Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche

Epeefleche's response

...misrepresents and does not address the core of the dispute. The issue is not that content is deleted, whether it's tagged or not (as many of the example diffs show content being removed which is not tagged), the issue is that EASILY SOURCE-ABLE CONTENT is deleted. He is doing this based on a very selective reading of WP:V. I have updated the description with this particular issue highlighted to ensure that, this time, the issue is better understood. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche's response continued Yep, mea culpa. I forgot to add in the ref (diff) and had to add it in a moment later (diff). In the context of your continuing exactly the behaviour that is the subject of this RFC, occasionally looking at your contributions is not WP:WIKIHOUNDing. "The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases", (emph. added). Epee has still not responded to the core of the dispute, raised above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fear and loathing in Queensland

This page requests comments on User:Epeefleche. Having assented to the user's assessment of the situation, I would like to add that my experiences with Epeefleche have been entirely civil and productive despite a free-floating suspicion (paranoid as I am, q.v.) that we have diametrically opposed views. I met Epeefleche when the user copyedited an expansion I did in an Arabic contemporary culture bio. (A topic I don't care about. Darn that boilerplate!) The copyedits were entirely sound, and as my sourcing was, too, there were no deletions made. The "mileage" of other editors "may vary".

Inclusionists and deletionists need each other to make a better encyclopedia. In the absence of a solid deletionist voice, I have in several cases had to take a similar stance as Epeefleche in order to prompt the necessary changes, despite a lone dissenting unseen brain cell which screams across the synapses of my mind that if I should delete the unsourced notable alumnae of All Hallows' School for Girls, hypothetically someday a detective researching a vast Catholic schoolgirl conspiracy in Queensland will have insufficient actual evidence (other than a popular yet frequently questioned tertiary source) to get to the bottom of the sordid affair. I request the forebearance of that brain cell, and the rest of my rational mind goes about finding sources to aid that hypothetical detective and retain the information, despite knowing I have absolutely no interest in Queensland or Catholic schoolgirls. (Well, almost none. Cosplay is a noteworthy exception.)

To the rest of my rational mind, this is an entirely inefficient way to go about improvements to Wikipedia, but it satisfies my principles. (The suffering of my mind be damned!) I recognize that Epeefleche, having cut the Gordian knot, has much more efficient ways to improve Wikipedia, and that a deletion can easily be remedied by reverting with a source. Is Epeefleche lazy? No, the user is relentlessly productive. Is Epeefleche disruptive? In my view, the user is entirely cordial and within policy.

I can think of no other just consequence of this time-consuming diversion from productive editing than to award the user the privilege of reviewer status. Otherwise I fear the loss of Epeefleche which could hypothetically create a brain drain among deletionists and then I would have to develop a split personality to compensate. Zombie apocalypse to follow - spread initially through the alumnae of the Girls of All Hallows' School. :> ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up All Hallows' School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), because it demonstrates a point: that preventing content from being deleted is not my goal. In fact, if you contract ClaudeReigns' behaviour against Epeefleche in their activity on that article you will note that the former attempted to source material that was, in fact, difficult to source. The latter simply deleted. The difference is one of a productive editor against a lazy editor who is simply concerned with staying in the top 400 most active editors. Epeefleche could be replaced by a bot with instructions to delete anything tagged before a certain date, and it'd be difficult to notice the difference. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If we are continuing down this path of the "lazy" attack, allow my friend Dr. Freud to make the suggestion that you are projecting, having produced a source, then run to ANI after having failed to add it to the article over the course of a month, thus requiring a true inclusionist (me) to add it to the article. Although I love the idea of an Epeefleche-bot. If you can teach it to send happy personal notes, fix dashes and fence naked, I am on board. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about (diff of my adding that source to the article). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess you missed one. So, what is this really about? Do you sincerely feel that loads of unsourced information make Wikipedia better? I think Epeefleche's role is key, and you can't kick the bot by taking it through dispute resolution. Plus a bot could be fooled by adding ridiculous sources from the Booger News like the ones on my userpage. You've been suspected by an admin of WP:IDHT, and you have a certain hermaneutics of policy I find baffling. Here's your chance to clarify all of this: In principle, not policy, tell us - what justifies unsourced content on our project? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I "sincerely feel that loads of unsourced information make wikipedia better"? I gather from your asking this question that you haven't read the above section, and therefore do not understand what the actual problem is here, so... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So by deleting the unjustified unsourced information, the user was following sound principles and therefore doing their job. Perhaps you feel the user does their job a little too much and too often? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not the issue at hand. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it? You stated the user is "simply concerned with staying in the top 400 most active editors." So this very active editor among our top 400 is "lazy". In my opinion that statement is slanderous. There's no objection the user was acting on sound principles. The user seems to act on sound principles very actively. The user can work in harmony with other areas of Arabic contemporary culture with no conflict, and I suspect a wide variety of topics, provided the sourcing is present. You're fine with it if other editors will source the text you wish included in an article for you. Perhaps you feel it is the obligation of others to do so. But you tell me, what is the issue at hand? ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've outlined the issue above, repeatedly through my description of the situation and repeatedly throughout the previous discussions. I understand that you're trying to advocate for him and that the best way you think your goal can be achieved is to muddy the waters by reinforcing his misrepresentation of the issue. That's nice, but I'm unwilling to be baited by red herrings. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think I'm on to something. This really does seem like you wish to negatively incentify users like Epeefleche and myself into doing work that you don't care to. Every boilerplated article that I run into, I'd like to fix with sourcing; every boilerplated article Epeefleche runs into with a boilerplate gets that user's good solution instead. They are both appropriate responses to articles which need fixing. What's not appropriate is the haranguing which both of us have received over the most trivial and inconsequential of articles. These are not worth fighting over. The zombie apocalypse, my rational mind is now saying clearly above my usual din of paranoia, will not come if some facet of the inconsequential existence of a secondary school fails to be exposited. But not to worry! Someone out there looooves All Hallows' School for Girls. They have shown that they are watching the page and they do respond to deletions. Meanwhile, topics in which facts matter rely on this project's reputation, which is undermined when we play it fast and loose with sourcing elsewhere. Why won't you just be a good fellah and let the user do their job? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The "haranguing" you received? Are you trying to imply that I have a COI regarding All Hallows' School? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No. But I still can't understand in plain English what your beef is with Epeefleche. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Puffery/Unencylopedic Content?

I fail to see where there is puffery or unencylopedic content in any of the below diffs that are at the centre of this issue:

1. diff - removed descriptive information about how the school delivers teaching
2. diff - removed informatio about the university's main campus
3. diff - removed information about the school's rowing history
4. diff - removed information about the school's house system (that many other school articles have)
5. diff - removed information about the actor's early life

Nor any of the articles about which I'm concerned for WP:BIAS:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff
8. diff
9. diff
10. diff
11. diff
12. diff
13. diff

If Alansohn could enlighten me, that'd be great. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Credibility of material

Here's a question for those involved here who deleted or restored the subject material. Did the level of credibility of the unsourced material enter into your decision to delete or restore it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That question was asked at the very outset at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section when I first noticed that Epeefleche was removing easily sourced material. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I read there, it looks like Epeefleche didn't take into consideration the level of credibility of the material, except for using the criterion that credibility is defined by whether there is source given. Epeefleche could respond here if there is any misunderstanding on my part in that regard.

Now for the other part of the question. Did the level of credibility of the unsourced material enter into the decision to restore it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The information restored is beyond question of credibility. Looking at each according to the numbering there: (1) one presumes that most schools provide for a certain group, according to a particular educational approach, google confirmed quickly; (2) most universities have a main campus; (3) Churchie is locally famous for its rowing, and most private schools have some sport or another that they do well in; (4) almost every Australian school (or school that follows the English approach) has a house system; and (5) most people have an early life and a family. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe its beyond question of credibility, then you've answered the question.

When considering the issue of whether it is correct to delete unsourced material that has been tagged for a long time, I think that one should consider the basic principle that should be considered whenever one makes an edit, viz, the edit should improve Wikipedia. Deleting unsourced material that is clearly credible is harmful to Wikipedia in my opinion. It would be better if it was sourced, but it would be worse if it was deleted. Tagging the material is enough. Saying that deletion is consistent with policy is a false statement in this case since the policy WP:IAR states,

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Indeed. The average Wikipedia reader probably has no idea that some statements on the site have been unsourced for a long time, or even why that is a problem; they just want the information. We should think about our readers in instances like this. Graham87 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of IAR, and that's quite an applicable quote. Thanks Bob. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Credibility, belief, faith, hogwash. The spirit of WP:PROVEIT is that we rely on evidence, not hopeful mojo. Any permanent loss of information? Any extra facts unearthed for the experience? The articles are better for what happened. The "harm" is imaginary based on a belief, a principle, a priori thinking, not an eyes-open comparison of before/after. (Although perhaps there are articles where this does not come out so favorably) All of this is a black hole of policy debate, best left to WP talk:V. There's really only one part to Danjel's argument which I've expressed any assent. It may be worth another look. Specifically, taken on whole with the deletions seems to be a pattern of additions. WP:NOT a wanted poster. But this line of argument where something's famous but has no source is just ludicrous. There's never been more info available for sourcing. Should take about 3 seconds, right? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, about 3 seconds to comply with WP:V and WP:PRESERVE, improve the encyclopedia, and not just simplistically delete things. As for your second post, are you posting to the wrong talkpage? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, Would you care to explain in more detail what you meant by, "Although perhaps there are articles where this does not come out so favorably"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not sure whether I'd go so far as to ascribe harm to this, but here is an example of a deletion which is not covered under BLP or medical advice. Editors incuded unsourced information and did not respond to a sourcing challenge. Al-Ahliyya Amman University has an Arena Complex. [1] Arabic language news sources mention it in reference to events. [2] [3] [4]. The deletion has not yet triggered any revert with sourcing. This stands in contrast to the edits mentioned here. Systemically, more content in the Arab world would help represent a worldwide perspective. The content is problematic. It represents WP:COPYVIO. One could paraphrase and cite primary and secondary sources. But since this was found via searching edit history, it may be disruptive for me to modify this. I would want explicit permission to do so, rather than create any impression of wikistalking. I think such an arrangement could be very beneficial to the encyclopedia. This is different than All Hallows' School. Al-Ahliyya Amman University needs someone to love it. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the copyvio is more extensive than just that deleted section. Two more sections were just deleted for copyvio. So I think these copyvio problems in the example article would be too confounding if the article was used for discussing the present case re verifiability. However, I appreciate that you did good work in finding the example and ref, and recognizing the copyvio. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Collapse offtopic/irrelevant to this thread per WP:TPO

Mokhtar Belmokhtar, terrorist. Motive: struggling. Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, terrorist. Known for: struggling. Just thinking of that #MuslimRage hashtag after Innocence of Muslims and the joke that kept popping up: "Lady loses her son Jihad in the airport. Can't call out to him. #MuslimRage." I think if we were going for an encyclopedia which were sensitive to the views and practices of moderate Muslims, we'd nail down the motives of these perps with a little more specificity. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think so...you had stated that you were concerned about WP:BIAS in your summary. You advised looking at the user's ongoing contributions if I understood correctly. Bracing myself for "I don't know what you mean". ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC) So, this is another tangent irrelevant to this particular thread. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Targeting Middle Eastern related topics?

I'm starting to notice that topics relating to Muslim countries, Middle Eastern issues generally and Muslim organisations come in for particular attention from Epeefleche. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or retract your claim. Also consider the sample selection bias (the reason why Muslim countries, middle eastern issues, Muslim organizations show up for removal so often is because the articles are typically poorly (or un) sourced). Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the claims in both of the editors' messages, Hasteur and Danjel, may be difficult to show. Danjel has shown diffs, but that could be explained because Epeefleche may have a particular interest in articles in that category. Hasteur has shown nothing for the claim that articles in that category are typically poorly sourced. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not claim anything, I simply asked Danjel to present diffs showing specific cases where the removal was incorrect. I also asked Danjel to consider if selection bias was at cause here. To put it plainly, is the reason why those subjects end up being hit on more frequently is because they have a higher rate of unsourced statements? I'd like to ask you Bob to reconsider your mild attack on me as it doesn't do anything but cast aspersions on me. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might consider rephrasing your message because it appears you are making a claim, i.e. "(the reason why Muslim countries, middle eastern issues, Muslim organizations show up for removal is because the articles are typically poorly (or un) sourced)". If you would like to discuss and settle personal issues, I invite you to come to my Talk page. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you've derailed my point, I've clarified with the addition of so often in the original line. I'm not making any claims about the articles, I'm just asking Danjel to consider if the selection bias problem was more likely a cause for the pattern than malitious intent. Hasteur (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't change your claim that articles on Muslim countries, middle eastern issues, and Muslim organizations are typically poorly sourced. Here's your revised version "(the reason why Muslim countries, middle eastern issues, Muslim organizations show up for removal so often is because the articles are typically poorly (or un) sourced)". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The diffs are provided in the discussion. If you want me to copy & paste, then, of the 28 diffs I've listed:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff
8. diff
9. diff
10. diff
11. diff
12. diff
13. diff
14. diff
15. diff
16. diff
17. diff
18. diff
19. diff
20. diff and diff
21. diff
22. diff

As I have said, I'm not sure if this is indicative of anything besides that WP:BIAS is an issue. I'm hoping that the scale of the issue is becoming evident...˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, a bias against Muslims has previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#User:Epeefleche. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute

I endorsed the statement of the dispute but I would like to make a few miscellaneous comments here regarding it and this RfC in general. I wouldn't use the term lazy, as in "lazy removal" when referring to Epeefleche's actions. I understand that Danjel didn't mean to say that Epeefleche was lazy, but my personal feeling is that it could have been said in a better way. Judging from Epeefleche's contributions list, and looking at some of the edits, the editor is a hard working contributor to Wikipedia.

I recall one time when my work on an article was very rudely criticized by an editor. (So what else is new in Wikipedia?) Also, the editor introduced errors into the article that he wasn't aware of. So this would be a case where I might be justified in being righteously indignant. I was somewhat, but I also recognized that some of the editor's criticism was correct. So I got the article back in shape with that in mind. Whether the case here has some similarities is for each editor to decide for themselves. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I would tend to see things in that light. All of us have room for improvement. I would be concerned if the RfC/U came to the conclusion that Epeefleche was acting in full compliance with WP:V (which I think it should) but is not chiefly concerned with the spirit of WP:BIAS (which it might) and then fails to give a clear indication for all editors as to how to properly and appropriately respond. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I am characterising these actions discussed as lazy. I felt the same way about the AfD nomination spree that Epeefleche went on last year, as I have laid out. Not sure how else that could have been said, but if anyone has a suggestion, I'm happy for it to be put forward. There is, quite apparently, a world of difference between the way that you said that you responded to criticism and Epeefleche's response. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring comments

Edits like this are bad. Please don't refactor other people's comments on behaviour and then edit-war over them. I have no interest in getting dragged into an edit war with somebody who's sniping at me on the RfC/U and my personal talkpage, so I'm disengaging again. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "I completely reject that it is my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche...". The statement removed said that I "admit to agressive Wikistalking". Unless you else would like to show how "completely reject" and "admit" are synonymous, then the latter is false. It is therefore a personal attack and has no place here. I removed it and replaced with {{RPA}} per WP:NPA. Meanwhile, edit warring to keep a personal attack in the text is awesome. Good work. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors should be aware that I made two reverts, Danjel made three, and then Danjel came to my talkpage to warn me about edit-warring. Oh, and to complain about lack of discussion too. I tire of this hypocrisy. I have not done anything about Danjel's third revert; as before, I'm trying to disengage; Danjel, you can have the last word if you want. bobrayner (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not make three reverts. I removed a personal attack, leaving behind the user's endorsements. I see that you have not attempted to show how "completely reject" could possibly be synonymous with "admit". I suppose your cognitive dissonance just can't extend that far. So, good job on objectively representing the truth. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

TParis' concerns regarding "wikistalking"

Yes, unfortunately, there is a diff where you take responsibility for stalking Epeefleche's edits so it's not a personal attack. It's a summary of the diff. That makes it 3 reverts. You might want to reconsider your zeal in this RFC/U before an uninvolved administrator doesn't interpret the events as you have and blocks you.--v/r - TP 15:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another deliberate misinterpretation of what I said. I have explained what I meant to you prior to this RFC/U (diff "Your closing comments effectively assigned me the responsibility of wikistalking Epeefleche and restoring easily sourced content, and I reject this" (emph. added); diff "I reject this, utterly..." (emph. added) and in these discussions several times. But what can I say? It's clear that there's a degree of team-picking here, and that's the way that you've decided to act. Repeat a lie often enough and people will come to believe it, right?

Separately, an "uninvolved" admin? Just to be clear, that would be completely unlike you. But I really appreciate the threatening tone. You're an awesome admin. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The side was picked when you opened this RFC/U and rejected both the consensus at WP:ANI that I closed and and later the discussion with me on my talk page. You're ignorning consensus because you insist that your interpretation of WP:V wasn't given due consideration at WP:ANI and you're going to badger the community until they see it your way including changing other people's comments that don't suit your POV. Excuse me while I grab popcorn and enjoy how folks are going to continue to pile to Epeefleche's side. You've gained one supporter beyond your other certifier. You might want to reconsider this RFC/U because the next one, or the next ANI, is going to be on your behavior.--v/r - TP 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the side was picked then. Because at that point, after failing to mediate the issue between Epeefleche and I, and providing a close that had dodgy wording in the ANI close that has caused fundamentally stupid points from left and right about wikistalking when I have repeatedly rejected the suggestion that I should be doing anything of the sort. You're posting here, why, because you think you can genuinely defuse the situation? What are your motives?

And then someone had to post to your page to tell you to tone it down. Good work.

And again with the threats. Are you kicking up the drama here for your own entertainment? What exemplary behaviour. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please bold/highlight where in this edit you reject the idea you are to Wikistalk him? The ANI thread was clear "No evidence of a policy violation", my job is to summarize it and I did, and the drama was kicked off when you started this RFC/U. Don't try to shift that blame to me. I'm not the one ignoring consensus.--v/r - TP 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"In amongst the fawning at ANI noted in the last you will see that 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, because WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHALLENGE can be read selectively. Clearly, I just wasn't quick enough in this particular instance. So, mea culpa. "

To read the first highlighted part in one go: "At ANI you will see that the general feeling is that it's my burden to wikistalk him". Nowhere do I say that I actually accept that daft suggestion that you effectively made in your poor wording of the close by saying that it was my "burden" to provide sources for content he deletes. In fact I repeatedly reject it, including on your talkpage as has been stated above (forgetting obviously benefits your attempts at drama here).

To turn this back to you: please show evidence that I did wikistalkk him after that ANI, perhaps by beating Graham87 to Epeefleche's edits to Murdoch University? Otherwise, you're lobbing an unsubstantiated accusation that I have already repeatedly rejected, and, I ask again, for what? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you've gone ahead and thrown WP:AGF out the door, I assume it's ok now for me to do the same? I read that remark that your interpretation of the ANI close requires you to stalk him. Those were your words and I see this last comment and the others as back tracking after you knew you crossed a line. Same as what you just did on my talk page after accusing me of canvassing and other remarks and then you quickly reverted yourself for fear of reprisal.--v/r - TP 16:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When did you ever AGF at any point in our interactions? So I gather that, because you have fundamentally failed to provide evidence that I wikistalked Epeefleche, you'll now go back through and strikethrough where you have said that you did? Or is that expecting too much?

Fear of reprisal? Pfft. I know that you would see them, I just retracted them because, as I said, I felt that they were too harsh. Of course, AGF... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you miss the diff above where I clearly demonstrate that you feel it's your burden to Wikistalk him? The one where you try to change it's meaning? Yeah, that one. Arguing with you is pointless, you're a golden egg in this world of content deleters. This RFC/U is already boomeranging on you, it doesn't need my help. I hope when you find yourself behind a disruption block, topic ban, or IBAN, that you remember all the times I warned you not to proceed down this path and you ignored me warnings. Of course, you won't. You'll just recall how unfair we treated you. Good day.--v/r - TP 17:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss where I quoted what I had said and demonstrated that you had misread it? Did you also miss where you surmised that I was wikistalking but completely failed to provide any evidence, except something that you've misread? A good day to you too. I really appreciate repeated threats from an awesome admin such as yourself. As for the right to go back and self-censor, apparently you have that right, but I don't? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to, smart guy.--v/r - TP 20:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I didn't need to be. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you don't see the difference. Mine was describing the RFC/U as absurd and I was asked to remove it to avoid people taking it the wrong way; so I did. Your's was intentionally meant to attack me and you removed it when you realized how close you are to some poor do-good uninvolved admin coming by and calling it disruptive and blocking you. I'll strongly encourage and advise you again, drop the RFC/U and move on. You're not helping yourself, it's already going against you as far as the outside views are concerned, and now there is an ANI thread about your behavior. Let it go and we can all let bygones be bygones.--v/r - TP 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering your actions here and elsewhere, including your repeated misreading of what I said to serve your cause, it's a valid question to ask what your motivations are (considering also that I've asked, above, if you're here to make things better, and you've failed to answer). As I said, I felt it was a bit too harsh in hindsight, so I removed it. Yes, I've noticed the deliberate attempt to silence an opponent (without any reference to policy at all, relying solely on the subjective comments of my opponents here, and accompanied by WP:CANVAS-ing). I'm not dropping this RFC/U just because your friend, and the friend of others' (the latest "outside view" pretty much explicitly states that friendship is the reason why s/he posted), happens to be the subject. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to show evidence of canvassing?--v/r - TP 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, at the ANI thread. "You then selectively WP:CANVAS those individuals who have opposed my position at the RFC/U to come to this thread (diff, diff and diff) presumably to continue the pile on." (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The big bold red letters on ANI state: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion."--v/r - TP 02:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Are Starblind, Bobrayner and you the subject of the discussion? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quotations by us are in the opening paragraph. The ANI thread is open to discussing all of us, just like this RFC/U is open to discussing you.--v/r - TP 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"All", but only those individuals who have opposed me here were notified. "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is canvassing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of 'context'? Yeah, maybe you shouldn't use mine out of context.--v/r - TP 13:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

IZAK's view

As much as possible, I have tried to take things seriously and respond to allegations against me contained in this RFC/U. However, IZAK has shown no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on my part. I am fully compliant with WP:SOCK. I am, however, very concerned that s/he states his/her long friendship with Epeefleche at the outset. That is suggestive of some WP:CANVAS-ing, presumably offwiki. We already know that canvassing is an issue for ClaudeReigns, at least, who very selectively notified individuals of a thread he started at ANI. So. Yeah. Good work guys. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Long friendship, eh? Please back that up. You're welcome to use checkuser if you feel it necessary. You imply that we have conspired, something which has not happened. It even makes me laugh a little. To my knowledge, I met Epeefleche on 12 Dec 2012.the user's edit Reciprocal interaction offwiki might lead to outing myself, something I've implied in my username as something I do not wish to do. Fortuitously, you've given me a reason to explain why I have not responded to two gracious offwiki messages unrelated to this. For that I am grateful. If you feel that canvassing is an issue for me, AN/I would be the appropriate place to address the issue. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already pointed out your canvassing at the ANI. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, Do the off-wiki communications that you received suggest to you that there might be off-wiki canvassing by others? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Saying "thank you", the context of the messages, is not canvassing. I do have a tendency to research and look for things which would not otherwise be noticeable without privileged information. I find that others have protected the project to great effect in doing so. My self-ban with regard to offwiki interaction may hinder me somewhat, but I have so far found nothing indicative of shady dealings. To the contrary, I did find the user has reached out to a centralized location on-wiki on several occasions, something a well-connected off-wiki canvasser may not find necessary to do. I appreciate your request for my intuition. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, from IZAK's contribution list, I noticed that he is an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia.[5] It might be useful in regard to the issue of off-wiki canvassing, to see how this RfC/U came to his attention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just posed the question at IZAK's Talk page.[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Rachack is a bit more concerning.. No edits since his/her endorsement, then diff, then no edits from there to December 24, then pretty much sporadic editing at a rate of 1 or 2 per month for quite a while contribs. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IZAK's view criticism of children's account

Most of IZAK’s view is about a Wikipedia account that Danjel set up for the children in a class that he taught.[7] Here is the contribution list for the account.[8] As you can see, the sole activity in the account is on a page in the account’s user space, User:MrJuddsStudents/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna. None of IZAK’s allegation’s regarding the account set up for the children seem to be true. IZAK’s view is currently endorsed by IZAK, pbp (Purplebackpack89), Epeefleche, and Jusdafax. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

For those of you who haven't already been invited to join the conversation, ClaudeReigns has started a thread at ANI referencing this RFC/U. The discussion is at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Short_term_block_proposal:_User:Danjel. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Just thought everybody should know about this. It appears that Danjel is suggesting that Epeefleche, IZAK, and several other editors involved in this thread may be socks of each other. Revenge for not getting his way in this RfC/U? Perhaps. pbp 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: The SPI was deleted.[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Revenge", because I had no basis for any complaint whatsoever. But the ANI and AN threads definitely weren't "revenge". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the ANI, AN, or SPI threads were revenge. Maybe in some cases they were part of the combat and some may have simply been mistakes, and some editors may have felt too committed to withdraw some of them without losing face. But this is speculation on my part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, at which point do you quit making yourself out to be the victim. You have a lot of equating your behavior to that of others. Like the above where I said "we all" got discussed at ANI because our comments were used and you used it out of context to say that everyone in this RFC/U was involved. (Redacted) The issues do not equate. Yes, AN and ANI threads were not revenge because they were based in policy. The SPI was not. (Redacted) Geeze.--v/r - TP 13:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

TP, I thought your message was unnecessarily combative and I have the impression that some of it is not credible. I also seem to recall that you have made some very reasonable comments. In any case, I think it's time for everyone to wind down the combat. Seems like that would be best for everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

At what point do you quit with your arrogant bullshit? You yourself admitted that there was reason for suspicion at the SPI (diff). As for the rest, there's your completely subjective viewpoint and reality, and I have attempted to respond to each of your criticisms above and elsewhere ad nauseam. I'm tired of it. You're clearly WP:BAITING, and I'm not going to rise to it this time, so I'm going to do what I didn't do last time and contact each person on your recall list and ask them to tell you to back off or consider recalling you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to wind down the combat. Sometimes the most effective response is silence, even if someone is very offended by a comment. Note that others may be offended too, and the comment can backfire in that regard. BTW, I expect that this is my last message on this thread. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel - Read my recall conditions before you do. I can only be recalled for taking administrative actions. Fair enough Bob. Some types of personalities tend to bring out the worst in me.--v/r - TP 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion redirect

Hopefully, I've made it clear that I am supportive of the user despite viewpoint differences. At this time, I would like to ask: What suggestions may we give Epeefleche in order to foster quality improvements and better community engagement? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Try to follow the part of WP:Burden that says,

"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",

not just "Delete per tag", or "delete per tag and WP:V". And also the part that says,

"If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a very valid suggestion. I think it was noted that it's hard to prove that a user didn't check, but doing this would not only be a positive step, and doing so and further relating that part of the process in edit summaries would definitely reduce friction. Do we want to hold Epeefleche accountable in some way to make that happen, or should the suggestion stand on its own? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a suggestion for Epeefleche's consideration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The views of this RFC/U have widely been that Epeefleche is doing nothing wrong. Holding him accountable for not breaking any policies is wrong, though. At best those concerned should make, as Bob said, a suggestion for his consideration and nothing more.--v/r - TP 13:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

7 users have indicated that there's a problem by endorsing Bob's statement. That's not indicative that there is "wide" support for Epeefleche's position.

Responding to Claude's point: there doesn't need to be any accountability here, Epeefleche just needs to commit to doing it. Despite the general woe that has been expressed, I did not ask for any sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Desired_outcome), just that he do the right thing. If he does commit, then fails in his commitment, the issue can be discussed again (with yet more drama). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're ignoring the 21 opposed your view or who otherwise believe you, and not Epeefleche, are the problem (Epeefleche, ClaudeReigns, Hasteur, Starblind, bobrayner, Jusdafax, TP, pbp, Alansohn, IZAK, brewcrewer, Bus stop, Shrike, Khazar2, Toddst1, Intothatdarkness, Malik Shabazz, Kww, Rachack, Doniago, Blueboar). Consensus leans 75% in Epeefleche's favor. Of those who support your position, they support that Epeefleche should be more clear in his edit summaries about his rationale. They havent supported that he is disruptive, violating policy, or required to google anything.--v/r - TP 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That is an entirely more rational post than the one above. If you'd like to strikethrough your invective above, I'll retract my posts to your recallers.

That I am the "problem" is not supported by all 21 of the individuals you have named, so do us a favour and stop trying to misrepresent the situation. Blueboar, who has one of the most popularly endorsed outside views, doesn't state that at all. IZAK's post mainly relates to my use of an account for my students, and how much admiration he has for Epeefleche. I am still concerned about there being some offwiki canvassing.

Prior to your interjection, Bob and Claude, editors on either side of this issue, were making what appeared to be a genuine attempt to resolve this situation. I say that you and I agree to leave them to it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Grudgingly and in the interest of cooperation, and not fear of a recall, I will redact the most hyperbolic of my comments in the thread above.--v/r - TP 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

... You're not coming far enough towards the middle here, just trying to hide the worst of what you said. You're also not agreeing with my suggestion. Personally, I'm going to follow through on leaving Bob and Claude to it. I've got a book to read, so I'm going again. Perhaps when I come back I'll see a difference. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The only person who there is any sign of canvassing is Rachack and that can't be proved. There is the possibility that he had Epeefleche's or IZAK's talk page on his watchlist and got an email notification from his watchlist that sparked his interest. But that's still 20 people legitimately opposed. And I don't need to come to the middle, that's for the uninvolved. Admins are editors as well. Consensus doesn't lean to the middle either. It's you who needs to come to the other side, not the other way around. --v/r - TP 16:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like if one redacts some, then it's fair for the other to redact some. Then on and on. Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But (a) I'm striking through, like I asked of TParis, and not hiding anything, leaving the greater part of what I've said untouched; and (b) I'm going offline now. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am reading everyone correctly, consensus is that it would be supererogatory for Epeefleche to attempt to source unsourced material before deletion. "Morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory" to quote the Vulcan Science Academy. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as attempting to source material, the recommendation of the Burden of Evidence Academy is more pertinent,

"If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

Live long and prosper, Claude of Reigns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

do you guys insist on admin-closure ?

... if not, I'd be willing to read through all of this and write a summary. I just came across it via ANI, and I have no idea what this is about, so... blank slate here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think an admin closure makes sense, though I very much appreciate your generous offer.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. 't was just a thought... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record

I think that the close is rubbish. The perspectives of around a third of the people who have responded to this RFC/U expressed genuine concern for Epeefleche's approach, and their opinions and perspectives have been completely and utterly ignored, both by Epeefleche himself and by the closer. Furthermore, there are some pretty clear signs that the side defending Epeefleche engaging in wikidramamongering in order to defend his position, and the close endorses that strategy as a means of defense. I'm out. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, please see Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Danjel, you said you were retired before. Does "I'm out" mean that you're really retired? Feel free to leave. Or feel free to produce nice content instead of drama. Your choice. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

a) It was less than a third; b) that means there isn't anything anywhere near approaching a consensus for any action on Epeefleeche. Nuff said. pbp 14:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Danjel canvassing editors

Also "for the record", Danjel has sent a provocative message challenging the results of this RfC to any editor that came close to agreeing with him. This, along with the above thread, seems to indicate that he still refuses to stop beating this dead whore, er, horse. It's also probably CANVASSing pbp 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)