70.164.212.36 (talk) →Question: Reply Tag: Reply |
70.164.212.36 (talk) →Editors involved in propaganda and suppression: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:And I replied on the same thread, right under your question. [[Special:Contributions/70.164.212.36|70.164.212.36]] ([[User talk:70.164.212.36#top|talk]]) 20:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC) |
:And I replied on the same thread, right under your question. [[Special:Contributions/70.164.212.36|70.164.212.36]] ([[User talk:70.164.212.36#top|talk]]) 20:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Editors involved in propaganda and suppression == |
|||
I have clear evidence of massive propaganda in an article (though the problem is widespread) and in the way some editors who are protecting the article are behaving, by flatly refusing any edits that do not agree with their propaganda, without engaging in discussion (which I had plenty of), while claiming that consensus is necessary for my edits. I have read the consensus page (WP:CONS) every which way, and in fact found that their reversals without discussion were in violation and that consensus was not a majority vote, which means that I actually have consensus (how that manifests itself still being a mystery to me; apparently there is no flag that pops up saying editor A has consensus?). |
|||
In any case, I filed a dispute, and, out of the 3 editors who kept reversing my few edits one IP never showed up; the other two tried to blame me for sockpuppeting (not true) and propagandizing (I guess they figure the best defense is offense), using big and contrived phrases such as "most scholars" (not true) etc., and attempted getting me blocked (what better way of getting rid of troublesome truth?) both on the dispute page and by contacting admin editors. However, they had no worthwhile comment on the content of my edits. The dispute is hanging in the air since they were able to affect the would be moderator by making an issue of a question I asked of the moderator, which the moderator used as an excuse to recuse themselves. On the other hand, their statement implied to other would be moderators that no moderator would probably touch this dispute. |
|||
They also somehow "persuaded" a volunteer admin to bring the matter to another admin that can block accounts. That admin did not block me for obvious reasons, but blocked someone else sympathetic to my edits for edit-warring (and looking in there, I probably would not have, as I also learned about the three reversals rule, this one had two). The volunteer admin's language was as if they were confident of me sockpuppeting. When I complained about that, I was told I was being disruptive everywhere I went (one article is everywhere? and how can someone bring themselves to make such a statement). This admin editor also claimed that they do not remember how they came upon the article (I have reason not to believe that). |
|||
In any case, I wish to file a complaint against the article editors for massive propagandizing as well as for repeated violation of several important Wikipedia rules along with trying to intimidate new editors like me with being blocked, which appears to be somewhat arbitrary as see the one blocked above, or perhaps depends on who one knows. |
|||
I am new but I will not be intimidated and wish to forward these complaints to an admin (group?) to have them researched. May I please ask as to how to go about that, since this is a subject that is beyond dispute or content arbitration? Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/70.164.212.36|70.164.212.36]] ([[User talk:70.164.212.36#top|talk]]) 00:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:38, 8 February 2023
Help me!
Please help me with some guidance as to how I should proceed. I have removed an interpretation (theoretically not allowed by Wikipedia) by an editor in a caption, which was reversed in a matter of minutes, using a lame excuse. I edited again, pointing out the weakness. This time it took 1.5 hours to get reversed, with an added interpretation and two very weak and biased references. I also believe that Wikipedia captions are only for the photo or the figure, but nothing else, and that adding an interpretation is a violation. The reverser asked me to "Talk" for a consensus. I then wrote a lengthy statement of my points, none of which have been answered. What is "Talk" for, if one side does not make attempts for a consensus? Finally, I believe that the relevant article has been hijacked for propaganda by adding lots of verbiage and weak references, and a group of (paid?) people are defending their hijack. I have written that I will escalate the matter to an independent referee (and I will) unless the redundant part of the caption has been removed, which it has not been. In any case, I will let you decide on your own as to at least three Wikipedia violations of ethics, and perhaps provide guidance as to how I should act. Here are the webpages: The article: Burning of Smyrna The caption in question is above the photo of Smyrna (İzmir) burning. It was, when I saw it, "Part of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and the Greek genocide". I objected to the part "and the Greek genocide (1919-1922)" and erased it, noting that no reference has been provided. This was reversed with reference to the context. I deleted again and this was reversed by the addition of "and Armenian genocide [1][2]", with two weak and modern references, presumably to confound me, and to completely change the subject from the fire itself to alleged genocides. I then raised more points and asked the reverser to delete their additions. The Talk page where I have split into a new subject entitled: Talk:Burning of Smyrna#Was the Smyrna (İzmir) fire part of a genocide (Greek, Armenian, or Turkish)? It appears to me that reversing edits while claiming trivial reasons and references has become second-nature (a paid job?) for some people who are policing their propaganda work and they need to be put on notice as well at some point (perhaps long past). Thank you for any guidance you may be able to provide. I am not really familiar with Wikipedia edits and such controversy, in fact I do not even know where your reply will be, but please help if you can. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- By starting a talk page topic, you've done the correct next step when there is a content dispute. Repeated reverts with or without good edit summaries are no substitute.
- Wikipedia consensus is largely determined by who shows up. It sometimes takes a while. But try to avoid attributing motives to other editors; even if you suspect them of having an agenda, it's always best to treat them as if they are - like you - earnest Wikipedia editors simply trying to come up with the best content possible in line with Wikipedia's policies. Arguments based simply on your assumption of another editor's motives carry no weight. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the reply, and a quick one at that. Let me see if I understand. Wikipedia uses AI to determine the end result (consensus) of the Talk process, or did I just fantasize that? However, note that the reverser added more stuff since I last edited. What happens then? If the reverser added more controversial material, do I not have a right to erase that as well, by pointing out my objections regarding their violations of Wikipedia principles, which would be in addition to my previous objections and references? I suppose I could add that to the Talk instead, but then how would that be taken into consideration? 70.164.212.36 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You need to get more eyes on the issue; you can try the various steps of the dispute resolution process. Perhaps the next step after the talk page discussion is started is to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board as mentioned at the top of the talk page. Edit warring will not help your case and, if it continues, one or both of you may get blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I didn't spot that this subject was currently listed under contentious topics - it does have a {{controversial}} tag - so it might be good to treat is as if it were. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I examined the WT:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board you mention, but it appears to be a failed project with a hodge podge of subjects and opinions following almost no rhyme or reason, with the last post being in 2012. I will admit, though, that people have been civil in their correspondence, from what I see. Yes, the subject of the fire is controversial, but falsifications and exaggerations should not be allowed, and neither should the hijacking of an article for propaganda purposes relating to an agenda, nor intentionally false interpretations. In any case, I will tread carefully as I proceed. Your help is much appreciated. Let us see how good and sincere Wikipedia really is, because my impression from many articles is that Wikipedia has let propagandists literally run amok and has not done much regarding their insolent remarks either (see e.g. the last post in the subject immediately above the one I split). 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You need to get more eyes on the issue; you can try the various steps of the dispute resolution process. Perhaps the next step after the talk page discussion is started is to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board as mentioned at the top of the talk page. Edit warring will not help your case and, if it continues, one or both of you may get blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I didn't spot that this subject was currently listed under contentious topics - it does have a {{controversial}} tag - so it might be good to treat is as if it were. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the reply, and a quick one at that. Let me see if I understand. Wikipedia uses AI to determine the end result (consensus) of the Talk process, or did I just fantasize that? However, note that the reverser added more stuff since I last edited. What happens then? If the reverser added more controversial material, do I not have a right to erase that as well, by pointing out my objections regarding their violations of Wikipedia principles, which would be in addition to my previous objections and references? I suppose I could add that to the Talk instead, but then how would that be taken into consideration? 70.164.212.36 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Question
I posted a question for you to answer in the Dispute resolution thread. // Timothy :: talk 03:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- And I replied on the same thread, right under your question. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Editors involved in propaganda and suppression
I have clear evidence of massive propaganda in an article (though the problem is widespread) and in the way some editors who are protecting the article are behaving, by flatly refusing any edits that do not agree with their propaganda, without engaging in discussion (which I had plenty of), while claiming that consensus is necessary for my edits. I have read the consensus page (WP:CONS) every which way, and in fact found that their reversals without discussion were in violation and that consensus was not a majority vote, which means that I actually have consensus (how that manifests itself still being a mystery to me; apparently there is no flag that pops up saying editor A has consensus?). In any case, I filed a dispute, and, out of the 3 editors who kept reversing my few edits one IP never showed up; the other two tried to blame me for sockpuppeting (not true) and propagandizing (I guess they figure the best defense is offense), using big and contrived phrases such as "most scholars" (not true) etc., and attempted getting me blocked (what better way of getting rid of troublesome truth?) both on the dispute page and by contacting admin editors. However, they had no worthwhile comment on the content of my edits. The dispute is hanging in the air since they were able to affect the would be moderator by making an issue of a question I asked of the moderator, which the moderator used as an excuse to recuse themselves. On the other hand, their statement implied to other would be moderators that no moderator would probably touch this dispute. They also somehow "persuaded" a volunteer admin to bring the matter to another admin that can block accounts. That admin did not block me for obvious reasons, but blocked someone else sympathetic to my edits for edit-warring (and looking in there, I probably would not have, as I also learned about the three reversals rule, this one had two). The volunteer admin's language was as if they were confident of me sockpuppeting. When I complained about that, I was told I was being disruptive everywhere I went (one article is everywhere? and how can someone bring themselves to make such a statement). This admin editor also claimed that they do not remember how they came upon the article (I have reason not to believe that). In any case, I wish to file a complaint against the article editors for massive propagandizing as well as for repeated violation of several important Wikipedia rules along with trying to intimidate new editors like me with being blocked, which appears to be somewhat arbitrary as see the one blocked above, or perhaps depends on who one knows. I am new but I will not be intimidated and wish to forward these complaints to an admin (group?) to have them researched. May I please ask as to how to go about that, since this is a subject that is beyond dispute or content arbitration? Thank you. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)