User talk:Lyogos

On the 21st of July I made a modification to the page "Criminal stereotype of African Americans". Reason for it was that it intentionally hid the underlying basis for the stereotype, it being that African Americans are over-represented in criminal action in the USA; as demonstrated by official FBI statistics. The page was, and still is, full of one-sided ideological bullshit; and many of the citations are weak theory to justify writing ideological nonsense in the article. I didn't remove any of that, and just limited myself to adding the other side of the story; simple statistics that clearly show why the stereotype exists in the first place (not why it's a "good thing" or anything like that. Simply the factual reason it exists, something that should've already been in the article).

I claim ownership of the modification made under the IP 37.223.16.214, as well as all the "undo"s after the page was vandalized by people undoing my work in order to censor such critical information. I also claim ownership of the undo by 195.124.31.219, as I just happened to be elsewhere when I did that one.

History:

• 6 minutes after my edit, user Hanford4162 (at the time called BigWillyStyle4162) undid my non-vandalic edit with the press of a button.
• I undid it.
• 6.5h~ later, user Bonadea also undid my edit in an attempt to censor the information; and left the following message on my IP's talk page:

" Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Criminal stereotype of African Americans, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices."

To which I replied (in the same page because Bonadea's talk page was locked, but with a ping to the user that I'm omitting here):

"Response: How dare you suggest I am vandalizing anything? Where's the "assume good faith" attitude (that you espouse to in your "talk" page) in your reckless treatment of my edit, and in the instantaneous threat of blocking me? I provided good and valuable additions to the subject matter (to show the other side of the story, because the article was very one-sided) with official data, removed two empty citations that didn't mean anything (ex: "Tucker, pg. 4"), corrected the way a sentence or two was written to make them coherent (not to change the underlying meaning in any significant way), and didn't actually REMOVE anything that was already on the article except for a sentence that literally didn't make sense. In total, I just added new information. You, as well as the fellow that came before you, are reverting my factually-correct good-faith additions on ideological grounds. You have no reason to revert them or to pretend it is vandalism except for the fact that you disagree with said information being put there, even though it's the truth. Well, tough: Censorship is not the way to go, nor the spirit of Wikipedia. It would be foolish to presume that the stereotype being described in the article has literally zero grounding in reality, and that it's just the product of some conspiracy by a corrupt society; but it isn't. It's not a good thing that the stereotype exists, and it's not a good thing that the underlying reasons for it do either (be it the actual crime rates or the unjust treatment by the judicial system); but those are simply the facts (on both sides).

I am now going to revert your undoing, because that is the closest thing to "vandalism" that has happened in that page since I made my edit. If you think the page can be improved with further information or rephrasing of certain things, feel free to edit it; in fact, there are sentences in it that don't even make grammatical sense from long before I touched it, and I see you're a linguist. But undoing another man's work (which is literally based on data, unlike 90% of the text currently on the page; based on plenty of assumptions and hollow social theory, and written at the high-school level if at all intelligible), undoing the work with one click just because you don't like what you see (and not because the information is wrong or there is any actual wrongdoing being committed), is not the way to go. Either make a positive contribution to the article, or don't intrude; Wikipedia is not a place designed to safeguard an ideology above the actual truth.''"

Then I undid the vandalic undoing by Bonadea. Some time afterward, with no reply to my message at all, she undid it again and probably called upon MelanieN to semi-protect the page until July 26.

I originally thought the page "Criminal stereotype of African Americans" had been created by some social studies class and that it was relatively recent, because of how incredibly ideological and one-sided the content was, because of how poorly it was written, and because it intentionally hid mention of any statistics on crime (which is the relevant subject here, and obviously the core of this stereotype - whether it's true or not). But after this happened I did some digging, and it turns out that the page is 9 years old, and that at the beginning it was a pretty reasonable article. One of its major edits was actually to add a section within (the first section, in order) which very thoroughly exposed the statistics on crime committed by African Americans. Clearly, somewhere along the way, the page got hijacked BY a class of ideologue students (I know very well it's students at most because of how poorly everything's written, and the fact that they were careless enough to leave some sentences literally unintelligible or just grammatically incorrect), and somebody or many bodies failed to correct actual vandalism along the way. Now, when I come along at a late-stage of this article's demise and add a a couple of relevant statistical figures, almost anecdotally, and don't even touch the rest of the ideological garbage in the article; my edit to IMPROVE Wikipedia gets reverted 6 MINUTES after I finish it by someone with an ideological bug up their ass; and then repeatedly reverted by administrators with a clear agenda that is not, in fact, aligned with exposing the truth (this is aggravated by the fact that this article is so bad it currently has, as I said, sentences that are very obviously grammatically incorrect; and yet nobody bats an eyelid unless someone comes along to improve it with actual data). Wikipedia is not a place for ideological bias or deliberate censorship, and the people who administrate it should know better than most.

Given the disregard for my work with the careless and gratuitous undoing (+ semi-protecting so I couldn't revert the vandalism that erased my contribution), the fact that no good faith was assumed of me, the lack of dialogue from Bonadea and the lack of access to dispute resolution, I've decided to create an account to fight the rot from within.

I will improve my earlier contribution to make it even more neutral and qualitatively better, then publish it as soon as the semi-protection is removed. Since it is likely that this edit will also be vandalized by Wikipedia administrators, I'll be on watch.

-Improved edit applied, @ 1:51 CEST