Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• SafeLibraries.org (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Safelibraries is the webmaster of Safelibraries.org, a personal website/blog in which he advocates the removal of some material from public libraries. Because most libraries currently do not implement such removals, Safelibraries is a harsh critic of libraries, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other individuals and organizations with similar beliefs.

Since joining Wikipedia, Safelibraries has persistently edited in ways that promote his personal political beliefs. The bulk of Safelibraries' edits to Wikipedia have been devoted the insertion of criticism of the persons and organizations he opposes. In these edits, Safelibraries has had persistent difficulties in complying with NPOV, Reliable sources, No Original Research and other policies and guidelines. Taken together, these edits consitute a violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

A diverse group of editors on several different pages have spent a large number of words trying to explain to Safelibraries the troubles with many of his edits, and trying to help him understand how to be a more productive member of the Wikipedia community. Regrettably, it seems these disparate talk page discussions are unlikely to have any further effect, and I feel it now becomes necessary to solicit a wider community consensuss to help Safelibraries understand how to improve his editing, why Wikipedia is not a soapbox is such a vital principle of the Wikipedia community.

Evidence of disputed behavior

American Library Association and related

• As an IP user, Safelibraries writes a paragraph summarizing his own views an inserts in ALA article [1] and adds vanity link to own website [2].
• Creates a named user with the name of his website, first edits user page with a link to his advocacy blog. [3]
• Re-inserts and expands his earlier edits with the edit summary "Restoring wholesale censorship of "Critical Responses" section by Rlitwin" [4]
• Again re-inserts extensive criticism [5]
• Inserts public records of campaign donations by private individuals who are members of ALA, arguing on that this implies the ALA is pro-abortion. [6]
• Inserts non-notable criticism of Banned Books Week [7], inserts further criticsm [8] and re-inserts [9]
• Inserts criticim of specific local libraries into Multnomah County, Oregon [10], Spotswood High School (Virginia) [11], and Morris County, New Jersey [12]
• Inserts passionate diatribe against the National Education Association's "promotion of the so-called gay rights agenda in public schools" which is highly non-NPOV [13], re-inserts non-notable link critical of NEA [14]

American Civil Liberties Union and related

• Inserts disparaging quote against ACLU founder [15] and re-inserts [16]
• Inserts criticism of ACLU [17]
• Inserts non-notable link critical of ACLU [18]
• Inserts another non-notable link critical of ACLU [19]
• On ACLU v. NSA, repeated deletion of word "domestic" in "domestic wiretapping" [20] [21] [22][23]
• Inserts non-notable link with non-NPOV link text to Freedom of speech in the United States [24], re-inserts [25], re-inserts [26]

Link spam and resultant edit wars

• Safelibraries inserted a particular link that is critical of the ALA into wikipedia a total of 14 different times:
• Spams link to non-notable anti-ACLU page onto 4 articles: American Civil Liberties Union [27], Censorship [28], Children's literature, List of banned books[29]
• When editors from the articles remove the links, he proceeds to revert the deletion, re-inserting the link an addition 8 times: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35][36] [37]
• Again inserts link into ACLU page, now directly discussing it in the text [38]
• Inserts same link into a users talk page. [39]

Misrepresentation of Sources

• In one of the most controversial edits, Safelibrary actually goes to the blog of a fellow Wikipedia editor who opposes him in this content dispute and inserts a quote from her blog into the article text. In doing so, he falsely implies that the quotes suggests SHE is a critic of the ALA, when he knows full well, she opposes his views on this issue. In doings so, he approaches (but certainly doesn't cross) the line of wikistalking, he quotes a non-notable source (a fellow wikipedian's blog), and in doing so, he knowingly misrepresents her opinion.
• In the same edit inserts a quote from the ALA website to support his assertion that the ALA has been frequently criticized about a specific matter. But when you check the actual source he cites, it makes no mention of any criticism whatsoever-- the document is merely a FAQ which mentions they are "often asked"-- not often criticized. In doing so again, he again knowingly misleads the reader about the content contained in that source.
• When the edit is deleted, he re-inserts it. [40]

Incivility, Personal Attacks, Not Assuming Good Faith

• Safelibraries has routinely accused users who revert his changes of practicing censorship and of being hypocritical. (see talk pages listed below)
• Comment on ALA talk page establishes the link between the ACLU and his Safelibraries website:

"my concerns about the ACLU relate to how they have influenced the American Library Association [ALA], what are the connections between the ALA and the ACLU that negatively affect the health and safety of children"

"I'm not likely to contribute to this ACLU page much further. I can see the ACLU people have complete control on this page, making the ACLU look just so, and I'm merely a small flea to be brushed away like a blip on a wiki watch page."

• Accuses User:Atlant of racism, asking "Are you prejudiced against cubans?" [41]
• Accuses User:Hughcharlesparker of bias with edit summary: "Hughcharlesparker who apparently never read this Talk section or doesn't care to, and who appears to be biased based on his own text" [42]

Applicable policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Neutral Point of View and Reliable sources
• Civility,No Personal Attacks, and Assume Good Faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

A very diverse group of editors have attempted to provide Safelibraries with feeback about the nature of his edits in general, and his violations of Wikipedia is not a soapbox in particular.

• User talk:SafeLibraries.org
• Talk:American_Library_Association/Archive_1 and Talk:American_Library_Association
• Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union/archive2#Roger_Baldwin_quote and Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#New_Link
• Talk:Library Bill of Rights
• Talk:Censorship
• Talk:ACLU_v._NSA
• Talk:Deleting_Online_Predators_Act_of_2006
• Talk:Alliance_Defense_Fund
• Talk:Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Change_due_to_biased_statement

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Alecmconroy 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Jessamyn (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Rlitwin 12:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
4. --DavidShankBone 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Yeow. Just reading the statements made about me I can see this is going to take a lot of writing. I am not going to do all that writing all at once. So what I may write here will be only partial until I say I'm finally done. --SafeLibraries 03:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the following is my opinion.

It is claimed "Safelibraries is the webmaster of Safelibraries.org, a personal website/blog in which he advocates the removal of some material from public libraries." Misleading. The removal of some material from public libraries amounts to nothing more that the very material various laws and US Supreme Court cases already provide for removing from public libraries. In a nutshell, the law allows certain material to be removed and/or blocked, and where it is not being removed and/or blocked, I am advocating that people become educated about the law so that they can act to comply with the law and to expose others who are failing to follow the law. The seriousness of this issue comes from the continued victimization of children that laws and cases were written or decided to curtail but, due to the intervention of a single nationwide organization with great power over American libraries, those children continue to be victimized despite the law. When children stop being raped and molested in public libraries that follow the single organization's directives instead of local community standards, then my efforts regarding my web site will cease and desist. The organization's actions were possibly admirable before it lost in the US Supreme Court. But now that it lost and is advising libraries to skirt the law and children continue to suffer as a result, well then that's a very serious matter and there is nothing wrong with my interests in making people aware of the law and aware that they have the power to return control of their own libraries to their own taxpayers. --SafeLibraries 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed "Because most libraries currently do not implement such removals, Safelibraries is a harsh critic of libraries, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other individuals and organizations with similar beliefs." Wrong. Essentially for the reasons given above, the "because" clause is wrong. Further, I am a harsh critic yes, but only of mainly the top ALA leadership whose policy it is that causes the very problems I raise. And I go out of my way to point out most librarians are not even close to having the views of the top ALA leadership, and some librarians are afraid of acting in a way that might buck the national organization. I even present a separate web page called "Good Librarians" having multiple examples of such cases. Indeed, even complaintant "Jessamyn" is listed there. --SafeLibraries 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed "Since joining Wikipedia, Safelibraries has persistently edited in ways that promote his personal political beliefs." False. Political beliefs are irrelevant. The issues I advocate on my web site are issues some Republicans and Democrats support and some don't. I honestly have not noticed one party or the other is better on this issue. I have noticed most politicians of any party are in favor of protecting children by following existing law, but the ALA has little regard for their efforts because the ALA's propaganda machine has decades of experience in opposing political efforts to remove the influence of the ALA and has been very successful in that area. Therefore, I am not promoting my personal political beliefs. It is my belief, however, that promoting that people should follow existing law instead of an organization that advocates skirting the law, thereby endangering children, is not political in origin, rather it is non-political. Everyone wants people to follow the law. So my web site advocates people follow the law. In part because the ALA advises libraries nationwide to skirt the law, it is easy to see why 2 of the 4 complaintants against me in this matter are current and former members of the rarified ALA Council.

Maybe I should explain more this skirting the law issue. The ALA was once a venerable organization. Then, with the influence of the sixties, little known but nation-affecting changes were made to the so-called "Library Bill of Rights," one of which was to claim it was age discrimination for a library to keep children from any material whatsoever. The ALA, ever since vigilent to ensure children have full access to all material, joined the ACLU to sue to stop the "Children's Internet Protection Act" signed into law by then President Clinton. Imagine, librarians suing to stop a law to protect children. Be that as it may, the case landed in the US Supreme Court where the Court said is was "legitimate, even compelling" to keep inappropriate material away from minors, and the ALA lost big. But the ALA has not yet, to this day, changed its "age" discrimination language, and it advises libraries to skirt the law whenever possible. Sometimes, children are victimized as a direct result. Note, I am not saying transgress, I am saying skirt. Skirting is legal. It is legal to skirt CIPA. It is even legal to continue to make the age discrimination claim. But is it right? Is it not an indication that ALA policies driving public libraries might not be the policies of the local communities if only they were allowed to regain control of their libraries from ALA acolytes?

I know a lot of this is about the ALA, but in defending myself, I must reveal this information to provide an accurate picture. --SafeLibraries 04:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed, "The bulk of Safelibraries' edits to Wikipedia have been devoted the insertion of criticism of the persons and organizations he opposes. In these edits, Safelibraries has had persistent difficulties in complying with NPOV, Reliable sources, No Original Research and other policies and guidelines. Taken together, these edits consitute a violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox." True, but misleading. The bulk of my edits may indeed have been less then wikiworthy, but I am relatively new and as comments and suggestions came in, I sought to fit in as best as possible. Indeed, one of my biggest benefactors has been one of the complaintants, "Alexmconroy." And I will never be perfect and no one is either. But the recent incident that set off this current matter is one where I followed a string of complaints and suggestions, changing the wording accordingly each time, but in the end they were just subrosa hinting that no wording would ever be correct and the matter should be dropped completely. So I put up a tag about the article possibly suffering from POV-itis with a history note suggesting one reason then a talk page note suggesting a second reason but saying I needed more time to be specific and my tag was taken down within minutes by complaintant "RLitwin," an ALA Councilor, and a response appeared on the Talk page saying I had not provided enuf information within minutes from former ALA Council and complaintant "Jessamyn." And as to reliable sources, I include them, like Dr. Dobson's Focus on the Family, even providing evidence of FOTF's being considered authoritative in this area, having supported those who submitted Amicus briefs on the winning side of US v. ALA, and they get shot down as not reputable. So I raise an ALA source and that gets shot down as irrelevant. No matter where I turned, I lost because there was always some reason. Perhaps I was getting close, so this matter was filed against me.

It is so ironic. I am trying to post a quote from an ALA article indicating that Banned Books Week raises yearly questions as to why it is not called Challenged Books Week since most books are not banned. The ALA saying they get yearly questions on this. Complaintant "Jessamyn" even saying on her blog that librarians are aware of this but keep it low key -- that the real problem is parents complaining about sexually inappropriate material and that is a separate issue from book banning. Yet the complaint is made that I'm doing this for political reasons or for soapbox reasons because at the time Banned Books Week was that very week or that I am misquoting "Jessamyn" or intentionally taking her out of context. And the ALA arrogates to itself the role of the nation's censorship police. And here I am, trying to add a single sentence from the ALA site, and even writing the sentence from the ALA's point of view, and it gets knocked out repeatedly. Then I post a NPOV tag and that gets knocked out in minutes. Then this complaint is filed against me. Is is so ironic that this is happening to the truth by members of the nation's self-arrogated censorship police.

A single sentence in the Controversy section of the ALA article that used to not exist in this otherwise ALA puff piece until my intervention. Due to my past intervention, the article is now more encyclopedic instead of a mere puff piece, The Controversy section is there solely because of me in the first place. That right there tells anyone that the complaint made against me is false and misleading. Here I am on the very same page trying to add an ALA quote to an ALA page and the complaintants, except for one, are the very same ones I dragged kicking and screaming into realizing this is an encyclopedia, not an extension of the ALA web site to be managed solely by ALA members, and there must be countervailing information. While of course this is my personal interest, my "soapbox" in the context of my web site, it also happens to be wiki policy and the Controversy section is there to this day. Ironic again that my adding a single sentence to it caused them to file this matter and claim the "bulk" of my edits are suspect. Th e section would not even be there in the first place but for me. But for me, this ALA article would be a puff piece not in compliance with wiki standards. And here I am with ALA members and others snapping at my heals, barking "soapbox, soapbox" for adding a single ALA quote. During Banned Books Week, no less, being a further sin in their eyes. --SafeLibraries 05:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed, "American Library Association and related

       * As an IP user, Safelibraries writes a paragraph summarizing his own views an inserts in ALA article [1] and adds vanity link to own website [2].

• Creates a named user with the name of his website, first edits user page with a link to his advocacy blog. [3]
• Re-inserts and expands his earlier edits with the edit summary "Restoring wholesale censorship of "Critical Responses" section by Rlitwin" [4]
• Again re-inserts extensive criticism [5]
• Inserts public records of campaign donations by private individuals who are members of ALA, arguing on that this implies the ALA is pro-abortion. [6]
• Inserts non-notable criticism of Banned Books Week [7], inserts further criticsm [8] and re-inserts [9]
• Inserts criticim of specific local libraries into Multnomah County, Oregon [10], Spotswood High School (Virginia) [11], and Morris County, New Jersey [12]
• Inserts passionate diatribe against the National Education Association's "[out of context phrase censored due to improper insinuation]" which is highly non-NPOV [13], re-inserts non-notable link critical of NEA [14]"

Correct up to but not including Banned Books Week. But this was when I was brand new - didn't even have a name yet. This just cannot be held against me for any reason. And I note regarding the history comment that I restored the wholesale censorship of "RLitwin" that to this day that very section that I restored is still there because cutting out that section was wrong. Still is. Always will be while wiki policies are as they are. So I was correct to restore that material. Same goes for "reinserts extensive criticism." As to the campaign donations, they were removed and someone, complaintant "RLitwin" if I recall, said that was not wiki worthy, and guess what, I agreed so I never tried to put it up again or argue for doing so. What's the matter here. People are not allowed to make mistakes? I'm being skewered here for making mistakes or being a newbie.

Now as to criticism of Banned Books Week, that is totally appropriate. And I re-added it but usually only after changing it in accordance with what I was reading from some of the complaintants. Is that somehow against the law? At the end of this, I fully expect to be "allowed" to follow wiki policy and add in that single sentence I have been trying to add that set off this firestorm.

Regarding "criticism" of local libraries, in sections involving governmental budgeting, saying the libraries no longer receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal funding is a fact. And wiki worthy in a section about government budgets. Courtesy of the wiki process, all potential for criticism or POV had been removed. Now it's a mere fact. Regarding Multnomah County, that library was directly involved in US v. ALA, joining with the ACLU and the ALA to stop CIPA. Based on your raising this issue here, I will go to see that those facts are still present as they are relevant to county funding and were included for that purpose. Yes, the way I originally wrote it meant they were included for another purpose, but the wiki process worked and now only fact remains. You're not going to hold that against me as wel, are you?

Regarding the NEA, your characterization as "passionate diatribe" is a naked attempt to argue that I hold a value which you detest. And you talk about non notable links. Again, that's your opinion, your POV. Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum is NOT non notable. They are to you, however. They may be lower on the scale than Brit Hume, but they are not nonnotable. Regarding the comment "promotion of the so-called gay rights agenda in public schools," that comes from the facts as presented in the article you claim is non notable discussing the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2005 case called Fields v. Palmdale School District. And it is so-called the gay rights agenda. That's what people call it. Not me. That's totally neutral to say it that way. Has nothing to do with POV. Does not imply anything, although in your efforts to stop my ALA edits you inferred something bad. Indeed I even promoted it by supplying the wiki link to the wiki article on the subject. My comments were regarding the NEA, not the gay rights agenda. 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. And I ask the wiki powers that be to remove that claim and this paragraph in response totally from the record and from the history to minimize any damage that may result from that false insinuation. You just don't know me. Lots of people fighting the ALA are trying to remove homosexual books from public libraries. You will see on my web site again and again that SafeLibraries is specifically not against books containing or written by homosexuals. And we enjoy healthy debate with all authors, including homosexual authors and authors of books containing homosexuals or perhaps both. We are, however, against age inappropriate material of any kind, usually of the sexual kind, and if the inappropriate sexual material happens to be homosexual, then we are against the inappropriate sexual content, never the homosexual content. Further, in my discussions with various people, I specifically point out that requests relating to books having homosexual characters but that are not inapppropriately sexualized should not be made. In other words, leave the books with homosexual characters alone, unless they contain inappropriate sexual or other inappropriate material. Funny how the US Supreme Court agrees with me in Board of Education v. Pico, 1982, regarding inappropriately sexualized book. Oops, there I go again being aware of and following the law. Yes, I know that means I run the risk of being attacked as you have attacked me, but your false accusations or hints and allegations in this particular area are totally without merit. Lest you think I protest too much, I am very concerned that your comments will result in people being misled about me. I demand that you, "Alecmconroy," apologize and retract your statement without making a false apology like "I apologize to those who might have been offended that I offended them." If such a statement is not forthcoming, or 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.

Based on the above, I argue you are wrong with respect to my ALA edits. Further, I fully expect to prevail in this matter. You can continue to expect me to make further edits, and I continue to expect an appropriate back and forth. Honestly, our back and forths have not been unduly out of line. Perhaps filing this matter is out of line, but it's within wiki policy so I understand. I do think, however, that taking down my NPOV tag within minutes is out of line. When this is over, I'm putting it back up. Why? Because the article has serious POV issues in my view and I am totally within my wiki rights to do so. I'm allowed to say that and you are allowed to respond, but I do not think removing the tag is proper, especially by the same ALA complaintant who continually removed the Critical Responses section. --SafeLibraries 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.