Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey everybody. My main issue with SafeLibraries is that he is not reading policy and understanding what POV means, and why he is violating the policy. We all have POV, and we exhibit it in the articles we take interest in. For instance, I did Floyd Abrams because I respect his work for freedom of speech (a page SafeLibraries and I had an issue over). So yes, POV means I worked on Floyd Abrams and not Jay Sekulow, whose work I find objectionable. But what I do not do is choose words and phrasing--or I strive not to--that show a bias, because to do so would delegitimize my work here, which I take seriously. I may like a good turn-of-the-phrase more than I should. But that is not the same thing as using poor sources for questionably accurate "news" that, in reality, are Op-Eds that advance an agenda. This is my main issue.

My second issue is in the language that SafeLibraries uses. An argument can be made it is sophistry and exactly the sort of problem America's political culture has inflicted on us: an inability to communicate because we don't agree to use Webster's dictionary and hide the meanings of what we are really talking about. On SafeLibraries Talk page he demonstrates this himself:

Quote from SafeLibraries: "The word is just the wrong word to use. Parents keep their childen from a lot of things. It is not censorship to keep your child from running freely into the road. That's parenting. It is not censorship to use a V-chip to filter out inappropriate material for children. That's parenting. It is not censorship to keep a child from reading about inappropriate sexual activity. That's parenting."

To raise these arguments is troubling for our work here. A parent has not only a right, but a responsibility, to "censor" what their child sees. But for some reason SafeLibraries has decided "censorship" is negative and wants to just call it "parenting." How many times are we going to redefine things to make them more palatable to our various political agendas, SafeLibraries? And I can't even imagine the sanity of the fake argument that isn't there: If a parent prevents a child from seeing something they consider inappropriate, they are practicing censorship, which is bad. Can you point me to another editor who is raising this argument just because they call a spade a spade and use the word "censorship." We are all aware there are not state-sponsored threats to freedom of speech when a parent doesn't want their 10 year old watching the JUGZ channel. Anyone familiar with the work of Frank Luntz and of course Newt Gingrich's infamous GOPAC memo from 1996 (a Luntz-inspired work) entitled Language: A Key Mechanism of Control can see right through this.

For these two issues, I take exception to SafeLibraries for editing with an agenda, and not with a desire to seek out the truth. I tried to engage him on this issue, but he doesn't see why any of the above is an issue.

Thanks. --DavidShankBone 23:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is just that he seems to be overtly editing wikipedia in order to be an advocate. He's actively trying to persuade, not just neutrally inform. Along the way, he's created a good bit of disruption because his edits have systemic problems of NPOV and RS.

Certainly, we all have a POV, and we sometimes edit pages related to our own biases. But in those instances, we need to be working EXTRA hard to not insert our POV. Here, I see just the opposite inclination-- on the subjects he cares most about, he's working even harder to insert his POV.

--Alecmconroy 23:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Reply to Safelibraries response

Safe, having read through your response, here are some comments:

• You justify your beliefs at length. You seem to be under the impression that "Being Right" is a defense against "Pushing a POV" or "Using Wikipedia as a Soapbox". It is not. An editor who crusades against Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan would be just as at fault as one who crusades against the ACLU. "My POV is morally correct" is no defense against pushing that POV.
• Similarly, you object to my description of your beliefs. I did not do a good job of describing them, because they are largely irrelevant.
• You object to my characterizing your beliefs as "political" on the grounds that you criticism Republicans and Democrats alike. Here, I didn't intend to say you were endorsing specific politicians, I was just using the word political in a general sense, "of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power".
• You object to your early edits being mentioned. It is true, all new editors have a certain grace period to learn to get acquanted with Wikipedia rules. After the extensive discussion by with many different people explaining why your edits are problematic and several months, I think its fair to say that your grace period is now over. I'm certainly content to overlook errors committed in your earliest edits provided you have stopped that pattern of behavior. For example, I very consciously didn't include Vanity Links as a policy you had broken, because while you did so initially, you show no pattern of continued edits in violation of that policy. However, your unilateral insert of criticism of the organizations you oppose has continued unabated, so I'm comfortable including your earlier edits as well as your more recent ones.
• Without getting into all of the specific disputed edits, remember that I was only involved in a portion of these disputes. For the disputes I was not involved, I rely in part upon the consensus of the editors of those pages as to whether your edits violated notability or NPOV. My concern is that the edits, taken in total, show a very direct campaign to promote an agenda. So, for example, the specific criticism of the local libraries might, by themselves, be notable (although the editors of those pages generally seemed to disagree), but notable or not, they are piece of evidence showing your wikipedia-wide tendency of inserting such criticism.
• Similarly, your NEA quote isn't cited for any purpose whatosever of claiming you are anti-homosexual. As I've said, your personal beliefs really aren't relevant, so long as you can comply with "Wikpedia is not a soapbox". Right now, I'm involved in a content dispute where I'm actively helping White Nationalists have their organization covered neutrally on Wikipedia. The point of including this edit isn't simply to speculate about your political/religious/moral beliefs on homosexuality-- It's included because it's an edit in which you had severe problems complying with NPOV and in which you again were editing with the intent to promote your Safelibraries agenda.

Lastly, you should be aware that you have violated a very serious Wikipedia policy in making the following statments:

"Your attempting to tar me with a brush that says I'm homophobic or homowhatever is not appreciated, not factual, insinuates something very bad about me, and come to think of it, raises great cause for concern in my mind that it is the author of that insinuation who needs to be called on the carpet for making or implying false claims that someone is homophobic or racist or whatever. You should not be allowed to go around and make that claim as you have. In the light of all these other false claims, one can take what you say with a grain of salt. But I will say this. If any bad repercussions come my way because of this particular public false claim you have made against, if anything affects my life, my family, my job or future jobs, or anything or anyone else whatsoever, I will take all legal action necessary to defend myself."

"if you continue such attacks against me, I will immediately investigate what action I will take within Wikipedia and what other action I will take legally against you."

You should review Wikipedia:No legal threats which prohibits Wikipedia editors who make legal threats from editing Wikipedia. Since I have explained that my point in quoting your NEA edit is not to discuss your whatever beliefs you have about homosexuality but only to highlight your NPOV and Soapbox problems, I presume that you will be comfortable in retracting those threats. If, however, you feel they stand, then I expect you would be asked to cease all editing to Wikipedia until such time as a legal advisor or court of law can discuss defamation law with you and reassure you that no viable legal action can be taken in this circumstance.

--Alecmconroy 09:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Read further on that Legal Threats page. Similarly, slander, libel, and defamation of character are not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you feel Wikipedia content libels you or someone else, you may bring it to the attention of the Community and administrators here, or by contacting the infoteam as described on this page. In either case the offensive material should be removed quickly." You better remove the defamatory information in compliance with this policy immediately. Your typical fine threading of the semantic needle, such as in your convenient definition of "political," to explain why your defamation or libel is not defamation does not mean it is not defamation or libel. It is, and it may result in serious consequences to me. You remove that defamatory material immediately. Incidentally, your use of the Legal Threats policy against me without fully disclosing such content as I have quoted about is a further illustration of your tactic of feigned polite yet persistent harrassment of me. You remove that defamatory material immediately.

Your other arguments continue to be based on making up a false story then knocking down the false story. For example, you say "'My POV is morally correct' is no defense against pushing that POV." Yet not once, never, did I say morality had anything to do with this. Actually, I have at times said here and on my own site morality has nothing to do with what I am doing. Rather I am seeking to see the application of existing laws. It's the law. I seek the application of the law. Kids should not have access to sexually inappropriate material because it's the law that they don't. Morality wavers but the law doesn't. So your making this claim is yet another example of how you make things up about me out of whole cloth then spread that misinformation with a polite, sickening sweetness and an air of superiority like you are the great wizard of wikipedia that makes it appear as if you really have in interest in me, rather than in shutting me down.

Be that as it may, you remove that defamatory, libelous material about me immediately. --SafeLibraries 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on this response, you should refrain from editing Wikipedia article pages until your concerns are resolved. I suggest you contact the infoteam as described on Wikipedia:Libel so that the Wikipedia Libel experts can evaluate your claim. They have the power to remove any content that is deemed to be libel. You will find, however, that the legal standard for libelous speech is incredibly far from anything even being alleged here and that your claim is utterly groundless. --Alecmconroy 16:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Based on this response, you should refrain from editing Wikipedia article pages until your concerns are resolved." The judge, jury, and executioner has spoken. Still not a mention of apology for defaming my character and libeling me. Not the slightest withdrawal from your statements of defamation. Nothing. --SafeLibraries 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

SL, the fact that you disagree with Wikipedia policies and procedures does not invalidate them or mean that you are not bound by them as we all are. If you have issues with Alecmconroy that you are unable to resolve with him, there is a procedure for doing so, which is outlined on the Wikipedia:No_legal_threats page. Tossing around words like libel and defamation can result in very specific repercussions in the Wikipedia universe. Please at least read Wikipedia:No_legal_threats before continuing in this direction. Jessamyn (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

SL, if you can find any admin or anyone on the libel team who considers anything on this RFC to be in violation of WP:LIBEL, you can have it removed immediately. In the mean time, WP:No Legal Threats clearly asks you not to edit Wikipedia articles until your legal concerns are resolved. You can also ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the matter. If, however, you continue to edit articles in promotion of your POV, I will take the appropriate steps necessary to cause a discontinuation of that behavior.

As to your accusations-- I really don't know what it is that you consider so defamatory. In most cases, I'm simply quoting your own words and referencing your own edits. My description of your beliefs as "political" is a very common usage (for example, being Pro-Choice is certainly considered to be a political stance). You object to my assertion that you feel your beliefs are "morally correct"-- I'm surprised that you deny this, but in any case, the point I was trying to make is "Being Right" doesn't justify "Being a POV Pusher". Everyone with a POV believes their POV is right-- this is why NPOV is so essential. Without it, Wikipedia would just be an indiscriminant collection of peoples' POVs inserted haphazardly into articles.

I very sincerely wish there was something I could say to you that would help you understand why your past behavior hasn't been apropriate, why it needs to stop in the future, and why this is completely and utterly NOT connected with the actual CONTENT of your beliefs but only related to the inappropriateness of your behavior. I and many different other editors have discussed this at length with you. But anything I could say, I've already said in our extensive discussions. However much I personally hope everyone can come to see the importants of NPOV and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", at some point, I'm doing a major disservice to the rest of Wikipedia by not being more forceful on the subject. But your violations of policy really need to stop. If someone says something to you in this RFC that causes you to stop because you realize it's the right thing to do, that is certainly the ideal solution. If that's not possible, then hopefully we can make it clear to you that you should stop, if for no other reason than you will get barred, blocked, or banned if you do not stop. And if even that can't stop you, then if absolutely nothing else will work, we'll have to stop you through those measures, and although Wikipedia will lose an intelligent and dedicated editor in the process, that will at least stop your policy violations.

--Alecmconroy 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Alec, I don't think SL is going to be persuadable. I find this a deeper problem in the country. SL doesn't understand how is POV is, in fact, just that, a POV, and not in fact reality or truth. He also doesn't understand how anyone could think that their POV may be inaccurate, or based upon faulty information. I believe this about myself. I am always willing to be proven wrong. This is one thing WP is to me, and why SL doesn't seem to have matured enough in his worldview to accept it. He cites to James Dobson's Focus on the Family as a credible source. Almost every source SL relies upon is an ideological and agenda-driven organization. Even his one addition to a reputable source--the Wall Street Journal--was only an Op-Ed that he took as gospel. Like many Americans today, SL has become entrenched in getting his information from sources that confirm preconceived notions; thus, SL can't possibly see in all 8 pages of his defense, why he is wrong. Unfortunately, SL, you find yourself alone because all editors on WP, have come to agreed upon standards you refuse to abide by. From Christian evangelicals to communists. Conservatives to liberals. Even Muslims and Jews (how do you think the POV tag was taken off 2006 Qana airstrike?) You would do well to visit that page and I just mentioned and look at the discussion to see how two very opposing sides eventually came to agree that the article there is a neutral point of view, because I watched that page for weeks (I had only contributed a photograph). I don't think you will be able to correct it. I don't think you'll be able to rely upon reputable sources only for your edits, and not just Op-Eds and NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, Focus on the Family and other agenda-driven organizations. --DavidShankBone 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you all are doing is using selective slices in time, both accurately and through ALA-colored glasses, that represent your point of view but are not accurate or truthful when taken as a whole with surrounding context. For example, this constant harping on my using alternative news sources because the main stream media does not publish certain things. An example source I cite that you conveniently leave out of your time slices in your crusade to rub me out of the picture based on this excuse is the ALA itself. But you change the hurdle and switch in a different excuse to excise that information as well. There is no satisfying you ever. The hurdles constantly change. Your goal is nothing less than the total elimination of the politically incorrect to you but wikiworthy edits I seek to add. This is occurring on pages of which some of you are members of those organizations you seek to protect, no less.

You fume when I find ALA pages that are total propaganda pieces right off the ala.org web site and, through the excellent wikipedia process, help turn them into wiki worthy pages. Without my edits on those pages, they would likely today remain propaganda pieces for the ALA. No wonder you want to ban me. Since much of my work is eventually kept, after the wiki filtering process, I'd say your efforts to shut down my current edits ring hollow. Do I hear any of you complaining that wiki policy is not being followed when articles are written as puff pieces? Of course not. Like the page created by complaintant "RLitwin" called "Library Bill of Rights." Can anyone argue my edits there where not wiki worthy or that the original article suffered from POV? Having gone out of your way to point to specific cases of how I deserve to be shut out of editing ALA pages, did even one of you point out the work I did on this article for example? Of course not, that would have provided some of the whole truth and your efforts to ban me would only succeed if you selectively pick and choose then twist selectively. I honestly do not know how anyone could ever consider anything you ever say or write to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Indeed I have run into a very high wall on this Banned Books Week addition where it's four against one, but I will not stop attempting to improve the wiki pages as I have in the past, though that is likely to infuriate you because you disagree with the information provided. Occasionally, these types of disputes I've had with other ALA acolytes or actual top leaders has resulted in similar accusations against me and similar aggregations of ALA acolytes or ALA members to shut me down, only to have independent experienced wikipedians ride to the rescue to follow wiki rules instead of allowing the building of the ALA wall of silence on publicly editable pages. The difference between then and now is 1) my current crop of ALA wall builders are more persistent, more clever, and more numerous than the previous crop, and 2) no one else has entered to tear down the ALA wall and rebuild in wiki fashion. It's just me and you, and you know you're right and I'm wrong. Simple as that. --SafeLibraries 03:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the Op-Eds are utterly unreliable-- they have a voice that we should consider. But we shouldn't give them undue weight either. Focus on the Family, for example, is relevant to an article when it comes to some subjects in which their voice plays a large role in the the public discource, but in this case, their anti-ALA statement amounted to little more than blog post.

Safe-- it's really not about the Banned Books Week addition-- it's about all of them. It's not that your latest content dispute is worse than all your others-- it's that the total accumulation of all of them makes it time to take this step

--Alecmconroy 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is my final comment to this debate, and my issue had nothing to do with the ALA but freedom f speech and censorship. But I think SL should be put on a ban from editing as he has threatened to do above, and that we ALL agree is against WP policy. Frankly, this "we can't lose an editor" stuff is BS when it is the right-wing claptrap and morally superior additions. Op-Eds don't belong as evidence of a fact, when the fact relates to the work of the Op-Ed author. If SL continues to makes these kinds of edits, I will recommend a ban, and I think everyone here already knows that he will be banned. So instead of humoring these ridiculous responses that threaten legal action and act as if we are ALA conspirators, let's just lay down the policy and the next step is to have him banned. But I can't waste anymore time with trying to calmly convince him. I just don't care anymore. HIs words, actions, and our reactions all speak for themselves. It just takes introducing it to the committee. --DavidShankBone 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)