Talk:Political dispute

Some users participate in what is called, in propaganda analysis, an 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.

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, users who particpate in the above activities 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 outcomes 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 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.