Are you perhaps a Vogon?
John Scalzi (maker of Schadenfreude pies, taper of bacon to cats) and a user named Quatloo go mano-a-mano over adding noted sci-fi/horror/fantasy author Fred Saberhagen's recent death (RIP) to Saberhagen's Wikipedia entry. Scalzi's sources are Harlan Ellison and the Science Fiction Writer's Association of America website; Quatloo does not accept these as reliable Wikipedia sources according to The Most Holy WP:RS. Wank ensues:

Do what you want, Quatloo. Oddly enough, Saberhagen remains dead despite your refusal to allow Wikipedia to acknowledge it, and if you don't think Harlan Ellison is sufficiently reliable source in this particular case, you're a goddamned fool. Scalzi

A reliable source is required. Surely if someone as eminent as Saberhagen has died, a reliable source could be located. Ellison may be mistaken; he is not a reliable source by any definition. Quatloo 02:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. He was called by a personal friend of the Saberhagens with the news, a personal friend who is also well known in fannish circles. Your own apparently inability to grasp who is a reliable source in this case is no reason for Wikipedia not to carry accurate information. Scalzi

A "who" can never be a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. Quatloo 03:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, do you bottle your own "pointlessly officious" juice or do you have someone else bottle it for you? Harlan Ellison, aside from being one of the most notable names in history of science fiction, says that Fred Saberhagen, his personal friend, has died. He in turn has gotten this information from someone whom the Saberhagens themselves have asked to pass along the information. Just out of curiosity, from whom do you think what you would qualify as a "reliable source" will get its information? If the Wikipedia set-up doesn't recognize these sources as reliable, it's an idiotic set-up. And as I've noted before, when we discover that Saberhagen has been dead all this time, and you've been the one holding up the informaton because you can't grasp who qualifies as a reliable source, you're going to look like a fool. Scalzi

A published source, like, oh, a newspaper. Not a person, not a blog, not a message forum. I had suggested you read WP:RS, which tells you what qualifies as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Apparently you still have not. I know exactly what qualifies as a reliable source. You have demonstrated repeately that you do not. Quatloo 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is but a fraction of the entire exchange, because Quatloo is a rule-enforcing machine, baby! In fact, he may actually be a machine, I don't know; he's certainly programmed with an astonishing number of ways to repeat NO NOT A SOURCE READ THE RULES, even in the face of other users weighing in:

Locus Magazine is a reliable and primary source, end of story. please use judgment, not maniacal skepticism, when considering the merit of sources. Note that publishing something does not change its reliability, nor citability. --Buridan 10:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

His argument is carried over from the time prior to Locus Magazine publishing the information in question. He wanted to know if Harlan Ellison (the physical person by himself) can be used as a source for Wikipedia, and the answer is of course, no. If a primary source is used at all, it can only be used for first-person information, and only in limited cases at that. Harlan Ellison The Individual cannot be used as a source for the death of Fred Saberhagan. Quatloo 11:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually harlan ellison was fine too, published on his blog or website, or even in personal communication, so long as it is publishable and verifiable. --Buridan 11:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

False. See WP:RS and WP:Verifiability. Quatloo 11:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

True, see wp:rs and wp:Verifiability. --Buridan 12:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal favorite part:

Quatloo, you are clearly not qualified to decide who is reliable. Are you perhaps a Vogon? (Kevin Marks 08:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

As of this writing, by the way, it's still going.

P.S. I should note, by the way, that I came across this when Scalzi took it to the streets to his blog in hopes that "by noting his death here, at the site of a best-selling, Campbell-winning, two-time Hugo nominated science fiction author, possibly there it has been now sufficiently documented that it'll pass inspection by the Wikipedia Officious Prick Brigade."