he continued to dig through edit histories of anyone who questioned him and engaged in character-assassination campaign. Rather than examine his own actions, he accused them-- a disparate group of good editors and Admins-- of being joined together in some sort of cabal out to "get" him. His November summary of this outpouring of complaints from numerous, unrelated editors whose work he had disrupted was, "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... What disruptive behaviour? Upsetting porn and Usenet fans who don't like their non-notable articles deleted?"
 * Because my own interactions with Epbr123 up to that point had been unfailingly negative (I have since found his areas of expertise and had good exchanges with him within those narrow confines), for some sense of balance I asked an editor who apparently had worked well with Epbr123 to comment at the RfC. I find what he said-- this word in his favor-- at the RfC to be particularly enlightening. Since the RfC seems to have been ignored completely here, I'll quote part of it ("Outside view by Malleus Fatuarum"): "It would be fair to say that we have not always seen eye to eye, one recent example being the Sale, Greater Manchester article here, in which discussion I stated my view that Epbr123 had an excessive interest in notching up trophies. During those exchanges I found him to be rude, arrogant, intimidating, and too concerned with the letter of the law instead of its spirit. That remains my view today, three or four months later."
 * Working separately, in a totally different area of Wikipedia, I found my own encounters with Epbr123 to have been perfectly described in this statement. After complaints were raised about actions such as making a dozen AfDs a day for over a week within one subject area, Epbr123 arrogantly disregarded the objections of several good, experienced editors and Admins, and instead increased these disruptive actions. Yet he has still never admitted wrong-doing. Instead he portrays those who objected as being over-sensitive, "inclusionists", and "nutjobs," refusing to admit the time and effort his actions wasted and the ill-will his attitude caused.
 * Since he has never admitted any of this was wrong, he obviously still holds these views. And, indeed, he drops hints to this affect right here by summarizing the RfC with "I think the result of the RfC was that there wasn't much wrong with my nominations, but I acted too aggressively to the people that disagreed with me." In other words, he made no mistakes, but was just too "honest" and straight-talking to the poor, sensitive, but above-all mistaken schmucks he's had to put up with. He still refuses to admit his actions were disruptive, against the volunteerist spirit of Wikipedia and simply wrong. Epbr123's behavior at and summary of his RfC gives us a clear indication of how he will use his Adminship: "I'm right, you're wrong. 'Boo-hoo-hoo!' Now, fuck off."
 * Third: About Epbr123's long quest for Adminship-- Underlying his total inability for self-reflection or admission of fallibility, Epbr123 first made noises about seeking Adminship while his RfC was still ongoing. At the same time he was attacking anyone who questioned his disruptive, antogonistic, incivil actions, he was considering himself Admin material-- "I'm right, they're all wrong." He was counseled at that time not that he was totally unfit for any position of authority here, but only that the political timing was wrong. His recent actions had been too disruptive to too many editors, and a bid for Adminship at that time would likely not be successful. He then set off on this campaign of mass Admin-nominating-- keeping his nose (somewhat) clean and remaining (somewhat) "civil" merely by avoiding editing in the areas in which he had stirred up so much rancor several times in the past. And he has now successfully built up enough of a "base" of supporters to carry him over the objections of those who have had encounters with him while editing.
 * I am appalled, though not really surprised, at how easily Wikipedia's system, which I once hoped to be above this kind of nonsense, can be so easily manipulated through the same sort of political game-playing which in the real world so often results in power resting in the hands of those least fit to wield it. I expect that Epbr123 will be the absolute worst kind of Admin: condescending to those who disagree with his opinions, swift and unremitting in deleting the work of others, an unbending literalist, and a harsh disciplinarian. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read it, I've followed Epbr's growth as an editor, and I disagree with some interpretations of some of Epbr123's detractors on the RfC. Can you please refactor some of your lengthy content to the talk page here?  I don't believe RfA is supposed to contain such lengthy essays, but I could be wrong.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Detractors? Do you know what that word means? Detractor: One who detracts from another's merit or reputation by uttering things to his prejudice; a person given to detraction; a defamer, traducer, calumniator, slanderer Oxford English Dictionary. You honestly consider those of us who participated, in good faith, in the RfC process to be "detractors"? Whereas Epbr was clearly not participating in the RfC with any shred of good faith, you consider us to be the ones who are behaving as detractors, slanderers, acting with prejudice and without good faith? Honestly Sandy, I expect far more consideration than that from you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This essay is helpful in understanding the extensive history behind this RfA. I think including it on the talk page is a reasonable way to present it. A bit of refactoring for the main page would be helpful, though. -Pete (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser1, I didn't mention you (or anyone specific) in my comment, and no, I didn't intend a dicdef of the word "detractor". PMAnderson's views on and crusade against WP:MOS are well known, his own RfA's give some good insight in to his own editing, his opposition to Epbr123 is to be expected, and I give very little weight to his position for that reason. Does that make my position clearer? On the other concerns raised, I've seen Epbr's growth over time, and I simply believe Epbr does listen and has and does adapt to criticism.  As far as your participation on Epbr's RfC, I expect someone who has a prominent role at WQA not to get involved in RfC's, as it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. (My memory may not be right, but I think that also applies to KieferSkunk?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That completely fails to address anything I said. If you don't intend to use the definition of a word, don't use it. I could call you a pear, but if I really mean human, why on Earth would I call you a pear? A pear is a fruit. Your use of the word betrays the fact that you're not interested in entertaining opposing viewpoints. If your relationship with Epbr has lead you to form an opinion that he has reformed his behavior great, but that's your opinion, not a fact. There is absolutely no basis for citing the RfC as evidence thereof, and you can't honestly expect people who participated in the RfC to have their opinions disqualified, nor question their integrity because they're more actively involved in dispute resolution than say, you or Epbr or all the people who've voted to support. If our good-faith participation in the RfC is bad for our unrelated participation in dispute resolution processes, how on Earth do you expect us to accept or even tolerate Epbr123's total lack of good faith participation in the RfC process? It's completely backwards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry we disagree on this one, Cheeser1, but we do. I can't address what you wrote when it misinterprets or misunderstands what I wrote, so all I can do is clarify what I meant, which is what I've done.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it was this:
 * Has anyone voting "Support" even looked at the RfC and Epbr123's behavior at it?
 * provocative and rather insulting statement that prompted me to comment to begin with, since it makes strong implications about those supporting Epbr's RfA. My only point was to say that of course I looked, and I don't have the same view as some commentors on the RfC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The support !votes fail to address an unsettled RfC concerning the user's behavior. No one addressed it, and a few who mentioned it noted it as some turning point in Epbr's behavior (something that is blatantly untrue). That begs the question. If you were upset about the way he phrased it, firing back by questioning (without due cause) the integrity of those of us who participated in the RfC is highly inappropriate. Also, for the record, are you using the "dicdef" of "commentor [sic]"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I currently see 44 mostly 1-line "Support" statements, not one of them mentioning the RfC. This is what the question refers to. Dekkappai (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, you are clearly very impassioned about Epbr's candidacy, what you're reading is not what I'm writing, and we disagree. I did not question integrity; I said I disagreed with interpretations.  If integrity was questioned, it was whether others had even looked.  Simply stated, I had.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And you are likewise impassioned. Given your disregard for Epbr's behavior towards us "detractors," I can't imagine it doesn't come as a surprise that people question whether or not anyone bothered to actually read through the RfC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will note this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that too. I have to say that's highly disturbing.  Unfortunately, it's not very surprising to me, either. Xihr (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that I knew nothing of the RfC and so did not contribute to it at all. I have had minimal interaction with Epbr123 in the past, but what I did see was an editor whose behaviour allowed me to form the opinion that he was not really admin material. Note that none of these interactions involved any disputes with him. When I did find out about the RfC (a matter of a week or so ago, by chance) I thought it petered out in a way that did everyone a disservice&mdash;not the least Epbr123 himself&mdash;as it failed to initiate a real and basic change in his attitudes and behaviour. Subsequently, I have yet to see enough evidence that desired changes have happened, though I have seen plenty of promises made by himself and a few others that there have been changes for the better, and quite a few people who seem to believe that there have been changes for the better, or expect, or even hope that there have been changes for the better. The bottom line is that promises and good intentions are easy, actual changes and changed behaviour and attitudes can be very hard, and I have yet to see enough evidence of them. That is why I posted the oppose message I did. And it is up to Epbr123 and those who support him to show and demonstrate that there have been desirable changes, not really for us to show that there have been none. In this respect, hardly any good evidence to demonstrate desirable changes has yet been offered. I do not think one can say that I have a Conflict of Interest in this instance, if those kinds of suggestions are now going to be made.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. May I ask why you supported Malleus' RfA despite his incivility issues? Epbr123 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. I'm sorry, but, because it is an interesting variation on the "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of Loaded question, which would have been better phrased if you had left off the presupposition contained within the "despite his incivility issues" phrase, I must politely decline to answer it. If you can reframe it in a non-loaded manner, I will consider answering it. Can I, however, first ask you why you think this question is at all relevant here?  DDStretch    (talk)  23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I feel your opposition is based on my opposing of Malleus' RfA. This has just been backed up by your implication that Malleus has no incivility issues, despite his RfA failing due to them. I really would like to become a better user, but it's difficult when I can't trust the opinions of my critics. If you could give an honest opinion of how I could improve my behaviour, I would be happy to take your advice. Epbr123 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the issue, then why do you actively and knowingly refuse to "trust the opinions of [your] critics"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I a stated, I feel his opposition is based on my opposing of Malleus' RfA. Epbr123 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I do not doubt that it is your opinion, but you are mistaken in ascribing motives to me which I do not have, and which undermine my comments. There is a large difference between being uncivil and merely engaging in assertive and robust disagreements with people, and, at the time, I did not see any comments by Malleus that were other than robust and assertively expressed disagreements. (I may not have that view about more recent comments by him, by the way.) It is to the detriment of wikipedia that sometimes robust and assertive disagreements are mislabelled as examples of incivility. That is why the question you asked was a Loaded question, because (quoting from the wikipedia article as its convenient and roughly conforms with my own specialised academic knowledge of this area) "It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved." and I did not consider that at the time of the RfA it had been proved. It had been alleged, but that is not proof. The issue of acceptance is not a prerequisite here. Finally, Malleus' RfA did not fail because of his incivility: it failed by default when he withdrew his nomination after being pressed hard on certain matters, which he seemed to treat as being unfair.
 * I'm sorry you seem as if you cannot trust my opinions and assume my motives are slightly sub-standard (AGF?), but all I can say is that my arguments seem valid: it is by behaviour that changes in behaviour should be assessed, and statements that "I have changed" aren't really as convincing as evidence compared with behaviour demonstrating that they have changed. Although you may not feel able to accept my advice, I sincerely hope you can make some use of it.
 * What I would advise you to do now is to accept that you have demonstrated changes for the better in easy situations, and so you should now dive headlong into all the difficult situations in which people have accused you of poor behaviour in the past, and show them that your behaviour in those difficult situations has improved: The reason for saying this is they do have a point when they say that it is easy to be polite in easy situations, but, just as in science, the rigorous test of some question (in this case, whether you have changed for the better or not) is not to do the easy tests, but to do the really hard tests so as to perform a rigorous and tough test of the question. Furthermore, it is not only important for you to know in yourself that you have changed, but it is important to be able to demonstrate it to yourself as well as to others. In other words, evidence from easy tests yields weak conclusions, evidence from hard and rigorous tests yields strong conclusions. By supplying such evidence, you will pull the rug from under the criticisms that there has been no evidence of behavioural change on your part in the difficult areas (where an admin might have to do more work), and you will confirm in your own mind that you really have undergone changes for the better, and give you a more grounded confidence in what you are doing.
 * I really hope you can take some of this advice about your general approach to change to heart, as it fits in with advice given to people who want to undergo significant behavioural and attitudinal changes in themselves. Because of its ongoing nature, and the importance of staging the situations you are exposed to so as to build up to more and more rigorous and testing situations, it seemed to me that a successful RfA would be a bit premature at this time: you've achieved changes in behaviour in the easy situations, and so now you can step up to the hard situations. Given the nature of what an admin is sometimes called upon to do, it seems to me that you need a bit more work with the hard situations first. I do wish you well for the future. Does any of that help at all?  DDStretch    (talk)  00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced about the Malleus issue, but I was impressed by the rest of your statement. Although, I haven't actually been avoiding "difficult situations" during the past few months, as I have still been active at AfD. The RfC stemmed from just one very contentious AfD, and it would hard to replicate that situation. I have tried hard not to get worked up about an AfD since then, and as you know, this can be quite difficult. Epbr123 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am saddened to see that you are once again going through my past edits to try to make a point about my own behaviour. It does you no credit to do so. This would be another area on which you should work, and, indeed, I advise you to stop doing it and work hard to stop doing it, as others might well see it as further confirmation that your behaviour has not changed sufficiently for the better. In the case of the edits you are attempting to draw attention to now, you will see that I was merely engaged in robust and assertive debate with an editor who was repeating the same points again and again, despite them having been dealt with appropriately before. A number of editors who I consulted, considered that my actions had not been uncivil at all.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No offence was intended. Don't worry, I haven't been looking through your edit history. You posted the link at Wikiproject Kent, which I'm a member of. I'd like to know the difference between "robust and assertive debate" and incivility though. We could continue this discussion on our talk pages instead if you feel I'm trying to bring attention to your behaviour. Epbr123 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I think it is best to hold the discussions here, particularly because it is not my own behaviour that is under particular scrutiny here (though an attempt has been made to make it so), and it is not me who is going through an RfA. I wish to return to the question you first of me asked that prompted this exchange. I do this because you state you are interested in trying to become a better editor and want to improve yourself:
 * As I said, the question you asked of me was a loaded one, since it contained the presupposition that Malleus had at that time been proven to engage in uncivil behaviour. I declined to answer it because of this presupposition. The question could have been framed in a non-loaded way, though it would have required unpacking into a number of questions, ("Why did you support Malleus' RfA?", "At that time, were you aware of the issues surrounding allegations of incivility on his part?", and "At that time, did you consider the allegations of incivility to be proved against him?")  I did not answer the unpacked questions immediately, but when I did, I didn't answer the first question, as it can be seen in my response to his RfA; the answer to the second question, was that I was aware of them, but that I considered there were confusions between robust and assertive expressions of views in discussions on the one hand, and being uncivil on the other and I was not convinced that confusions between these two had been avoided in the cases to which I was made aware; and my answer to the third question was therefore no.
 * However, your immediate response to me declining to answer the question was to state that you had already formed the opinion that my opposition to your RfA was due to your own opposition towards Malleus in his RfA. (It must clearly be this, otherwise why use the form of words "To be honest, I feel your opposition is based on my opposing of Malleus' RfA. This has just been backed up by your implication that Malleus has no incivility issues, despite his RfA failing due to them." in particular your use of "backed up", which suggests you already held that opinion.) In this instance, there seems to be a basic failure to WP:AGF, as it questions my integrity. It is compounded by the bundling into this viewpoint of a further fallacy in your argument: the fallacy of the False Dichotomy, where you assume that merely because I decline to answer a loaded question, it must therefore follow that I consider that Malleus has (note: "has") no incivility issues, "despite his his RfA failing due to them". As I explained later, at that time I considered the case "not proved", which is one of additional possibilities you failed to take into account. This is further obscured by your use (possibly inadvertent, I accept) of "has" instead of "had", which glosses over the fact that opinions may well have changed in the meantime. I also later pointed out the error in you stating that his RfA failed because of incivility issues (it failed because he withdrew his nomination, not because incivility on his part had been proved).
 * When I then did give these explanations of my behaviour, you dismiissed them, stating that you were not convinced. This clearly makes an implicit allegation that my behaviour is such that my credibility and integrity has been damaged (in essence, I have deluded myself at the best, or lied, at the worst.) This seems to be yet another faillure on the part of WP:AGF. You seem to be holding to this opinion, based on your own unsupported assumptions about my motivations and intent when we do not know each other and have never met. In which case, assumptions about motives and intent are even more difficult to justify then under the optimal situations of knowing and having met someone. Furthermore, you are holding to them in order to somehow discredit my arguments and attack my integrity. This really does seems unfortunate to say the least, given that they follow the pattern of poor behaviour that you and others say is behind you after the your RfC, and given your need to pay attention to how you express yourself in this, your own RfA. In the context of me then trying hard to give you some positive advice (which you conceded was helpful), I am at a loss why you should be so 'inflexible in and resistant to change of your own presuppositions about other people's motives and intent here.
 * I think this really just illustrates that your are still not ready for an administrator's position. In order to improve yourself, I offer the above analysis of the assumptions contained in your arguments and apparent inflexibility in the light of my explanations of my actions, above which additional illustrate unreasonable failure to WP:AGF. These are areas in which you need to pay particular attention, because it seems to me that such failings are a fatal flaw, especially if demonstrated so clearly in one's own actual RfA discussions. Please, consider carefully your actions here, and I hope the correct course of action you should now follow will become clear to you, or, if not, I hope others will point you gently in the right direction. If it goes as I think it ought to go now, I hope to see you, suitably changed and renewed, in a few months time with your new RfA, which, if the evidence of changed behaviour and attitudes is suitably present, I would be happy to lend my support to.  DDStretch    (talk)   —Preceding comment was added at 10:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled
I am rather puzzled to see myself being discussed at length in this RfA, an RfA that I made very clear to Epbr123 that I would not take part in, to avoid any kind of tit-for-tat charges that I see have now been levelled against Ddstretch. And presumably against anyone else who might be so foolish as to oppose this RfA having supported my own failed RfA.

I am rather tired of seeing my civility being challenged, and if it is uncivil of me to make that plain, then tough. But this RfA is not about me, it's about Epbr123. Kindly leave me out of it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I quoted from your statement at the RfC, Malleus, because it did perfectly summarize my own experiences with Epbr123, completely separately and in a complete different area of Wikipedia. I should have asked for your permission before quoting you, and I apologize for not having done so. As for the calling into question of the behavior of you, Ddstretch, and any other editor than Epbr123, this is clearly inappropriate here. However, as we have seen time and again, this is one of Epbr123's standard responses to criticism. Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't mind that at all. I stand by everything I said in that RfC. It's the accusation of bad faith against DDstretch based on his support in my RfA that I'm unhappy about, and the continuing attempts to rub my nose in some kind of "incivility" poo. OK, my RfA failed, but it didn't fail because Epbr123's charges of "incivility" stuck, it failed because I withdrew it. Had I let it run its course it may well have passed, but I didn't want to get through if a substantial minority felt, rightly or wrongly, that I was in some way unfit to be an administrator. Had it crept through at 75%, for instance, I wouldn't have accepted the job anyway, so there was little point in continuing with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this strange thread regarding the bad-faith claims against DDStretch just indicates more strongly, as DDStretch himself said, that Epbr is not fit to be an admin. He is way too interested in winning the battle while presenting himself as the victim to make a good admin.  Admins are supposed to resolve disputes, not win them. Xihr (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but who will take the trouble to read this thread, or even know that it exists. It is very clear that Epbr123 has learned nothing from his RfC. But, as I've said elsewhere, one more unfit admin more or less won't make much difference to wikipoedia's problems. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone up for bets on how long it is before one of us is unjustly banned by Wikipedia's newest admin? :-) Xihr (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand you guys' opposes and concerns, but seriously, that last remark was really offensive. I'm not one to be WP:CIVIL/AGF-mongering, but I think that was over the personal attack line.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think since you're not one for "WP:CIVIL/AGF-mongering" that you should concede that to those of us who put our time into such mongering and were met with a rude editor who refused to acknowledge the possibility that he needed to examine or change his behavior. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The smiley clearly indicates that it was a joke. Sheesh. Xihr (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't see the funny side of this; I'm quite expecting to find myself blocked just because I was unlucky enough to get on Epbr123's bad side. Call that bad faith if you like, but I call it being realistic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Especially when he spent his time in the RfC digging up unrelated and quite unsubstantial "dirt" on the people who filed/endorsed the complaint (and did so properly, civilly, and in good faith), instead of honestly thinking about his conduct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find this "joke" funny at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not make a joke. If you are referring to Xihr's comment, first you've indented in a way that doesn't look like that's what you're talking to, and second, it's not really a joke - it's a humorous expression of a serious concern that he has. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gallows humor... Dekkappai (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And quite justified, I'm sorry to say. Epbr123 has amply demonstrated his vindictive streak, as here. That exchange seems also to contain a very similar questioning of my motives to the questioning of DDstretch's above. Civility is of course important, but the apparent desire for revenge is far more troubling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A question to Epbr123's nominator(s)
Since one of Epbr123's nominators has now made a comment here, can I ask him, and the others, directly and politely whether the behaviour Epbr123 has displayed against myself (as shown and explained in the last-but-one section, above) has affected their views of Epbr123? What bearing it has, if any, on their nomination statements for Epbr123? Do they think Epbr123 was justified, for example, or do they think it is a minor issue, for another example? Or what? And can I ask Bibliomaniac15 specifically to kindly explain what the use of the term "WP:CIVIL/AGF-mongering" in his message, above, was meant to convey in this context? DDStretch   (talk)  07:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, if you would prefer to respond to me via email., you can do so by means of the usual link on my user page&mdash;it works!  DDStretch    (talk)  12:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't expect too much from Epbr123's nominators. One of them even wanted to nominate him while his RfC was still running. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that. However, from reading WP:Administrators, I see that I should expect the following behaviour:
 * If one follows the links one finds in the quotaton (including the one superscripted by 4 if one actually follows the link (it would be 6 in the quotation here), one also reads:
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And so it is not unreasonable to expect them to fulfil the requirements that it seems we should expect from them, where I have read a repeated concern about good communication and discussing legitimate concerns raised by editors (the more so, since it concerns actions they have jointly engaged in in nominating Epbr123). Of course, it may well be that they consider the questions I asked to be of no real concern, or that I have not raised them as a legitimate concern, but I would still like to hear why they think that (if that actually is what they think). I want to hear the reasons, because if I have somehow behaved improperly in this matter, I would like them to explain that to me so I can understand and learn from it. I gave them the opportunity of responding privately, as the matter may be a sensitive one for them. For instance, if I were in their position of having endorsed Epbr123 and assured editors that he had really changed and that his bad behaviour was well and truly in the past, only to see him expressing such behaviour again in his own RfA, then I would possibly feel sad and let down by Epbr123, and a little embarrassed. Of course, I am only imagining how I would feel if I were in their situation now. But I think it may well be a sensitive situation for them. I really am interested in their views about this, and invite them to contact me. I note that only one of them could be said to have any great likelihood of already reading this, but so far, I have had no response. Of course, it one cannot demand a response, though it seems administrators have some strong encouragement to respond, as illustrated in the quotations I gave, above.  DDStretch    (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have received one response from Bibliomaniac15 via email, which was pleasing. I don't feel it would be at all correct to reproduce what was said, but I think it would not harm things too much to state that he is aware of the concerns. I have also received an email from Epbr123, which expands upon the apology he offered to me, publically, on the main RfA page. DDStretch   (talk)  12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Update: Apart from Bibliomaniac15, who was prompt and helpful in his response to me (the sign of an admin who attends to what they are encouraged to do!), and Epbr123, who expanded upon his apology to me he posted on the main page, I have received neither any other communications from the other two nominators (OhanaUnited and Rudget, both admins), nor any from any of the other people who voiced support for Epbr123. Given the amount of challenging that the opposers have experienced, and the fact that there is now only about one hour to go, this seems a very poor show, as far as I am concerned. DDStretch   (talk)  22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance
Interesting, isn't it, how practically every single oppose is being nitpicked and challenged at length (even though almost all the opposes are rather length and well-described), whereas nearly all the supports are quick one- or two-liners, many of which don't even seem to address the merits of the case ("excellent contributions," "a good editor," "knowledgeable user," "though he already was [an admin]," "without personally attacking opposers" (?), "opposers v weak," etc.). I thought !votes are not really votes at all, but rather arguments to be made on both sides, rather than the benefit of the doubt lying on one side or the other. Xihr (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MrR64
The RfA has now passed the closed by date, but I think many editors might like to know why Epbr created a sock account recently. There may be an innocent explanation, but the account should have been labelled as a sock (unless it was created for privacy issues, which seems unlikely in this case) and it wasn't. Geometry guy 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to keep a separate account for minor maintainance activities, which doesn't skew my edit count. I believe this is acceptable. Epbr123 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clearly label it as such, and link to it from your user page? Thanks for answering so quickly, Geometry guy 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Epbr123 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Whatever the outcome of this RfA, I wish you very well!! Geometry guy 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)