Tim Bray on Grokipedia

Could you share some of the references you tried to use here? It might be interesting to see the quality that they refused to accept towards overturning their narrative.

OP has a chance to be vindicated. Surely they will take it?

Since you insisted. This is from a couple of years ago, and I have moved on to never donating to Wikipedia again, so take it FWIW.

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"?

OP delivered. I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I don't know what kind of sources are allowed, but just on a gut-feel, that worldbank.org source seems okay?

Its very unlikely he was blocked for the specific sources he used. More likely he was banned for his conduct in a debate, potentially about those sources. Its generally very hard to be banned for "being wrong" on Wikipedia, usually people are banned for how they interact with other people, which can happen both to people who are "right" as well as people who are "wrong" (being in the right is not a valid reason to be an asshole as the saying goes). For example if he engaged in an edit war about these sources, that would still be enough to blocked even if he was correct because edit wars are an inapropriate way to handle disputes.

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

The plot thickens

He didn't deliver. He should just link to the actual revisions that were reverted. The fact he refuses to is telling.

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.

>Surely you can't deny that Wikipedia is biased against the so-called "right" side of the political spectrum, and biased towards the "left"?

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.