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: 05:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC).

• Epeefleche (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

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.

Desired outcome

That Epeefleche refrain from lazy removal of content and edits according to the whole of WP:V, including that part that suggests that an attempt should be made to source easily source-able content.

Description

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to disruptively delete content from articles citing WP:V. While the content is usually unsourced (with occasional clumsy exceptions, such as diff), there are many times where the content is easily source-able with the minimum of effort involving Google. While WP:V does allow for the deletion of unsourced content, it also suggests that "if instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it", which is the problem in this case as Epeefleche is removing content that is easily sourced using seconds of google time.

This has previously been raised with Epeefleche at diff, Talk:All Hallows' School#Removal of House System section and at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Disruptive deletion of content. None of these attempts at addressing the issue has resulted in any change to Epeefleche's approach to editing. On the last occasion at ANI, the closing admin said that "on the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort," and this is inarguably not happening. In regards to the last ANI thread, I completely reject that it is my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche around the encyclopedia and source content that he is too lazy to source himself; while I'll do this for the articles on my watchlist, the scope of Epeefleche's disruption extends far beyond my watchlist.

The latest instance was at diff (restored by me with easily found sources at diff). However, this is not the only instance of this happening since last this was discussed, as the issue also came up at diff (restored with easily found sources by Graham87 at diff).

That being said, Epeefleche typically targets subjects based in non-English speaking countries that are affected by WP:BIAS, particularly Middle and Far-Eastern subjects. For many of these articles, sources are difficult to find, however, an attempt beyond merely tagging and deleting would be far more productive. I would suggest that, in these cases, Epeefleche, tag then refer the articles in question to an appropriate wikiproject and only delete where the material is genuinely contentious.

This approach to editing is lazy and clumsy and does little to "improve" the encylopedia. If it were just articles that were hard to source, this might be less of an issue. It if it were anything but the most mundane and easily source-able content, this might be less of an issue. If it were occuring with less frequency than it is now, then it might less of an issue. But it is an issue.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had a previous run-in with Epeefleche over his overzealous AfD nomination of school articles at the beginning of 2012, with his nominating around 160 school related articles in a 3 week period over New Years 2011-2012. Many of those nominations showed the same lazy clumsiness as his current actions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaian Foreign Language School (which was initially nominated for deletion as a primary school, but was, in fact, a school region, which was stated in the article's opening paragraph, the nomination was not withdrawn when this fact became apparent), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School (which was initially nominated as a primary school article, but was very obviously a userspace draft, and, again, the nomination was not withdrawn when this became apparent). I am glad to be able to say that Epeefleche has not, since, managed to nominate as many articles in such a short timespan. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, because Epeefleche continually misrepresents this situation (as he has done below and in every instance where the issue has been discussed). The problem is NOT that unsourced content is deleted. The problem IS that on a very selective reading of WP:V, easily source-able content is deleted. On the basis of this misrepresentation, the attempt to address the issue at ANI went tangentially down the path of the first point, not the latter. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. diff (restored by me with easily found sources at diff), which then led to some frenzied tagging by Epeefleche (presumably these will be blanked at a later date; I'm personally a bit ambivalent about the inclusion of at least the second point, and am waiting on school newsletters for the first point).
2. diff (restored with easily found sources by Graham87 at diff);
3. diff (restored by me with easily found sources at diff);
4. diff (restored by me with easily found sources at diff, with a source that was already present in the text, i.e., no effort googling required);
5. diff (in this case, (a) there was no tag on the section deleted from; and (b) there was already a passable reference in the article (and in the section) for the content deleted, i.e., it wasn't even required that 10 seconds be spent with google).
6. diff (restored by me with an easily found source at diff; in this case, it seems that the information removed was exactly that information that conferred notability on the subject of the article).

Other WP:BIAS issues

The below are diffs of other examples that I have not been able to source but are likely difficult to source due to WP:BIAS issues (taken from where they were raised with Epeefleche in discussion at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Because it's been discussed elsewhere, here are some more examples from the past 24 hours or so (I haven't bothered googling with these yet, but the content doesn't look particularly contentious or difficult to find):

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff

There are many many more examples all through Epeefleche's editing history.

Further examples from January 24

Epeefleche had a particularly busy day on January 24.

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff (this is a particularly water is wet issue)
7. diff
8. diff
9. diff and diff on same page in the same minute, were they even looked at before being removed?
10. diff
11. diff

I'm starting to notice that the primary targets for Epeefleche's "work" relates to Middle Eastern subjects.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:V wherein it states "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
2. WP:PRESERVE wherein it states that instead of deleting content, users should consider "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself"

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier Danjel

1. Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section;
2. On Epeefleche's Talkpage #1 (part of which has since been removed, presumably per WP:BLANKING);
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Disruptive_deletion_of_content;
4. diff;
5. User_talk:TParis#Follow-up.

Attempts by certifier Graham87

1. User talk:Epeefleche#Re: Murdoch University

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Graham87 05:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

1. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background and diffs.

Danjel, as he notes, had a difference of opinion with me. A year ago. On an un-related issue.[1][2]

Since then, he has confronted me a number of times. Typically objecting to my deletion of unsourced content. Which had been tagged for years. The tags often stated that the unsourced material may be removed.[3]

Danjel provided, as "Evidence of disputed behavior", five diffs concerning material that had been tagged since November 2009 in diff 1, October 2008 in diff 2, December 2007 in diff 3, June 2010 in diff 4, and July 2010 in diff 5.

Danjel even complains about the deletion of unsourced BLP information by others in the articles. Danjel also re-enters uncited material, without providing any ref support whatsoever. And, as Danjel admits, the un-sourced material that I deleted also contained copyvio.

Danjel called the removal of tagged, un-sourced content: "disruptive". He warned me, and threatened me with being blocked.[4][5] Furthermore, Danjel fails to indicate when he does add refs in restoring previously un-sourced information. Instead, he implies in his edit summary that he is reverting my deletion of sourced information. And calls the deletion "disruptive." As here and here.

AN/I

Last month Danjel extended his battleground to AN/I. The sysop who closed the AN/I (TParis) wrote:

"No evidence of a policy violation. Some concerns over specific edits by Epeefleche that warrent a kind question on their talk page and nothing more. WP:BLP is a bright line for WP:V for living people, but the rule exists for all content. The burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content. On the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort..."

Danjel later, however, warned me that I might be blocked for disruptive editing – pointing to the AN/I itself as a basis for his warning.

Danjel's interpretation of the AN/I:

"In amongst the fawning at ANI ... the general feeling is that Epee is a hero of the people and that it's my burden to wikistalk him and source all the content that he removes...."

I would appreciate it if Danjel would be disabused of the notion that he should wikistalk me. The above, and other comments he has made (as well as his actions), indicate that he sees it as a personal charge to confront me.[6]

Discussion with sysop who closed AN/I

Two days ago, the sysop who had closed that AN/I advised:

"Danjel – the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The WP:ONUS per WP:V is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other....

The community consensus was that Epeefleche's actions are acceptable ... per WP:V. Under no grounds does that grant you [Danjel] any authority, obligation, or exception to stalk his edits....

The process has worked because the content is now sourced where as it wasn't and was afoul of WP:V prior. Content must be verifiable, the policy is clear. Content that does not have a source can be challenged and removed. You failed to get consensus that Epeefleche's actions were wrong. At this point, you need to drop the stick...

You've been informed on what the policy is, you were given a chance to explain your position to WP:ANI and your position was rejected. At this point, you're bordering WP:IDHT .... ignoring the established consensus is just disruptive and isn't helpful to that goal. So why persist?...

... let's look at WP:PRESERVE...: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research) and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." And WP:CHALLENGE... "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:V doesn't fly in the face of the policies you quote at all. In fact, they support Epeefleche's actions. Your interpretation of them was denied by WP:ANI.... Back to WP:PRESERVE, it says in there "Instead of deleting text, consider:...doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself." That's not a requirement, it's a suggestion."

Danjel now ignores the AN/I. He ignores the general advice of the sysop. He ignores the sysop's suggestion that Danjel "drop the stick".

Danjel instead initiates this RFC. Extending his battleground. Attacking me for the removal of wholly un-sourced material. Which has been tagged as being un-sourced, and subject to removal, for as long as five years.

Policy

WP:V provides:

"verifiability means that people ... can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information.... Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.... All material ... must be verifiable.... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

Jimmy Wales is quoted in Note 3 to wp:v as writing:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...."

WP:Burden provides:

"Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed....

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

Danjel complains that I deleted text tagged and challenged as far back as 2007, for which no citations were provided. As to which neither he nor anyone else cared to provide ref support for the past 5 years. Danjel's comment: "Yep, those articles are on my watchlist. But I have a life, and I work on wikipedia in the spare time that my life allows. When I feel like it, I edit and improve articles."[7]

WP:PRESERVE provides:

"Preserve appropriate content.... if they meet the requirements of the ... core content policies ... Verifiability and No original research)... Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.... Instead of deleting text, consider ... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself....

Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than to preserve it. WP:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced ... material; WP:No original research discusses the need to remove original research ..."

As to Danjel's comments on non-English sources, he seems to believe that even where zero sources have been provided, non-sourced material should remain if it is possible that sources may perhaps exist in a language other than English. I see no basis for that view.

Conclusion

I would appreciate it if Danjel would not wikihound me, which he has indicated he believes is his charge. I would also appreciate an interaction ban, as he seems from the above to not take to heart the suggestions that he "drop the stick," but instead has moved from warnings to AN/I to talkpage discussion with the closing sysop to statements that he feels he must wikihound me to RFC, creating a battleground atmosphere, without sensitivity to community and sysop input.

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

1. Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. I especially note what appears to be an editor trying to use a endorsement essay to override a core policy. If you disagree, with removals, put it back in once you have it sourced. Having to wait more than 2 years for any editor to fix a challenged statement is plenty of time. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Consensus was very much against Danjel's version of events in the ANI thread, so it's surprising he didn't take the hint. It's well past WP:IDHT at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Danjel admits to agressive Wikistalking. That is highly unacceptable. Epeefleche is in the right of it. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by TParis

I do believe that Danjel has ignored that consnesus was against him at ANI and that makes this RFC/U premature. That said, both of these editors fail to understand the other. In addition to the above comments that were indeed made by me, I also said "Look Danjel, I understand your plea. With the goal of building an encyclopedia, removing content is going in the wrong direction. I just think you fail to understand Epeefleche. Removing unsourced content increases the credibility of sourced content." These editors both are trying to improve the encyclopedia but do not understand the others perspective. They need to try understanding each other instead of fighting against each other.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --v/r - TP 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alansohn

I think that too often we start to lose sight that the goal here is to build an encyclopedia made up of reliable and verifiable content. I monitor a few thousand articles on a frequent basis and I see a huge percentage of edits adding unsourced content, where the burden is now placed on me and other editors to go rooting around, wasting time to locate and add sources for what others deem to be "easily sourceable" or just remove the unsourced material. Some editors lean to adding sources, some to tagging for sources needed and others towards deletion, all of which have a strong leg to stand on. When material is challenged or removed, reinserting the material with the required sources is the ultimate response, not initiating a witch hunt. Looking through the examples, EF seems to have removed puffery and unencyclopedic material that should have been removed, and the claim that material should be kept in articles because of WP:BIAS means that we will have even crappier articles where anything can be added without any independent ability to determine its veracity. The policy obligations requiring editors to add sources are fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Trying to use ANI and RfC as a cudgel to force an editor to source the unsourced or face punishment not only confounds all logic but utterly distorts policy, and the proposed remedies don't correspond to the alleged crimes and are both unreasonable and unenforceable.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Alansohn (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree.--v/r - TP 22:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Well said, and I agree completely. Jusdafax 00:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hasteur

Per the sarcasm line I propose "That Danjel refrain from being a policy wonk, applying WP:SOFIXIT, and not worry about statements that are weak and have been challenged as such for an extended period of time. Danjel is encouraged to drop this line of persecution as Epeefleche has been conducting appropriate edits in line with the various WP:CLEANUP best practices." Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorsing my own view Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bob K31416

From Epeefleche's edit summaries, it appears that the editor has been deleting material according to the criteria that the material is unsourced and has been tagged for a long time. This seems like a task that can be done by a bot. So I went over to the Village Pump to see how editors felt about having such a bot for the case of unreferenced sections that have been tagged for more than a year. They didn't like it. One administrator over there wrote, "No, a person would need to look at each section to see if it should be removed, not just removed without any review."[8]

If Epeefleche has a reason to delete unsourced material other than it has been tagged for a long time, I would suggest that the reason should be indicated in the edit summary. If there is no other reason than unsourced and tagged for a long time, I would suggest that the editor refrain from deleting the material.

Note the second sentence of the following excerpt from the section Burden of evidence of WP:Verifiability.

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Graham87 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by bobrayner

• I am puzzled by Bob K31416's response, as it shows multiple examples of Epeefleche following policy, and then quotes the relevant part of policy, but seems to frame Epeefleche's actions as a Bad Thing.
• The real problem is elsewhere; every day more unsourced content is added to the encyclopædia - some of it factual, some of it fiction or fluff or fantasy - so removing unsourced content is vitally important to improve quality and to improve readers' trust in the remaining, sourced content. Shifting the burden of sourcing away from the people who just want to add whatever text pops into their head, and putting it onto the shoulders of people working to remove problematic content, would be a grotesque misreading of policy and could only serve to worsen quality.
• Danjel's reverting of Epeefleche may lead to other problematic content being added back into the encyclopædia. For instance, here Danjel adds back in copyvio which Epeefleche had removed - and complains about "disruptive deletion" in the edit summary - whilst diligently adding a link to the "source" that the content was copied from.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. bobrayner (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response

There's little other way to WP:PARAPHRASE the sourced information that you removed, so I've done so. If you'd like to have a go at improving the encyclopedia, then feel free to have a go, instead of playing gotcha games. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche removed copyvio from an article. You added it back in whilst citing the page that was copied from and blaming epeefleche. Now you defiantly reinsert a close paraphrase into the article and you blame me for "playing gotcha games"? Other editors create sourcing problems; epeefleche fixes them; you blame epeefleche; you created a copyvio problem; I fixed it; you blame me. Perhaps a collaborative editing environment is not the best place for you. bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done this yourself, and you know, "collaborated" (instead of deleting and standing proudly, pointing into the sunset, cape billowing behind you, and claiming to have "fixed it"), but you're more concerned with pointscoring. Good work. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your headlong rush to undo Epeefleche's removal of crappy content, you reinserted copyvio; I removed it; you're still finding new ways to criticise me for it. I have not looked further into your contribs and I extend my sympathies to anybody else who tries the necessary post-Danjel cleanup and gets the same treatment. There's really not much more I can add. You may have the last word, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving this threaded discussion to the talk page, per the Reminder at the bottom of this page. (You may remove this note if the suggested move takes place.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of the above is a bad faith accusation against me, effectively an attempt to WP:BOOMERANG this RFC/U. I have a right to reply to that in situ before people endorse that view, just as Epeefleche has the right to respond to my views before people endorse mine. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.