User talk:Citizensinitiative2019
Citizensinitiative2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am actually a junior academic researcher and searched many references to the genocide in Myanmar and the direct involvement of Cambridge Analytica. Someguy1221 is deliberately provoking conflict by reading references that have mostly been directly quoted in my article. The administrator is retaliating my writing with the notion there is no connection to what I have wrote and what I have cited. There are currently administrators claiming ownership of the "Cambridge Analytica" page. Hiding behind deletions is not honorable, nor are false accusations. There should not be ownership of pages on Wikipedia. We are building a modern encyclopedia with historic events and who must be held accountable will be.
Decline reason:
To spell out more explicitly why SomeGuy1221 indefinitely blocked you: in this edit, you cited this otherwise reliable source for the claim that CA was promoting hate speech with the usage of social engineering and methods of psychological warfare via social media platform Facebook in the Myanmar
. The CNN piece you cite for that doesn't mention Myanmar at all. You cited this other source (with the wrong title) for the claim that These violations in Myanmar lead to racial hatred and fueled a genocide within the country
. The only mention of Myanmar in that source (titled "US Congressman Brad Sherman says Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency ‘may do more to endanger America’ than 9/11") is "The announcement has been met with broad skepticism from lawmakers, with many asking why Facebook should be trusted to build an experimental new financial system given its track record of scandals – from its role in the spread of hate speech that fueled genocide in Myanmar to Cambridge Analytica’s misappropriation of 87 million users’ data." Now, anyone literate in English should know that that sentence does not actually blame CA for genocide in Myanmar.
That last point seems to be the point of confusion for you. You are confusing two distinct events:
*CA stealing data from Facebook users,
-- and --
*Facebook taking too long to do anything about some Myanmar military officials spreading hate speech.
You've not provided anything suggesting that those two things are related, other than "Facebook was involved." The rest of your sources fall under that same confusion of those two events -- an Association fallacy. That you refused to back down on your confusion of those two things raises concerns either about your competency or your honesty (which we don't have a policy page for because, really, we don't need one to block dishonest users).
Also, the sheer hypocrisy in referring to the article as just yours while telling everyone else to back off because there's not supposed to be ownership suggests that maybe you're just a troll who needs their talk page access revoked. If you do not show the slightest sign that you realize you have screwed up here, I'm going to go with that assumption. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Genocide in Myanmar fueled by Cambridge Analytica according to 10 news sources deleted by abusive users
[edit]There is of course the impossibility to cite the entire internet content on the topic without using illicit methods of scraping. However, diverting of attention to subsentences that were the only aspects of the article that were not directly quoted seems to indicate corruption of administrators on the Cambridge Analytica page. Here are further sources refuting full accountability to Facebook and instead proving near complete involvement of the consultancy agency Cambridge Analytica.
1. VOX news, The Facebook data breach wasn’t a hack. (2018) It was a wake-up call.
URL: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/17138756/facebook-data-breach-cambridge-analytica-explained
2. CNN news, How Steve Bannon used Cambridge Analytica to further his alt-right vision for America. (2018)
URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/bannon-cambridge-analytica/index.html
3. Business Insider, US Congressman Brad Sherman says Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency ‘may do more to endanger America’ than 9/11
URL: https://www.businessinsider.nl/representative-brad-sherman-facebook-libra-911-2019-7?international=true&r=US
4. Global News, Year in review: From Cambridge Analytica to shares, Facebook had a tough 2018. (2018)
URL: https://globalnews.ca/news/4786680/year-in-review-facebook-2018/
5. J. Dennis, Byond Slacktivism. (The URL is very long)
URL: (https://books.google.be/books?id=NM10DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=The+New+York+Times+Cambridge+Analytica+psychological+profiling+myanmar&source=bl&ots=pU8kq7GEe_&sig=ACfU3U3r8vOh3HXiOOtEBUiZZzTboDV39Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMo-Hd3frjAhWN26QKHRPLDUsQ6AEwDHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20New%20York%20Times%20Cambridge%20Analytica%20psychological%20profiling%20myanmar&f=false)
6. Open Democracy, Cambridge Analytica hacked our social lives to win elections - but more is at stake than votes. (2018)
URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/cambridge-analytica-hacked-our-social-lives-to-win-elections-but-more-is-at-stake-than-v/
7. BBC News, Facebook's data-sharing deals exposed (2018)
URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582
8. TRT World, A recent history of Facebook scandals. (2019)
URL: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/a-recent-history-of-facebook-scandals-26157
9. PR Week, PR Firms Refused Work with Cambridge Analytica During Facebook Data Hack Scandal. (2019)
URL: https://www.prweek.com/article/1592163/pr-firms-refused-work-cambridge-analytica-during-facebook-data-hack-scandal
10. Documentary: The Great Hack, 2019, Karim Amer, Jehane Noujaim
- Ok, that does it, talk page access revoked per the reasoning in my last response. Normally, we would provide instructions on how to appeal the block with your talk page access revoked but I think that making you search for them would be a much-needed exercise in comprehensive reading. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cambridge Analytica, you may be blocked from editing. Don't use the encyclopedica to soapbox your views, WP:SOAP. Next reversion or spamming a talk page, you'll be reported to admin for discpline. Zefr (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Genocide in Myanmar
[edit]
Citizensinitiative2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not damaged anything on Wikipedia, I have used direct quotes from news articles to update the cambridge analytica page. I have understood that I have been blocked because of using the undo function on users trying to reverse my edits. I will now start talking to the editors and changing only after resolution. I will try to then make a useful contribution on Maynmar on the cambridge analytica page.
Accept reason:
Procedural close. You're no longer blocked. Please see this advice on how to deal with edit wars if you find yourself in another dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Citizensinitiative2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
These are the first sources references to the ethnic cleansing in Maynmar. I would like to request editing on this subject after regaining my editing rights that were unfairly removed from my account and not from the other accounts that participated in the edit warring. I request their accounts to lose editing function as well.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/17138756/facebook-data-breach-cambridge-analytica-explained
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/30/politics/bannon-cambridge-analytica/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.nl/representative-brad-sherman-facebook-libra-911-2019-7?international=true&r=US
https://globalnews.ca/news/4786680/year-in-review-facebook-2018/
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/a-recent-history-of-facebook-scandals-26157
Discretionary sanctions
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- This should have been handed out earlier, but since you only have a short block right now for edit warring, please take the time to read the above. If you continue to edit war over this content instead of discussing it at the talk page you may be blocked for longer. Sam Walton (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Unblock request
[edit]Citizensinitiative2019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am trying to edit the Cambridge Analytica wikipedia according to news on CNN, BBC, The New Yorker and Business Insider articles but there are political lobbyists trying to delete my edits on the genocide in Myanmar
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Indefinite Block
[edit]Having looked through the contribution over which you have been edit warring, I was expecting to find a content dispute. However, instead I realized that the sources you were using do not remotely support the content you wrote. In fact, there is no reasonable reading of those sources that would lead to that content. The only probable explanations are that A) you are being deliberately misleading; or, giving you the benefit of the doubt, B) have not actually read the sources, but simply Googled "Cambridge_Analytica+Myanmar" and slapped the refs on content you had already decided was true. It is thus clear that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, in that you do not care if your content is verifiable; rather, you are here to right great wrongs and push your personal point of view. With that in mind, I have blocked your account indefinitely. You may appeal this block by adding the text, {{Unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)