Editing Talk:Political dispute

In a classic Angela move, she recently advocated removing [[w:Wikipedia:political dispute]], and succeeded despite some resistance in hiding it without even a meta-move or redirect, despite the fact that there clearly ARE political disputes that carry over into any communications medium.  Then she shows up here to remove the deleted links.  What a worthless person.

----

To be specific, [[User:Angela]] participates in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an [[echo chamber]].

[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Echo_chamber Disinfopedia: echo chamber] defines this as "a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other's uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources."

This is exactly what Angela does at Wikipedia, participating in a group that "tends to parrot each other's uncritical reports" based "on the views of a single source," even a non-credible source like [[w:User:RK]] or [[w:User:Maveric149]] who have a history of lying.  Then they use "unquestioning repetition of official sources," i.e. [[w:User:Jimbo_Wales]] to justify censorship of critical and essential articles like [[comprehensive outcome]], in direct contradiction of the efforts of conscientious users like [[w:User:Cyan]] (who share their wrong view of authority and work also in the echo chamber, as MOST sysops DO NOT) who try to save the text that is valid.

Also at one point [[User:Angela]] advocated deletion of [[w:Wikipedia:identity dispute]].  Why?  Because such disputes don't exist?  No.  Because such disputes would imply that groups or persons have a right to define their own identity, or at least, contest the official assignment of their identity.  This is directly relevant to choices [[User:Angela]] makes such as deleting articles just because *SHE BELIEVES THEM* to have been reinstated or authored by certain people.

So for these reasons, [[User:Angela]] can reasonably be assumed to be hostile.

NOTE:  If trolls were to adopt [[User:Angela]]'s tactics, we would simply delete here allegations, revert her corrections, all without consulting her.  WE ARE BETTER THAN HER.  Although we can wield the diseased end of the stick as well as anyone else, we (a) don't lie (b) explain in detail what "behaviour" we object to, rather than using that word to apply to events that do not occur at all and are invented in the [[echo chamber]], and (c) do not revert without a valid reason.  Oh finally we (d) actually care about the mandate of the service, in this case, [[moral purchasing]] and making [[comprehensive outcome]]s tangible.  [[User:Angela]] clearly does NOT care about these things, or she would not censor text relevant to them when it is reinstated by people with no particular profile on Wikipedia.  Her hostility is clearly TO THE TEXT ITSELF - valid as it may be, no one is permitted to discuss it, because "a 142" raised it.

The political agenda of [[User:Angela]] is obvious.  What is not obvious, is how to fairly exclude her and her kind from this project, so that they do not raise stupid objections that sound good but have nothing to do with the outcome.  The [[comprehensive outcome]] that is.