The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

There is a clear consensus here on two main points: a) that Epeefleche is broadly correct to remove unsourced content; b) that Danjel has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content. There was also a clear consensus that Danjel had previously been made aware of the community's support for the core policy of WP:V, and had previously been advised at ANI to desist from reinstating unsourced material. The result was that Danjel's opening of this RFC amounted to shooting themself in the foot. The consensus is that Epeefleche has acted correctly in support of WP:ONUS, and the problem here is with Danjel's conduct; there was strong support for describing this conduct as WP:HOUNDING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

It has been alleged that I have badly restored deleted content which should have been fixed more, and that therefore the problem lies with me. This is partially true, as I, like everyone, can make a mistake from time to time. Examples raised are diff on Mohamad Ali and diff on All Hallows' School. When I realised that there were issues, I quickly fixed them (diff of my fixes to Mohammad Ali, in response to concerns raised below regarding paraphrasing of a small amount of text, and diff of my fix on All Hallows' School, because I had forgotten to give the ref).

Separately, it has repeatedly been alleged, despite my repeated denials, that I view it as my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche. This is categorically untrue. The original ANI was closed by TParis with an exceptionally poorly worded suggestion that "the burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content." I took this as a suggestion that I had to provide sources for the multitudes of pages that Epeefleche hits to delete content, which was an absurd suggestion that I have rejected repeatedly (diff and diff).

Epeefleche has alleged that the fact that I still find his edits problematic (and still fix them), is WP:WIKIHOUNDING. He alleges that my improvement of an article (diff) that he removed content from is disruptive. It would appear that he would prefer that his edits stand, that references not be added, and articles not improved. This was my response, which I feel sums up the problem (diff):

So you suggest that I should have added my ref, and left the rest of the text (which was problematic for other reasons) in place? Because it's either delete everything or keep everything, right? Rubbish. The key difference that is becoming apparent between you and I is that will consider the text, whether it's appropriate and whether it's source-able, and only keep that information that is. On the other hand, you just delete everything, whether it's of encyclopedic value or not, whether it's source-able or not. How can you possibly argue that it is better to remove all information than to keep the information that can and should be kept? THAT is why your edits are disruptive, and why your attempt to silence criticism and discourage (or prevent) repair of your edits is not in the best interests of wikipedia. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(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).
7. diff (fixed with an easily found source at diff, although the article still needs a lot of work from someone who knows more about the Indian education system than I) - Note that this occured after Wikipedia:V#cite_note-3 was added to V, Epeefleche perhaps has not read this change and is not communicating clearly (d per tag) nor making any attempt to improve the articles in question.

Other WP:BIAS issues[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

{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[edit]

Attempts by certifier Danjel[edit]

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[edit]

1. User talk:Epeefleche#Re: Murdoch University

Other attempts[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

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[edit]

{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", 5 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 labelled the removal of tagged, un-sourced content: "disruptive". He warned me, and threatened me with being blocked.[4][5]

Furthermore, when he does add refs in restoring previously un-sourced information that I removed, Danjel fails to indicate that is what he is doing. To the contrary, 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.

Hounding continues; Update on January 27. This is disturbing. Even after all that has been written here. And at the AN/I. And in side-conversations with Danjel. Such as the warning to Danjel by the sysop who had closed the AN/I: "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".

Now. During this RFC. With remarkably bold disregard for community input.

Danjel followed me to a deletion I had made of unsourced material that had been tagged since May 2009. He followed me to an article he had never edited. And hours after my deletion, he restored the deleted, tagged, unsourced material. Initially, without any refs; in direct violation of wp:v. With a misleading edit summary that disparaged me without any basis — called my removal of the uncited text "disruptive". He wrote: "Reverted 2 edits by Epeefleche (talk): Delete disruptive removal of notability conferring content". Just as he had in the examples I had given above. He then did add a ref a minute later (albeit not accurately supporting the text, and mal-formed).[8]

It has now been a year that I have been subjected to this. How much longer must I suffer Danjel following me around the Project from place to place, only to confront me and disrupt my enjoyment of editing with unfounded accusations, tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior?

Hounding on January 28. And now, again, on January 28. Danjel followed me to a deletion I made of unsourced material that had been tagged both in April 2009 and February 2010. He followed me to an article he had never edited. And hours after my deletion, he restored something close to what was stated in a fraction of the deleted, tagged, unsourced material. While deleting some text himself, without acknowledging it. Though he added a ref, he labeled my removal of the uncited text "disruptive". He misleadingly wrote in his edit summary: "Undid revision 535205260 by Epeefleche (talk) – revert disruptive removal of text)". Just as he had in the above instances.

First, his edit summary was again misleading. His was not a complete undo of my revision. Not even close, if you look at the 2 edits. He added a ref, and touched only a small part of my edit. Second, it was again inappropriate for him to label my edit disruptive—in contravention of all the feedback given him. Finally, this is yet another example of him wikihounding me; to this very day. One year after this started. Ignoring all manner of sysop and community feedback.

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 on him, as he seems from the above to not take to heart the suggestions that he "drop the stick." But instead has moved from: a) warnings; to b) AN/I; to c) talkpage discussion with the closing sysop; to d) statements that he feels he must wikihound me; to e) RFC. Creating a battleground atmosphere, without sensitivity to community and sysop input.

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

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. (Personal attack removed) Epeefleche is in the right of it. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. --v/r – TP 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. pbp 8:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)
9. Sadly, it seems the wrong editor is up for RfC/U Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. and per User Alansohn (talk · contribs) above. IZAK (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. ----Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. CtP (t • c) 19:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. ThemFromSpace 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 26 February 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[edit]

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]
2. pbp 8:53 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Outside view by Alansohn[edit]

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]
6. Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Intothatdarkness 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. IZAK (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Unsourced content is unverifiable to the reader and therefore of very little worth to this project. Removing it is commendable cleanup work. Re-inserting it with sources is even better. That, rather than initiating spurious requests for comment, is what the complainant should have done.  Sandstein  22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. ThemFromSpace 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. I 100% agree with Sandstein. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hasteur[edit]

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]
3. Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jusdafax 06:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. IZAK (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. pbp 03:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bob K31416[edit]

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."[9]

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]
3. Alanscottwalker Articles are going to have unique sets of circumstances. For example, removing pertinent facts from an article can easily make an article misleading or false or gibberish, and will not increase anyone's confidence about anything on the Pedia. So, it rather takes judgment, nuance, reflection, and communication, which is what this view seeks to promote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. In general I think we mostly agree that deleting all unsourced material is a bad idea -- we'd lose a massive amount (certainly more than half, maybe 90%) of Wikipedia. To me it follows that we should only remove unsourced material when it is problematic (either likely wrong, nearly impossible to verify or the like). While it would be nice to have sources for everything, we don't do that even in many of our featured articles. I'd prefer people try to source or have a reason to believe that a given bit of material is incorrect rather than just deleting because the material hasn't been sourced for a long time. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Just like adding material, removing material takes judgment. If the material seems probable, it is enormously more helpful to look for sources. And if you don't find them, it's much easier to get them deleted if you can say you made a good try at finding them. The length of time something has been unsourced is irrelevant--what is relevant is the amount of work that has been done to try and source it. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per DGG. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. While I have the impression that EF is using some judgment as to which unsourced material to remove (he's not removing all the unsourced material on tagged articles), the edit summaries suggest that the removals are solely due to the length of time that tags have been in place. Per DGG, this might not be the most relevant criterion to use. Better edit summaries would include other reasons—such as "removed unsourced puffery", or "removed unsourced and dubious", or "removed material I was unable to verify after a search for sources". I also am uncomfortable with the precedent that might be set here, separate from the concerns around EF. If it's okay to remove all unsourced material in articles that have an old ((refimprove)) tag at the top, nationalistic and other POV editors could have quite a field day with articles about their opponents. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by bobrayner[edit]

• 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]
3. Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jusdafax 06:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. IZAK (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kww[edit]

I will not only side with Epeefleche on this one, I will go so far as to say that danjel is being disruptive: repeatedly restoring poorly sourced information without adding reliable sources is far more disruptive than removing the kind of material that Epeefleche seems to have been removing in these cases. Most of this material ranges from trivia to apparent cut-and-paste copyvios from the "About us" sections of various websites. A large percentage of it shouldn't be restored even if an independent source can be found. I detest the word wikihounding, so I can't bring myself to endorse Epeefleche's view, but what I would like to see come out of this RFC/U is a consensus that it's danjel that is viewed as disruptive, and his reflexive restoration of material needs to come to an end.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Kww(talk) 16:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. pbp 04:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jusdafax 06:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. IZAK (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. ThemFromSpace 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by IZAK[edit]

I have known User Epeefleche (talk · contribs) over many years. Based on his editing and comments he is quite evidently a highly educated and professional individual. He is a very serious editor and does not suffer fools gladly that can sometimes be misunderstood, but he has the best interests of the growth of WP at heart over all else. I have also perused the user page of User Danjel (talk · contribs) and while he too seems to have the best of intentions, and while it his right to admit to his occupation as a teacher of elementary school children, it is highly troubling that he openly admits to allowing them to edit using an account he has "created" for them on his watch, see User:Danjel#Students' Work at Wikipedia:

"My primary school students edit wikipedia, here at the English wikipedia through User:MrJuddsStudents and at Simple Wikipedia through simple.../User:MrJuddsStudents. I provide them with this account out of respect and concern for their anonymity and so that I can provide a degree of oversight on their actions on wikipedia. A small number of students are provided with access based on edits that they propose to me prior to their work. My high school students establish accounts of their own that I also oversee while they are enrolled at school."

While encouraging students to use WP is great, this type of "activism" by User Danjel is highly troubling, as it relates to his alleged "complaints" in this instance, for a number of reasons: (a) It borders on violations of WP:ILLEGIT; WP:SOCKS; WP:MEAT because other bona fide WP users cannot know if they are up against User Danjel as a private individual or as the leader of his own "multi-headed hydra" of students et al with a WP:OWN agenda? (b) It makes it impossible to subscribe to WP:AGF when it is impossible to know if User Danjel is being genuine when he opines or is he "teaching a class" or posturing and using what happens on WP as some sort of "live example" as if he were displaying what happens when you push pins into captive animals in a lab (web) experiment. (c) By admitting that he is pushing his OWN students onto WP user Danjel makes it impossible to know when he is being serious or when he is literally playing games. He should try WP:SANDBOX for such games and he should know full well about WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTFACEBOOK! (d) User Danjel must have had ways of engaging User Epeefleche in a mature way. After all User Eppefleche has a mature mind and is a mature editor who does not play games and he is NOT one of User Danjel's students but is rather his full equal, so that it behooves User Danjel NOT to resort to antics that just waste everyone's time and in fact lead down that messy path that violates WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. (e) Finally, by way of caution, User Danjel should carefully review WP:CHILDPROTECT so that he not inadvertently create problems for the very children he is dragging into his editing and that seems to be clouding his attitude to other editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. It takes two to tango! IZAK (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. pbp 9:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)
3. Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jusdafax 06:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Post Script

1. For the record, please see subsequent discussions stemming from the above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation of WP:NOSHARE and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Role account used by User:Danjel the latter an extension of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Short term block proposal: User:Danjel that is still ongoing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the above post-script is allowable, then it should also be noted that the above thread was closed noting that this was likely a case of IAR. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. New discussions, a "RFC" based on concerns that I had raised (of course I am not getting credit for it), continue at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC on shared accounts for use by minors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. NOTE 1 TO CLOSING ADMINS: This RFC should be ended forthwith because the nominator is no longer active on WP, see the user page of User:Danjel with the ((retired)) template on it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the above post-script is allowable, then it should also be noted that the above thread was closed noting that this was likely a case of IAR. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. NOTE 2 TO CLOSING ADMINS: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Danjel's misuse of active versus retired status etc: Another point of concern here is that a closing sysop at this RFC (the RFC that Danjel started a month before he "retired"), should NOT reach the conclusion, that since Danjel has retired, there is no longer any concern about his behavior as cited above. Danjel can easily come back the day after the close of the RfC or vanish and reappear as someone else. Retirement means zero in this context. This RFC needs a close that is as strong as if Danjel were still active, and the closing admin should be fully justified in closing and should not have a reason to say "no reason to boomerang and no reason to interaction ban him, as he is retired". That would be handing Danjel a "victory and prize for his maneuverings that may happen. Thus, this RFC should be ended forthwith because consensus is clear, and the RFC has continued for over a month. The nominator Danjel as of a few days ago is no longer active on WP, but of course he can "un-retire" tomorrow, therefore the consensus for either a full block or at least an interaction ban on him interacting with User Epeefleche (talk · contribs) is absolutely necessary. IZAK (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

If the above post-script is allowable, then it should also be noted that the above thread was closed noting that there was no violation, because I was in breach of no policy, i.e., IZAK's complaint is completely groundless. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Purplebackpack89[edit]

I'm going to keep mine simple:

1. Danjel thinks most or all school articles should be kept; Epeefleche doesn't, and most of the time, consensus has favored Epeefleche
2. Danjel and Epeefleche have been at loggerheads on this issue for some time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination))
3. Danjel has gone to a number of forums to belabor his argument against Epeefleche and others (including, to be fair, me)
4. Danjel has brought up Middle Harbour and other public school AfDs way too often, and in places they shouldn't have been brought up (for example, they were brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chili burger)
5. Danjel needs to stop interacting, even talking about, Epeefleche et. al, and realize that consensus is probably against him, and, if anything, his actions toward Epeefleche, et. al are probably hurting his case, and certainly his credibility

5a. Since this RfC/U is a form of Danjel talking about Epeefleche, it should be closed with no action taken against Epeefleche

Users who endorse this summary:

1. pbp 02:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jusdafax 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Blueboar[edit]

The key here is that some people see "mass removals" of unsourced material with long standing tags as being in some way disruptive. I don't. I agree that such removals can be annoying in the short term, but they are actually beneficial in the long run. They force editors to focus on problematic material and actually address the problem (by either leaving the material out because it is actually unverifiable, or returning the material with a citation to demonstrate that it is, in fact, verifiable). Once material is deleted, we no longer have the option to ignore the tag. Yes, we do encourage editors to check to see if they can easily cite the material themselves, and it would be nice if more editors did so. However... when push comes to shove, editors are not required to check first, nor (in my opinion) should they be. The ultimate responsibility to fix the problem of unsourced (and thus potentially unverifiable) information rests firmly with those who want to keep the information in the article, not with those who wish to remove it. Thus, I do not see any reason to take action against Epeefleche.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doniago (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree, and closed with WP:BOOMERANG in mind, in my opinion. Jusdafax 08:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. --v/r - TP 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. pbp 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (per Jusdafax)[reply]
8. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. In addition, closed with WP:BOOMERANG, per Jusdafax and pbp.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strongly endorse ThemFromSpace 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kurtis[edit]

As someone who is primarily a content contributor (although I have no FAs or GAs to point to, I do spend most of my time here writing), I consider citing sources to be the most important aspect of writing an article. Anything that has the potential to be disputed or questioned must be referenced to a reliable third-party source (eg. a reputable news organization). With particularly controversial claims, there should be more than one reference provided so that the point being made can be considered a proven fact. Every external link needs to be carefully checked beforehand so that its content explicitly backs up whatever contentious claim it verifies. Other things must be taken into account: accessibility, context, relevance, whether the content falls under BLP, etc. It goes hand-in-hand with factual accuracy.

Even if it's not my preferred approach, most of the removals cited above are within policy. The first instance listed by Danjel includes the following claims: "AJA caters for students from 3 years of age up to 18 years of age" and "their international curriculum is broadly based and designed to meet the wide range of student needs and abilities opened in September 2002..." These both need first-party (or at least reliable third-party) sources to verify that this school actually does "cater [to] students [ages 3 to 18]" and that its "international curriculum is... designed to meet the wide range of student needs and abilities." Even if those claims are true, they need a source. It's good that Danjel re-added the content with adequate citations afterwards, but giving Epeefleche a templated warning is a bit over the top.

One thing I will say is this — I generally don't understand the concept of adding "reference needed" templates to articles. Providing an adequate source is not that hard. After you click the "edit" button, in the top-left section of the loaded page, there should be a "Templates" scroll-down menu. From there, you can click on one of the "cite ____" options, depending on which one you're inserting. Fill out the relevant information in the resulting menu, copy/paste the URL if using a web source, and then enter it in. Hit "preview" to make sure everything's in order, save the page, and check the references section to see if it got everything right. It's a simple, straightforward procedure that shouldn't take more than a few minutes, tops.

What I would take away from this if I were Epeefleche is that it might be best to try a different approach to unsourced content. Instead of removing it point blank, look for a reliable third-party source to back it up. If you cannot find one, then remove the content and open it up for discussion on the article's talk page, the user talk page of whoever added it, or perhaps even one of the reference desks. Or, you can do what I do: remove it, then look for references; if you cannot find any, move on. For big chunks of important but unreferenced material such as this, definitely try to find a source before instantaneously removing. And of course, more leeway can be given for the removal of unsourced claims from BLPs or anything that pertains to a living person, but it is still best to try and discuss it with others afterwards. Meanwhile, in Danjel's case, I'd try to avoid anything to do with Epeefleche from here on out. It'll do yourself a headache to go against the lion's share of the community.

Both sides of this dispute bring up good points. On one hand, I 100% agree with DGG's comments in endorsing Bob K31416's view: "If the material seems probable, it is enormously more helpful to look for sources. And if you don't find them, it's much easier to get them deleted if you can say you made a good try at finding them." I also agree with Graham87 when he says that "the rules are not a suicide pact." But on the other hand, something like this, re-adding content that was lifted from another site because Epeefleche removed it, is rather short-sighted — especially when linking to the site from which the text was copied word-for-word. And as a disclaimer, I'm probably not above making some of the mistakes listed here myself. In the past, I've edited an article that turned out to be a copyright violation in its entirety (it was deleted without anyone having notified me); I tried to mitigate the issue while still retaining the page, but that was not feasible to whichever administrator opted for deletion. I have also introduced unsourced content to newer pages (non-BLPs) as "placeholders" until I find some adequate sources; nothing inaccurate, but still needs to be verified (and I always do get around to applying one in the very near future). Again, probably not the best practice, but nothing to crucify me or anyone else over.

Bottom line? We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enforce a strict set of rules. Any effort made to improve reliable coverage of our articles ought to be appreciated.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I tried not to contradict myself too much here. It's a genuinely complex issue where every side has good points. If only we could all find some approach in which everyone agrees to, but sadly, that's probably an unrealistic ideal. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion. Graham87 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Thanks for this view, Kurtis. When dust settles after some of the battling that's happened, I have hope that some of the (in my view) balanced comments that DGG and Graham87 (and Kurtis) have offered will not be lost. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.