Okee dokee, here are some of the violations I found in the recent unpleasantness. Some are more important than others, and some are stronger cases than others. But in no particular order, and in an ad hoc format, here's what I came up with in the last couple of hours: First, not a violation, but Timwi specifically asked about policies encouraging additions and discouraging deletions. To clarify, I didn't mean a hard-and-fast rule-- of course some deletions are good and some additions are bad. But it's a theme I picked up a few times on various newbie and policy pages. I'll see if I can find the references again. ... OK, here are some: . the advice to "Be bold in updating pages" and the page thereof seem to favor additions. . "Editing Policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AEditing_policy) emphasizes additions over deletions throughout the text. The section "On editing styles" discourages deletions without preserving what's deleted plus comments why it was deleted. It says "whatever you do, try to preserve information". . on "Wikiquette", it says "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss." . there is a general desire to end up with content that is the superset of all relevant viewpoints. --------- Now, the violations, with the requested complete quoting and explanation: 1) On "Blocking policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy), it lists specifically when sysops are permitted to block users. Oberiko violated this when s/he blocked me, since none of the reasons applied. 2) On "How to revert a page to an earlier version" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AHow_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier…), the section "Explain reverts" details just that policy. It says that one of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is "Always explain your reverts" (though that does not show up on the actual policy and guidelines page). This was violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang for most of the times they reverted my addition. 3) On "Dealing with vandalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADealing_with_vandalism), it defines vandalism: "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The page goes on to list examples of non-vandalism, and types of vandalism. Texture repeatedly called my addition vandalism, which it clearly is not according to this page. Even after I called him on it, and pointed him to this page, he didn't answer my charge, and persisted in calling my text "vandalism". I don't see how he could be acting in good faith here. Texture then used the "vandalism" charge to justify his other policy-violating actions, such as deleting without explanation, or calling his deletion "minor". 4) I can't remember where I originally saw this, but on "Minor edit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMinor_edit) it says that "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text." (third paragraph) Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang all marked their deletions as "minor", which violates the quoted policy twice. I don't know why they did this; you experienced users would know the benefit of it better than I do. 5) On "Policies and Guidelines" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines) under "Key Policies": a) "1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically." Texture and Oberiko were not fair or sympathetic toward my view, and enforced their own POV my removing my edit that had reduced the POV-ness (as others besides me have pointed out). b) "4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Dispute resolution." Nothing Texture or Oberiko did was respectful to me; see my user page and the Reagan history page for examples. 6) On "Policies and Guidelines", under "Specific guidelines to consider": a) "Please do not bite the newcomers", and the page linked to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APlease_do_not_bite_the_newcomers). Texture and Oberiko violated this in a few ways, some of which are listed on the page linked to ("understand newcomers' value...", "try not to make hostile comments...", "assume good faith", arguably others). b) "Avoid blanket statements" The sentence I was appending to (and which Texture and Oberiko reverted to) is a blanket statement, if we take "United States" to mean the citizens of the United States. 7) On "Avoiding common mistakes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAvoiding_common_mistakes): a) "Deleting useful content. Just because something is written poorly doesn't mean it lacks a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. ... [long paragraph]" b) "Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content." c) "Deleting without justifying. Except in the most obvious cases, deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the edit "Summary" or on the talk page. If the justification is presented in the Talk page, it's sufficient to write "See talk" in the edit summary box." ----- All of these were violated by Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang when they deleted my addition. 8) On "Wikiquette" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiquette), under "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette": a) "Assume the best about people whenever possible." Texture and Oberiko assumed I was malicious (or so they said; I think they were just being partisan). b) "Avoid reverting and deleting" and "Amend, edit, discuss." Texture, Oberiko, and Jiang reverted and deleted without discussion. c) "Be polite." Examples of their impoliteness are on my talk page, in edit summaries, and in the reason Oberiko gave for blocking me. d) "Don't ignore questions." Questions I asked in edit summaries and on Texture's talk page were ignored by Texture, which I see s/he's done elsewhere too. -------------------------------------------------- Phew. Hope that helps. I'm feeling pretty glazed now. I'll catch up with you all later. Best, James ............................................................................ James Marshall james(a)jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,-- "Teach people what you know." ............................................................................