Talk:Political dispute - Revision history

142.177.114.15: User:Angela's frequent reliance on disinfopedia:echo_chamber lies to excuse her own instinctual irrational actions is well worth noting as a general tendency among "Wikipedians"

2004-02-10T21:16:13Z

User:Angela's frequent reliance on disinfopedia:echo_chamber lies to excuse her own instinctual irrational actions is well worth noting as a general tendency among "Wikipedians"

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:16, 10 February 2004
Line 1:	Line 1:
		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.

Angela: how is that relevant?

2004-02-08T23:28:04Z

how is that relevant?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 8 February 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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.

Angela: flames to the flames page

2004-02-08T23:27:41Z

flames to the flames page

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 8 February 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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.		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.

142.177.99.185: Angela is worthless

2004-01-07T08:06:17Z

Angela is worthless

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 7 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
			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]].		To be specific, [[User:Angela]] participates in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an [[echo chamber]].

142.177.104.127: revert Angela

2004-01-07T06:48:32Z

revert Angela

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:48, 7 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Some users participate~~ in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an [[echo chamber]].		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."		[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 ~~some people on other wikis do~~, participating in a group that "tends to parrot each other's uncritical reports" based "on the views of a single source," even non-credible ~~sources~~ who have a history of lying. Then they use "unquestioning repetition of official sources," ~~like God Kings~~ to justify censorship of critical and essential articles like [[comprehensive outcome]], in direct contradiction of the efforts of conscientious users (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.		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 ~~the~~ deletion of [[w:Wikipedia:identity dispute]] ~~was advocated~~. 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 ~~sysops make when~~ deleting articles just because ~~THEY~~ BELIEVES THEM to have been reinstated or authored by certain people.		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, ~~users who particpate in the above activities~~ can reasonably be assumed to be hostile.		So for these reasons, [[User:Angela]] can reasonably be assumed to be hostile.

	NOTE: If trolls were to adopt ~~these~~ tactics, we would simply delete ~~the~~ allegations ~~made by these people~~, revert ~~their~~ corrections, all without consulting ~~them~~. WE ARE BETTER THAN ~~THEM~~. 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. ~~Some users at Wikipedia~~ clearly do NOT care about these things, or ~~they~~ would not censor text relevant to them when it is reinstated by people with no particular profile on Wikipedia. ~~Their~~ hostility is clearly TO THE TEXT ITSELF - valid as it may be, no one is permitted to discuss it, because "a 142" raised it.		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 ~~these people~~ is obvious. What is not obvious, is how to fairly exclude ~~them~~ and ~~their~~ 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.		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.

Angela: reword as suggested at User talk:Juxo

2004-01-05T22:55:54Z

reword as suggested at User talk:Juxo

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 5 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~To be specific, [[User:Angela]] participates~~ in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an [[echo chamber]].		Some users participate 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."		[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.		This is exactly what some people on other wikis do, participating in a group that "tends to parrot each other's uncritical reports" based "on the views of a single source," even non-credible sources who have a history of lying. Then they use "unquestioning repetition of official sources," like God Kings to justify censorship of critical and essential articles like [[comprehensive outcome]], in direct contradiction of the efforts of conscientious users (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.		Also at one point the deletion of [[w:Wikipedia:identity dispute]] was advocated. 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 sysops make when deleting articles just because THEY BELIEVES THEM to have been reinstated or authored by certain people.

	So for these reasons, ~~[[User:Angela]]~~ can reasonably be assumed to be hostile.		So for these reasons, users who particpate in the above activities 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.		NOTE: If trolls were to adopt these tactics, we would simply delete the allegations made by these people, revert their corrections, all without consulting them. WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM. 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. Some users at Wikipedia clearly do NOT care about these things, or they would not censor text relevant to them when it is reinstated by people with no particular profile on Wikipedia. Their 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.		The political agenda of these people is obvious. What is not obvious, is how to fairly exclude them and their 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.

142.177.74.66: the dispute between trolls and User:Angela is a political dispute, and here is an EXACT account of it, and where User:Angela's political bias will harm Consumerium if she is influential "here"

2003-12-23T23:00:03Z

the dispute between trolls and User:Angela is a political dispute, and here is an EXACT account of it, and where User:Angela's political bias will harm Consumerium if she is influential "here"

New page

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.