I'm damburger. I mostly edit articles related to current affairs. I do not suffer fools easily and have little tolerance for POV pushing. I am frequently accused of vandalism by other users, normally this is due to my reversion of their POV pushing. It is not uncommon for such users to post threats on my talk page.
My main interest lies in fighting against cultural bias in wikipedia. Most wikipedians are American, and there is a set of opinions almost universal amongst Americans which they can't see as being opinions at all (as everybody the know in real life holds the same opinions) and thus have trouble being objective about when editing.
A prime example is the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks, where the word 'terrorist' is repeatedly used in the narrative voice in clear violation of stated wikipedia policy:
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.
At the same time, the Contras article adheres strictly to these rules by describing this violent group, who targetted civilians, as 'armed opponents' of the Nicaraguan government of the time. I believe this blatant double standard can only be damaging to Wikipedia.
Another more recent example of this kind of bias can be seen here in this early edit[1] of the 25 August 2007 Hyderabad bombings. It seems that User:Alexf didn't think that a bombing which killed over 40 civilians warranted a wikipedia article. It is my opinion this would not have happened had the victims been Americans.
