In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

• Epbr123 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

The user has engaged in an "article for deletion", nominating articles of the same ilk without use of AfD nomination bundling. Furthermore, the user has engaged in personal attacks such as name calling, demonstrated a lack of civility in his dealings with people on talk and AfD pages, and edits to pages (such as this) he himself has nominated for deletion in order to make deletion more likely.

In addition to his attacks against users who do not succumb to his point of view, the user has also willfully attacked an administrator who attempted to warn him about his uncivil behavior regarding the AfD process, claiming false etiquette accusations.

The culmination of the dispute happens to lie mainly with the List of big-bust models and performers article at present. His unilateral attempts to enforce his point of view on what should be criteria for such an article go beyond being bold and into a perverse form of establishing his ownership of the article, attacking everyone who, again, does not agree with his point of view and hounding anyone who votes "keep" with a never-ending stream of open-ended questions designed to wear the resistance of contributors down in order to discount their votes.

Desired outcome[edit]

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

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).

Description[edit]

I've taken the comments from User:Cheeser1 as they were posted the Wikiquette Alerts page, since he explains the situation quite aptly:

On this very WQA, Epbr took it upon himself to accuse an intervening administrator of etiquette violations just because the admin told him to stop disruptively nominating articles for deletion. He also made a personal attack against me [...] calling me a "stalker" and a "schoolkid" in order to discredit my complaints against him. Interesting that his condescending "schoolmaster" approach was the initial reason this WQA was opened (although it's widened quite a bit in its scope since then). He nominated 11 articles for deletion in a single day, from Notable Usenet personalities, but instead of grouping them, he nominated them all at once (this is why the admin warned him). He justified it using an (invalid) citation of WP:SNOW, here. He has been extraordinarily uncivil [1] for example. He constantly marks people's comments as "ILIKEIT" and makes other unfounded remarks in order to antagonize and discredit them.

The diffs for Epbr123's actions are listed below.

Sorry, I know that's a lot of links [that are below]. If you only click one, click this one instead (note: this one is not included on the list). All these antagonistic, non-constructive comments, the result is undeniably to sour the AfD process and make it impossible to work together to discuss policy and work to form consensus on the issue. Instead, these bad-faith AfD nominations are marked with continued acts of unreasonable and uncivil behavior. It seems entirely inappropriate to respond condescendingly, or at least non-constructively, to every single "keep" vote. He even admits that his AfD was an attempt to prove a point about the subjectivity of the criteria - a point he could have made on the article's talk page, something to be discussed and resolved with other editors. Instead, he jumped ship on the discussion, because he has decided unilaterally that the article wasn't worth keeping. He's made it a point to drag irrelevant topics into the AfD by asking pedantic leading questions, as pointed out here by Xhir. He believes that the AfD page is the place to discuss content issues (see here). It appears that he believes that he is in charge of clean up, and that when edit wars ensue, he is in charge of fixing it by AfD'ing the whole thing (see here). He also seems to like to accuse people of the violations that they are accusing him of (when accused of bad faith, he accuses bad faith, and the same with POINT and CIVIL). He seems to believe that he is the only one in charge of deciding whether an article can be properly sourced. He seems to think he is appointed by Wikipedia to delete bad articles - he thinks he speaks for the entire Wikipedia community (despite the fact that many of his currently-running AfDs have snowballed-keep). He seems to be very proud of it, in fact. And yet he would accuse an admin of an abuse of power with no evidence whatsoever. His behavior has, from the start, been entirely out of line. I first encountered him here on the WQA, where he had accused User:georgewilliamherbert of abusing administrator power by warning him about his AfDs. I looked and was immediately surprised to see him going on what can only be described as a deletion spree. I can't speculate as to why, but User:Dekkappai has some ideas. Regardless, this is way out of hand. I believe something needs to be done. I may have more to add later, but I am fairly busy and may not be able to find the time. But this is what I've come up with now, in a bit of spare time I had this evening. Of course, there are also plenty of other users making points that I have not covered here (like Xhir's point about Epbr trying to move a page in the middle of an AfD he started for that page). Oh, and one more point: he lists every single one of his edits as "minor." Many people filter out minor edits, and he would effectively be able to edit without being noticed by these people. He could respond to their points, appropriately or not, and they'd never even see it. The "This is a minor edit" button is not supposed to be abused in this fashion.

I would like to elaborate/summarize points regarding this user's conduct regarding AfDs:

It appears as though Epbr123 has barraged a single topic (usenet), and its small set of primary editors, with a dozen AfDs (which should have been combined) in the hopes of getting as many deleted as possible - these actions go against the relevant procedure, and are reflective of his approach to this matter, which also involved considering no alternatives for deletion, which one is required to consider before nominating an AfD. Additionally, he initiated this AfD after he unilaterally that the article would never be improved, despite the fact that this (allegedly impossible) improvement is one relating to original research, which does not form immediate or automatic grounds for deletion (even if it were completely impassable as he contends). This reflects a poor understanding of deletion policy, applied in a spiteful and bad-faith way, in order to settle things like content disputes.

I would also like to point out the following: Due to the nomination of articles in such a disruptive/disjointed way, several have been deleted. Obviously, they may have been due for deletion - one cannot contending necessarily that they are all automatically encyclopedic just because Epbr wants them deleted. However, here you see that the other voters and even the closing admin evidence that Epbr's accuse-the-accuser tactic works sometimes, so to speak. By drawing everyone's attention to the fact that he was being accused of bad-faith (an accusation that was not properly contextualized and was actually quite valid), Epbr persuaded the the closing admin to ignore keep votes that dared to make mention of the nomination's impropriety. There was no due consideration given to the fact that Epbr skipped the "alternatives for deletion" and "before you AfD" sections of deletion procedure - even though this point was explicitly mentioned by someone in the discussion, not just as a show of bad faith, but because nobody had a chance to find better sources. By playing the "You can't prove this was bad faith, I'm just AfDing these as I see fit" card, Epbr gave people no time to source the article, and created a process that was so disheveled that it was difficult to respond sufficiently to all the AfDs. And even the valid concerns about these disruptive/discourteous actions were twisted by him to be used in his favor in the AfDs. The article had a NYTimes reference, and two other less reliable references (if one recalls correctly). A second reliable one could conceivably have been found, had Epbr gone through the process correctly, instead of being out for blood (figuratively speaking).

Addendum Regarding the user's response in this very RfC/U, I would like to state the following:
The user's response initially included no "counter-complaints," however as the RfC/U expanded, the user began to lodge such counter-complaints. Initially, they were more-or-less related to the issues at hand, but the user has now taken to adding accusations that have no bearing on the situation at hand (e.g. [2] [3] [4]). I have formally requested that he stop. The RfC/U process allows the user in question to mount a defense, and to question the actions of the other users involved, but only insofar as the complaint is concerned. By making accusations that are not related, our actions are taken out of context, and we are given no means to explain, defend, or contextualize these accusations. Those issues are to be resolved in the relevant way - for example, the ones for which I've been indicted have all been resolved, as best as they can, to everyone's satisfaction. It is highly inappropriate, and causes serious misgivings about this user's approach to the RfC/U process.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Unsubstantiated accusations of "bad faith" or frivolous accusations of "ILIKEIT":

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

Personally insulting responses:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

Other non-constructive responses to keep votes:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]

Other non-constructive comments:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Epbr123's filing of an alert at WQA alleging Georgewilliamherbert's "lack of etiquette" in his communication regarding the disruptive, nonconstructive nature of his AfDs against Usenet personalities:

1. [24]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. No personal attacks, which Epbr123 has blatantly disregarded in his pursuit to delete articles, by attacking those who do not agree with him.
2. Taking ownership of articles in order that he can delete them, and then put them on his user page as a "trophie" of article he's "helped to delete".
3. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, as evidenced by the onslaught of AfDs that he's brought, particularly for Notable Usenet personalities and List of big-bust models and performers.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

1. [25] Orangemike's attempt to resolve the issue of multiple AfD nominations for Usenet personalities.
2. [26] Pmanderson files a WQA complaint against Epbr123 in an attempt to resolve the AfD and behavioral disputes.
3. [27] Georgewilliamherbert's first warning about his AfDs being disruptive.
4. [28] - Georgewillimaherbert's second attempt at working with Epbr123 regarding his AfD nominations of Usenet personalities.
5. [29] - Joe Beaudoin Jr.'s first attempt at convincing Epbr123 that his means of doing things did not justify the desired end result.
6. [30] - Bfigura notifies Epbr123 of the necessity of using WP:BUNDLE when bundling nominations.
7. And, of course, the most recent conversations at which lead to the necessity of the RfC:

1. Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts#User:Epbr123
2. Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts#User:Georgewilliamherbert - Epbr123's claims of being attacked and "stalked" by users are also here.
3. Talk:List of big-bust models and performers
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cheeser1 18:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Georgewilliamherbert 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Rypcord. 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Xihr 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dekkappai 17:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Slander 01:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Orangemike 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Trevor GH5 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Regarding personal attacks and the possibility that this a bad faith nomination, then I have no comments - the diffs should speak for themselves. I tried to clear up the debate a few times, not because I agree with Epbr (which I do not), but because I felt that he in turn was being derided by most people on the talk page (sometimes at least bordering on personal attacks), but mostly because people were strawmanning. I understand his frustration and some of his behavior on the talk page should only be judged when taking this into account.

Without passing judgement on whether this user habitually nominates for deletion in bad faith or whether this was initially the case here, then I do have a comment on the last part of the nomination reasoning, which states that Epbr is assuming his POV is correct and that he is being too bold. In my opinion, Epbr does not rely only on his dislike of the article nor, as people have been claiming, on the fact that current inclusion problems means we should delete. Epbr has, if nothing else, revised his statement and is claiming that these problems are unsolvable and that the article can therefore never become properly sourced. We may not agree, but this is not just pushing a POV - he is stating a real problem which, if his assesment is correct, means the article should be deleted.

Please note that I am not saying there is no case here, only that (at least towards the end) Epbr has been misrepresented and reviled for something which I do not think he is entirely guilty of. Also, at least some of the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks are directed against him.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Lundse 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Epbr123 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I'll respond to each piece of evidence of disputed behavior individually.

Unsubstantiated accusations of "bad faith" or frivolous accusations of "ILIKEIT":

1. [31] - I was perhaps a bit childish for responding to a "IDONTLIKE nom" accusation with an "ILIKEIT !vote" accusation, but it clearly wasn't just me in the wrong. The reasons for his accusation were unsubstantiated as I had never claimed Usenet was non-notable.
2. [32] - I was defending myself against the bad faith accusations, but I was wrong to suggest that all the opposing comments were bad faith.
3. [33] - again, I was a bit childish. I responded to what I thought was a baseless bad faith accusation with another bad faith accusation.
4. [34] - defending myself against the bad faith accusations. I don't regret this.
5. [35] - defending myself against the bad faith accusations. I don't regret this.
6. [36] - this is the same edit as one already mentioned.

Personally insulting responses:

1. [37] - the anonymous user pointed out that everyone was acting like mastodons; I merely pointed out that his aggressive comments also exhibited mastodon behaviour. This was perhaps too inflammatory of me, but I don't think it does any harm to notify someone when they're being hypocritical.
2. [38] - this was childish of me. I replied to percieved personal attack with a sarcastic comment.
3. [39] - I reverted this edit a few seconds later as I misunderstood what the other user said. I thought he implied that the article was notable as it had "notable" in the title.

Other non-constructive responses to keep votes:

1. [40] - I didn't intend to sound aggressive. I was just pointing out flaws in his argument.
2. [41] - again, I reverted this edit a few seconds later as I misunderstood what the other user said. I thought he meant the list should stay just because the people in it are notable.
3. [42] - I was getting frustrted at this point, so I was overly stern. The user appeared to have misunderstood the main issues.
4. [43] - same as the previous edit
5. [44] - merely pointing out that a disagreement wouldn't have occured over who should be included if the inclusion criteria were clearly defined.
6. [45] - merely pointing out that an article needs reliable sources
7. [46] - a response to two "keep" comments given without an accompanying rationale.

Other non-constructive comments:

1. [47] - just pointing out a fact to support my argument
2. [48] - the "keeps despite being original research" comment was too offensive of me, but did appear to be true from looking at comments made.
3. [49] - no regrets about this.

Epbr123's filing of an alert at WQA alleging Georgewilliamherbert's "lack of etiquette" in his communication regarding the disruptive, nonconstructive nature of his AfDs against Usenet personalities:

1. [50] - this was far too inflammatory of me, but I felt justified at the time as I found it offensive to be called disruptive for making good faith AfDs. None of the Usenet personalities I nominated had any reliable sources at the time to back up their notability. Some of them still don't, despite surviving their AfDs. My decision not to group the Usenet nominations together, as per WP:BUNDLE, was justified and supported by an experienced user here. There were twelve Usenet personality articles listed at Notable Usenet personalities which I did not AfD, disproving the allegations that I am anti-Usenet and nominate articles unselectively.

Other

• [51] - I regret using the word stalker as it was too strong. Our dispute began on the Usenet AfDs, but his subsequest involvement in the big-bust AfD and Wikiquette did seem as though he was following me. My "schoolkid" remark was a misunderstanding over the term "graduate school" on his userpage. I did honestly think he was a schoolkid at the time.
• [52] - I did admit to trying to prove a point here, however, the point was that I thought the article should be deleted. Not the great confession it was made out to be above. Let's not forget that trying to prove a point is only bad if it damages Wikipedia.
• [53] - this was the reason why I stopped editting the article and AfDed it.
• [54] - this was my reply to the argument that I should have discussed it with Wikiproject Porn before nominating it. Anyway, the people at the project, most of whom are participating on this page, would not have changed my mind over the articles permanently subjective nature.
• [55] - this was not a pedantic question by myself; I was demonstrating why the article will permanently be subjective.
• [56] - similar to previous diff
• [57] - my reply to the theory that the list should be for porn stars with DD+ breasts.

In summary, I've made a few minor mistakes in the past few days, but so have many others here. I have done my part in trying to resolve this situation: [58], [59].

The only thing I think I need to be punished for is making the big-bust AfD knowing that it would upset a lot of people. However, the attacks I have recieved for it is probably punishment enough. In defence of the bad-faith nomination accusations against me, I would like to remind people of one of my initial quotes on the big-bust talk page, "I hadn't thought it necessary to list my reasons at the start as I imagined the big-bust genre to be a well-defined objective genre, which everyone would easily agree on. Now that I've found it isn't, I'm very tempted to nominate this article for deletion. However, I'm willing to try to make the inclusion criteria less subjective first." The inclusion criteria couldn't be made less subjective, so I nominated it. Since the AfD, which closed as no consensus, no improvements have been made to the list's inclusion criteria; instead its main editors are considering adding even more original research into the article by seperating models between "East" and "West". I would also like to point out that I am not anti-porn. I have created as many porn articles as I have deleted.

This is my evidence of disputed behavior by others involved.

User:Xihr

• WP:OWN issues over List of big-bust models and performers. Edit-warred over two seperate disputes and violated the WP:3RR. He appeared unwilling to discuss the conflicts on the article talk page. Bad faith assumption about models I added to the article; User:Dekkappai and I agreed on a criteria for inclusion of porn movies stars and I was just adding some people who fit that criteria. I feel his WP:OWN issues mean that only he may decide who is added.

User:Dekkappai

• Became uncontructive when I wouldn't accept his side of an argument during our discussion over whether the article could be made subject. Made a bad-faith assumption when I removed some people who were clearly not big-bust performers. Incivility here.

User:Cheeser1

• I have been reviled for making counter-arguments to every keep vote on the big-bust AfD but he made counter-arguments for each of my counter-arguments. I can't see the difference. He has also been attacking other editors who make counter-arguments at AfDs here, and has a history of frivalously accusing others of making points, such as here, where he made an administrators' noticeboard complaint because someone suggested on a talk-page that an article should be deleted. He also has a history of making bad faith assumptions: here, here, here and here.

User:Rypcord

• Incivility here, here and here. Minor vandalism of my userpage. Called me a vandal for correcting my own spelling mistake.

User:Pmanderson aka Septentrionalis

• Views have been expressed on the talk page here that I am a bad FAC reviewer, based on comments by Pmanderson that I supposidly only comment on picky unimportant WP:MOS issues. I'd like to point out that Pmanderson is currently involved in one-man campaign to remove WP:MOS from the FAC criteria. His actions during this campaign have bordered on being disruptive and incivil, and have been against consensus. [60], [61], [62], 60, 61, 63, 64. He is accused here of trying to get an article deleted because he can't get his own way (although, I'm well aware these kinds of accusions can be unjustified).

I believe that User:Georgewilliamherbert was acting in good faith and was just trying to protect articles on Usenet, which he has fond memories of. I believe User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. was acting in good-faith but I'd rather he'd tried to discuss the issues with me rather than starting this Request for comment.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Epbr123 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I believe I can really comment as an outside view, since my post to WP:WQA has nothing to do with the issue under dispute, even though it turned into a dry run for this RfC. Not expecting an RfC, I did !vote in one of the AfD's as it floated past. [I did not follow the links from the WQA; I found it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)] It does, however, suggest that Epbr123 is having a bad week, or possibly a bad year.[reply]

On the matter on hand, most of the posts complained of are unwise, and at least somewhat uncivil. The WP:MASTODON post here suggests that Epbr123 could stand to read the essay; WP:MASTODON is not about the herd of independent minds; it's about not getting into a fighting frenzy.

This appears, btw, to be most of the problem. It is clear from the diffs that Epbr123 answered most or all of the !votes to keep the articles he AfD'd. This sort of chivvying is worse than a civility breach, because it is also a blunder: it will provoke sympathy for the beleaguered voters, and opposition to the Cause being so emotionally pushed.

My post to the Etiquette alert was about this remark of Epbr123's about FAC: If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. This still seems to me to be the voice of the country schoolmaster with his pupils, and uncalled for. (It is an aggravation of this that Epbr123 uses criteria as a singular here and in the links above. Even a country schoolmaster ought to know more than his pupils.)

Epbr123 is also one of the editors who make FAC so much fun, by insisting on every jot and tittle of WP:MOS, even the distinction between hyphens and en-dashes, without commenting materially on content. On this matter, I agree with Bishonen's comments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I do not endorse the complaint above, because I'm not sure Cheeser's analysis of Epbr123's motives is proven; but I certainly cannot endorse his response, with its repeated (although incomplete) insistence that many of his remarks were perfectly justified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
3. I can agree with most of what is said here. It is still possible that Epbr123 is having a very bad week, month, even year -- and if that's the case, then it would probably be in the best interests of the project to go on a wikibreak. Wikipedia is not an outlet for invoking catharsis and it is not our duty as contributors to wade through it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I no longer will nominate or participate in FAC due to Epbr123 and their conduct. During an FA review I saw on the FA talk page where Epbr123 was gloating, and that is inappropriate. Aboutmovies 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I was involved with a FAC that Epbr123 reviewed, and though s/he had several good points about minor grammar quibbles (and believe me, I love fixing minor grammar quibbles), after these were fixed, s/he apparently refused to give us a final decision about the status of the revised article, despite numerous pleas. I felt as if we had crossed some invisible line and were no longer worthy of his/her opinion. As is said above, I got the feeling I ought to have known better. Without any follow up by Epbr123, of course, that's just speculation, but I too would be hesitant to nominate something for FA because of this experience. Katr67 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I am including the summary I used in my own analysis, as I believe it contains some information that was not previously addressed.

AFDs

• Nominations
  • Editor's past nomination of two groups of related articles without bundling them was technically within policy but believed by many to be intentionally misleading.
  • Editor nominated List of big-bust models and performers while there was active discussion (in which he participated) on the article's talk page concerning improving the article. Additionally, while the AFD has been open, he has persisted in substantially rewriting it and adding questionable items to the list as well as proposing renaming it. Editor was subsequently accused of nominating this article in bad faith and essentially manipulating it to make it more deletable.
  • Editor has nominated many articles for deletion without making an attempt to improve them or tag them for improvement needed.
  • Editor maintains, on his user page, a list of articles he has helped delete. Others have interpreted this as a sign that he takes pride in getting articles deleted.
• Process
  • Editor in many cases responded to each opposing !vote in an attempt to discredit it. [63] (numerous other examples previously cited by others)
  • Editor posted comments to the closing admin in which he characterized responses as bad faith or original research.
    • "The !votes so far are 6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research. Epbr123 09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)" [emphasis mine] [64]
    • "Note to closing admin Please ignore these bizarre bad faith claims. I have no idea what they refer to and they seem to be being used as a way to keep the article despite it being original research. Epbr123 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)" [emphasis mine] [65]

Behavior

• Behavior towards others
  • Editor disparaged editors with opposing views as "schoolkids", "kids", or by otherwise remarking on their education or age. [66] [67]
  • Editor characterized numerous AFD responses of others as 'bad faith'.
  • Editor was the subject of a WQA by an editor who believed he was needlessly condescending in an FA review.[68]
• Perception and handling of correction/advice from others
  • A WQA complaint created by the editor alleging abuse was widely perceived as frivolous.
  • Editor objected to comments about his understanding of policy, labeling them as 'attacks', yet used similar language when commenting to other editors. When another editor posted "you fail to understand the policies of Wikipedia and the reasons why the process behind them exists" [69], the editor responded "Not keen on the personal attack". [70] However, the editor himself used similar language with others: "This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure." [71]

I am rather appalled by the blatant agenda pushing, attempts to manipulate outcomes, and lack of civility evidenced by the editor. After looking further at his other participation across Wikipedia, though, I find that he has a productive and generally non-confrontational history here, and I believe what we have here is an editor who honestly misunderstands the role of a nominator at AFD. Rather than proposing a deletion and trusting in the process to take it from there, he appears to be treating 'his' AFD nominations like candidates for GA/FA (processes with which he is experienced), by attempting to herd the articles through the process toward his end goal. This by no means excuses his lapses in civility, or the questionable methods he has employed - but it may, for me at least, answer 'what the hell was he thinking?'.

My WP:OR musings on his motives aside, I am not satisfied with the editor's summarizing these incidents as 'I've made a few minor mistakes'. These are more than a few, and more than minor in nature.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Maralia 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I can endorse most of this; it is not absolutely clear why adding to the list is disruptive, or that Epbr123 used his expansions to support his AfD, but I may be missing a diff - this is a long dispute. Nor is it required to attempt to improve all articles before AfD'ing them; some articles are hopeless. (I say nothing on whether these were.) But with those exceptions, I agree with the rest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Most of those comments seem factually accurate. I disagree with your interpretation of those facts, though. Epbr123 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Maralia has summed up my feelings on this matter (aside from my "lulz wikidrama" sentiments and my opinion of Epbr's apparent anti-pornography crusade) perfectly. Thank you very much for an eloquent and, most importantly, objective response. --Slander 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Xihr 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Avruch 16:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Dekkappai 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. I'd like to point out that I've had absolutely no first hand dealings with this user and have come to this RFC by chance. Trevor GH5 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am for the most part uninvolved in this dispute. I responded initially to the Wikiquette Alert regarding this user, and at the time the only thing I saw being disputed was Epbr's somewhat confrontational (but otherwise completely valid) statement that the original authors of an article should fix their own mistakes, rather than relying on people like him to fix them. While I believe that statement could have been worded more politely, I agreed at the time with his intent - that getting editors to fix their own mistakes helps to make them more aware of what those mistakes are, and can help prevent them from making the same ones in the future. That can save everyone time and hassle.

After I made that statement, it became clear that there was a much larger issue going on here, so I recused myself quietly from the WQA and continued to watch it, and later this RFC/U, unfold. I have not taken the time to research all the diffs and what not, so I have no specific comment on Epbr's general behavior, his AfD practices, etc.

However, I am now offering comment specifically on how Epbr appears to be responding to this RFC/U. Everyone knows and understands that RFC/Us are essentially interventions - they're akin to having a bunch of people show up at your house to confront you in person all at once. They're uncomfortable, they're not typically friendly, and they can have the appearance of being a kangaroo court where everyone's opinions are made up ahead of time and can't be changed. But as such interventions go, RFC/Us are generally not filed against people lightly. It's important to understand that when an RFC/U is filed and multiple people sign on to support it, there is at LEAST an implied need (and very often an expressed one) for such an intervention.

What I've observed while watching this RFC and the discussion going on are the following:

• The principal people filing and/or endorsing the RFC against Epbr are not necessarily related to one another, and do not appear to have a common agenda against him.
• There is agreement among these editors that Epbr's behavior and editing practices have been disruptive and uncivil, to varying degrees.
• Epbr has been attempting to discourage discussion about his own behavior by:
  • Accusing everyone of being part of a WP:CABAL against him
  • Questioning people's motives when they respond to the discussion
  • Baiting people (including myself) into acting uncivilly, mainly through sarcasm
  • Passing off matters of opinion as facts, claiming that he is arguing facts and others are not.

(Most of the above can be seen on this RFC's talk page.)

In addition, Epbr has been responding directly to outside views in their Endorsement sections. In one case, he signed one of them with a counter-endorsement, which is against the RFC rules (but is not in and of itself a big deal).

In my opinion, this sort of resistance to the RFC is only causing the process to take longer and is hurting Epbr's chances of a successful outcome on his side. If things continue as they are going right now, I think the RFC will ultimately fail to resolve the dispute and it will need to be escalated to a higher form of WP:DR, up to and including ArbCom.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Xihr 21:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Commenting in endorsements is not something I can complain about, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I haven't endorsed other views because most of them are essentially in agreement (or at least not in disagreement) with the original, the text of which was written by me (surprisingly - I was hoping others could have weighed in more, but I guess my comments from the WQA summed things up). Regardless, this is a new problem - his behavior in his own RfC/U (esp. the talk page) reflects some seriously misguided efforts to deny all wrongdoing and fling accusations at everyone else (based on a range of mostly inapplicable policies). --Cheeser1 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Comment Re: the last point... Let's not escalate RFC formatting issues; he shouldn't be doing that, but it's not causing serious disruption or confusing anyone that I can see. I don't think he's doing it to intentionally disrupt the RFC. Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. It's potentially more than just a formatting issue - it can be disruptive to the process. But you're right in that it's not such a big point that it needs special attention. I'm mentioning it as something I noticed MAY be part of a more general disruptive pattern. I clarified my statement above by adding some text and separating independent thoughts a bit. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Dekkappai 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Originally posted on the talk page, with the comment "My thoughts on the RfC, whether they go here or not, I don't know. Anyone is free to move them as appropriate". I think this is not a side comment, but a full fledged RFC view, and a remarkably thorough one, so am moving it to the main RFC page, and hope I correctly interpreted 2 of the responses as endorsements.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've spent some time researching Epbr123's history, and, first, I'd like to say that I don't believe he is a POV anti-porn censor, as some might imply from his actions. One of Epbr123's first actions in the porn category was to create a "Category:Naturally busty porn stars" This category was put up for deletion and deleted on March 14. That very day, March 14, he started his first AfD, in the porn category. Over the next 5 days he nominated a dozen articles for deletion. (Epbr claims to have created an AfD before this, I did not see it, and if he did, I highly doubt it was a mass series of AfDs.) Other editors at the time noticed this, and offered him advice on his talk page. He reverted this, and replied to an editor who attempted to reinstate it, "mind your own business, nutjob"

Though his AfDing has not really subsided since March, the recent escalation and mass-removal edit-war at List of big-bust models and performers coincided with the deletion and failed deletion review of Kerry Marie, an article Epbr123 strongly defended. (Note this comment at the AfD for Lorna Morgan then started: "If Voluptuous Model of the Year and two time Plumper of the Year, Kerry Marie, isn't notable, I'm afraid Lorna Morgan isn't.")

His mass deletions in other areas caused another group of editors to register concerns about him. This inquiry, though the purpose of the inquiry proved false, includes as Evidence: "User:Epbr123 began nominating or participating in large numbers of AfD discussions on 14 March 2007."

My point in bringing up these past incidents is to show that he has had many warnings about this sort of activity. Incidents such as the above, in which his actions and attitude have cause such an uproar, should have caused some self-reflection on his part. They have not. Instead he has reacted, during these confrontations with defiance and rudeness, and has continued on similar campaigns after the complaining has died down. The present RfC appears to be not much different. Though he did offer a half-hearted apology-- a first, in my experiences with him-- he unashamedly continues to AfD in the category, even articles such as this one which he AfD'ed and lost during his first deletion spree.

I have not followed Epbr123's work in the English town articles or at the FAC process, but I find this comment from PMAnderson very interesting: "Epbr123 is also one of the editors who make FAC so much fun, by insisting on every jot and tittle of WP:MOS, even the distinction between hyphens and en-dashes, without commenting materially on content." Note his comment at this recent AfD: "Oh, right. Where does it mention modelling sex toys at WP:N?" (Reasoning: Because WP:N doesn't specifically mention having a commercially-available reproduction of one's naughty bits made by a major company, it is not evidence of Notability. Maybe someone should put "Sex toys" into WP:N?) In all of his controversial actions he consistently ignores common sense for a hair-splitting, literalistic interpretation of rules which are, after all, made up by all of us, and under constant revision. It seems to me that Epbr123's WP:POINT in all this is to discredit Wikipedia rules/guidelines by following them to an absurdly literalistic degree, rules/guidelines by which he feels he has been victimized.

Even the good work he does is tainted by this apparent abuse of the spirit of the rules by following them to the letter. He has started a list of AVN award winners. This is excellent work. But he then proceeds to use it as a template for starting a series of stub articles with no information other than the fact that they have won an award, and are, technically, according to WP:PORNBIO, free from deletion. Examples:

• Aug 6 Kimberly Kane
• Aug 7 Linda Roberts
• Aug 10 Gen Padova
• Aug 10 Michelle Michaels
• Aug 12 Tami Monroe
• Aug 19 Tanya Hyde,

...all stubs with no information except that she is an AVN Award-winner, and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO. I would have no problem with this in itself, but combined with the editor's practise of continually mass-AfDing larger articles in this very subject based on an overly-literalistic interpretation of the rules, this appears to be an attempt to abuse those rules an another way-- deleting well-written articles because they don't satisfy WP:PORNBIO, and creating a series of stubs because they do.

Similarly, between Aug 13 and Aug 21, he created literally hundreds of unsourced stubs on English municipalities. One example and another. The articles are created alphabetically, as if using a list, and apparently using a script or a bot, since I notice up to three such creations in a minute. Also, these article creations are all marked as "Minor" edit summaries. Again, fine, I suppose, except in juxtaposition with his mass-AfDing of relatively developed, long-standing articles in other subjects, which are not saved by the "No town is non-notable" rule.

When these mass-AfDs are underway, those of us concerned are tut-tutted and asked to just keep assuming good faith because a few out of the mass appear to be genuinely non-notable. This may be true, however it is the shear number of the nominations that is the disruption. I gave up trying to follow his mass-AfDs back in March, when he was AfDing up to a dozen articles a day in the porn category. Other editors and myself were offering counter-arguments at that time, and finding that the vast majority of them should not be deleted. I feel that wasted a week's worth of valuable editing time fighting the AfDs that he was created. Yes, wasted because even those articles that were saved through hard work were put up for deletion by Epbr123 again in a few months, and I see some of those saved then have since been deleted. Because of the ease with which an AfD can be started, and the time and research required to counter one, I have given up looking into his AfDs. So now, by persisting in these mass-AfDs, he gets more and more scalps for his trophy wall.

From all of the foregoing, my own guess-- for what it's worth-- that I and other editors were wrong in assuming that Epbr123 is working from a POV that he wants to push onto Wikipedia. Instead, I think he is working from an even less justifiable position. He apparently feels that when his articles have been AfD'ed and deleted, he has been victimized by Wikipedia's rules and AfD procedures, which he thinks are arbitrary, and he wants to make other editors suffer his same fate. His mass-AfDs, therefore, seem to me to be not out of a POV, but out of vindictiveness and spite. Since a consistent POV cannot be found in the mass AfDs and the endless arguments, it seems that a disruption of the whole Wikipedia/Afd/article creation system is actually the goal.

Regardless of his motives, speaking for myself, as much as I enjoy researching, working on and creating articles here, seeing this editor's spree of destruction and disruption go on unchecked for so long has been extremely depressing. I felt like if I pointed out what he seemed to be doing, I'd be accused of bad faith. When I tried to engage him in discussion I was met with rudeness and absurdist arguments seemed designed to provoke a personal attack or other form of incivility. If I then walked away, I appeared to be refusing to engage in dialogue... In the end I've felt helpless to do anything until enough other editors came to see what was going on here. This sort of time-wasting game-playing wears on me, as I'm sure it does on everyone else, and has contributed to my decision to take a break from editing here. I would suggest to Epbr123 that he do the same, and reflect seriously on his purposes in editing here.

My advice to Epbr123 would be similar to that which I offered on his talk page in March, and which he removed, along with the advice of others. Work like this shows that not only can you be a good editor, you are not a censorious, POV, anti-porn crusader. Instead your disruptive actions seem to stem from anger and hurt at having some of your articles deleted. All of us know what this feels like. However, there is a good, constructive way to get over this hurt: Save what work you can, polish it more, and then resubmit it. I congratulate you on succeeding to do this with Sharday, one of the deletions that seem to have inspired your first series of AfDs back in March, and I really believe that Kerry Marie should be able to be sourced and restored eventually as well.

However, if you continue with your actions and attitude as you have in the past, you will only succeed in disrupting and damaging an area of Wikipedia you apparently care about, angering more editors, and having actions taken against yourself. Please consider if this is your goal, or if helping to build Wikipedia is your goal. Dekkappai 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 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)[reply]

2. Bfigura ^(talk) 14:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Well written.[reply]
3. Very well written. Epbr123 is clearly a well meaning, dedicated editor. He's written half a dozen featured articles and a similar number of good articles, that's very impressive, I don't want to lose him. But I hope he can moderate his tone and actions. There is nothing wrong with nominating clearly unsuitable articles for deletion - Joe Beaudoin Jr., who started this RFC, did so all the time before his reduction of activity for this year. But we need to do so with the basic assumption that even those who oppose us at these discussions, whether AFD, RFC, or FAC, are also doing so out of the best interests of the encyclopedia. We need to be polite, and even nice to each other, a volunteer project just doesn't work otherwise. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Xihr 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Very well put. I had a major problem sorting this out; because there seemed such a mismatch between the good work he's done in some areas, combined with actions verging on the bizarre that are highly disruptive and thoroughly pointless. I think you've hit the nail on the head with his determination to make his own ideas stick by any means available, and with no regard at all for consensus or the smooth running of the project.
   —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dekkappai 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I'm endorsing my own summary belatedly because of its placement on the talk page last night. Thank you to the above editors for the compliments, though, on the whole, I'd rather have spent that time and energy writing a nice, fun article instead... :-( Dekkappai 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I was asked if I would like to comment on this RfC because although I haven't been involved in what's been going on with the AfDs I have had some contacts with Epbr123 over some GA/FA reviews of English towns.

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.

To balance my negative comments I also have to say that I believe that Epbr123 does some very good work with the GA/FA process, especially with the geography articles, and I've found him to be generally quite helpful. I would tend to agree with the comment made by Septentrionalis (above) about the uncalled for "voice of the country schoolmaster with his pupils", but that would probably be the only charge I'd lay against Epbr123's door. I certainly haven't found him to be disruptive, but there does sometimes seem to be an issue with civility.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Epbr123 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.