I think you are missing the point. The point is not support for Pinochet, the point is that you can't state truthful facts about Pinochet in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia because partisans on the other side think that the truth makes Pinochet out to look better than they want.
Exactly. They put the arguments of one side and then claim it's truth, while thwarting the openness of debate. Now, after my intervention, the user Cantus who previously removed all the links that could be received as pro-Pinochet didn't do so again. In fact, he just removed few links pointing to the material describing the economic successes ... Well, I may move them to 'Miracle of Chile'. On the other hand, he put the word "truth' in the title Truth of Chile Under Salvador Allende in quotes, to suggest that it is a semi-truth or non-truth. I'm going to change that. But the fact that he hasn't just deleted my contributions again shows us, that now the leftists aren't so self-assured anymore.
I experienced the same thing there. You can't put in facts that detract from the underlying premises even if your intent is just to put in a fact (at least not without a huge freaking fight).
It seems that you are a wikipedian. Could you help me with cleaning the mess around the commie-related topics? Most of them are pro-commie, though some change can be observed: last time I've opened the article on "Khmer Rouge", it contained a clear statement that it was a criminal, murderous regime, without any justification (some wikifolks even tried to justify the mass-murderer Pol Pot). In Liberty, Critto
1. If some leftist keeps inserting his point of view into an article and removing your presentation of the other side, simply put up a bias header at the top of the article! It'll alert everybody who reads it that the neutrality is disputed and sometimes make the leftist who keeps inserting his bias more cognizant of the fact that he's being watched. These headers can be removed by anybody BUT its very conspicuous when they do it unlike edits to the article text. It also puts them - not you - on the defensive because they now have to justify why the article is NOT biased and why it should be removed. If they remove it without fixing their bias, simply put it back in!
2. Get a username if you don't already have one. They literally take only two clicks to activate and you don't even have to give an email or anything else - just a name and a logon password. That's it! Getting a username gives you a couple more posting features and privileges than anonymous editors. This also makes your changes have a little more weight and gives you at least an even playing field if you get into a dispute with somebody else.
3. If you're going to edit contentious articles (i.e. the socialism stuff) pick only two or three articles to invest your time in. That makes it possible to check those articles daily or weekly and sort of police what happens to them. Doing anything more is too difficult.
4. You can setup a wikipedia feature called "Watch" that will alert you every time some leftist makes a change to the article. They do this all the time so they can screen changes by conservatives. Return the favor and give em a taste of their own medicine.
5. Use the revert feature. I think you can only do this with a username (which again is very easy to get). If they remove something relevent and factual that they don't like or insert a blatant liberal point of view comment, simply revert their changes to the previous version before they made the changes! That way you don't have to keep editing out their garbage or screening for stuff that they hide in the text.
6. Use editing labels to your advantage. If you're removing a leftist opinion disguised as factual content say so. Write "this is opinion, not content" in the message. And if they remove your contributions of facts they don't like, revert to the previous version with the comment of "Fixed vandalism by so-and-so" (name the leftist who removed it by his username).
7. Where possible avoid getting into a discussion over a contribution. Sometimes it is necessary but it should be avoided because the leftists are even more abusive in editing those than the articles themselves. They use discussions as a type of leftist inquisition to gang up on people they don't like, so the best thing is to simply ignore them when they are using them for improper purposes. If you have to discuss simply state your charges against the people who are screwing around with your posts - say "User so-and-so removed item X, which is a documented fact (see source linked here), because it conflicts with his political point of view" and leave it at that.
8. Play hardball and don't back down to their intimidations. If they keep deleting valid stuff you put in or if they keep inserting liberal opinions as fact after you take them out, CHANGE IT! Go back every day and revert the edits they make that are invalid. You have nothing to lose. After all, what's the worst they can do to ya? Call you a "right wing meanie" on the discussion section?
9. If you encounter a leftist who is particularly offensive and particularly bad at removing valid stuff and inserting his opinions, take it to the disputed point of view forums and draw attention to it. Sometimes the squeeky wheel gets the grease and if you bring attention to a liberal who is excluding everything that isn't liberal, he'll get a warning message from one of the site administrators.
10. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL - write everything you do with a neutral viewpoint and with sources. You can insert facts that also reflect favorably on the conservative position so long as they are factual, but present them in a neutral viewpoint and wherever possible give a source. Instead of saying "Bill Clinton was an adulterous lying criminal who deserved to be impeached" say "Bill Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 following his adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky and an investigation of him for criminal perjury that resulted in his impeachment a year later." This also puts the burden of proof on the liberal because it's harder for him to justify taking out the second sentence (which is factual and does not have a point of view even though it highlights negative episode in Clinton's life) than the first (which asserts a point of view about Clinton).