THC Science

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
No. But I still can't understand in plain English what your beef is with Epeefleche. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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:
diff - removed descriptive information about how the school delivers teaching

diff - removed informatio about the university's main campus

diff - removed information about the school's rowing history

diff - removed information about the school's house system (that many other school articles have)

diff - removed information about the actor's early life
Nor any of the articles about which I'm concerned for WP:BIAS:
diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So, this is another tangent irrelevant to this particular thread. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff and diff

diff

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 multiple pages, so I'm disengaging again. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. bobrayner (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 :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. [[User:ClaudeReigns|ClaudeReigns]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">'''&tilde;[[User:Danjel|danjel]]'''&nbsp;[&nbsp;[[User_talk:Danjel|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Danjel|contribs]]&nbsp;]</span> 09:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
+== Refactoring comments ==
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche&diff=535152899&oldid=535151838 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 multiple pages, so I'm disengaging again. Comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 12:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 12:33, 27 January 2013

Epeefleche's response

Fear and loathing in Queensland

Puffery/Unencylopedic Content?

Credibility of material

Miscellaneous

Targeting Middle Eastern related topics?

Statement of the dispute

Refactoring comments

Leave a Reply