This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles
...is fine, but re-adding it into the article upon review is also OK per WP:BANREVERT. The content reverted here looks fine to me at first sight in terms of encyclopedic standards so maybe it should be considered for reinstatement. GregorB (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BDA sacrifices anything for his POV's sake, so we should assume bad faith dealing with his edits. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a POV problem in the reverted content, it's not obvious to me, so I call it like I see it. I also believe content should be judged on its own merit, and editors should avoid WP:ATTP. GregorB (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry GregorB but I saw too many false informations coming from BDA to agree with you. Please do not re-add it in a bunch but check sentence by sentence instead. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your position on the editor in question and his work (even if I'm unfamiliar with it), WP:BANREVERT does not call for checking the content sentence by sentence, nor does it put the burden of proof on editors who reinstate the content. Once it is reinstated, editors are free to challenge it as they see fit.
Do you have any concrete complaints about the article as it currently stands? Do you feel it is (or may be) factually incorrect or biased? GregorB (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler: when dealing with certain kind of abuse you have to assume *bad* faith, then if you really want to reinstate the content you must check it deeply under you own responsibility. That rev is almost the same as the one which was db-g5ed in 2011, btw.
I've had a look and there's references to sources from 1924, and also there's specific statistical information that is not referenced. Given the originator, it's safe to say that it's dubious. I for one wouldn't stake my reputation on reinstating this en masse. I wouldn't revert you if you do it the second time, though, as at that point it's clear that you're taking responsibility for it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the thing is: when I originally reinstated the content, I did that because I thought (in fact, I still think), that it had no obvious deficiencies. However, there are two problems with that approach. First, WP:BANREVERT says:
Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. [emphasis mine]
That's a fairly tall order: for one thing, I'd need to check all sources, including offline ones. That's not really feasible. Second, since you both say the editor in question had a problem with factual correctness, one cannot simply assume WP:AGF on these. Since, on top of all that, I don't claim expertise in the topic, I won't be putting it back. Other editors, of course, may still take a look and restore parts of it as they see fit, but they must check everything against the sources (those already there or others). GregorB (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the main problem with this kind of abuse, while sometimes is pretty evident, most of time is deceptive. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
