If you have verifiable information that debunks or improves upon existing text in the article, which meets the standards of the organization (not self-published, etc), I promise you that your edits will be considered and integrated. There is a Talk page for a reason.

The system is not perfect, and is still vulnerable to certain kinds of subterfuge, but the more critical thinkers involved in the process, the better. If you consider yourself a critical thinker, consider adding to the body of knowledge.

> if it occured on any other platform

Who cares? Those platforms are not Wikipedia, and serve different goals. You will find plenty of historical events covered in great depth on Wikipedia despite only involving a few people over a few days. Don't fall victim to cherry-picking.

You seem to have completely missed what I was saying.

Journalists get suspended from social media platforms for doxing all the time.

These events are not newsworthy, and wikipedia articles are not written about them.

The problem isn't the content of this article, it is that the article exists at all. It only exists because wikipedia editors apply different notability thresholds to one side of politics than the other.

You're making up rules that no one is required to follow. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to appease you, it exits in order to educate you.

You have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener.

Wow, post after post of rhetorical, bad faith bullshit. Amazing.

“Bad faith” coming from the left has about as much credibility as “nazi”.

You lost the election because you couldn’t debate like adults and resulted to name calling.