User talk:RossPepier

October 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Social centres in the United Kingdom. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. czar 01:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Czar

Hi Czar, thanks for getting in touch. I've been an admin of the Social Centres Network in the UK for a number of years, after re-launching it with a view to help it survive and flourish. I've had limited capacity to support the network as much as I would like to and have had very little time to be online also. I haven't been the only person working on the 'Social Centres in the UK' page but I have been doing my best to keep the information on it up-to-date and all links working etc etc. The page has been our main 'go-to place' for information about the network as we do not currently have a website. Lots of people have said that it was good that we had a Wikipedia page and not a website, and it was nice that anyone in the network could edit the page etc. I have to say it was quite shocking when I went online to edit the page and the content was suddenly missing, and this was without any warning, messages or discussion at the top of the page as I used to see on Wikipedia. We have lots of links going to the page, and do not have the information on the page stored anywhere else, so it is not that I 'prefer that version' as you assumed, but it is our *only version* so to speak. I had to undo it in order for the information to be saved and links that we use to work for people to find out about us, the network and the projects etc. And so I would very much like to "please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus" as this is how we work as a network and in our groups. However this is not how Wikipedia editors seem to have acted. I was the main editor on the page and was never contacted until I took action to save the work that had been done to the page. Please let me know how we can keep the page, and what we need to do to get it up to Wikipedia standards - I thought Wikipedia was about preserving information, making it accessible and open in the process, and so I hope that we can see that in action with this page instead of destroying it and acting instead like the editors (non-consensus-based) of other websites. Thanks. --RossPepier (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the note. Let me see how I can help. We wouldn't restore the content in its previous state because, while it's unevenly enforced, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia for a general audience (and not a directory of social centres). I see two ways forward. (1) If UK social centres as a discrete concept have abundant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, it would be possible to write an encyclopedia article on them as a group. But that's dependent on their third-party coverage, the accessibility of that coverage, and even still, we wouldn't restore the list of centres unless each was independently notable. It'd be more of a historical archive of how UK social centres have been covered in sources (as to be expected on an encyclopedia) than a living directory. (2) More realistically, I can help you export the previous content to another wiki with a more appropriate scope, so you can continue to use the page for your local organisations. E.g., anarchy.wikia.com should be able to host. (3) If you'd like a third opinion (from a third-party), we can request one, or I can point out other forums where you can request feedback. I could nominate the article itself for deletion if you'd like a final consensus, but my recommendation would be to leave the page as a redirect so that its history is accessible. Sorry about the surprise/shock, but let me know if I can make the next steps easier for you. Plenty of other encyclopedia articles on anarchism to write, if you're interested! :) I wrote 121 Centre recently. czar  18:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply to October 2018 debate
Hi RossPepier I am in complete and total agreement with you here about the UK Social Centres Network page. It was like a punch in the stomach seeing it was gone. Luckily the information is not completely lost, as I first imagined. Here is one destructive edit for example. There are several problems here, let's list them:
 * 1 The UK Social Centres Network page (or maybe better Social centres in the United Kingdom as it already got changed to) has been merged into Autonomous social center with an almost total loss of information. It's not even mentioned any more, none of the social centres are mentioned, the table is lost, the image is lost. Some references seem to have been migrated without context which is also nonsense (eg Lacey)
 * 2 The person who merged the page seems to think there were no reliable sources but in fact there were loads. On this highly destructive edit there are 50 references!? This is no way cruft or spam.
 * 3 Looks like you got steamrolled sorry for that.

So how to proceed? Are you active much lately? I come and go but would definitely like to chat about this more.Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More thoughts... were you at this or did you hear something from it? I've started a draft for a rejigged page here with a todo list at the top, feel free to get stuck in if you like.Mujinga (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said in the section above, Wikipedia does not host listings/tables of info with only primary source backing. There are other open wikis that will welcome that content, though. If you have reliable, secondary sourcing on "social centres in the United Kingdom", happy to discuss. czar  15:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Czar let's talk here as a courtesy to RossPepier‎ so they can get up to speed if they check back. By my count there are about 20 indisputably good quality secondary sources, some of which i have already mentioned. My assumption of good faith is at breaking point now (at least we are remaining civil) and all i have left is to think you are really not familiar with the territory at all.

What you could have done is to suggest to delete the 'Evicted social centres' section, which does admittedly hold 13 self-links for projects. Not actually a problem for me, if it was for you we could have discussed it on the talk page like reasonable people.

Now let's get on to what you did. You trashed a page with 20 good secondary sources instead of trying to improve it AND you didn't put any information into the page you merged it with, despite there being numerous social centres from the UK with their own wellmaintained wikipages eg Cowley Club, 1 in 12 Club, Centro Iberico and so on. You made an extremely destructive edit. Which is what RossPepier‎ was trying to point out.

Anyhow, I am going to rebuild the page and put it back up, minus the self-links. RossPepier‎ i'd be happy to chat to you about this and will wait a week or so before action.

Cheers Mujinga (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "20 indisputably good quality secondary sources"? There are probably other sources that were never included, but certainly the existing References section does not have what you claim—all but a handful are primary sources... Beyond the list of venues, if there are sources that give an overview of "social centres in the United Kingdom", they can be used to write summary style sections in Autonomous social centers and/or Squatting in England and Wales. And for what it's worth, if you want to maintain a claim to civility, you can dial down the vitriol. I've given you the same courtesy and am not your enemy. czar  21:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Good secondary source references from the page diff under question: Mujinga (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Needle Collective (2014) "Ebb and Flow - Autonomy and Squatting in Brighton" in (eds) Bart van der Steen, Ask Katzeff, Leendert van Hoogenhuijze 'The City Is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present' 1604866837
 * 2) Ye Olde Finch (2008) 'Squats and Spaces Solidarity Day: The Globe as a Temporary Autonomous Zone' in Chatterton, P. 'What's This place? Stories from radical social centres in the UK & Ireland' Leeds: University of Leeds 9780853162704
 * 3) Autonomy Centres, Riots & The Big Rammy". Uncarved.org
 * 4) "About" Socialcentrestories.wordpress.com.
 * 5) 'What's This place? Stories from radical social centres in the UK & Ireland' Leeds: University of Leeds 9780853162704
 * 6) Nick Durie (2008) 'Chalkboard – the successes and failures of a Maryhill community tendency' in Chatterton, P. 'What's This place? Stories from radical social centres in the UK & Ireland' Leeds: University of Leeds 9780853162704
 * 7) 'Court evicts Brighton Taj squatters' in Brighton Argus
 * 8) Hodkinson, S. & Chatterton, P. (2006). "'Autonomy in the city? Reflections on the social centres movement in the UK'". City. 10 (3): 305–315. doi:10.1080/13604810600982222.
 * 9) one (2008) 'Local Tradition, Local Trajectories and Us: 56a Infoshop, Black Frog and more in South London' in Chatterton, P. 'What's This place? Stories from radical social centres in the UK & Ireland' Leeds: University of Leeds 9780853162704
 * 10) Young, Sarah. 'It's ACE!' in Peace News
 * 11) Blackcurrent https://www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk/communities/existing/blackcurrent
 * 12) Shennan, Paddy. "Viva la Casa! The new film that will celebrate much-loved Liverpool venue" in Liverpool Echo
 * 13) 'Social Centres update: Common house in trouble, Partisan nears opening' in Freedom News
 * 14) Mumford, Gwilym. "Eagulls, Hookworms, Joanna Gruesome: how UK music scenes are going DIY". The Guardian
 * 15) https://www.newcastlegateshead.com/things-to-do/star-and-shadow-cinema-p167471
 * 16) "Brixton: 121 Centre" in Urban75
 * 17) Lizzy Davies and Peter Walker (30 January 2012). "Occupy London: evicted protesters criticise bailiffs' 'heavy-handed' tactics" in The Guardian.
 * 18) Sophie Perry (2014) "Social Centre to open at new home this weekend" in Manchester Mule
 * 19) Anarchist Federation 'The Sheffield Black Rose Centre'
 * 20) The Common Place (2008) 'The Common Place, Leeds' in Chatterton, P. 'What's This place? Stories from radical social centres in the UK & Ireland' Leeds: University of Leeds 9780853162704
 * You have called yourself an experienced editor, so I shouldn't have to mention that many of these are unreliable—having no indication of editorial oversight, distance, or reputation/pedigree—nevertheless neither "good" nor "indisputably good": uncarved.org, diggersanddreamers.org.uk, newcastlegateshead.com (a tourism site?), Urban75, Manchester Mule
 * Others are, at best, only able to be cited as self-published sources, being written by individuals/publications affiliated with the social centres themselves: Social Centre Stories (this is 5x—you cite the same publication and chapters whereof five times in the 20), Anarchist Federation, Needle Collective in The City Is Ours
 * ...what's left? Local coverage goes into no depth besides mentioning a squat, no mention of social centres or infoshops: Brighton Argus on SaboTaj, Liverpool Echo on the Casa (no mention even of a squat). "DIY Space For London" is but a passing mention in the Guardian article. The Peace News interview is okay, but not great. Hodkinson is already included in the main article. What remaining content, exactly, is supposed to do justice to the topic of "social centres in the UK" as distinct from an article on social centres in general? The roundup from Freedom and a Guardian article on Occupy? So forgive me when I'm incredulous about a claim of "20 indisputably good quality secondary sources", but I'm owed the good faith of having thought through this action while you've repeatedly accused me of the opposite. Any of the indisputably acceptable sources here could, as I've already said, build out a potential subsection within either the article on autonomous social centres or squatting in the UK, and can split out summary style to a dedicated article from there, but even then, the sourcing discussed above is severely lacking. Compare it against the sourcing used in the social centres article.
 * There are two components here: our encyclopedic coverage of social centres in the UK and the list of individual venues. As I hope I've made clear, WP does not host lists of venues that only existed briefly or with little coverage. It's not within the encyclopedia's purview. However, WP should cover social centres as a UK movement, but in prose and proportionate to the reliable, secondary source coverage of that movement (i.e., ideally not cobbled together from local news snippets). If it isn't already clear, I wrote autonomous social centres because our coverage of the topic was abysmal and shoddy. It is telling that the focus of this discussion has been more about restoring low-quality content than in building a high-quality article on social centres that does justice to the extant coverage in the UK. I would have been willing to collaborate on that, but continued bald refusal of good faith like this (linked from discussion pages I'm obviously watching) has worn me thin. czar  14:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's carry on the debate over at Social centres in the United Kingdom Mujinga (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - present has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - present. Thanks! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hellos - Nice to see you back on wikipedia! I have Social centres in the United Kingdom on my watchlist, so I saw your edits to the active social centres table. It's great that you add stuff, but it does need to be referenced from a reliable source. If you check, you'll see all the previously added centres either have their own wikipedia page or they are referenced from somewhere (a lot of them from the Freedom News roundup). I'm not questioning whether the info is true, I'm sure it is, but it does need a reference, otherwise it will get removed. If you need help with that, let me know, I'm all for this sort of stuff being historified on wikipedia. Actually, talking of which, I am trying to get WikiProject Squatting going again, if that falls within your interest, then please pass by :) Mujinga (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - 2019 concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - 2019, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - 2019


Hello, RossPepier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kurdish Hunger Strikes 2018 - 2019".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)