This is an attempt to examine an unbiased sample (or "cross-section" if you'll pardon the phrase) of Philip Cross's
130K or so edits to check for problems of the sort being disputed
off-wiki, at arbcom, and on AN.
Methodology: I selected the "random" number 693 by pulling a dollar
bill out of my wallet and taking the last 3 digits of its serial
number. I then extracted all of Philip Cross's edits whose revision
numbers ended in 693 as of a few days ago. That should give about
1/1000th of Philip Cross's edits, 123 edits as it happens. I'm next
going to try to examine all 123 edits carefully to check for patterns.
The idea here is to produce an unbiased sample that can be
transparently seen as representative of PC's entire editing corpus.
Additional analysis of samples selected purely from BLP's or other
disputed areas (a so-called stratified sample) could also be
helpful and might be a worthwhile target of future effort. But the
uniform sample selected here should give a quick indication of the
overall shape of the edits.
Note: this is not supposed to be a witch-hunt or a search for "gotcha"
diffs. Everyone makes occasional crappy edits, and the presence of a
few dubious edits (unless egregiously bad) isn't cause for concern.
The idea is to check for systematic bias and other possible issues.
The edits are in forward chronological order, grouped together by article. That reflects a choice on my part (and is therefore a potential source of bias) and I thought about alphabetizing or randomizing them instead, but I decided that chronological order would make it easier to spot patterns that change over time. It should not create any sampling bias since I plan to check all 123 of the edits regardless of the order. (Added: I now see I got some of them out of order by accident. Not sure why, but it was unintentional, now fixed).
No longer needed
|
|
Request: Please do NOT give me any feedback (including pointing
out errors) on my analysis of individual edits, until I've done the
whole set. This is supposed to be an independent analysis so I don't
want to see other peoples' evaluations of the edits until I've
completed my own. Afterwards, of course, I'll be happy to accept
feedback and take corrections.
|
Current status: I'm a little over half done but will have to put this aside for a while due to limited editing access. I've begun to think the approach wasn't worth the effort but I've learned some things. Choosing and documenting the protocol before examining any edits was inspired by the idea of registering a medical trial with a clinical trial registry as a safeguard against publication bias and data dredging. It was probably overkill but it's been interesting. I'll add that this has been more time consuming than I expected, though I'll still try to do the rest at some point, having started it as a concrete plan.
I've struck/collapsed the "don't comment" request above since I think it's ok now. If you add your own comments just put them in the appropriate sections and sign them. Note: I've been trying to check the edits in chronological order, but missed a few by accident or because of a sorting mistake at the start. I.e. I haven't been skipping around on purpose-- it just happened that way despite some effort to not skip around. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to post any general comments here. Comments on specific diffs in the sample should go in the section for that diff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The typical straw man argument," per Wikipedia, "creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition." In your evidence presented today to ArbCom, you wrote, "I think we can dismiss the picture being spread off-wiki of PC making 10,000's of horrible edits." Forgive me for saying so, but your statistical research project—with its veneer of amateur science—seems like an attempt to distract from the core issue facing ArbCom. Please substantiate your claim of a "picture being spread off-wiki of PC making 10,000's of horrible edits," and tell us in particular how that relates to the COI of Philip Cross editing BLPs of British politicians and journalists towards whom he is publicly contemptuous. KalHolmann (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for the comment. The Craig Murray blog post is an example of the narrative I referred to. This sample examines the question of whether we've got a huge corpus of bad edits to deal with. We do get those sometimes, like there was a guy who created literally 1000s of articles that were loaded with copyright violations and we had to rewrite them all. Are we in a situation like that right now? It looks like we're not, but there was no way to say that without checking.
By analogy, imagine Joe is accused of being a mass murderer with 1000s of victims. More careful examination shows that this is unlikely: Joe might indeed be a murderer, but if he is, the number of victims is less than 50. That doesn't assert Joe is ok but it affects the investigative techniques that you would use. The relevance to the arb case is that the number of articles affected is relatively small, enough that they probably could have been handled on article talk pages and with an ANI thread or two. We're dealing with relatively narrow problem rather than a "bulk" one.
You're apparently new to Wikipedia dispute resolution so I hope you'll accept my advice that the only thing that really "counts" in it is the analysis of diffs, which is what I'm doing here. You have not written up a single relevant mainspace edit in your evidence or in the AN thread (the LLoyd Russell-Moyle edits you linked look unproblematic to me, and they don't fall under PC's George Galloway restriction). So your own contributions so far are unlikely to affect the case decision in the slightest. If you have some evidence to contribute it would be great if you did so. That means posting some diffs and explaining why they are relevant. Regards, 173.228.123.166 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly, you failed to link to the Craig Murray blog post that purportedly exemplifies your narrative "of PC making 10,000's of horrible edits." Murray has devoted several posts to Philip Cross. I could not find a single mention of PC making 10,000's of horrible edits. Again, you are distracting from the case at hand by debunking a charge that no one has made. KalHolmann (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interpretation of the overall picture that Murray (and others) painted. Murray is a skilled writer and writes to produce reactions in readers that go beyond explicit factual claims that he makes. It produced that reaction in me, enough that I had to take it seriously and check it out. I did so, and reported what I found. Murray's post is mostly unsupported. His claim "the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs"[1] is contradicted by the observation that almost all of Cross's edits are in unrelated areas.
Please stop bloviating and comment on some specific diffs. Here is one that I mentioned in my WT:AC/N post as having obvious problems (I got it from someone's reddit post). Perhaps you can start with that one (i.e. post it to your evidence section and write up what is wrong with it). This case isn't going anywhere without diffs like that; I can't spend much more time chasing them down, and others don't seem interested either, so the person doing most of the work has to be you. You are the one who pressed for the arb case, so please do some of the work. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote at the Administrators' Noticeboard on 20 May 2018, this case "is not about edits. It's about the integrity of Wikipedia as perceived by the public at large." Your dubious research project is designed not to enlighten but to becloud. KalHolmann (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it's designed to check out one aspect (which I'd call the main thrust) of Murray's narrative, while leaving other aspects for other people (such as yourself) to pursue. Also, as you can see, I very carefully designed and wrote up the procedure before examining one single edit. So I had no idea what I was going to find. I did my best to perform a neutral investigation, which is what we are supposed to do on Wikipedia. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: to clarify this a little bit philosophically, a simplified view of Wikipedia is that every edit has a value that can be negative or positive (let's say a scale of -10 to +10). A -10 edit is horrible, it usually gets reverted immediately, and users who make more than a handful of them get blocked or banned from editing. That's actually a good aspect of Wikipedia IMO: bad problems get fixed right away. +1 might be something like a spelling correction, and +10 a major contribution to an article. But if an edit is, say, -1 or -2, chances are that nothing will be done about it.
I won't name names but there is a type of editor who makes 10,000's of edits of which >50% are at the -1 or -2 level, so they are tremendously destructive to the project and its reputation (I think we are far too tolerant of that, but that's almost a lost cause by now). And when I hear someone has made 100,000+ edits (which is a lot), that's usually a sign that they are editing quickly and carelessly and typically with automated assistance, which means making lots of -1 and -2 edits.
So that's part of what I was checking PC's edits for signs of. In fact I see mostly +1 and +2 edits, which is a nice thing to find. When I referred to "10,000's of horrible edits" I meant edits pursuing a horrible agenda (Craig Murray's accusation). It's nearly impossible to make 1000s of individually horrible (i.e. -10) edits, because people who edit that badly usually get blocked without fuss. Complicated dispute resolution usually revolves around editors who make a lot of edits at, say, the -5 level, since there will be a level of disagreement around any such edit (plus wikilawyers arguing about whether the individual edits are prohibited by policy, which shouldn't matter once there are enough bad edits). But to establish such a pattern, you have to write up diffs. If they make just a few such edits, it's usually no big deal. Editors will normally just AGF, revert/fix the bad edits, and comment on the talk page as needed. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: Please take a look at my current presentation. I split out specific recent BLP edits and I think those do a better job at focusing on areas of conflict. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes some category fixes to this article, a biography of another British author who wrote on conservative themes. The edit itself is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit adds a boilerplate talk page template to a biography of a British actress and comedian. The article has no obvious political overtones and the edit looks completely innocuous. Back in 2006 I think these templates were not so common, but almost all talk pages have them now. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor fmt/punctuation adjustment, fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds templates similar to above. Biography subject is a novelist and drama critic, who also wrote a book about memory and the Holocaust. The edit is unproblematic. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit in article about deceased Polish journalist. Innocuous. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of saxophone player, edit changes some date formats and adds wikilinks, mostly ok, some small errors, uncontentious. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary is "grammar" but it actually introduces a grammatical error ("antique's expert"), a minor slip of the sort Wikipedia editors make all the time (it's fixed shortly afterwards by another editor removing that entry completely). The dab page was plausibly of interest because it also mentions Judith Miller (journalist), a politically controversial New York Times (now Fox News) reporter who came under criticism for her coverage of the Iraq War. Her biography has more info about this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change "car crash" to "car accident", ok fine. This was the car crash/accident that Princess Diana died in (Al-Fayed was the guy she was involved with and who was also in the car). PC made other edits to this article that I haven't looked at. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting cleanup and minor info addition to an article about an apparently leftwing author. Good edit in my opinion. The info added relates to an essay by the bio subject about his becoming disenchanted with the US Communist Party. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly messy diff adjusting formatting and alphabetization of list of newspapers, adding a couple new ones and a description of an existing one (Private Eye). Good edit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit. PC made other edits to this article, a few of which look ok, the rest not examined. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting fixes and an addition to article about leftwing author Upton Sinclair. The article had already mentioned that Sinclair married his 2nd wife after his 1st one left him. The addition was that the 1st wife left for another man. If this were a BLP in the current Wikipedia era we'd be going berserk about the unsourced addition of something like that, but Sinclair died in 1968 and back in 2008 Wikipedia was less jumpy. In the current (2018) version of the article, the info is given in more detail, still without a source, but a quick web search confirms it through Sinclair's 1968 NYT obituary, so I added a citation to the obit.[2]
Overall this is not a great edit but it's not something to get alarmed about taken by itself. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add talkpage template. Article is biography of British actress who died in 1990. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit in passage about recovering "lost" episodes of this series from TV station archives. Doesn't add info but is perfectly ok edit in good subject. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starts new article about British serial murderer involved in a lurid sex crime in 1990s but not convicted til 2008, making news so this was a current event at the time. PC was main contributor for a while (this version generally looks ok) and various others have contributed since then. Not a delightful choice of subject matter but the editing looks generally well done. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 16
|
2009-03-30T17:55:57Z
|
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 280686445 by [[Special:Contributions/88.104.231.52|88.104.231.52]] ([[User talk:88.104.231.52|talk]]) v
|
reverts random addition "Owns a villa in Italy", might have been worth trying to chase down, but ok. This does appear to be sourceable and maybe ok for the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits section about 1941 movie The Great Lie, looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a content-neutral swap of the order of two passages in this biography of a Japanese film director, who died in Feb. 2008. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly good stylistic copyedit of article about a kids' TV show. Removes the sentence "Nevertheless, the show and its presenter are fondly remembered by many and it enjoys cult status." I'm not keen on this type of removal because of how parts of Wikipedia's bureaucracy obsessively performs them, but we're not in controversial territory here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds "see also" wikilinks to other films on similar theme. Good edit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes a now-dab intlink to a pipelink with the right target. Perfectly fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit/fmt, nothing to write home about. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content-neutral copy edit of author/playwright article, looks fine. Skipped this edit earlier by accident, probably due to date reordering. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add reflist template, article is about deceased Labour Party politician (1919-1958).
Copyedit/cleanup of biography of English philosopher who died in 1953. Mostly improves the article, removes a half-sentence that the article didn't really need, so is at worst unproblematic. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content-neutral formatting change in some lists, ok. Article is about a living British actress, born 1962. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor formatting edit, subject is a newspaper editor and conservative(?) political advisor/former candidate in Australia. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starts a new article about a 1971 Fassbinder film. Looks good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slight content-neutral refactor of article about 1960s BBC drama series. Looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content-neutral good copyedit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds an intlink to bio of a person named in the article. I don't understand the "hndis" edit summary but the edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds internal links to article about British dramatist. Might be something going on with the article's overall history (it's just a stub now), but not going to worry. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds navigation template linking other articles about this British comedy writing team. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 34
|
2011-03-23T14:16:44Z
|
the programme still exists, so present tense in line with the usual WP practice
|
Copyedit looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyedit, looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 36
|
2011-04-21T21:07:22Z
|
Undid revision 425227207 by [[Special:Contributions/Wiki9wookie9|Wiki9wookie9]] ([[User talk:Wiki9wookie9|talk]]) twitter is not RS
|
This edit has been revdelled. Will try to look at the surrounding edits later, to see if it's evident what happened. Yes Twitter is generally not RS but I consider almost all reverts to be potential avenues of bias. The idea of checking these edits is to figure out whether they reflect good judgment, not just whether they are permitted by policy. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added: the revdelled material was added by another editor a few revisions earlier, here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit tries to fix a typo in the article but doesn't quite fix it, no big deal. Article itself is about a judge imprisoned during the regime of leftist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, so PC's other edits to this article might want examination. Here PC fixes a reference to a letter written by Noam Chomsky but I haven't looked at any of the other edits. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit to article about Italian film actress active in 1960s. Looks ok to me other than a typo ("agin" instead of "again") that PC fixed a few edits later. Previous edit to same article by PC[3] is outside scope of this study, but I like that he checked sources before removing material. The stuff removed wasn't of much interest in the article anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
fmt/ce of article about British actress born 1923. Looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ce/add navigation template+category in biography of a BBC TV producer. Looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 41
|
2011-12-05T21:26:23Z
|
as 12 out of the 13 episodes are listed as remaining (at lostshows.com), present tense is appropriate
|
Changes past to present tense for a TV series since its episodes still survive. Gramatically questionable (I'd say I Love Lucy was a 1950's TV series, not is one) but not politically contentious or anything like that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ce removing a spurious newline. Slightly more substantial article rearrangement 1 edit earlier[4] but that one looks content neutral too. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expands and adds a citation about The Daily Show (US news/comedy show that I think was considered leftwing) being prohibited from showing coverage of the UK parliament. Good edit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusts internal link about a movie filmed in this hotel. Looks fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit/fmt and expands a mention of a historical person to say who the person is. Good edit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaks formatting of page numbers in article about deceased (1896-1984) British actor and playwright. Formatting is still a little strange but at worst this is uncontentious. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reorders categories in this article about a British historian who wrote several popular historical works. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is an innocuous c/e, but article is about a living Scottish journalist who has worked in some political areas, that might warrant a closer look. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds link to journalist's Twitter page. I'm fine with that per se, though it's not completely usual for Wikipedia to include Twitter links. Article subject was an adviser to Cherie Blair (wife of centrist(?) British politician Tony Blair) so this is tangentially political. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes date of a TV series the person was in. I didn't check the correctness of the fix but it looks fine, and is way outside of PC's disputed editing areas, so ok. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ce and cat reordering of article about journalist and Green Party politician. Edit looks fine, didn't check for any surrounding ones. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
minor clarity improvement in article about 1947 Irish movie. I don't know the edit summary abbreviation "gr." but the edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
category formatting adjustments in a draft article about a British contemporary historian. The draft looks fine at first glance. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes description of interview date from late 80's to mid 80's. Cite is to WaPo not NYT but I didn't check its contents. Good gnome-ish edit afaict. Article subject is a movie actress born 1921. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removes middle name of actor but actor seems to actually use that middle name, so maybe this edit is an error. Not contentious though, no big deal either way. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 56
|
2010-10-21T08:59:07Z
|
Undid revision 391927108 by [[Special:Contributions/Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) passage now in the article on the forgotten and lost (bar 1 ep) series
|
Reverts an addition by Anthony Appleyard about Whitehouse getting "indecent" material censored from a TV show, after receiving a leaked script. Edit summary says it's in "forgotten and lost" article that doesn't seem to exist. The info is partly in Swizzlewick, the show that was censored.
I think this is a questionable edit since it removes material relevant to the subject's biographical profile, particularly describing what could be seen as excessive zeal on the part of a social conservative. Article mentions that Swizzlewick featured a character that was a parody of Whitehouse (not clear whether the censorship incident was before or after) so leaving out the incident removes some context. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adds citation to a book that contained the original publication of an article reprinted in the Financial Times. "Faber" in the edit summary refers to the name of the book publisher, given as "Faber and Faber" in an earlier revision. Mary Whitehouse (1910-2001) was a conservative social activist who sought to get excessive sex, violence etc. off of BBC television, and was seen as "censurious" and "homophobic". The edit itself is fine, don't know about surrounding ones. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 58
|
2013-09-20T10:09:08Z
|
/* Artists, cartoonists, designers, illustrators */ obituaries are inconsistent about the spelling
|
Add alternate spelling of person's name (confectioner Brian Sollitt) on a todo list. Ok. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit credits a candy brand with an "unwelcome endorsement" from Saddam Hussein, based on a news report that Saddam offered candy of that brand to a visitor (the visitor was George Galloway, about which more in a moment). The news report did mention Saddam offering the candy but didn't describe it as an endorsement, welcome or otherwise, so that description is what Wikipedia calls SYNTH. SYNTH basically means an editor supplying their own interpretation to facts reported in a source, and it's a bad offense when used to aggressively push a viewpoint. This particular example about the "endorsement" is not terribly aggressive in its own right, so I'll put it in the "venial sin" category.
A little more worrisome is the idea of WP:COATRACK, which means an editor pushing a topic by sticking everything they can find to that topic, even when its relevance is tenuous. So a WP:ABF reading of this edit is that the editor hates George Galloway and inserts a reference in an unrelated article to Galloway chumming around with evilbadguy(tm) Saddam Hussein as yet another way to make Galloway look bad because the opportunity arose.
I'll take an in-between reading: the edit supports a picture of an editor obsessively reading everything he can about Galloway, coming across a semi-interesting factoid about the candy brand in the course of that reading, and adding the factoid to the candy article along with a shaky interpretation, sourced to an article that paints Galloway a certain way. So this edit goes in the minus pool but it could be a heck of a lot worse. 173.228.123.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good edit, really does improve sourcing and makes description more precise. Article subject is a deceased British filmmaker (1920-2005). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting fixes, looks fine. Article subject is a deceased food writer (1957-1989). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes title of source article in citation to that article, a valid error fix. No obvious overtones in article content. Edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting fixes, article subject is British playwright, born 1977. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 64
|
2014-03-30T18:55:25Z
|
if IMDb is correct, only one O'Mara's "Brothers" appearances was actually transmitted in 1975
|
Refines stated date of actress's appearance in TV series. I don't freak out about IMDB unless info is disputed, has BLP impact, etc. So this edit is fine in my book. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tense fix, edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit changes "Today show" to "Today" (the official name of the show) in a section title, I guess ok as editorial judgment though leaving it alone might have been better. A few edits earlier[5] PC removes description of why the Sex Pistols had appeared on the show at such short notice. "Meh" to both edits, especially the earlier one, since (despite the article being about Grundy) it slightly de-contextualizes an unflattering description of the Sex Pistols' conduct in the incident. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slight decrufting of article, edit is fine. Subject is a film actor born 1946. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor cleanup, edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 69
|
2014-07-25T10:39:47Z
|
the claims about slaughtering/stunning of animals needs to be properly sourced
|
Adds OR template to top of article, giving justification in the edit summary about a claim of context to a Qureshi comment about halal slaughtering. I hate those top-of-article templates and prefer {{cn}} or posting to the talk page, and am not sure OR was the right one to use, but flagging the claim is valid. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
George Galloway is of course the subject of most of the hoopla around Philip Cross's editing. Philip Cross at the time the sample was drawn (May 29 2018) had made 1799 edits to the Galloway article and 68 to the talk page, but by luck of the draw, the sample contains this one of the talk page edits and none of the article edits.
The edit is PC making a minor correction in one of his talk page comments, which is ok in and of itself (it doesn't change the meaning etc). The comment is in a discussion started by someone else regarding sourcing about Galloway's support/non-support of the "Palestinian cause" (the Israel-Palestine or I/P conflict is a huge perennial war zone on Wikipedia). PC's comment is about Galloway making inconsistent statements on the issue, which PC considered adding to the article but decided against since the article was already long. PC also writes "TFD, editor's are free to be speculative and convey queries on talk pages".
Talk pages are looser than articles, but BLP talk pages are less loose than other talk pages when contentious topics are concerned. So this edit's context does reinforce the picture of Philip Cross with an axe to grind against Galloway, or in the I/P area, or maybe both. 1799 edits to the Galloway article in that context is a lot. Therefore I'm glad PC has been asked to step away from the Galloway article. It's mostly a matter of volume than particular edits being egregious. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes "Beeching came out as gay" to "Beeching came out as a lesbian". Not sure at all that lesbian was a more common term than "gay" for women in 2014. I don't think it's more common now. Might be an ENGVAR thing. Beeching herself used "gay" in the cited article (title: "Vicky Beeching, Christian rock star 'I'm gay. God loves me just the way I am'") but article subtitle says "Here, the singer and religious commentator discusses her sexuality for the first time and reflects on the political ramifications of coming out as a lesbian". Current (2018) version of article still says lesbian.
GLBT gurus would be better attuned than I am to how this sounds, but it seems a bit antiquated to me, at least here in the US in 2018. Without a clear sense I would have left it alone. IMHO this edit is at best "meh", maybe slightly negative. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swaps order of two category links in the article. I have no idea why anyone ever does this, but it's a neutral, basically do-nothing edit. Article is about a film theorist born in 1932. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 73
|
2014-09-14T11:54:43Z
|
uncited reference(s); since, as a term, social engineering is almost always pejorative, it is unlikely Robens would have used the term himself - a prominent critic needs to be cited if it is to be included
|
Edit removes description of Robens (Labour politician, 1910-1999) as "A firm believer in social engineering". I have doubts about the edit summary since if describing Robles that way is a reasonable summary of what sources say about him, it doesn't matter much if Robles would have used it himself. Social engineering (in the sense mentioned) is a debatable philosophy: the term itself doesn't strike me as perjorative but PC might be better attuned than I am to it. There's a similar concept called nudge theory that's the topic of a book called "Nudge" (by Cass Sunstein). I think that book advocates nudging as a public policy strategy, so there are people out there openly embracing the concept (I can also sympathize with distaste for it).
I think I would have preferred {{cn}} to removing the description entirely. Does the removal bias the article rightward, the claim being made against PC? I don't think so. Leftward? Probably not either. Does it remove info that the reader would have been likely to value, assuming its correctness? Yes. Is the removal justifiable on the basis of sound factual/interpretive doubt? Maybe kind of, or possibly yes. (It's absolutely defendable on pure WP policy grounds, but that's not in question here: one can introduce horrible bias into Wikipedia by selective removals that are individually justifiable).
I'm going to rate this edit "meh" and note that it's always better (WP:PRESERVE) to mention any such removals on the article talk page when making them. But few people do that any more, so I can't get alarmed about it not being done here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expands on recognition that the film received. Good edit. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes description of guitarist from being "most famous for" playing guitar in the James Bond theme to "best known for". Edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content-neutral phrasing cleanup. Edit is fine. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| 77
|
2015-01-26T14:37:27Z
|
/* Views on anthropogenic global warming */ rm statement contradicting what follows
|
| 78
|
2015-03-03T22:02:26Z
|
/* Early recordings (1944–1954) */ absent from WP Thelonious Monk discography article
|
| 82
|
2015-06-26T05:38:42Z
|
/* Early life and career */ correction from IMDb, "Colonel Blimp" not "AMoL&D", Canadian sojourn needs better clarity & sourcing
|
| 93
|
2009-07-20T16:42:27Z
|
/* Labour Worker and International Socialism Group */ other citation of second Birchall article reinstated
|
| 95
|
2016-04-11T20:02:30Z
|
better hndis, at least 2 other Mary Fitzgerald's with whom she might be confused (1, an "Irish Times" journalist; 2, the editor of OpenDemocracy)
|
| 97
|
2016-06-11T07:37:30Z
|
/* Private Eye */ I disagree that it is current, so I have neutralised the time issue
|
| 101
|
2016-11-21T17:10:48Z
|
/* Resignation from The Daily Telegraph */ the article is from September 2015, Oborne has been much less sympathetic to Corbyn since
|
| 102
|
2017-02-14T15:29:22Z
|
/* Hillsborough claims */ Nuttall's blog entry from 2012 is irrelevant for the immediate issue
|
| 107
|
2017-05-24T12:58:16Z
|
/* BBC */ very worthwhile to mention this point (only the second, etc), but should still be sourced
|
| 114
|
2017-10-24T14:47:49Z
|
/* Early life */ multiple tracks, probably not the whole album (repackaged from 78s)
|
| 117
|
2017-12-02T12:26:48Z
|
Undid revision 813208100 by [[Special:Contributions/Mr.Exicornt|Mr.Exicornt]] ([[User talk:Mr.Exicornt|talk]]) as before
|
| 119
|
2018-01-21T12:54:06Z
|
/* Reporting of conflict */ modified citation, the title of "The First Post" article was clearly changed subsequent to the original link
|