User talk:Alanyst/WFF

A few comments on the dispute
I do have one major philosophical dispute with Alanyst on this one, but it's overall a good summary. Removing the image was not done to improve the article: it was intentionally done in order to make the article contain less coverage, with censorship being the underlying motive. It's not a stretch to see that as a removal ... of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, part of the definition from WP:VANDALISM. I think the spots where I took steps that Alanyst objects to are primarily based on that view.

A nitpick: my revert on 2/7/2009 19:29 wouldn't have been a 3RR violation even if you argue that was only defending policy, not reverting vandalism, because 3RR is violated on the fourth revert.

Duke probably used a 3RR warning because you can't get an inexperienced editor blocked for 3RR violations unless you have given him a specific 3RR warning. I applied one as well later, and that was my reason. By this point, my goal was clear: the removals had to stop, and if blocking the editors was the fastest way for that to happen, it was what was going to happen. They each had been pointed at the controlling policy (WP:NOT), and were aware that multiple other users considered their edits to be vandalism. They were flailing out with personal attacks, and coordinating their edits to get past 3RR. The anon is pretty clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I was proceeding under the assumption that he was editing anonymously because he was aware that his edits were against policy. The one edit of mine that I feel strongly was mislabeled was at 2/8/2009 23:40. This was not pure retaliation, it was a necessary step in ensuring that WFF and the anon were blocked so that they would not damage the article further.

I have no reason to doubt BirgitteSB's edits. She did work on an earlier version of the article that had some questionable sourcing, and has access to some legitimate studies on the LDS.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2/8/2009 23:40 was an edit by the anon on your talk page (I know the formatting makes this easy to confuse; sorry about that). So it was not your edit that I labeled as retaliation.
 * As far as the vandalism question goes, let me be a bit more detailed in my reasoning here (and we can cordially disagree on this in the end, if you think I'm off base). The passage you quote from the policy hinges on a judgment of the editor's motives.  Blanking a page or a section wholesale just to annoy people would certainly fall under the rubric of vandalism.  Targeting a single element or passage for removal is an editorial decision.  The grounds for that decision might not be valid (e.g., censorship) but I don't think it's a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity" of the article.  The person making the edit might truly feel that it improves the article, and "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism".
 * The problem with immediately labeling the image removal as censorship or vandalism (if the editor appears to be new) is that it cuts off the possibility of dialogue before it has a chance to start. If I start calling you a censor and a vandal, are you going to think it's worth it to try to reason with me?  Or are you going to assume it's because I've got a strong POV of my own that I'm trying to enforce, and you had better prepare for battle?  Treating the first edit as vandalism (as you once mentioned somewhere that you'd like to) seems to me the exact opposite way we should be going.  It's human nature to respond in kind when interacting with someone (especially for the first time) and so adhering to WP:BITE is crucial to keeping a civil atmosphere. alanyst /talk/ 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The first edit discussion was based on having an edit window for the article, so that whenever anyone edited the article, a popup would appear that explained WP:NOT and indicated that the images should not be removed without attempting to get a consensus for doing so. Continuing after that and directly removing the images would be hard to take in good faith.
 * Right now, I may come off a bit harshly, but I don't treat the first removal as vandalism: I generally revert it, and leave a message on the contributor's talk page explaining that no article on Wikipedia is edited to conform to the wishes of any religious group, generally pointing at WP:NOT in either the message or the summary. I pretty much have to point at that policy or I haven't properly informed the editor of why his edit is unacceptable, and I don't know how to point at that policy without crossing the line that you consider bitey. It's only after people continue to remove it after that notification that I start to treat the edits as a form of vandalism. Deleting it without knowledge of policy comes under the category of "misguided" or "ill-considered": once they have been made aware of the policy, I see it as shifting to deliberate damage.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)