User:Ghostofnemo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Wikipedia is a record of human knowledge, stored on a high school blackboard, and every kid has an eraser and a piece of chalk. Guess whose stuff stays on the blackboard?" Ghostofnemo

After other editors repeatedly deleted several of my relevant, NPOV, and reliably-sourced contributions from articles, I started making a list of what I thought were questionable deletions on my userpage. But that list was deleted by Wikipedia administrators. Then I put a link to the history of my userpage, showing the questionable deletions, and they even deleted the list from my userpage history, like something out of Orwell's "1984":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ghostofnemo&oldid=370598551

Whoops, that page has been deleted! You can't even go back in the history now and see what I was complaining about. You can't see what the dispute was about, or compare my edits to the reliable sources I used as references. The deletions must have been pretty embarrassing, eh?

If you want a taste of what it's like to edit controversial articles on Wikipedia, you can check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Bethune/Archive_2#Hood_round_two_.2Ading.2A

And the "Illogical policies" discussion is here now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH

There was a brief period when Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit, but no longer. The rules never meant anything much - the censors are not protecting Pete Bethune over the fact(?) that the Japanese hooded him, nor are they much protecting the Japanese police and judicial system. They're protecting their own prejudices and making sure you don't add anything. There are other places where you can share the information which was deleted from your UserPage. 86.178.248.115 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It could be bloated egos, but there seems to be a clear pattern to the deletions - information about controversial topics sensitive to the U.S. or its allies. But the editors involved seem a bit too clever and well organized to be random ditto-heads. They don't just delete stuff, they make ridiculous wikilawyering arguments to justify themselves or use clever ploys to avoid resolution. If you read this [Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia] you'll see that Wikipedia involvement isn't in the realm of the impossible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples of what I'm talking about from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Please note the references cited, and that all of this reliably sourced, neutral point of view material has been completely deleted from the article:

And once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example from a different article (there seems to be a pattern). First, instead of correcting a supposedly minor point, they delete the entire entry and all the supporting references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_YU55&diff=464350072&oldid=464349260

Then, instead of discussing it on the article talk page, they post a note on YOUR talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#Re:_2005_YU55

Then, when you make the correction they claimed they wanted but didn't make, and you think you've responded to their objection, they delete it again or delete your reliable sources or in someway tamper with your contribution in a way that seems illogical or goes against Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_YU55&diff=464359186&oldid=464353720

After a bit of discussion in which they argue that sources like the BBC and The Washington Post are unreliable, that it's actually ok to rely only on primary (government) sources, and claim that this is Wikipedia policy, they threaten to report you for... trying to follow the rules! You can point out that the policies they are quoting don't say what they claim they say, but that doesn't help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_YU55#Strange.2FPuzzling_structures

After which they once again delete the reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_YU55&diff=465285428&oldid=465241886

Just a little suspicious, eh?

Another example of neutral, reliably sourced, relevant information being deleted from articles, again from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, this time regarding the Able Danger program. Please note the long list of reliable sources cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=482102967&oldid=482101670

And another Wikipedia disconnect from reality: Ronald Reagan was never widely known as "Ronald Raygun": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_of_United_States_presidents&diff=487201463&oldid=487199503

And why is it a problem to note Noble Peace Prize recipients who met untimely deaths?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates&diff=402708554&oldid=402693059
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates&diff=402383748&oldid=402346713

Here we go again: the U.S. government claimed it had no prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but FBI director Robert Mueller testified that the FBI was warned by one of its agents that an al-Queda suspect might be planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. This information, which appears in a referenced CNN article, has been repeatedly deleted from the September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories article. One of the deletors claims I'm doing original research! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Questionable_deletion_of_FBI_prior_knowledge_info

Entire section of Police state deleted as....original research. Note the references! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=578931729&oldid=578657087 Note also that the editor who deleted this is not only claiming that only scholarly sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, but also did not, as an alternative, find sources he or she felt were better quality. I just get the impression that someone doesn't want a factual yardstick of what a police state is available to people interested in objectively evaluating governments. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC) First it was "original research". Now it's "lack of consensus". I've seen this in enough articles to know that no matter what, some things just won't be allowed to appear in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582770964&oldid=582765017 But at the top of the next section of this article is a completely unsourced assertion that "it is impossible to objectively determine whether a nation has become or is becoming a police state." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Examples_of_states_with_police_state-like_attributes You just have to wonder why this kind of statement is allowed to stand, but a reliably sourced, neutrally worded list of objective criteria as to whether or not a state is a police state must be immediately deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that Winston Churchill co-ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs? Me either. My contribution to this article was that it was Truman who gave the orders (there was nothing in the article about who actually ordered the dropping of the bombs), and I finally had six supporting references, because it kept getting deleted. But even with six reliable sources that said it was Truman who gave the orders to drop the bombs, my contribution was deleted, and replaced by the interesting hypothesis that Churchill co-authorized the bombings. However, not a single reference was supplied to support this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Harry_Truman And here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=582340538&oldid=582337369 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Three reliable sources pointing to CIA involvement in the arrest of Nelson Mandela, but deleted by an editor without a user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=585300836&oldid=585294103 Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time trying to convince editors at Police state that when Freedom House uses the term "unfree states" it is a polite, academic way of saying "police states". They disagreed (!), but this meant that the Freedom House map, which shows "free" and "unfree" states, and which has been in the article for a long time, needed to be deleted from the article. And it was. Note the reason for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=583771857&oldid=583771693 Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How Wikipedia actually works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Police_state This discussion is closed, and if I go to another venue, I'm guilty of "forum shopping". Catch-22, and the deletions stand I guess. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Former CIA director says Edward Snowden should be hung, not pardoned. Can't have that in the Edward Snowden article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&diff=586586181&oldid=586584708 Some countries won't extradite you if you face the death penalty.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but I was unable to reply before it was closed. One participant claimed that I try to push conspiracy theories, without noting that the edits he mentioned were to conspiracy theory articles! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Reverse_original_research Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)