I have tried and tried, politely, to re-edit and make acceptable the page about the popular Newgrounds cartoon "Retarded Animal Babies", which had been deleted in 2006 for reasons that aren't clear.

And yet, every attempt I made has been shot down aggressively.

I was doing this Wiki page purely as a favor for a friend, the creator of the cartoons. It looks like someone in the Wiki gang is very hostile to the RAB cartoon--and I have no idea why. (Admittedly it's one of the most offensive and politically incorrect web cartoons around. But the hostility people showed me was bizarre and inexplicable.)

This is the article I was editing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

Basic description of what happened is here, where I asked some musician friends and customers for help:

http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=658
http://muffwiggler.blogspot.com/2008/02/re...es-in-need.html

My personal blog post (after I gave up) is here:

Post from my personal blog about the whole mess

Yes, every favorable comment other people tried to post at the deletion review (and several people say they tried) was deleted. At least, I can't find a trace of them.
Everyone who looked at this agreed that the references I found were adequate...except those few "trusted editors" who ended up being the executioners.

(As it happens, one of the "trusted editors" I ran afoul of was none other than "Irishguy".)

I'd just like to understand how these people can be so high-handed, about a subject they are not experts on. Did an RAB episode offend someone, and he/she's started a religious war over it? Comments are welcome.

What kind of people did you find to say those references were adequate? Two of your three listed references aren't about the thing, and one doesn't even mention it in passing.

Wow, they let you use the F-word in a blogspot subdomain? Awesome!

Anyhoo, I don't see how anyone could help but be offended by Episode 19, and if the earlier ones are even close to that level of offensiveness...

I do wonder sometimes if Wikipedia is getting a little more prudish as its user community grows up, graduates from high school and college, and gets real-world jobs and kids and all that sort of thing. It's not easy to quantify, of course... it's just a vague impression at this point, but to be honest, we're not exactly helping your cause here at Wikipedia Review, either - most of us give them quite a hard time for all the porn imagery and other "non-family-friendly" content they've got over there.

What they really need is a content-filtering feature based on user preference settings and codes embedded in the articles, possibly using cookies (though cookies are another can o' worms, of course). But that's just one of many features they need over there.

Um, sorry, but the Hartford Advocate article isn't available online. If I read the rules properly, references do NOT have to be readily available on a website to be considered valid.

So you insist that any references HAVE to focus on the subject at hand, no exceptions? That will be a problem---Mr. Lovelace has not been frantically chasing fame and publicity (unlike, say, the founder of Wikipedia)....so there are few "official-looking" references available.

His cartoon is a huge hit and was featured on Happy Tree Friends' TV show. One of the even MORE obscure cartoons featured on the HTF show, "Angry Kid", DOES have a lengthy Wiki page.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Kid

Please. Tell me where the references for THAT are.

And what about Harvey Birdman? It too was on the HTF show, AND on Cartoon Network. Look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Birdma..._Law#References

Are those good references? The first one is a press release, the second one is about the video game based on the show (not the show itself), the third one is a press release, and the fourth one is also about the game....

Sorry, I'm ranting. It just smells like favoritism of some kind. The "rules" are being applied in an extremely inconsistent fashion.

Yes, that's it exactly. You can argue with them until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't matter. They've decided that RAB won't have an article and that's pretty much the end of it. You're trying to reason with people who are unreasonable, with the expected result.

Eric, if we were on wikipedia, I would point you towards WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact a bad article or an article lacking good references exists doesn't mean yours should exist too, it means the other one shouldn't exist either. It's not favouritism, it's that nobody has gotten around to either deleting or fixing Angry Kid or Harvey Birdman - Attorney at Law (which depends on if references can be found)

If and when you can find reliable non-blog references that are about RAB primarily, let me know via my talk page on Wikipedia, and I will help you and make sure the article is created and stays. If you can't find them, then there won't (and shouldn't) be an article.

this gives me an idea....

Dave and I will put out a press release screaming:

"WEB CARTOON BANNED BY WIKIPEDIA"

And then, you will have references.

They've thought of that one. A press release is not a reliable source. Thus anything based on a press release is not a reliable source, even if it appears in a respectable newspaper.

You might be on to something here, Eric.

Sorry, if you're not getting much sympathy here or from me for that matter. There are numerous reasons why Reviewers might not readily embrace your cause. The article is crufty. It is not encyclopedic. It shows a lack of editorial restraint. It is poorly sourced. It is the kind of thing we make fun of all the time.

But still your remark above rings true. You see you are playing encyclopedia according the the manifest rules. Looking around you figure if it's sauce for the goose it's sauce for the gander. And it is perfectly true that many articles are as flawed as the one put forward. So why can't you make the article stick? Well there is also a latent level to this MMORPG. This is a Seekrit Level without posted rules or policies. To be able to carry off the successful creation such a flawed article requires a large amount social influence and extensive alliances. There was once a guy on En.Wikipedia, a god really, that if he liked a sandwich the deli got an article. But the level latent power is very hard to maintain.

And SlimVirgin will be the final arbiter as to whether the respectable newspaper has or has not "based" its article on the press release. Also, if you are a back-room movie producer, then your press releases may indeed be used as a reliable source that you have "injected" yourself into the world of public figures.

Greg

I understand the "Seekret" part. It's a circle jerk, of sorts. But help me out here.

Is there a clear definition of "encyclopedic"? I actually took a lot of material out of the article because of the complaints about its length. Should I shorten it further?

Nobody has drive-by shot at the article about my company. (Yet.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasonix

Is that cruft? Is it "encyclopedic"? Are the references crap or adequate?
Just curious.

That should be well-sourced enough for just about anybody, except that now you've mentioned it here, and they'll probably come up with some sort of objection based on that alone...

But seriously, you're that Eric Barbour? The brains (or maybe should I say "gonads") behind the TM-7 Scrotum Smasher distortion unit? I thought about buying one of those a while ago, but I was worried it might cause prostate cancer.

Only if you rub your wee-wee on it.

(Don't laugh too much--we just shipped Scrotum Smasher serial # 110....)

Thanks to all for your criticism. Isn't it interesting that people are far more polite on this "Wikipedia criticism" forum than they are on Wikipedia proper. Wikipedia is like Audio Asylum--it seems to attract the more broken kinds of personalities.

Wikipedia is a wonderful place to meet people who reside in the Axis II Section of DSM IV.

Ooh! That sounds like a good slogan for the banner at the top of the page. Take note, Somey . . . .

Hmf. Obviously the "banning" of Retarded Animal Babies tends to pale, in comparison to some other Wikipedia fun.

That business with Jimbo and Rachel Marsden is really quite disgusting. He IS a married man, isn't he??

A SEX SCANDAL...involving Jimbo Wales??? Nooooo!!!!

That really tears it. I'm not writing or editing any more articles for that outfit. Citizendium, here I come.