People who say these types of things should link their wikipedia user account so we could see why they were banned and if it really was so unreasonable.
replies(2):
It happened to me a number of times before I came to understand the Wikipedia model. They are not interested in your analysis, they are interested in statements that reference other inspectable "reputable" analyses.
I pointed out that India had reduced extreme poverty from ~16% in 2013 to ~2% in 2022. This is directly from a World Bank report: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/0997221042225345... One would think this would be reliable? One would be wrong since this is deemed to be "pro Modi". Another was the success of India's mission to bring piped water to every household in India (a luxury we take for granted in the West). There's a live dashboard maintained by the Water Ministry of India: https://ejalshakti.gov.in/jjmreport/JJMIndia.aspx Apparently it's a biased source. :shrug:
Other examples include the fact that Indian government paid for millions of households to construct toilets over the last 10 years. Or that millions of houses were constructed in villages, fully paid for by the government, during the same period. Or that the government also paid for rural folks to switch to gas-burning stoves instead of wood-, coal- or cowdung- burdning stoves. I'm too lazy to look up the references now, but you can find them with easy searching.
Surely you can't deny that Wikipedia is biased against the so-called "right" side of the political spectrum, and biased towards the "left"?
Its also possible the sources might have been fine but OP's interpretation of them was not. For example if he was using them to support something they didn't say or drawing his own conclusions from them beyond what the text of the source says.
This is all speculation of course. If OP provided his username we would be able to see for sure as it would be a matter of public record.
For reference both of the urls OP cites are currently used on Wikipedia. The first in the article economy of India, the second on the article for Jal Jeevan Mission, so at least in modern times Wikipedia is ok with those sources
> Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
> Con: LOL no...no not those views
> Me: So....deregulation?
> Con: Haha no not those views either
> Me: Which views, exactly?
> Con: Oh, you know the ones
Unfortunately always relevant.
He was definitely not banned as a result of his story, he definitely did something egregious (such as repeatedly insulting people on talk pages or repeated vandalism) or was editing without an account and he is portraying a typical residential IP block ban as him being banned for "wrong think". It is purely dishonest.
You don't even name the article you were apparently having problems with. Not sure why anyone should just take the word of someone who is actively hiding the full story when it should be trivial to just link to.
It is obvious your story is either missing huge portions or you're just lying.
Take it FWIW. But ask yourself: is this the first time you've heard that Wiki editors gang up upon people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not...