Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:55 am

Thanls to an epic act of self-harm, the Wikipedia volunteers left wing bias has been noted by a source they do consider reliable......

Wikipedia may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
Craig Simpson
The Daily Telegraph
27th November 2021
A Wikipedia entry detailing “mass killings under Communist regimes” faces being purged from the platform over fears about bias.

....with some users responsible for maintaining the site taking issue with blaming mass murder on Communist ideology.

The dedicated entry .... has been accused of putting forward a biased “anti-Communist” point of view...

A heading on Wikipedia’s article ... currently states “The neutrality of this article is disputed".

...

...one proponent of deleting the page has stated on Wikipedia’s discussion page that “the view that the ideology of communism is somehow inherently violent is … anti-communist [point of view] pushing”.

Another supporter of deletion claims the entry on the deaths under Communism, estimated by some historians to be in the region of 100 million people, should not resort to “simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology”.

It has also been argued by one of the host of users who update and maintain Wikipedia that the page on mass killings under Communist regimes “is enabling a narrative and supports some fringe ideas about history”.

The proposed deletion of the page .... has been criticised.....[Cambridge historian Prof Robert Tombs] .... said: “This is morally indefensible, at least as bad as Holocaust denial, because 'linking ideology and killing' is the very core of why these things are important.

“I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to me careful and balanced. Therefore attempts to remove it can only be ideologically motivated – to whitewash Communism.

“Already, this appalling history is downplayed: in Britain, schoolchildren are much more likely to study the Third Reich than the Soviet Union.
...
Now perhaps people understand why the Wikishits banning the Daily Mail was significant.

For it WASN'T AN ACCIDENT that one of the pieces of shit that pushed so hard for that outcome, making absurd claims like somehow the MailOnline's understandable inclusion of celebrity stories, would somehow affect the reliability of serious Mail On Sunday political comment, the well established, highly experienced and proudly not anonymous Wikipedia Administrator Guy Chapman (JzG), soon followed it up with comments laying the groundwork for the idea that even the Telegraph is too biased to be considered reliable for Wikipedia’s purposes. There was no push back.

A few more stories like this, and you can expect a retaliation from the community.

People can claim Wikipedia isn't in the grip of leftists all they want, they can suck my plums. We are well past the point any of this is explained by any other narrative than Wikipedia is wholly on board with the idea that right wing opinion is just so much fake news bullshit, not fit to even be noted in a neutral encyclopedia as one side of a debate. There is no debate as far as these freaks see it - Wikipedia is neutral. All those who claim otherwise, are lying.

The irony that you can LITERALLY PROVE the wikishit who proposed the Daily Mail be banned, knowingly lied during the debate, and even after it was noticed, NOBODY CARED, the closers apparently not even seeing that significant enough to note, is apparently lost in them.

It's easy for the wikishits to look past such things, given anyone who points it out on Wikipedia, gets banned. Try it. You'll get gaslighted, made to believe by experienced Administrators like the unfortunately named Newslinger that you have imagined these things, and this disreputable tactic of disposing of inconveniences, will be approved of at the highest levels.

Do not disrupt Wikipedia by presenting the verifiable truth for their consideration.

A cult is what a cult does.

And the so called independent Wikipedia investigators Wikipediocracy are of course entirely on board with this bubble boy bullshit. Their views of the Daily Mail debate and indeed the Mail itself are well known, and unsurprisingly, are entirely in lock step with the Wikishits.

They are naturally busy discussing this recent clusterfuck, in a characteristically not very helpful manner, and it is telling that the one solitary comment from the ownership, is as follows.....
Zoloft wrote:The Telegraph is very right-wing biased.
It's exactly what a Wikipedia editor would say if you tried to get the above reliably sourced criticism of Wikipedia, added to Wikipedia.

There's not much here for serious critics to note otherwise, the nature of this clusterfuck being entirely normal for Wikipedia, all documented before.

I'll note a few specific things solely because the world really does need to understand just how badly Wikipediocracy sucks (and to prove that me being the smartest person in any room labelled "Wikipedia criticism" is no accident).

1. A serious encyclopedia wouldn't tolerate a matter such as this being disputed four times now, to no apparent conclusion. A definitive answer would have been arrived at, and a moratorium placed on future deletion/creation, pending any new evidence emerging.

2. A well run crowd sourced encyclopedia with Administrators capable of enforcing its own rules, would have prevented this fourth AfD even occurring, since it was clearly an attempt by a user to derail an already active attempt at dispute resolution, and wasn't even filed with a policy compliant rationale.

3. There's nothing inherently complex about this issue that would mean a single Administrator isn't capable of closing the debate with a sensible summary that speaks to policy and strength of argument. As happened with the Daily Mail ban, they're hoping the fact that three Administrators working as a panel to file an obviously unsatisfactory closure that ignores significant but inconvenient aspects due to their underlying need to paint a biased outcome as neutral, will hide the inherent flaws of Wikipedia.

Corrupt actors with the power to achieve their biased aims are a serious problem for Wikipedia, but an all pervading bias affecting the whole community is an even bigger one. A bias not remotely reflective even of the real world's ideological divide, as is often claimed as their excuse.

The UK voted for Brexit by a narrow majority, the Mail's opinion writers having clearly been reflective of the national mood for decades. But you'll struggle to find a single Wikipedia Administrator who doesn't think Brexit is crazy talk and all those who vote for it are lunatics. Wikipedia is more the place where a Wikipedia Administrator like Ritchie333 is allowed to have openly biased views, and write anti-Mail Wikipedia articles.

That said, it seems clear the article at dispute will be kept, but as the closers will probably note, sensing their obligation to maintain Wikipedia’s bias, that will only be so that the biased Wikipedia editors who are trying to delete it, can achieve their second best outcome - edit it such that it becomes a magnifier of the case for denial.

And nobody with any sense is going to spend the hundreds of hours (and several of your decadent Earth dollars) to prove the resultant article is biased, through an exhaustive analysis of the prevalence and content of sources and a consideration of their reliability.

Why would you bother? You're dealing with people who, ON A LARGE SCALE, think the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer. They're happy to believe and act on that clearly made up shite even before they could reliably source it AT ALL.

And you will be unsurprised to learn the only reliable source prepared to say it now, is the same source that wrote a very pro-Wikioedia account of the Daily Mail debate, using only Wikipedia editors who wanted the Daily Mail banned as his sources, and more broadly, has written a serious of largely flattering articles on Wikipedia.

You can't reason with such people, you can't debate with them.

Bias is what bias does. Facts are immaterial to such people.

Wikipedia cannot be fixed. It has to be destroyed.

HTD.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:08 pm

You'll be unsurprised to learn for example that this wanker, another uashamedly identifiable person, is one of the people used as a source in the Slate article about the Mail debate as if they're a model Wikipedian with an ability to put their bias aside and act in the best interests of a neutral Wikipedia.....
Comment I'm honestly tempted to vote Delete not only because of the Synth issues, but the clear canvassing. Shame on so many editors in this discussion and shame on the trash 4channers, Wikipediocracy people, and even people in the media for their canvassing nonsense over this thread. But there's obviously no point in voting by now, this AfD should be thrown in the trash. The bias in the above editors is so plain. This isn't even a Keep result, it's a nonsense frameshift mutation. So, again, just shame on you all for just being such poor Wikipedia editors. SilverserenC 08:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone with this lack of self control and epic levels of arrogance, would of course not think twice about lying about the Daily Mail’s actual record on Wikipedia, if they thought for a second they could materially affect its status on Wikipedia.

Which of course, he was successful in doing so.

The Mail ban proposal was a frameshift par excellence.

Don't take my word for it. Engage your brain and ask yourself if the biased fuck on view above, sounds at all like the same biased fuck who would say something like this...
Support prohibition As others have said it is a byword for the worst kinds of yellow journalism, it is (in effect) a fake news organ. Just because a lot of people buy it (or even by it) does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other then it's own views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
What a load of fucking shit. The absolute wet dream of a leftist wank.

In the land of verifiable fact, in the specific field of UK newspapers, the Mail is far from anyone's idea of "the worst kinds of yellow journalism" and "a fake news organ".

Feel free to prove me wrong, if you've got a reliable source. Ideally one with competence in such things.

I'm not asking because I don't know. I do know. They DON'T EXIST.

And lest we forget, this utter fucking shite was being said by these people BEFORE Wikipedia had even formally banned the likes of InfoWars!

And lest we forget, EVEN NOW, the likes of Fox News and the NY Post, inexplicably have a higher reputation among Wikipedia editors than the Mail. Fox readily broadcast Trump propaganda as if it were fact, or even reasonable opinion. The Mail had Trump pegged as a lying piece of shit from day one. The NY Post literally wrote pieces based entirely on his conspiracy theories. The Mail's stories call them what they are, conspiracy theories.

This might confuse dumb Americans fed on a steady diet of Liberal media bias who so readily seized on this idea that all news I disagree with is fake, but I hate to break it to you, for all his faults, Boris Johnson is verifiably not the British Trump, Nigel Farage is. Whereas your fucked up system proved incapable of nullifying the threat, our mature democracy, based as it is on a healthy media and allowing voters to think for themselves, saw to it that Farage's less insane views were mainstreamed, without doing something daft like giving him the top job. Or indeed, any actual political power at all. Take note.

But guess which outlet is banned from use on Wikipedia OUTRIGHT? Can't even be cited as opinion?

The Mail!

The Mail hasn't been implicated in any of the scandals that speak direcy to yellow journalistic practises that has rocked the tabloid end of UK journalism in recent decades.

It's outlets like the Mirror, the left wing tabloid whose reliability was not questioned at the same time the Mail was being smeared on a grand scale, who have done things like publish fake front page images that purport to show UK troops engaged in war crimes.

No such scandals in the Mail's history, which, unlike the Mirror, in recent years includes awards for it's stories challenging things like institutional racism in the police.

Not even the The Guardian is above presenting fake news as fact if it suits their political bias, as seen in Traingate. The Wikipedia editors apparently think that's OK because the Guardian duly investigated themselves and printed an apology. It escaped their noticed that the fake story was an October surprise, the investigation coming well after the election, so if it had had the desired effect, we would now be living in a socialist paradise under the most left wing government seen in this country in decades.

Such facts are inconvenient to the aims of people like Slater.

Thankfully the British people, as much as the Wikishits don't like it, are well used to viewing even broadsheet stories through the lens of possible bias. If it reads like bullshit and smells like bullshit, then don't believe it.

Unsurprisingly, the British people have apparently paid no attention to the fact Wikipedia editors think the Mail is "generally unreliable".

Regardless. The point being, they tried. And they believe they have succeeded.

So fuck these people.

Seriously. How would society remotely be at a loss if people this openly and unashamedly biased, in the claimed pursuit of building a neutral encyclopedia, were rounded up and exterminated?

I'm seriously asking.

But fuck me if these people don't act like they actually want to be executed for their dumb beliefs.

A very lefty trait.

I'm not remotely a fascist. Neither are a good proportion of the MILLIONS of Americans who voted for Trump.

I'm certainly smart enough to recognise the similarities between Communism and Wikipedia. Given the assumption humans are inherently good, then theoretically, it should work. Communism would generate peace and prosperity, and Wikipedia would be knowledge.

It's no mystery why neither works. Humans are not inherently good. Too much evolution in there ensuring we don't operate as entirely altruistic beings. As is known to science, that which we think is human altruism, is still actually our evolutionary instinct at work.

For all its faults, a mature and robust democracy is a good enough means to ensure the needs of the many are met without stifling the human condition to the point they need to be deprived of basic freedoms. The proof is in the pudding. Take a look at the history of the world.

America failed to become a mature and robust democracy precisely because their foundational ethos is, ironically, deeply selfish. No, not all men are created equal, some are deeply evil, and some mechanism is required to ensure their human instinct is curtailed.

American democracy had that mechanism, allegedly, and so does Wikipedia, allegedly.

It's no accident that both things suck, for entirely the same reason.

When you give evil people the power and the motivation to be evil, don't be fucking surprised when they do evil, and you have to resort to violence to end them.

Stand up and stop them. Be more like British people.

Rules matter. Fairness matters. Civility matters.

We didn't just stumble on this wisdom. ;) :roll:

HTD.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:18 pm

Witness the hilarity that is the deepest darkest Wikipedia....
A request was made on 4 November for moderated discussion at DRN. Some of editors here, User:Cloud200, User:Paul Siebert, and User:Davide King, were participating in moderated discussion, and my intention as moderator was to develop one or more RFCs to try to resolve some of the controversy about this article. User:Levivich then proposed to take the article to a deletion discussion. I was then asked by User:Paul Siebert to put the moderated discussion on hold, because he could not take part in the AFD and the DRN at the same time. An AFD takes priority over all other content dispute resolution mechanisms including any RFCs. I put the DRN on hold as requested. I also said, here, at this talk page, that I recommended that a formal community process be initiated, which could be AFD (as proposed by Levivich) or one or more RFCs (as I was planning to take the DRN). More than four days have elapsed since User:Levivich proposed to start a deletion discussion, and there has not yet been a deletion discussion, and discussion seems to have become defocused again. If no one is planning to file an AFD, but the interested parties still want moderated discussion, I will resume the DRN. If there is to be an AFD, it might as well be started now. If the editors who originally wanted moderated discussion have decided that they do not want moderated discussion after all, but would prefer to continue unfocused discussion here, I will close the DRN as abandoned, although I think that will be a mistake, because there seems to be agreement that something should be resolved. So: Do the editors want a community process? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A free bucket of chicken to anyone who can tell me where I can find either a rule or a principle or anything at all that has ever said that in the Wikipedia model, you can at any time subvert and nullify a moderated and structured debate, simply by yelling I WANT GO TO AfD!

Even in the general case, it's fucking absurd, but in a scenario where its been tried three times already and not resulted in the desired outcome, it's inherently disruptive. If Wikipedia worked, if it had the sort of sanity in governance that would imply it was capable of ensuring neutrality through discourse, such people would be stopped in their tracks, not be indulged in their rank stupidity.

And don't be the sort of Wikipediocracy type moron who says, nurrr, WP:IAR let's people do anything, because you're only announcing to the world you're too thick to know there is plenty of precedent that says an IAR invocation is only valid if, after you have done it, the benift to Wikipedia was manifest (as in, there was no immediate giant clusterfuck). As in, if you weren't smart to enough foresee the ciusterfuck, you weren't smart enough to be invoking IAR in the first place, and you are probably exactly what you proved to be, an unhelpful retard at best, a bad actor at worst.

Wikipedia doesn't work. Never could. It's ripe for abuse.The likes of Robert McClenon are the top of the line models, and even he hasn't really got the first fucking clue.

No wonder truly evil people like Slater Steven and Guy Chapman feel unconstrained in their efforts.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:36 pm

Closed as no consensus, the closure sidestepping the core issue - why was it even opened in the first place? A curious omission, since they finish by recommending editors to return to the DRN process that the AfD sought to circumvent.

The tactic was successful, clearly. Who in their right mind is going to participate at DRN now, when these morons have just ruled that the small element of the clusterfuck that dealt with sources, was inconclusive? That debate ain't gonna get any more into the weeds or any better participated now.

The deleters will simply wait it out, and try another AfD in a year's time, the allowing of which is the only meaningful difference between "no consensus" and "keep" that the average wikishit understands.

Why was it inconclusive? Because those who want this article gone, are acting out of bias. You can't have a reasonable debate with people who lob baseless accusations of bias.

The most hilarious part? This panel of closers claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the external coverage of this AfD, such as that Telegraph article, was biased.

A strange claim to make, when they have literally just admitted that those people who tried to argue "Mass killings under communist regimes" is not an encyclopedic topic, I.e. that it isn't present as a mainstream cohesive idea in reliable scholarship, DID NOT MAKE A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT.

So who the fuck are these unqualified dipshits to be claiming a reliable source was wrong to include in their report only experts who say the prospect of deletion would be a travesty? Can they name ANY experts who weighed in on the opposite side?

Did the saintly Guardian name check any professors who think Wikipedia should delete the article because it was indeed just a pile of synthesis and fringe junk?

I don't think they did.

They also strangely sidestepped the obvious reality that even if it isn't a cohesive mainstream topic, but if neither side is fringe, which is the implication of "no consensus" being found on that narrow issue of sources, it can still be neutrally covered by Wikipedia as a scholarly debate. That is inconvenient to Wikipedia, because to teach the controversy you have to necessarily admit the controversy.

This is Wikipedia. The desired outcome is already decided. Their left wing bias means they are ideologically prevented from admitting that Communism might be a bad way to run a country for ideological reasons. Thereafter, the name of the game is crafting whatever illogical bullshit they think will bamboozle outsiders.

Fuck off with this bullshit.

You cannot bamboozle those whose fucking job it is to decode the Matrix.

It's beyond obvious that Wikipedia is biased.

The closers can barely conceal their personal opinion in this verbiage - there is no controversy. The only people who believe Communism is harmful as an ideology, are biased or clueless, and they were only present in that debate at all, because QAnon brainwashed them.

The parallels with pretty much every other formal Wikipedia ruling that seeks to settle a debate between left and right, are clear.

In other words, if you think the Daily Mail is an actual newspaper, you be crazy.

Of course, no mention is even made as to what was actually so wrong with the two prior debates that ended conclusively as keep. Just like no explanation was ever given as to why all the prior debate about the Daily Mail had been incorrect.

The mere existence of controversy among Wikipedia editors that such things are not cosidered lunacy, which of course will always be present if, as we know, Wikipedia editors are a bunch of agitating lefties, is used to justify re-running the debate until you get the outcome you want.

Bias is what bias does. Brook no quarter, accept no compromise, sidestep negotiated settlement, just keep whining and accusing, and keep going until you win!

They'll be coming for the Telegraph next.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:50 pm

As predicted.....
Actually, my plan is to invite the most active participants of the AfD discussion to join this (or a new) DRN, and to discuss the questions that are seen as the most crucial by the panel (and by me):

* What a majority of peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources say on the subject?

* What a majority of peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources say about each of the events described in the article?

* Is there any discrepancy between the former and the later, and if yes, what should we do to correctly represent the majority view?

I think we must reach some consensus in one year or so. If the discussion will not come to any meaningful result, I am going to submit another AfD, which will be better written and will focus on main problems that make this article incompatible with our policy.

As a person who is more familiar with our rules, can you please tell me if there are any problem with this plan? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm. Problems with this plan?

I can see one pretty fucking obvious problem.

These fucking people.

Unsurprisingly, the Wikipediocracy crowd sees no issues with the close.

Wikipedia == Wikipediocracy.

:roll:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:29 pm

Even more blatant....
Here is my summary of the recent AfD.

.....

* The verdict is "No consensus", which is not an endorsement of the current article's version by a community. That means this version cannot be seen as a stable one.

.....

As this AfD demonstrated, admin's panel will not count votes, so, if the article will not be fixed, the outcome of a well written AfD will easy to predict. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This is bias in action.

In the land of stuff that people didn't just make up to make it sound like they're not just a POV pushing wanker, an AfD outcome isn't a comment on the current state of an article at all, and it sure as shit isn't a declaration the article is now a free for all.

"No consensus" is a comment only on what is possible.

This is basic stuff.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:45 pm

Holy shit.....
The media organizations that reported the deletion discussion were Fox News, Not the Bee, Media Research Center, Breitbart News and the Telegraph. Since those sources tend to attract both misinformed and far right readers (there's a strong overlap there), that no doubt had an influence on the outcome. TFD (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
See what I mean?

The Telegraph attracts misinformed and far right readers. Said with a straight face.

These people are fucking insane.

On the flip side, it's pretty hilarious to see them leaving the door open to the possibility there might be people on the far right who aren't misinformed.

The day you see the Daily Mail ever suggesting the "far right" aren't 100% nuts, you let me know, and I'll be the first in line to say they need to be stripped of all their journalism awards.

In the meantime, you mark my words. The crazy is all on Wikipedia.

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Post by rog » Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:06 pm

Image

Post Reply