Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SafeLibraries.org

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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.

American Library Association and related

 * As an IP user, Safelibraries writes a paragraph summarizing his own views an inserts in ALA article and adds vanity link to own website.
 * Creates a named user with the name of his website, first edits user page with a link to his advocacy blog.
 * Re-inserts and expands his earlier edits with the edit summary "Restoring wholesale censorship of "Critical Responses" section by Rlitwin"
 * Again re-inserts extensive criticism
 * Inserts public records of campaign donations by private individuals who are members of ALA, arguing on that this implies the ALA is pro-abortion.
 * Inserts non-notable criticism of Banned Books Week, inserts further criticsm and re-inserts
 * Inserts criticim of specific local libraries into Multnomah County, Oregon, Spotswood High School (Virginia) , and Morris County, New Jersey
 * 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, re-inserts non-notable link critical of NEA

American Civil Liberties Union and related

 * Inserts disparaging quote against ACLU founder and re-inserts
 * Inserts criticism of ACLU
 * Inserts non-notable link critical of ACLU
 * Inserts another non-notable link critical of ACLU
 * On ACLU v. NSA, repeated deletion of word "domestic" in "domestic wiretapping"
 * Inserts non-notable link with non-NPOV link text to Freedom of speech in the United States, re-inserts , re-inserts

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, Censorship , Children's literature, List of banned books
 * When editors from the articles remove the links, he proceeds to revert the deletion, re-inserting the link an addition 8 times:
 * Again inserts link into ACLU page, now directly discussing it in the text
 * Inserts same link into a users talk page.

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.
 * SafeLibraries makes repeated claims that ALA is "breaking the law" when they advise libraries about the Children's Internet Protection Act and whether or not they wish to 1) accept e-rate money and 2) subsequently have to filter. SafeLibraries describes this generally as he does below, as "advising libraries to skirt the law." There is no law that says libraries must remove materials, only that if they accept e-rate money they must filter their public/staff Internet access. SafeLibraries misrepresents the ALA as "going against the Supreme Court"  despite the fact that the CIPA decision in no way mandates anything of public libraries who do not receive e-rate money. Continuing to claim this is the case seems to be a misrepesentation of the source material, the Supreme Court case, to fit the POV he is trying to represent.

Incivility, Personal Attacks, Not Assuming Good Faith, Making Legal Threats

 * 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?"
 * 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"
 * Makes legal threats alleging content of this RFC is libel.
 * Repeats threats despite warning of No legal threats violation

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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 and Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union
 * 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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Alecmconroy 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jessamyn (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rlitwin 12:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * --DavidShankBone 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I tried to solve these NPOV issues with Safelibraries on the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 article. It started out very rough but the end result seems to have come out better than many other instances detailed above.  Therefore, I endorse this summary's presentation but did not seem to fail in my personal instance of interacting with SL, as may be evident by the talk page for DOPA listed above in the evidence.  ju66l3r 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to solve these NPOV issues with Safelibraries on the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 article. It started out very rough but the end result seems to have come out better than many other instances detailed above.  Therefore, I endorse this summary's presentation but did not seem to fail in my personal instance of interacting with SL, as may be evident by the talk page for DOPA listed above in the evidence.  ju66l3r 20:14, 24 October 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)

It is claimed "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]"

First off the bat, these are older edits, almost irrelevant here. But I will still respond. The "disparaging quote" was an actual quote actually attributed to the founder of the ACLU. That same quote has been added over and over again by many, and removed over and over again by many. I was not aware of that at the time or I would not have wasted my time fighting those keeping the ACLU page "clean." The claim that I "insert[ed] criticism of the ACLU," well I added The ACLU vs America; Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, by Alliance Defense Fund, Alan Sears, and Craig Osten, 2005. ISBN 0-8054-4045-3; 978-0-8054-4045-4. The way I read your statement against me was that I added personal text critical of the ALA. No, rather I added a link to a wikiworthy book directly on topic and in wiki fashion and, once again, since you don't agreed that the book measures up to snuff, I get critized for adding criticism. Hey, isn't an encylopedia supposed to be fair and balanced? Do you expect people not to add scholarly critical material to various pages? One of the complaintants here, "DavidShankBone," favors on the Alliance Defense Fund page leaving the lion's share of the ADF article filled with a ton of information on a single incident where something was called banned when it really wasn't. He's for excruciating detail that overwhelms the entire article in a non wiki fashion. Yet here, that same person complains when I add a single sentence about the same subject, the false claim that something is being banned!!!!! On the ADF page someone writes, "I think this is one of those articles where you have to let both sides take a good swing at conveying their perspective. Look, the main bulk of the article was originally derived from the ADF's own website. That is hardly an unbiased source, and the detail is quite extensive, but I'm not for trimming it down because it does give one side of the picture (and I enjoy the jazzy stuff about how the apprentice system develops green lawyers into Constitutional law wizards, etc., I think that's interesting)." On the ALA page, however, the facts are nearly the same about the original of the ALA page but the standards are different so I cannot even add a single sentence quoting the ALA itself. Why? Another "non-notable" link is [ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51503 The ACLU: Malignant – And Growing], by Pat Boone, a direct descendant of the American pioneer Daniel Boone. Perhaps people do not know Pat Boone because they are too young, but that does not mean Pat Boone is non-notable. I see this as just people keeping the ACLU page "clean." In fact, despite claims in this complaint about my being "persistent," I gave up on editting the ACLU page long ago. It was a lost cause. And this complaint filed against me is an effort to get me to give up on editing the ALA page as well. Pure and simple. Regarding repeated deletion of the word "domestic," well that's because the inclusion of the word domestic was 1) POV, and 2) false. This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda machine for President Bush haters. Despite this naked attempt to curtail my edits, I will continue to make edits that a) remove POV, and b) remove falsehoods. If I am to be forced out of Wikipedia for stating this publicly, then let it be so. I would make that edit again and again because is was false and it was POV. Think about this. I am being accused of making inappropriate edits. As crazy as some of the other claims were, this one might be the craziest. I stand accusing of repeatedly removing false information for a wiki page. Are we suppoesed to take any of these claims against me seriously? I'm surrounded by a small gaggle of people who just plain don't like what I'm doing on Wikipedia because they don't agree with my point of view and some are protecting what they see as their home turf! And here I am forced to respond to them. Yes, I admit it. I admit I repeatedly removed false information despite someone with a POV repeatedly putting it back up. Hey, why not go after the person adding the false information? Might that be because you AGREE with that person's edits? Might all this be because you DISAGREE with mine? Of please, the Freedom of Speech thing. Another link I added, this time from the Wall Street Journal, but this time instead of being congratulated for finally citing to a major source, no, rather I'm shot down again because the author is somehow not notable. Imagine. The guy who screenwrites The 9-11 Story the Democratice Senators and even former President Clinton tried to stop -- he's not notable. Sounds like a freedom of speech issue to me, right? A former President and Democratic Senators trying to stop the showing of the show, right? I am not sorry in the slightest that I attempted to add a story about the freedom of the press being endangered on the freedom of the press in the USA page. But I gave up the fight there too. The press may still be free, but wikipedia people get to gang up on one another to shut down the politically incorrect but true speech with which they disagree. I think the not-notable people here are the ones making these ridiculous accusations about me. --SafeLibraries 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The remainder of the accusations are along the same lines of using "non-worthy" sources and so on and so forth. Since I have written so much above that calls into question the actions and motivations of the complaintants against me, I do not now feel the need to respond further to the further false accusations made in like manner. But I will do so if seriously requested.

Let me say this. As to adding that quote from "Jessamyn," I admit I mistakenly believed her to be part of the ALA Council at that time, so I mistakenly believed her comments to be noteworthy as ALA Councilors are some of those who make and enforce ALA policy. She informed me that was no longer the case and I removed the quote accordingly. And I did not do that other thing I was accused of with her quote. Her quote clearly says what it says. I did not imply she agrees with me -- she has been not agreeing with me from day one, although sometimes we agree on things.

Note that my general feeling from the four complaintants is one where I am feeling harrassed on a regular basis. For evidence, look at this long complaint filed against me that looks serious at first blush but upon consideration of the facts is a total hit job. Like complaining about what I did as a newbie. "DavidShankBone" is a relatively new gadfly to me and "Jessamyn" has been wholely fair and intellectually honest, but "RLitwin" is clearly acting in a mean fashion and even ADMITTED so on another user's talk page, and "Alecmconroy" always patronizes me while making broad, public, embarrassing, untrue statements about what a terrible editor or person I am. Upon a favorable conclusion of this matter, if that is to be, serious consideration should be given into a review of "Alecmconroy"'s conduct in this case.

This wikipedia experience is not for the fainthearted when you are trying to add information that the politically correct don't want others to see, or remove information that the politically correct want others to see. It is claimed that "a very diverse group of editors" is making these complaints about me. In reality, while they may be physically diverse, they are politically identical, and they identically feel the need to use this wiki process to stop my work here on Wikipedia. The question is, after you read what they say about me and read my responses, will you let them get away with this?

Okay, I'm done adding comments.

Final note. I am alone here. The ALA, however, has lots of wiki editors, and just like "Jessamyn" asked "RLitwin" to join this matter, I expect a drumbeat of political correctness to begin pounding against me. Please do not be fooled. --SafeLibraries 07:47, 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.''

He clearly has very strong and specific opinions on the topic. This suggests a need for more dispassionate editing of the disputed material than SafeLibraries might be able easily to provide.

It seems a mistake to wade into the specifics of this dispute, because it is such a textbook example of POV editing. Even if Safelibraries's factual claims, as stated above, are verifiable and can be furnished with appropriate citations, they would still constitute advocacy because they seek to establish a 'correct' and decidedly non-neutral point of view.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Auto movil 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by tbeatty
SafeLibraries.org clearly needs coaching on wikipeida culture. However he has stumbled upon some very hagriographic articles. For example, this edit was the first one cited as being contentious. It is certainly not. It needs some sourcing but adding criticism to a controversial organization that has references should be encouraged, not defeated. --Tbeatty 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * TBeatty, that was pulled because it was self-promotion. Safelibraries was inserting his own website, Safelibraries.com, or whatever, into Wikipedia.  Which is a major violation.  It is not for us to create a criticism section; the one he created was self-promotion.  --DavidShankBone 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was one quote that was self-promotion (it was sourced to his website) and that should have been pulled. His username should be banned as self-promotion as well.   However, two paragraphs that were not self-promotion were pulled and the criticism that was well sourced outside the self-promotion is no longer in the article.  --Tbeatty 02:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, since DavidShankBone responded here, I guess I can too. That was an early post of mine before I even had a name and before I even knew the policy. Its now being used against me is a further example of the witch hunt atmosphere here that has been delightfully broken by TBeatty.  Along comes TBeatty who breaks through the blockade and speaks truth to power.  The truth being my using US Supreme Court quotes to illustrate just how far the ALA strays from those quotes is perfectly appropriate.  Perfectly appropriate.


 * Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to the DavidShankBone et al. Four Ring Circus.  Today we will shut down the hideous people who in one of their earliest posts said the following speech that must be forever removed from Wikipedia as well as the hideous person who said this:


 * Groups that favor compliance with existing law such as US v. ALA have strongly criticised the ALA for what they view is the ALA's failure to comply with the law. These groups urge local communities and local libraries to consider the ALA to be authoritative only after the ALA's prohibition against age discrimination is removed from the ALA Library Bill of Rights because, they argue, the Court expressly allowed a different standard for children. In US v. ALA the Court said, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." One such group is SafeLibraries.org.


 * See how he weaves in US Supreme Court holdings and compares them with ALA directives and claims the ALA has exceeded its authority. How dare we tolerate such behaviour on Wikipedia!  Since, my friends, we have exposed his deepest trangressions, we sentence him to be exposed before his peers.  Build up the wall!  (Thanks, Pink Floyd.)


 * TBeatty, thank you for bring some sanity into this four ring circus. I am sorry one of the rings felt the need to slap you down.  To wit, see where you said, "adding criticism to a controversial organization that has references should be encouraged, not defeated," to which he responded, "It is not for us to create a criticism section; the one he created was self-promotion." Slap!!  Criticism not allowed!! And instead of pulling the self-promoting link, placed there because major media fears to touch the subject, the whole criticism section was torn down and I was criticized for daring to try to add it.  By the way, ultimately, it's there thanks only to me.  I strongly suggest you and others don't get involved or DavidShankBone may start or continue coming after you as well.  --SafeLibraries 02:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BINGO! TBeatty hits the nail on the head! "[C]riticism that was well sourced outside the self-promotion is no longer in the article"! Bingo! My pointing out that the US Supreme Court said "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree" in 2003, but in 2006 the ALA stills says it is "age" discrimination to follow the US Supreme Court on this very issue, well my pointing this out is the sin! What did DavidShankBone say? "It is not for us to create a criticism section." Sshhh. Don't let the public that the ALA is defying the US Supreme Court on this issue. Now we know why everyone says "sshhh" when we go into public libraries!

Let me repeat the anathema words of the US Supreme Court the people here are trying to suppress by trying to ban me from Wikipedia, as you correctly noted: "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Why that doesn't appear in the Controversy section of the ALA page is a monument to the effectiveness of the politically correct who care less about Wiki policy except when it can be twisted into a sword to cut out the tongues of those they deem not of their mindset. --SafeLibraries 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems what SafeLibraries is doing in the above article text is creating a broad category, 'groups that favor compliance with existing law,' which suggests an active controversy involving many people -- when in actuality, this category seems to contain SafeLibraries alone, furnished with quotations from a Supreme Court opinion.


 * In which case, we hit the prohibition against original research as well as obsessive POV editing.


 * Groups that eat breakfast and/or wear clothing have strongly criticized SafeLibraries' conduct, and these groups urge local encyclopedia editors to follow the recommendations of DavidShankBone. --Auto movil 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to belabor this any more than I have in the Talk pages of the relevant articles but I just want to note that SafeLibraries' continued assertion that what ALA is doing or suggesting is "against the law" is factually incorrect and relies on a misreading of the Supreme Court case he cites. Jessamyn (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Groups that favor the breathing of air strongly agree with Jessamyn. -Auto movil 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * --SafeLibraries 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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.