User:Filll/AGF Challenge Question Development

These are drafts of new AGF Challenge exercises, and new BLP Challenge exercises, and new WP Challenge exercises, etc.

No negative reviews allowed

Y An author who is frequently in the news for his controversial theory that oil and gas are not the result of millions of years of decomposition of organic material has published a series of books describing his theories. He is a prominent faculty member at an Ivy League university. He believes that oil and gas are the result of inorganic processes deep within the earth's crust.

The faculty in his department have put a statement on the department webpage stating they disagree with his theory. Surveys of other scientists in his field show that over 99% of them think his theory is unscientific and contradicted by the evidence. Almost every review of his books by other scientists is negative. His work is quite popular among the public, however, who do not want to believe that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that we might run out of oil. He has testified as an expert witness in several trials where environmentalists were trying to block deep offshore drilling or drilling in the arctic. The other side in these trials has always ripped the testimony of this author to shreds, ridiculing him. However, he remains very popular with the majority of the public.

An article about one of his books on Wikipedia includes links to several negative reviews. One prominent Wikipedia editor demands that these negative reviews be removed, since they violate WP:BLP. The claim is that anything negative about these books in the reviews reflects negatively on the author's work, and on the author himself, and therefore violates WP:BLP.

In addition, several editors on Wikipedia have objected to statements in this author's biography on Wikipedia stating that the "scientific community disagrees with his theories". They claim that one cannot measure what the scientific community believes, so that this statement does not belong and is not valid.

Do the negative reviews of his work constitute a WP:BLP violation? Can Wikipedia link to these negative reviews? Can Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories? Are articles on this author's ideas WP:FRINGE theories since most of the public subscribes to them? What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia?

No littering

Y A prominent late night television advertiser is promoting a new technique for reducing colon cancer. He sells a book that recommends a number of unconventional preventive measures, including the consumption of ground up kitty litter. The idea is that certain brands of kitty litter (in particular, the brand this advertiser sells) introduce extra nonnutrative crude fiber in the diet and also absorb toxins in the colon as they travel through the human body. A small group of enthusiasts write an article for Wikipedia describing this health recommendation. They include links to the commercial website selling the book and the cat litter.

There are a handful of scientific studies on the value of this technique. Most of them are not double-blinded or even singled-blinded studies, and have a small number of participants. A few show some positive effect from this procedure, but some show very little difference between consuming cat litter and a placebo treatment. They are published mainly in a few journals devoted to alternative medicine.

Recently a few review articles and larger studies published in mainstream medical journals have been published. The larger studies and metastudies show almost no difference between these cat litter treatments and a placebo. A couple of blogs and less prominent sources have called this treatment a form of "quackery" and fraudulent. The French, German and Swiss governments cut their insurance reimbursments in government health plans for this treatment based on the negative results of the large studies.

The article is rewritten to include a mix of the positive and negative research results. Also in the WP:LEAD is a paragraph with quotes from representatives of the mainstream medical establishement, identifying the treatment as fraud and quackery.

Several new editors arrive on Wikipedia, including a famous alternative medical practioner who has an adjunct faculty position at the UCLA Medical School. These new editors diligently try to remove all information drawn from the large negative studies, and promote the results from the small positive studies. Lists of the small positive studies are posted over and over, dozens of times on the talk page of this article. The talk page has to be automatically archived every 48 hours because it is getting so many posts; at least 100 or 200 kilobytes are archived every 2 days. There are increasingly heated arguments on the article talk page.

The new editors claim that the editors who are trying to include the large studies are "science zealots" and unfair and unCIVIL and are violating WP:BITE. It is claimed that including the words "quackery" and "fraud" in the article, and especially in the WP:LEAD, is inflammatory, and is inappropriate since the use of these words is not well-sourced anyway. The new editors say that to follow WP:NPOV, all the critical material must be removed from the article, since it is not neutral, as required by WP:Neutral Point of View.

What should be done here? How should the article be written? Should the terms "quackery" and "fraud" appear in the article? Should they appear in the LEAD? Does it violate NPOV to have critical and negative material in the article? Are the experienced editors violating WP:BITE? Is it unfair to criticize this alternative health treatment? Are there problems with the promotion of this treatment? Any conflicts arising from the promotion of the commercial cat litter product?

The Naked Truth

Y Several Christian sects belonging to Christian naturism use a literal reading of the Book of Genesis to mean that it is forbidden by God to wear clothes, unless required as protection from the elements. One prominent sect, the Starkerites, have become more and more prominent in the UK in the last few decades. They are famous for their radio and television sermons promising that everyone who wears clothes is an affront to God and is going straight to hell. Some of the more extreme varieties of Starkerites, such as the Nakedites, even preach that people who wear clothes indoors should be summarily killed for their blasphemy. and have tried to get laws passed stating that all children attending government schools are required to doff their clothes indoors. This measure is meant to avoid offending any Nakedite children. There have been some well publicized lawsuits trying to impose Nakedite requirements on various commercial enterprises and public institutions, which the Nakedites have always lost.

Lately a contingent of Nakedites have joined Wikipedia and are changing all the articles on Christianity to reflect Nakedite teachings. Huge edit wars break out, since Nakedites regard all those who do not follow indoor nudity and Nakedite philosophy as not real Christians and infidels. Any efforts to stop them or slow them down are met with an angry response and a claim that they have a right to their religious freedom, which Wikipedia is supressing.

What should Wikipedia do? Is it a restriction of their religious freedom to have other versions of Christianity described on Wikipedia? Do they have the right to not be offended? Should Wikipedia give in to their demands and remove pictures of clothed people worshipping in churches from all articles on Christianity? How much of the articles on Christianity should be devoted to describing Nakedite beliefs?

Ebony

Y

A dispute has broken out on a number of articles about black people in Wikipedia. A group of editors claim that Jamaicans and Ethiopians are not black since they are not the descendants of slaves living in the United States and therefore are not worthy of the label "black". The US government definition of a black person, being someone from subSaharan West Africa is trotted out. Other editors from Australia, South Asia, and Egypt disagree. Someone points out that according to this definition, South Africans of European descent are defined as black people. Conflicting government definitions from Canada, Cuba, Australia, the UK and the US are presented. Some view the phrase "black people" as a positive label and a source of pride, and others view it as a slur and do not want it applied to a given group. Eventually one particularly aggressive group of black studies students from the United States demands that their definition is the only correct definition, and that the other definitions do not exist and should not appear in the article. Anyone who disagrees with them is charged with racism and a huge fight ensues.

What should be done?

Splitting hairs

Y A group has started a public relations campaign to encourage as many people as possible to grow their hair as long as they can, on the basis that (1) long hair is more natural; after all, primitive man did not have ways to cut hair (2) hair represents the life force of the person (3) cutting the hair exposes the person's head to more cold air if the hair is cut too short and can contribute to diseases.

An article or two promoting this view is started on Wikipedia. In the middle of heated talk page discussions, one editor, User: Gravy Boy, calls another a "barber" because he wants to remove part of the article, effectively "cutting" it. A senior member of the Wikimedia Foundation states that calling someone a "barber" or alluding to cutting in any way is blatantly offensive and a violation of WP:CIVIL and obviously a blockable offense. Not long after this, you run into two editors involved in a dispute, where one has said they need to cut down an article because it is too long, and the other has charged him with a WP:CIVIL violation and is demanding that an admin take action to sanction him.

What would you do?

Judge not, less ye be judged

Y An anonymous editor on Wikipedia who frequently edits legal articles and who advertises himself as a retired judge often gets into disputes. Nevertheless, he seems to be a valuable contributor and seems to know a lot. You have his page watch listed, and you notice that this editor has been blocked for 2 weeks for stating in the middle of a heated argument that he was a judge. The blocking admin, User: Osama ban Hammer, stated that it is inappropriate to use this sort of information in an argument, and compared the judge to Essjay. You notice that the blocking admin, User: Osama ban Hammer, who is very prominent on Wikipedia, edits a lot of religious articles, and in particular articles about Judaism. He advertises prominently on his user page that he is a Rabbi.

What should you do?

Poof its gone!

Y A prominent belief in the Islamic World is that the World Trade Center never existed, and therefore the attack on September 11, 2001 never happened. A group on Wikipedia rejects all sources to the contrary as biased and propaganda. Anyone who disagees with them is accused of being bought off by the US government, or a CIA mole, or hopelessly deluded. Numerous sources from Al Jazeera and other similar sources are suggested to show that this theory is correct and should be the preferred one on Wikipedia. When it is suggested that this is a WP:FRINGE belief, Muslim editors counter with surveys of the Muslim world showing that 86 per cent subscribe to this belief, and with 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, in addition to many in Europe and India and China, those who disagree are a distinct minority. Wikipedia refuses and locks its articles on this subject. However, a petition that quickly gathers 500,000 signatures is created on the internet, asking that Wikipedia allow its article to be written from the point of view of the mainstream.

What should Wikipedia do?

I love Jesus

Y

In an article on I Love Jesus Ministries International, someone with no user page and no talk page history puts a section reading

I Love Jesus in association with Sean Clark made another ministry called Mission Possible Cards. MPC was founded by a book that cought the eye of a girl working at a Koffee Kiosk.

with a link to a main article about Mission Possible Cards:

Mission Possible Cards is a Christian ministry created by Sean Clark. Mission Possible Cards is partnered with the parent ministry I Love Jesus International Ministries.

Sean Clark (used to live with Guns N' Roses and Mike Goddard) drove by a drove trough a Koffee Kiosk. A book about the bible and evolution was on the front seat of Sean's car; the girl taking the order notices the book. This led to Sean sharing his story with her and a Mission Possible Card. Sean shared this story with a Christian radio station: WKLA 99.5 FM. DJ's Sam Scott and Tom Pastore featured Mission Possible on their program; FROM THE HEART radio. Mission Possible Cards come in a variety of photographic backrounds taken by Sean Clark.

What is appropriate to do here?

Sex and evolution

Y

Several very complicated articles on a theory about the origin of sex are written on Wikipedia. For example:

Click to see an excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Evolutionary Theory of Sex was proposed in 1965 by V. Geodakian and now provides explanation of many sex-related phenomena such as sexual dimorphism, sex chromosomes, asymmetry of brain and hands, reciprocal effects, and congenital heart defects. The theory was included in the textbooks,, college study programs, was covered in numerous newspaper and magazine articles (two in the US) and TV programs. The sex notion consists of two fundamental phenomena: the sexual process (conjugation of genetic information of two persons) and the sexual differentiation (partitioning this information into two parts). Depending on the presence (+) or absence (-) of these phenomena, the whole variety of existing reproduction models can be divided into three basic forms: asexual (-, -), hermaphrodite (+, -), and bi-sexual reproduction (+, +). The sexual process and sexual differentiation are distinct, and moreover, directly opposite phenomena. Indeed, the sexual process diversifies genotypes, which is its objective in evolution, whereas differentiation halves the resulting diversity. For instance, in an asexual population of size N, the maximum theoretically possible variability of offspring genotypes is N, given that the genotypes of all parents are different. Since the offspring of each asexual individual is a clone with the same genotype, the variability of the offspring σ is always lower than N. In the sexual process, the variability of offspring is squared. In hermaphroditic organisms, each of N individuals can mate with all individuals except itself, i.e., N - 1; but, as the cross of individual A with individual B is the same as that of individual B with individual A (there is no reciprocal effect), at N >> 1 , σ = N(N - 1)/2 ≈ N2/2; with the reciprocal effect, σ = N2. In dioecious forms, sex differentiation that excludes same sex combinations (male-male, female-female), decreases the amount of diversity possible in hermaphrodites by at least two times: σ = N/2 x N/2 = N2/4 (each female with each male, with the same number of males and females equal to N/2). The offspring diversity in a population of dioecious organisms also depends on the sex ratio in the parental generation: it is the highest at a 1:1 sex ratio and decreases with any deviation from it. The maximum progeny diversity of the asexual, hermaphrodite, and bi-sexual populations of the same size N are related as N  : N2/2 : N2/4, i.e., the diversity is at least halved while passing from hermaphrodite to bisexual reproduction! Then, it becomes completely unclear what the differentiation is intended for, if it halves the main bonus provided by the sexual process. Why are all progressive species bi-sexual, since the asexual process is much more efficient and simple, and hermaphrodites produce a more diversified progeny? This is the essence of the sex puzzle. The fact that this problem is still unsolved is primarily due to the lack of a clear understanding that the sexual process and sexual differentiation are opposite phenomena. Researchers make attempts at understanding the advantage of the sexual reproduction (hermaphrodite and bi-sexual forms) over the asexual one, although it is necessary to understand the advantage of bi-sexuals over hermaphrodites. The purpose of the sexual process is clear, and consists of diversifying. It is needed to comprehend the objective of the sexual differentiation. Although it is recognized that, because bi-sexual methods have no visible advantages over asexual ones, bi-sexual reproduction should provide us with significant evolutionary bonuses, the sex problem is commonly considered as a reproduction problem but not an evolutionary one. Sex differentiation is specialization in preserving and changing the genetic information of population. One of the sexes should be informationally more closely connected with the environment, and be more sensitive to the environmental factors. Higher mortality and vulnerability of the males to all harmful factors of the environment make one believe that it is the operative, ecological subsystem of the population. While the females are the conservative subsystem that preserves the existing genotype distribution in the population. A series of mechanisms were developed during different stages of sex evolution to provide this specialization. Compared to females, males experience more mutations, inherit fewer properties of their parents, have narrower reaction norm, higher aggressiveness and inquisitiveness, riskier behavior and other properties that move them closer to the environment. All these properties, moving the male sex to the frontline of the evolution, provide for receiving of ecological information. The second group of properties includes great superfluity of male gametes, their small size and high mobility, the greater activity of mobility of males, their inclination towards polygamy and other ethologic and psychological qualities. Long periods of pregnancy, feeding and taking care of the descendants among the female population in reality increases the efficient concentration of the males, turning the male sex into superfluous, and thus cheap, while the female sex is turned into deficit and thus more expensive. As a result of conservative-operative specialization of sexes, asynchronous evolution takes place: new characters first appear in the operative subsystem (males), are tested there, and then are passed on to the conservative subsystem (females).

Most of the references are in Russian. It is clearly a well known theory, but almost completely unknown in the West. The English in the articles is stilted.

What should be done? Is this article suitable for Wikipedia? Is it pseudoscience or science? Does it fall under WP:FRINGE? What would you suggest that Wikipedia do with the large number of articles on this topic?

Always wear a helmet

A disabilities lawyer on Wikipedia has been repeatedly tagging a popular motorcycle brand's article with {{pov}} and {{fanclub}}. In the article's discussion page, he says:

It appears the authors of the article are oblivious to their own biases, and not at all mindful of the very high casualty rates for operators of these dangerous machines in comparison to operators of other automobiles. Also, they are oblivious to the cost placed on society, including increased Medicare costs for those disabled and impaired by these awful gadgets. Because of the marketing and fan base of this product, there are more riders than there would be were ownership discouraged. Thus, the popularity of this products increases social costs. I want this article to be neutral as required by WP standards, and I don't want it to be supportive of motorcycle ownership. Similarly, I do not wish to have the article biased against the company. I want what you do: neutrality and fairness. Right now, the article does not meet these standards. Let's clean it up, and be done with this whole mess.

However, the editor only has 5 contributions to the article: 4 add the tags, and 1 reduces the lead. There is no evidence of him ever having added criticism or safety sections to the article. In fact, his point of view is entirely contained within the discussion page. When suggested to boldly edit, the editor replies he already has, and that it was whittled down by the same "aficionados" until nothing was left. He's "been there, done that". Going through the history, you find no evidence of him having contributed anything aside from the tags.

Editors are starting to get frustrated, and the talk page is getting heated.

Don't link me

Editor Franklynn123 posts to editor PhantaStick's talk page a note arguing about the article History of the Portcullis. A huge debate has developed over the correct plural form of the word portcullis; one group maintains that it is portcullises, another claims it is portculli and a third group declares that it is portscullis. PhantaStick's friend editor HerbAlBurt sees this post, and is interested in it. HerbAlBurt notices that the article name History of the Portcullis is not linked in Franklynn123's post, and so when he replies to the post, he also wikilinks the phrase "History of the Portcullis" on PhantaStick's talk page. Franklynn123 takes umbrage at this wikilinking and files claims at Wikiquette Alert and AN/I stating that this is highly inappropriate and calling for HerbAlBurt to be sanctioned for editing Franklynn123's post. HerbAlBurt apologizes, but Franklynn123 becomes even angrier and demands that sanctions be levelled on HerbAlBurt.

Register your complaints here

The Register, a British technology and news website publishes a series of articles purporting to reveal a secret homosexual cult operating among the editors of Wikipedia, and including some of its upper echelon and leaders. It is claimed that the founder of Wikipedia is secretly a closet homosexual who arranges assignations with prominent male Wikipedia editors using a kind of code on Wikipedia talk pages. They claim to draw on interviews with participants at secret Wikimania homosexual orgies. The abbreviated name of the policy WP:AGF is said to be an intentional anagram of the word "FAG", and chosen on purpose to secretly signal the interests of Wikipedia's founder and its elite core of gay editors and admins.

The Register reports that Wikipedia editors looking for gay sex will supposedly signal their interests by quotation of the policy WP:AGF on talk page discussions. Allegedly, if another editor is receptive to this approach, they respond by referring to WP:NPA by the phrase "No PERSONAL Attacks". After that, arrangements are purportedly made by email for further contact.

The Register also claims that Wikipedia's Founder's short association with a female news commentator from Canada was so abbreviated since he had believed this person to be a male transexual, and was disappointed to find out she was a real female, instead of a transgender individual. The Register includes "proof" that people are easily confused about this news commentator's sexual identity consisting of closeup pictures of this Canadian woman's muscular legs and Adam's apple, and what it claims are leaked court documents that previously been sealed in Canadian court proceedings from her controversial past.

An uproar ensues on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review and other sites that follow activities on Wikipedia, and even starts to leak into the regular media. A group of editors want to include this material in articles about Wikipedia's founder, and about Wikipedia and this Canadian commentator.

What is appropriate?

How many reverts?

Editors A and B have been in a mudslinging battle for weeks on end. B is a proponent of assorted FRINGE beliefs, and in particular advertises on his homepage that he is a founding member of the Topeka Alien Abduction Club. B has edited several articles on Alien Abduction on Wikipedia. A is a pro-science editor, and tries to include scientific skepticism into the articles on Alien Abduction, much to B's annoyance. B deletes all scientific references which are skeptical of UFOs from the alien abduction articles.

A calls B a "deletionist", and B files a complaint alleging this constitues a violation of WP:CIVIL. A accuses B of "vandalism", and B files another complaint alleging the use of the word "vandalism" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. B includes links to his business selling books about alien abduction in the alien abduction articles and A accuses B of self-promotion, so B files another complaint alleging that the use of the phrase "self-promotion" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. After a heated exchange, A says that B should "put up or shut up" and B files another complaint alleging that the use of the phrase "put up or shut up" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. When B shows up to place material on A's talk page, A tells him to "get lost" and B files another compaint alleging that the use of the phrase "get lost" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. When A tells B that he is using a "bone-headed argument" to justify some of his edits, B files another complaint that the use of the phrase "bone-headed argument" constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. At one point when A is exasperated after an exchange with B, A states that he is far more educated than B, and B files another complaint stating that the allusion to A's education constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL and is inappropriate argumentation. B claims that the inclusion of mainstream scientific material mocking or denigrating alien abduction beliefs is a violation of WP:BLP since it reflects badly on those who hold the beliefs, so it should not be in the articles. B therefore charges A with the violation of WP:BLP.

Some admins buy B's complaints, and A is often blocked, although he is frequently unblocked in short order. Nevertheless, his block log is long and ugly. After a very heated dispute, B appears at AN/I and accuses A of violating 3RR by presenting diff evidence of 4 reverts within 24 hours:

• 1:00 UTC
• 3:00 UTC
• 5:00 UTC
• 7:00 UTC

Several are anxious to give A a good long block, especially considering his ugly block log to teach him a lesson to be CIVIL.

Another editor notes that actually on closer inspection, the 5:00 UTC revert of A is reverting his own 3:00 UTC edit. In addition, it is shown that B has the following reverts of the same article in the same 24 hour period:

• 2:00 UTC
• 6:00 UTC
• 8:00 UTC
• 1:58 UTC (next day, just before 24 hours is up).

What do you think should be done?

The Shoe Prophet(ess)

A lady in Los Angeles had a spontaneous remission from cancer, and now believes that she has received word from God that she is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. She demonstrates her miraculous powers frequently by foretelling the future for people she meets by examining their footwear. She believes that she can tell what will happen to a given person from knowledge of the type of shoes they wear.

She develops a large following with a church and booksales and radio and television appearances. People follow her everywhere and are enthusiastic about her powers. An article is written about the Shoe Prophetess on Wikipedia.

A new anonymous editor appears and starts including information in her article about this Shoe Prophetess' business in Los Angeles, which is a film company producing pornographic videos and rock music videos featuring scantily clad young ladies. An investigation does not find any independent reliable sources for this information. After a fight, it is removed, but soon after, clearly motivated by and partly based on the information first revealed in Wikipedia, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun Times publish articles revealing the connection of the Shoe Prophetess to the porno business. These newspaper stories do not provide much new evidence for the Shoe Prophetess' ownership of this pornographic film company, but do reference Wikipedia, even though the information was removed from Wikipedia a while back. Several editors want to reinclude this information now that it has been published in a reliable source. Several others claim that there still is minimal independent evidence. A picture is published of an unidentified woman leaving the porno company's board meeting that looks very similar to the Shoe Prophetess, and the supermarket tabloids speculate that it must be the same person.

What should Wikipedia do in this case?

NPOV is neutral

A dispute has erupted on the Wikipedia articles about cold fusion. Several editors claim that the reason that the concept has not gained a foothold in the scientific world is an evil collusion and conspiracy lead by the oil companies, and it really works. Editors trying to insert the mainstream scientific view into the articles are fought frantically, and accused to be secretly working for the oil companies, or the CIA or the NSA or the KGB and trying to keep this information from the public. Any negative sources or critical comments are removed from the articles by those who claim that Wikipedia articles must maintain Fairness of Tone. In particular, they point to the "N" in NPOV to say that all Wikipedia articles must be neutral, and not include critical or negative information.

What should be done here?

No original research!

Y

User AppleButtEr is editing an article about chihuahuas. There is a controversy about the colors of chihuahuas. He finds one source that states that 48 percent of chihuahuas are black according to one study. Another source claims that 65 percent of chihuahuas are black. A third reference alleges that 64 percent of chihuahuas are white or brown and the rest are black. Finally, one source describes a study where 5893 chihuahuas were examined, and 3482 were found to be black. AppleButtEr wants to convert all these figures into percentages of black chihuahuas so that they can be compared (48%, 65%, 36% and 59.1%) and then present the comparison in a table. Another editor, RunOff who has never edited the article before, appears and states that this is forbidden because it constitutes WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH. AppleButtEr quotes policies and papers that appear to be relevant such as [1] and [2], but RunOff ignores these and continues to fight him. AppleButtEr brings in others to help him, but RunOff reveals that he is an admin and makes it clear that anyone disagreeing with his position will be blocked. When RunOff is asked about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, he states that those do not apply to experienced users, but only to newbies, and wikilawyers until everyone else gives up.

How would you analyze this situation? is it WP:OR to convert numbers into percentages for comparison purposes? Does this constitute a violation of WP:SYNTH? What should AppleButtEr do when he encounters an editor like RunOff?

The US is collaborating with space aliens

Y A prominent belief in certain Muslim countries that is spread in the mainstream Islamic media is that the United States has a secret program to collaborate with aliens from outer space to (1) scare Muslims and (2) build space weapons to attack Muslims. As proof, they often refer to the internet video called the Alien autopsy video which some say was shown to be a hoax. Nevertheless, in the Muslim world, the "proof" that this video was a hoax perpetrated by someone trying to raise money is dismissed as US government disinformation, and the Alien autopsy video is said to be a leaked official US government video made at Area 51.

Several editors create articles on Wikipedia for propagating this theory. Text segments describing this concept are introduced in articles about the United States and UFOs and in several other articles as well. Sources are provided to articles in the mainstream Islamic media. Huge edit wars erupt.

What should be done? How should this topic be represented on Wikipedia? Are the mainstream Islamic media sources reliable sources for this subject? If mainstream European and American media sources ignore this rumor or dismiss it, should they be given more prominence than the mainstream Islamic media sources? If public surveys in Islamic countries show that 80-90 percent of the population of Moslem nations subscribes to this belief, does this subject qualify as a WP:FRINGE belief? How can one decide if this story qualifies as a WP:FRINGE story or not if Western media ignore this story completely, and there are no surveys of Westerners to compare?

Isms

In public discourse, as reported by a variety of media outlets, people have started to use the terms "choice-ist" and "abortionism" for advocates of abortion rights. Normally these have a negative connotation. Also, the terms "life-ist" and "restrictivism" are applied to those who want to restrict access to abortions. These also carry a negative connotation and are viewed as pejorative by some.

Articles about choice-ist, abortionism, life-ist and restrictivism are written for Wikipedia. There are many who claim that these articles should be deleted since the terms carry negative connotations and there are no good sources. Thirty articles, from ABC News, the BBC, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Sacremento Bee, Vancouver Sun, and China News Daily and similar sources are presented to show the use of these terms.

A huge fight ensues. It is pointed out that none of these terms appear in any dictionary. Most of the google hits are to personal blogs which are not viewed as reliable sources. The thirty articles are rejected as inadequate. Quickly 4 or 5 megabytes of talk page comments are generated, so fast that it is almost impossible to keep up, or to post without having multiple edit conflicts. The talk page is a mess and almost impossible to read, since people are so heated. Some spam the page with the 30 references over and over and over.

What should be done?

Let him who is without sin

You respond to a request for comment about a living person's biography, Janice Tightbottom. Janice Tightbottom is a prominent conservative right wing Christian commentator and media consultant. Tightbottom is well known for controversial statements in the press like "Let's nuke Mecca and Medina, and let all those diaper-head bastards fry" or "Faggots are disgusting pieces of dung and should be tortured to death. After all, are we not a Christian nation? Are we not God's Chosen? Should we not show them some of God's Mercy and Wrath? Let us smite those rump rangers, those backdoor buccaneers, those cornhole cowboys, those poophole pirates, those bunghole bandits!" She is frequently featured on Fox News television and opinion programs, and has written several books on her views. She is also somewhat notorious for having very nice legs and showing them off by wearing short skirts.

Janice Tightbottom's father is Prescott Tightbottom Jr., a retired US senator. Prescott lives in Sedona, Arizona. An anon shown by WHOIS to be editing from Sedona occasionally edits the article. When asked to get an account, a newbie appears at the talk page with the username PTightbottom, and continues to edit in the same manner as the Sedona anon.

The situation at the talk page of the Wikipedia article about Janice Tightbottom is tense, and you decide that the article has serious problems. Citations to non-notable blogs accuse Janice Tightbottom of having had a previous career as a porn star and hooker. The article is fully protected. You raise the problem of using poor quality sources at the article talk page, and some editors vehemently insist those citations should be in the article. On the talk page, one of them links to a hardcore X-rated site featuring someone who appears to be a younger version of Ms. Tightbottom in assorted sexual escapades to bolster that viewpoint. When you remove this link, someone introduces it in an edit summary with some uncomplimentary commentary to try to prevent its removal.

Arguments develop between editor PTightbottom and other editors of the article. PTightbottom claims repeatedly and angrily that there is no proof for the allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of Janice Tightbottom. However, once or twice PTightbottom argues that this material should not be included because if such things were true, they were just due to youthful curiousity and an adventuresome nature. PTightbottom goes a bit over the top a few times, and ends up banned for disruptive and unCIVIL behavior. Some claim that PTightbottom has violated WP:COI by editing the article.

When you suggest taking the discussion to a noticeboard for independent review, you are accused of playing games, and being a right wing ideologue, or a shill for the Republican Party, or a meat puppet for Tightbottom. You are accused of supporting the use of white phosphorus and "nuclear weapons like depleted uranium" in Iraq and supporting torture and the slaughter of innocent civilians.

What should be done in this case? How should the biography read? What sources should be used? How would you resolve the conflict on the talk page?

Who is a real Muslim?

Deep-seated divisions between Muslim sects over which are real Muslims lead to an increasing number of controversial statements being introduced into various Muslim articles.

• Controversial Fatwahs from obscure Mullahs of a given sect are described as "proof" of the deficiency or "proof" of the validity of that sect. For example, one Mullah from Sect 1 declared that the Hadiths suggest all married men should beat their wives weekly if they want to be good Muslims. This Mullah appears regularly on Al Jazeera promoting his views and gains some notoriety, screaming at flustered newly wed husbands that they must promise to deliver regular beatings to their wives to be true Muslims. Another Imam from Sect 2 asserts that real Muslims should drink camel urine regularly and claims that this was something Mohammed did. The followers of Sects 1 and 2 introduce these statements into the articles of other sects to "prove" other sects are not really Islam. The followers of other sects counter with different interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths and assert that the "wife beating" and "camel urine drinking" sects are not real Islam. A huge conflict between different groups of editors ensues. The largest dispute is an edit war between editors following the teaching of sect 1 (the wife beating sect) and sect 2 (the urine drinking sect). After weeks of contentious difficult editing, an off-wiki website is unveiled that declares, in part, "Wikipedia is an evil creation of the Polytheists and Crusaders! They have enabled the hated followers of Sect 2, filthy Jew-Lovers and infidels, to defile the word of Allah and spread their blasphemy! We call on all true Muslims to declare a Jihad against Wikipedia and to plant explosive devices outside Wikipedia facilities worldwide!" This is followed with a list of addresses of locations of Wikipedia offices and servers. It is signed by someone with almost the same name as one of the Wikipedia editors who claims to be a follower of Sect 1.

• A huge fight erupts over whether the Alewites are the same as the Shiites or the Alevi, or the Salafis are the same as the Wahabis. It is very difficult to find sources. Those on various sides of the dispute try to bolster their arguments with nonEnglish sources which you cannot read and judge.

• Since some regard the term "Wahabi" as pejorative, although it is in common use, a campaign to remove it from Wikipedia is begun.

• Several nonWahabi Sunni editors try to introduce paragraphs into articles about Wahabism and Sunni Islam claiming that the Wahabi sect, following the teaching of 18th century Sunni reformer Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab is not real Islam and was secretly created by the Central Intelligence Agency to embarass Muslims and destroy Islam. They include numerous references to Arabic media articles, some of which are translated into English, and some supposedly scholarly publications from religiously oriented universities in the Islamic World.

• Some nonShiite Moslem editors point out that the Supreme Ayatollah of the Shiites must traditionally answer a number of questions in a "thesis" or book before they can be appointed as Ayatollah. Some of these questions are hard to put in a religious context, such as whether a man is allowed to eat a chicken after he has had sex with it, or if he is allowed to cook and serve the chicken later to his friends, families and neighbors [3][4]. These other Muslims claim that the requirement that the Shiite religious leaders must answer such strange questions is prima facie evidence that the Shiites are not real Muslims. The Shiites counter that Allah ordered their religious leaders to ponder such questions, and it is part of an important tradition now, proving that Allah ordered it and that they and only they are the true Muslims.

Wikipedia uses Princeton emeritus professor Bernard Lewis as a source for many of its Muslim articles. Muslim editors claim his peer-reviewed articles and his books are not reliable sources, and demand their removal. When asked why, they claim that it is clear Lewis is biased because he was a consultant to the Bush Administration about the Iraq War. When other sources that agree with Lewis are suggested, they are rejected as also biased because they agree with Lewis.

An Islamic terrorist group announces that they will bomb the upcoming Wikimania conference in Amman, Jordan if their demands are not met. What should be done?

No true Scotsman

You come across an article about the Scottish Science Education League (SSEL), which advertises on its webpages that it lobbies government for the teaching of evolution in science classes in publicly funded schools, and the restriction of creationist teaching to religion classes or religious schools. The founder of the SSEL is one Matthew Rimoni, a resident of Glasgow of Italian descent.

There are 3 or 4 attempts to get the article deleted for lack of notability by assorted anons which are shown by WHOIS to originate in the UK, but you find several letters to the editor by the founders of the SSEL in prominent newspapers throughout the UK, a mention of the SSEL in the European Parliament publications, and a mention of the SSEL in the proceedings of Scottish government debates. The value of this material as sources is hotly disputed by the anons, and edit warring ensues.

The anons then introduce a section quoting a "Matt Rimoni"'s statements, found in the archives of an internet forum page 6 months previously. In the internet forum, this "Matt Rimoni" states that parents who are educating their children in a religious tradition are commmitting child abuse and should have their children taken away from them. It is removed as questionable and repeatedly reinserted. Although they are challenged about the reliability of this source, they claim this source satisfies WP:SSP and so can be used.

At this point, a new Wikipedia editor MRimoni appears to argue that this section about the internet forum quote should be removed, and that the SSEL is notable enough to have an article. The anons claim that Matthew Rimoni is the same person as Matt Rimoni and the same as the Wikipedia editor MRimoni, and that it is a violation of WP:COI to edit the article or its talk page. Some other editors claim that the inclusion of these internet forum quotes is a violation of WP:BLP, but this is rejected by the anons since this article is not a biography.

The arguing becomes heated, and one of the anons calls MRimoni a "damn wog" and a "greasy dago" and "spaghetti boy". The anons tell MRimoni that he does not have the meat balls to do anything about this article.

A friend who is an admin, RipRap, blocks the anon that is making the racial slurs against MRimoni. The other anons claim that RipRap should not have blocked the anon since they are not an uninvolved admin. RipRap has never edited the article on SSEL, but has extensively edited the intelligent design and creationism articles.

It is not free

Y

The Institute for Quantum Healing (IQH) is a nonprofit organization that was founded in Los Angeles by several college dropouts and entrepreneurs. They claim that holding small 10 ml bottles of helium gas under their arms and humming in a particular pattern will excite the quantum energy levels of the helium, and create quantum entanglement between the helium gas atoms and electrons associated with human thought processes, called "thinkons". These thinkons can then be directed by assorted processes developed by the IQH to travel thoughtout the subject's nervous system and heal sickness, or help the subject achieve optimum health.

The founders of the IQH have created a book called "Optimum health through Quantum Healing" with a picture of the founders of IQH wearing Einstein masks and wigs dancing the Macarena on a beach. This is a well known book and it is sold in every major bookstore. Billboards with this image are common throughout the US and internationally, and it is commonly featured on television as well.

Wikipedia uses an image of the book's cover in the article about the book. Some Wikipedia editors also want to use an image of the book's cover in the article about Quantum Healing and possibly in the article about the Institute of Quantum Healing, on the grounds that this helps the reader to identify with the movement, by including a picture of the main book associated with this institute and set of treatments. They seek to apply clause 8 of the NonFree Content Criteria:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

to justify wider use of the image of the cover. Other editors dispute this and a huge battle ensues which spreads to dozens of other images of book covers on other articles, and other images. Things begin to escalate as the two camps become dug in. All kinds of charges of violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are lobbed back and forth.

Come with me

A "Professor" Richard Tation (sometimes known to his friends as Dick) has written a best-selling book promoting his idea that sexual orgasms are caused by a discharge of an unseen form of energy that he calls gob, that is also responsible for lightning. Professor Tation's book is full of page after page of diagrams and complicated looking equations. The Professor has statistics to prove that people who live in places with more thunderstorms have better sex lives, and his company runs tours to some of the places with the most lightning activity. These tours are very popular.

Tation also has developed a machine called a gobbulator that has a number of cones on it that are aimed up at nimbus clouds when a thunderstorm is threatening. The gobbulator is supposed to collect the excess gob energy associated with the threatening thunderstorm and then store it in an insulated box. People purchase these insulated boxes and open them in the bedroom when they are planning to have sex so that the room is perfused with this captured gob energy. Tation even sells small attractive insulated containers that women can wear on chains around their necks to attact male interest at parties.

Several studies by mainstream scientific bodies show that the mathematics and statistics in Professor Tation's books are nonsense, and that there is no measurable gob energy with the properties Tation ascribes to it, and nothing detectable in these insulated boxes of gob. Major scientific and medical bodies release statements about this.

Some point out similarities between Tation's work and that of Wilhelm Reich and between gob energy and orgone energy. This is heavily denied by Tation and his followers since Reich's work ran into legal trouble with the Food and Drug Administration and some of the laws are still on the books, so Tation does not want his products to suffer a similar fate.

Peer-reviewed papers critical of gob energy are published in mainstream journals. Still, the public is enthusiastic as a whole of Tation's work and Tation's businesses bring in many hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

A few articles on gob energy and Professor Tation and his businesses are written for Wikipedia. A few new editors that are followers of Tation's theories appear at Wikipedia. Some editors try to use these skeptical and critical mainstream scientific and medical sources in the article, and run into a dispute.

First it is claimed that it is a violation of WP:CIVIL to disagree with the editors that support Professor Tation. This fails, so then it is claimed that only neutral noncritical sources can be used to satisfy WP:NPOV, by which they mean sources which do not criticize the concept of gob energy.

Any discussion of similarities between gob energy and orgone energy are contested by the pro-Tation editors. When told that the articles should include statements that demonstrate this similarity with appropriate cited sources by the policies of Wikipiedia including WP:NPOV, the pro-Tation editors are incensed. One even creates a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard, starting with:

I'm not interested in opening the debate, just to understand if it has been closed. I have been told that equating gob energy with orgone energy is not a point of view but a principle of the Wikipedia somehow related to the WP:NPOV policy. Was this ever declared as a principle. And if so, where?

Who or what on the Wikipedia has the power to declare such applications of policy as principle?

An angry exchange follows with a lot of wikilawyering.

Then it is claimed that sources critical to the book and negative reviews of the book violate WP:BLP since they reflect poorly on Professor Tation, a living person. Then it is asserted that the "N" in NPOV means that the articles themselves must not judge gob energy, and so the article must be unbiased, containing no negative information or criticism of gob energy. Then it is claimed that it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to include this negative information. Then the complaint is that "If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources". Then it is claimed that to include negative sources is forbidden because it is unencyclopedic. Then the claim is made that it is biased to include sources that are critical. Then the claim is made that any negative material in a reference is unusable since it must be just an opinion by definition. Then it is claimed that only third party sources can be used on Wikipedia. When someone lists some major media like the New York Times and the Associated Press and the London Times and the Chicago Tribune which have written negative articles about gob energy, it is argued that "Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-gob energy, and hence really can't be considered third party." Another attempt at removing critical material is justified by the claim that preventing Tation's supporters from editing the article as they like violated their rights to free speech. It is asserted vehemently that applying any standards to the editing process like NPOV constitutes censorship.

Five or ten of Tation's enthusiastic followers appear at Wikipedia, and more seem to come all the time. A few are blocked for overenthusiasm of one type or another, but it seems two new pro-Tation editors appear for every one that is blocked. The complaint is made that experienced Wikipedia editors are not open to outside information and outside ideas and are extremely biased. Many of these editors, although having almost no edits, seem to be well-acquainted with the acronyms and principles of Wikipedia and wikilawyering, right from their first few edits. This is true in spite of many having red links for their user page and sometimes even their talk pages. Some of these accounts were created a few days ago, some a few weeks ago, and some even months ago.

So how should the articles about Tation and gob energy be written?

The runs

User: Shudder Bugg (SB), also known by his other nickname "Noddes", is a well known contributor of photographs to Wikipedia. The diarrhea article has no illustrations, so SB decides to add some photographs, and submits several photos of soiled underclothing and other assorted messes to Commons.

There is a general uproar by some who view this as unseemly and inappropriate. It is countered that Wikipedia is uncensored. Some claim that Wikipedia will never be taken as a serious academic reference with this kind of content. Others point out that medical texts do include this kind of illustration.

One user, on closely examining the photographs, announces that these pictures were not created with excrement, but with gravy, because of the stain patterns due to the grease content. SB admits that he faked the photographs with gravy instead of fecal material. Some want to remove the photographs and replace them with more realistic photographs, since these faked photographs are a type of deceit. Some argue that more realistic photographs would be even worse than leaving the photographs of the gravy.

SB becomes angry at the criticism and threatens to leave Wikipedia if he is not respected more.

What should be done?

Only good reviews?

A movie comes out that fails miserably at the box office. The reviews are quite negative. However, some WP:SPAs appear and are quite adament that these negative reviews cannot be cited. One writes:

"I think you are not grasping is that the actual film transcript is a reference for describing the film. Relying on film critics is POV."

Things become more and more heated and difficult on the talk page and many of the editors are becoming frustrated with all the arguing.

What should be done? Is it true that negative negative reviews are "POV" and should therefore be excluded? How much disruption should Wikipedia editors tolerate from Single Purpose Accounts that appear to only be involved in tendentious editing and arguing? Is it better to rely on the film transcript than on film reviews to describe the film?

How long is it?

Y A commercially-available DVD is part of the evidence in a trial. The trial transcripts list the DVD as being 75 minutes in length. Amazon.com and several other sites that sell this DVD list it as 75 minutes in length. An editor appears on Wikipedia and claims that the copy he has in his possession is 51 minutes in length, and that Wikipedia must change its article accordingly.

When other editors on Wikipedia disagree with him, he becomes quite adamant about it and combative. This becomes a major complaint at Wikipedia Review about the unfairness of Wikipedia and the bias of Wikipedia and the lack of ethics on Wikipedia.

What should Wikipedia do? What is most reasonable and fair? What is encyclopedic ?

Shockingly

Y

An editor on climatology pages has been adding his own personal etymology for the term "cyclone". This editor claims that the term "cyclone" comes from the words "sigh" and "clone". That is, a cyclone is a big rush of air, like a sigh, and a cyclone is a copy of this rush of air, that is, a clone of a sigh, or a "sigh-clone" or "cyclone".

This editor has no sources for his folk etymology. He edit wars to insert it, and it is removed. He argues for it on the talk pages of the articles. People tell him it violates WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly, which he ignores. After telling him this 28 times in a row, ZZ, a well known editor who writes about climatology on Wikipedia, and author of 26 pieces of featured content, tells him,

Wow that is shockingly incorrect. Do you do this on purpose?

Several admins are outraged and claim that ZZ should be banned. The word that offends them the most is the word "shockingly" in ZZ's post. A very heated thread is generated on the Administrator's Noticeboard about this. Many are disgusted that ZZ would have committed such an egregious offense. No one asks why ZZ wrote this statement. No one chastises the editor who had been spamming the climatology pages with the unsourced etymology of "cyclone". In fact, many jump to the defense of the "sigh-clone" proponent, claiming it is unfair to insist on sources or to argue with this editor or to prevent this editor from including their unsourced etymology in the articles. A huge lynch mob assembles to drive out ZZ for such an uncivil comment and for his "personal attack" on the "sigh-clone" proponent. Some wonder if it will not be a net loss to protect the "sigh-clone" proponent, who has never made an unreverted edit to any article or written any content on Wikipedia, while removing the creator of 26 pieces of featured content. Jimbo's quote about how we do not want to keep jerks around just because they do good work is repeated over and over.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would you do? What is reasonable? What direction is Wikipedia heading in? Should it continue in that direction? What is the best way to create a respected reference work?

That's obscene!

SerGe, an editor from Croatian Dalmatia, starts a campaign to remove the word "cemetary" from all English Wikipedia articles and replace it with "graveyard". SerGe claims that the word "cemetary" is an obscene word in the dialect of the Croatian language he speaks, meaning "semen".

SerGe demands that all others acquiesce to his demands and edit wars to get his way. SerGe makes alliances with others and makes long complicated arguments against the use of the word "cemetary" on the talk pages of Wikipedia. Other editors call his campaign and arguments "silliness" and "foolishness" and "nonsense". No one makes an ad hominem attack against SerGe, but he is greatly incensed and repeatedly complains and files RfCs about this supposed bad behavior and incivility. SerGe even appeals to Arbcomm to try to get those editors who oppose his removal of the word "cemetary" sanctioned. He never provides any sources for his claims that "cemetary" refers to semen, wikilawyering and tying people into a mass of confusing incoherent arguments when asked for sources.

SerGe begins editing the policy pages such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA to slant them to make it easier for him to wage his campaign. When anyone questions him about this dialect of Croatian, he accuses them of being dirty Russian spies and Zionists. SerGe edit wars to try to change the WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V policy pages to remove the need for him to provide sources for his claim that "cemetary" means semen in his obscure dialect of Croatian. Any evidence or sources that contradict SerGe's claims are ignored or dismissed, and the people who provided the evidence and sources attacked as terrorists or worse, and added to SerGe's "enemies list".

Finally someone points out that the Croatian word corresponding to the English word "cemetary" appears throughout the Croatian version of Wikipedia [5]. SerGe counters that this is meaningless, since he speaks a dialect, not the regular Croatian. Surprisingly, even as the evidence mounts against SerGe's claims, large number of Wikipedian's support him. It is claimed that the "anti-cemetary" cabal is dastardly and up to no good and needs to be punished for their uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Many claim that it is uncivil and a personal attack to disagree with SerGe. It is claimed that there is no harm to letting SerGe do as he likes, even if he wants to interpret WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V differently, or to change the definitions of these and other policies entirely.

A mediation case is proposed. SerGe announces that he refuses to take part in the mediation. The case dies.

Interestingly, on the Administrator's Noticeboard and on the talk pages, almost all the supporters of SerGe who argue so vehemently on his behalf, have very limited mainspace article editing histories. Few have more than 1500 mainspace edits over several years. The few that have more than 10,000 total edits have accumulated most of them in talk page discussions and on Wikipedia pages such as AN, AN/I, RfCs, policy pages and Arbcomm pages.

What would you do? What should be done with SerGe and his supporters? Is it important to get sources for SerGe's claims? Should English Wikipedia be censored to remove the potentially offensive word "cemetary"?

Bishopric

Shaun Hannesy O'Flannigan is a current Bishop in Northern Ireland. He is a well known and widely respected figure in Northern Ireland. Recently, a document has come to light that indicates that a few years ago, O'Flannigan had been a member of the terrorist group, Green September. Green September was responsible for a lot of violence during the Troubles, and O'Flannigan supposedly signed a pledge of allegiance to the goals of Green September when he was a young man. Reporters from newspapers try to get a comment from O'Flannigan on the matter, but he declines repeatedly.

The Washington Post publishes a story that notes that O'Flannigan signed this pledge of allegiance and has not renounced membership in Green September or made any comments about his activities in association with Green September. Wikipedia includes a section in O'Flannigan's biography describing this. The Wikipedia article notes that the title of the article in the Washington Post alludes to this pledge of allegiance as a "pro-terrorism manifesto".

An editor appears on Wikipedia who claims to be Thomas O'Reilly, and claims to be a close personal friend of O'Flannigan and a drinking buddy of O'Flannigan. User: O'Reilly starts to edit the O'Flannigan article and discord erupts.

• O'Reilly tries to remove all mention of the Washington Post article from Wikipedia
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan never signed the pledge of allegiance
• O'Reilly claims that the Washington Post never called the pledge of allegiance a "pro-terrorism manifesto" since it was in a title
• O'Reilly claims we have no proof that O'Flannigan signed the pledge of allegiance so we cannot include it in the article
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan was tricked into signing the pledge of allegiance
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan signed a blank piece of paper and that the pledge of allegiance was added later
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan does not subscribe to the terms of the pledge of allegiance and never did and has told him so privately
• O'Reilly edit wars to try to introduce long complicated explanations O'Reilly has invented of how O'Flannigan's name came to be on the pledge of allegiance, but O'Reilly has no sources backing up his theories
• O'Reilly wants Wikipedia to include 2 long paragraphs denouncing the Washington Post and the reporter for shoddy journalism and unethical behavior for writing the story
• O'Reilly claims that Wikipedia is being unethical by including the information from the Washington Post
• O'Reilly claims that it is obvious to everyone that a Bishop in the church would never sign such a pledge, and therefore Wikipedia is guilty of violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS and so on
• O'Reilly belittles and attacks anyone who does not agree with him, spewing acres of venom on the talk pages
• O'Reilly claims that the pledge of allegiance is not a pro-terrorism manifesto, no matter what it looks like or what the media or authorities say

Wikipedia editors contact O'Flannigan several times to see if he will make a comment or if there is a statement made by O'Flannigan published somewhere that can be referenced to give O'Flannigan's views on the matter. O'Flannigan promises to make such a statement, but never does. Wikipedia editors suggest that O'Reilly arrange for O'Flannigan to make a statement on his position in their Church Newsletter so Wikipedia can use that as a source, but O'Reilly never does, even though O'Reilly is asked to do so over and over.

O'Reilly becomes incensed that this article from the Washington Post is included in the biography of O'Flannigan. O'Reilly claims it is a violation of WP:BLP to include this in the biography, since there is no evidence that O'Flannigan signed the pledge. Wikipedia editors offer to remove the O'Flannigan article from Wikipedia, but O'Reilly objects strenuously.

What should Wikipedia do? How should the biography of O'Flannigan be written? What sort of material violates the WP:BLP standard in this case? Is the Washington Post a reliable source? Is there any evidence that O'Flannigan signed the pledge? Does O'Flannigan support the goals of Green September if he never renounced the goals or made any statements? Can the pledge be described as a "pro-terrorism manifesto" if the Washington Post, several other sources as well as plain reading of the text seem to suggest?

Nursery rhyme

Twinkle, twinkle little star is a well known children's nursery rhyme. The Wikipedia article attempts to trace its earliest appearance in written form and includes other information about this rhyme and tune. Two Czech editors appear and claim that the information in Wikipedia about the origins of Twinkle, twinkle little star is incorrect. Instead of the tune being first published as "Ah! vous dirai-je, Maman" in 1761 in 'Les Amusements d'une Heure et Demy' by Mr. Bouin (Paris) as Wikipedia reports, they claim it is far older and not French in origin at all, but Czech. They claim that the song was originally a piece of Czech organ music, and the words "twinkle" and "star" are bastardizations of archaic Czech words for "savior" and "cruxifiction". To back up their claims they argue confusingly on the talk page and present several Czech documents. Computer translations of these Czech documents produce nothing to back up their claims. The Czech editors throw out insults and are abusive that the other information in the article is not deleted and replaced with their claims.

How would you handle this situation? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia devote to this question? Should the Czech story be included in the Wikipedia article? Can the computer translations be trusted?

Can you ever be too civil?

A movement to restore the gold standard in the United States gains momentum as stagflation develops. Several editors change many articles on finance and economics and history to reflect their special views exclusively. They are very aggressive, and object to being labelled by the phrase "goldbug," claiming it is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

When an admin calls one of them a "gold standard supporter", an RfC is filed with the goal of having sanctions placed on the admin for this uncivil comment and also for a violation of WP:NPA. Many join in, screaming for blood. However, the RfC fails to reach its goal. Nevertheless, the talk pages become progressively more heated.

Eventually one of the editors trying to maintain order when dealing with a particularly belligerent proponent of a return to the gold standard writes WP:DNFTT on the talk page of an article. This suggestion that the belligerent editor is a troll is declared to be abusive by the gold standard proponents, as well as a cadre of WP "editors" who do no editing but only hang around the noticeboads and the arbcomm pages trying to pick fights.

This mob declares that the term "troll" is a violation of WP:CIVIL, as is the essay and link WP:DNFTT. The policy pages are rewritten accordingly, with a huge amount of turmoil. Since the essay linked to WP:DNFTT is declared a violation of CIVIL, the main editors responsible for this essay are singled out as violators of CIVIL. A huge RfC against these editors is started. As this picks up momentum, an effort is made to compile a list of all those who have ever typed DNFTT on Wikipedia and charge them with a violation of CIVIL as well. As the madness spreads, the policy WP:TE and the essay WP:DE come under a similar attack.

Demands are made, supported by long petitions on- and off-wiki, that WP:DNFTT, WP:DE and WP:TE pages be dleted as a violation of WP:CIVIL. In addition, there are demands that anyone who has ever referred to any of these should be punished for violating CIVIL, and that the principle authors of these essays and policy should be banned from Wikipedia. An RfAr is begun, which is very long with a huge number of links and participants.

What should be done in this situation? If CIVIL is good, isn't more civility better? Who decides what is uncivil? What should the standards be? What civility standards do you think exist in research laboratories at MIT, Cambridge University, Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard? Behind the scenes at CNN, Fox News and the BBC? At the New York and London Times? The Wall Street Journal? At Yahoo! and Myspace and Google? Encyclopedia Britannica? Does it make a difference if the organization is a volunteer organization? Are volunteer organizations more or less civil? For example, are volunteer fire departments and the Red Cross held to special civility standards? The volunteer US military forces? Is it possible to go overboard with witch hunts against purported CIVIL violators? Is calling an idea silly a violation of WP:CIVIL and a personal attack? Is disagreeing with another editor a violation of WP:CIVIL, even if done politely? Can CIVIL be used as a weapon?

The atomic bomb does not exist

Du Fuss, an editor who has a long history of trying to aggressively introduce bizarre theories into Wikipedia begins to work on including his own personal theory of matter into articles about radioactivity and particle physics. He explains:

Sometimes, when a scientist stands on a set a theories, it is like religion. The debate between intelligent design and the theory of evolution does not seem like science. I concluded that after I tried follow traditional faiths of churches and common theories of science. I did find useful wisdom from both. Instead of any worry to wonder which is true, I knew that everything that I can sense is true, and that is what really mattered to me. Why not start with what we know!

I have had a few topic deep discussions with my professors. When I argued that there is no such thing as "subatomic," they did not argue back. I explained my reason. An atom is indivisable, so the existence of a sub-atom is illogical.

An example of the kind of text Du Fuss tries to introduce into several Wikipedia articles follows:

Click to see an excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a science that is about subatomic particles. It seems like it would contradict science itself based on my stated reason. Except, subatomic particles are virtual. They are like a placeholder to describe events. Not everybody preceives subatomic particles the same way, as there are many that still preceive them as a subatomic reality. Quantum mechanics is about subatomic particles, or at least how to manipulate atoms by the use of virtual subatomic particles. Some want to believe quantum mechanics is purely mechanical, while others understand the virtualness and its application to reality. It is hard to tell a science graduate that they do not understand the use of the word "subatomic" when they have aced their tests. Perhaps, it is a science trap created by scientist to test graduates. The system of subatomic particles is finite. In reality, the subatomic particles represent dimensions of a periodic atom. We can chart the energy levels of an atom. If we use protons, neutrons, and electrons, we get a three dimensional chart. That three dimensional chart is directly related to the physics of our preceived three dimensional world. A box is a three dimensional (3D) object -- it has height, width, and depth. Some objects are only two dimensional (2D), like the height and width of a flat-screen TV. We can preceive 3D objects through a 2D screen. A box on a 2D screen looks like it has depth, but it is our minds that relates depth to what looks like a 3D object. The box is virtually 3D through a 2D screen reality. Quantum mechanics tries to do to atoms what the 2D-screen did to virtualize a 3D-box. The neutron, proton, and electron are compareable to height, width and depth, but not that they actually mean the height, width, and depth of an atom. They are just names for dimensions. The box has dimensions called height, width, and depth. An atom has dimensions called neutron, proton, and electron. If we can virtually render a 3D-object, like the box, with a 2D-object, like the screen, then we should be able to virtually render a 4D-object with a 3D-object. We can draw a 3D-spherical object to represent a 3D-atom, but we can also use that 3D-spherical object to render a virtual 4D-atom. Since people preceive quantum mechanics differently, we'll find descriptions of that 4D-atom as if it really existed in this 3D-physical world. Actually, we'll find terminology that is best used for 3D-physical characteristics used instead for 4D-objects and it gives the appearance as if the 4D-object exists in 3D-space. That is one way of how the word "subatomic" associates to something divisable from something indivisable when "subatomic" actually associates to something virtual. One may wonder if atoms are really 4D-objects instead of 3D-objects. One may further wonder if our world is not just 3D-space. It is found that our world is made of many dimensions beside the prominent perception of simple 3D-space. We also find that atoms are not just 3D, and science has known about this for quite some time. Science does not try to fool people that our world is only 3D-space, but 3D-space is what we have to work with in order to teach about 4D-objects or objects with many more dimensions. It is like an art to take multidimensional objects and render them in 3D-space for us to easily understand, like the periodic chart of the elements. The chart only maps what is stable in a 3D-physical world onto 2D-space. There are other systems besides quantum mechanics and subatomic particles. One that uses atomic matrices instead of atoms is preferable. The atomic matrices are dimensionally infinite by its own lack of dimensional properties. A compound of atomic matrices can describe a chemical element or other objects. Subatomic particles are a brilliant device, but one can connect things together like Lego blocks.

Du Fuss includes sources, but when checked, the sources do not support the text he is proposing. When other editors try to revert his changes, he becomes combative, using a wide range of disruptive techniques. For example, Du Fuss leaves an incomprehensible message at another editor’s talk page. After the other editor replies that he cannot parse the statement, Du Fuss calls the other editor uncivil for having not understood it, while simultaneously editing his own previous statement to make it comprehensible. He repeatedly files reports of fictitious 3RR violations, which when checked do not satisfy the requirements for a 3RR violation. When admins approach to question him about his editing, Du Fuss attacks the admins for bad blocks or decisions the admins made 6 months or 1 year ago, trying to deflect attention from himself. When some suggest that Du Fuss should not be editing Wikipedia, or at least should try to reform, several Wikipedia Review editors who know Du Fuss from Wikipedia Review challenge these suggestions as a direct attack on Wikipedia Review. They furiously accuse the WP editors and admins of trying to revisit the BADSITES debate.

What should be done about Du Fuss? Is it possible to get Du Fuss to stop editing or to stop editing in a disruptive fashion?