Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche
To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC).
- Epeefleche (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome
That Epeefleche refrain from lazy removal of content and edits according to the whole of WP:V, including that part that suggests that an attempt should be made to source easily source-able content.
Description
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to disruptively delete content from articles citing WP:V. While the content is usually unsourced (with occasional clumsy exceptions, such as diff), there are many times where the content is easily source-able with the minimum of effort involving Google. While WP:V does allow for the deletion of unsourced content, it also suggests that "if instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it", which is the problem in this case as Epeefleche is removing content that is easily sourced using seconds of google time.
This has previously been raised with Epeefleche at diff, Talk:All Hallows' School#Removal of House System section and at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Disruptive deletion of content. None of these attempts at addressing the issue has resulted in any change to Epeefleche's approach to editing. On the last occasion at ANI, the closing admin said that "on the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort," and this is inarguably not happening. In regards to the last ANI thread, I completely reject that it is my responsibility to wikistalk Epeefleche around the encyclopedia and source content that he is too lazy to source himself; while I'll do this for the articles on my watchlist, the scope of Epeefleche's disruption extends far beyond my watchlist.
The latest instance was at diff (restored by me with easily found sources at diff). However, this is not the only instance of this happening since last this was discussed, as the issue also came up at diff (restored with easily found sources by Graham87 at diff).
That being said, Epeefleche typically targets subjects based in non-English speaking countries that are affected by WP:BIAS, particularly Middle and Far-Eastern subjects. For many of these articles, sources are difficult to find, however, an attempt beyond merely tagging and deleting would be far more productive. I would suggest that, in these cases, Epeefleche, tag then refer the articles in question to an appropriate wikiproject and only delete where the material is genuinely contentious.
This approach to editing is lazy and clumsy and does little to "improve" the encylopedia. If it were just articles that were hard to source, this might be less of an issue. It if it were anything but the most mundane and easily source-able content, this might be less of an issue. If it were occuring with less frequency than it is now, then it might less of an issue. But it is an issue.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have had a previous run-in with Epeefleche over his overzealous AfD nomination of school articles at the beginning of 2012, with his nominating around 160 school related articles in a 3 week period over New Years 2011-2012. Many of those nominations showed the same lazy clumsiness as his current actions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huaian Foreign Language School (which was initially nominated for deletion as a primary school, but was, in fact, a school region, which was stated in the article's opening paragraph, the nomination was not withdrawn when this fact became apparent), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School (which was initially nominated as a primary school article, but was very obviously a userspace draft, and, again, the nomination was not withdrawn when this became apparent). I am glad to be able to say that Epeefleche has not, since, managed to nominate as many articles in such a short timespan. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- 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);
- diff (restored with easily found sources by Graham87 at diff);
- diff (restored by me with easily found sources at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglican_Church_Grammar_School&diff=next&oldid=528271699 diff);
- 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).
- [1] (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).
Other WP:BIAS issues
The below are diffs of other examples that I have not been able to source but are likely difficult to source due to WP:BIAS issues (taken from where they were raised with Epeefleche in discussion at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section:
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):
There are many many more examples all through Epeefleche's editing history.
Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
- 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."
- WP:PRESERVE wherein it states that instead of deleting content, users should consider "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself"
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Attempts by certifier Danjel
- Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section;
- On Epeefleche's Talkpage #1 (part of which has since been removed, presumably per WP:BLANKING);
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Disruptive_deletion_of_content;
- diff;
- User_talk:TParis#Follow-up.
Attempts by certifier Graham87
Other attempts
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Other users who endorse this summary
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}
Response
- Background and diffs.
Danjel, as he notes, had a difference of opinion with me. A year ago. On an un-related issue.[2][3]
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.[4]
Danjel provided, as "Evidence of disputed behavior", five diffs concerning material that had been tagged since November 2009 in diff 1, October 2008 in diff 2, December 2007 in diff 3, June 2010 in diff 4, and July 2010 in diff 5.
Danjel even complains about the deletion of unsourced BLP information by others in the articles. Danjel also re-enters uncited material, without providing any ref support whatsoever. And, as Danjel admits, the un-sourced material that I deleted also contained copyvio.
Danjel called the removal of tagged, un-sourced content: "disruptive". He warned me, and threatened me with being blocked.[5][6] Furthermore, Danjel fails to indicate when he does add refs in restoring previously un-sourced information. Instead, he implies in his edit summary that he is reverting my deletion of sourced information. And calls the deletion "disruptive." As here and here.
- AN/I
Last month Danjel extended his battleground to AN/I. The sysop who closed the AN/I (TParis) wrote:
"No evidence of a policy violation. Some concerns over specific edits by Epeefleche that warrent a kind question on their talk page and nothing more. WP:BLP is a bright line for WP:V for living people, but the rule exists for all content. The burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content. On the other hand, Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort..."
Danjel later, however, warned me that I might be blocked for disruptive editing – pointing to the AN/I itself as a basis for his warning.
Danjel's interpretation of the AN/I:
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.[7]
- 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."[8]
WP:PRESERVE provides:
"Preserve appropriate content.... if they meet the requirements of the ... core content policies ... Verifiability and No original research)... Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.... Instead of deleting text, consider ... doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself....
Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than to preserve it. WP:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced ... material; WP:No original research discusses the need to remove original research ..."
As to Danjel's comments on non-English sources, he seems to believe that even where zero sources have been provided, non-sourced material should remain if it is possible that sources may perhaps exist in a language other than English. I see no basis for that view.
- Conclusion
I would appreciate it if Danjel would not wikihound me, which he has indicated he believes is his charge. I would also appreciate an interaction ban, as he seems from the above to not take to heart the suggestions that he "drop the stick," but instead has moved from warnings to AN/I to talkpage discussion with the closing sysop to statements that he feels he must wikihound me to RFC, creating a battleground atmosphere, without sensitivity to community and sysop input.
Users who endorse this summary:
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section
Views
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
Outside view by TParis
I do believe that Danjel has ignored that consnesus was against him at ANI and that makes this RFC/U absurd. 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:
- --v/r - TP 01:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. 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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.