Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC).

Geo Swan (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Geo Swan has created many pages related to Guantanamo, Al Qaida-related terrorism, and other things in the same sphere. Many of these articles are about or directly involve biographies of living people. However, many of these articles are not fit for the mainspace, as evidenced by over 200 pages that have been in the mainspace for over a month, and have since been deleted or userfied (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan/Deletions). Every check of his creations reveals between the many unproblematic pages more of such policy- or guideline-violating pages, which then have to be taken to AfD or another deletion process. Both in his more recent creations, and in deletion debates, it has become obvious that this is not a problem from the past, but a continuing one, requiring some more drastic, preventative action.

Desired outcome

User:Geo Swan voluntarily refrains from creating anymore BLP-related articles (broadly construed) in the mainspace or in userspace until both his existing articles in the mainspace and in the userspace are checked and made fully compliant with BLP (and other policies) or deleted. BLP-related articles include articles about court cases, court documents, lists of people that include living people, and so on. Afterwards, Geo Swan creates any such articles in his userspace in a reasonable amount of time, where they can be checked for their compliance with policies (BLP, OR, ...) and guidelines (WP:BIO) before being moved to the mainspace. Such checks should not be done by anyone currently or recently involved in the deletion debates related to such articles (no matter which side of the spectrum they are from), but by uninvolved experienced editor(s).

Geo Swan also refrains from userfying any articles during this period, and afterwards, if any other articles are userfied, either brings them back to the mainspace or deletes them after six months.

After a reasonable time and number of such articles without problems, Geo Swan can return to the normal article creation process in the mainspace.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan/Deletions provides a list of all articles created by Geo Swan that spent at least one month in the mainspace, and have since been deleted or userfied. This list doesn't include redirects, swiftly corrected errors, ... but also ignores the many pages that never left his userspace and have been deleted as well, even though there are quite a few BLP violations in those as well. This list spans all his years of contributions, i.e. over five years, so teh sheer volume of it is to show that it is a long ongoing problem. This gives an indication of the number of MfD's about his pages (not all of them ended in delete, mind you, but the vast majority did). The following points all relate to recent activity though.
The problem is ongoing: e.g. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullah Rahmatullah, Geo Swan completely rewrote the disputed article, making it about a different person than the originally nominated one, only to have it deleted anyway because the new article also didn't meet our policies and guidelines. His claim "It is possible that the Taliban had multiple leaders named Rahmatullah. In other afd challengers asked for more references after I had created multiple articles when I thought multiple references referred to multiple individuals. Challengers there expressed a challenge 180 degrees opposed to those voiced here. Challengers there thought I needed further references to support that all the multiple references weren't pointing to a single individual. Here, in this afd, I am being asked for further references to substantiate that multiple references are all to the same individual." shows that he doesn't seem to understand what the problem is: if he makes claims about people, he has to provide the sources to substantiate them, no matter if the claim is that it is about different people or about one person.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports. After basically everyone in that discussion has stated that yes, these are primary sources, Geo Swan replies "Similarly, it seems to me you are suggesting redefining what we mean by the distinction between primary and secondary sources." Nowhere does he acknowledge that these sources are indeed primary. Worse, one week after this very clear discussion, Geo Swan states that "I disagree with your characterization of the references as "primary sources". Documents where an independent party collates multiple earlier reports, reconciles discrepancies, strips out duplicates, and summarizes their own conclusions, are "secondary sources", by any reasonable definition."[1]
Geo Swan often promises to deal with the problems, but generally doesn't live up to that promise. E.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112 was about 90+ BLPviolating abandoned userpages. Geo Swan promised to move them to Wikisource, but abandoned this effort and only deleted the first of these pages. This means that these incorrect pages about BLPs are still in his userspace, despite a clear deletion discussion and clear exmples of what was wrong with some of them.
Only this week, we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives, which was deleted by Alison as a G10 delete for serious BLP violations. Geo Swan responds to this deletion with the remark: "My understanding of our deletion policies is that deletion is supposed to be based on whether the topic merits coverage, not on concerns over the current state of the article."[2] This again makes it clear that he doesn't understand our deletion policies (which is amazing considering all the AfD, RfD and MfDs he has been involved in), and that he doesn't understand or care about our BLP policies and the seriousness of the violations in that article.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

See above section on disputed behaviour, and also:

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

See above section on disputed behaviour.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

-- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Blueboy 96 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- IQinn (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero | My Talk 00:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I think the most important thing for me to say is that I have a firm commitment to all the wikipedia policies. I think anyone who gives a thorough reading of my contribution history will see that I have done my best to give a meaningful response to every civil challenge; that I have done my best to openly acknowledge mistakes, and do my best to fix them; that mine is not a "single purpose account". Some of the respondents here have said they think I generally conduct myself in good faith. That is incorrect. I have always conducted myself in good faith, in every single edit I have made. Period. It is just under 48 hours since this RfC/U was initiated. I don't understand whether I have to respond within 48 hours. I am drafting a response. I am leaving this brief note here now so I have responded within 48 hours. Geo Swan (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing for me to repeat is that I have worked hard to always comply with all the wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I believe my efforts to comply have been largely successful. I never expected to succeed 100 percent of the time, so I am also committed to taking seriously and offering a civil and meaningful response to those who raise a civil concern in a clear manner. I believe that I have largely succeeded in this also. I sometimes do my best to offer civil and meaningful responses to concerns that weren't clearly expressed, or weren't civil.

I am going to address several aspects of this RfC/U

As above, I am committed to full compliance with the spirit and the letter of all the wikipedia's policies.
I agree with Rich Farmbrough's comment that this RfC/U was improperly certified -- it seems to me that Fram did not make anything like a civil, collegial, good faith attempt to explain their concern prior to initiating this RfC/U.
Fram has characterized my user conduct as an ongoing concern -- one that requires imposing limits on my contributions. I believe the record shows the opposite. The record shows that I have recognized that some valid concerns have been drawn to my attention, and I have taken those concerns into account.
Some of the other contributors here have stated or implied that I have been creating articles that I knew did not comply with our biographies of living persons, for years. This is incorrect.
One of the comments here implies that I have an ongoing pattern of repeatedly and improperly restoring deleted material. This is incorrect.

1.

I'd like to repeat that I have always been committed to fully complying with both the letter and spirit of all our policies, guidelines and established conventions. When I don't agree with those policies I will still comply with them, and I will do my best to do so cheerfully and graciously. We have fora where good faith contributors can voice good faith opinions on policy changes. I'll confine my disagreement to civil comments in those fora.

2.

Rich Farmborough voiced the opinion that this RfC/U was not properly certified. I agree with this opinion. Briefly, I believe the record shows Fram, the initiator of this RfC/U did not make a meaningful, policy compliant, effort to explain their concerns. Further, they repeatedly rebuffed my efforts to engage them in a collegial dialogue.

Rather than provide lots of diffs here I am going to quote the edit summary of this comment Fram's from November 4th.

Fram wrote: "Congratulations, you have just ruined any chance at future cooperation". What exactly had I done to earn a comment full of such emotional triggers? It seems to me I had done nothing to merit this kind of comment. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo_Swan#Congratulations, you have just ruined any chance at future cooperation.

3 a.

Fram has characterized my user conduct as an on-going problem -- an on-going problem requiring limits to be placed on my activities. This is incorrect. Some contributors have raised concerns about my contributions that have drawn my attention to aspects of our policies that I had not been taking into account. In particular, there were some deleted articles that for which I had requested userification that did not comply with staledraft. I have requested userification of a handful of articles in recent months. I userified them to new names under names like: User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Abdul Razzak Hekmati. The names I wanted them put under contain the date they were userified.

Six months seems to be the time limit many people think should exist for userified former articles. By the end of June, if the concerns that lead to User:Geo Swan/Userified 2011-01/Abdul Razzak Hekmati being deleted haven't been addressed, I'll see that the userspace file is deleted. I will do this for any deleted article for which I request userification and I will do this for any article for which I was the sole author intellectual content, which I move to userspace myself.

I am quite concerned with Fram's suggestion that I agree to not userify material, as that is by far the best technique for merging a lot of material people have challenged. A lot of the material that has been challenged and deleted has had those who favor deletion saying (paraphrasing) "does not merit an article of its own" while acknowledging some of the material could fit in a more general article.

3 b.

Some contributors here have repeated their concern over some DoD authored documents I have used.

For those who don't know, I read all the documents that the DoD was forced to publish from the Guantanamo captives' annual status reviews. I was the original contributor to several hundred articles on those captives that relied largely, or almost entirely on those documents. Another several hundred articles rely both on those documents, and on press reports, or reports published by scholars or human rights workers.

My use of these documents has been challenged.

In the first year or so after I started using those references 90 percent of the {{afd}} were concluded as "keep", or "no consensus". Those challenges come in tides. Whether they closed as "delete", "keep", or "no consensus" has also come in tides.

I read our policies. I re-read them regularly. We have, however, a problem. Our policies are in a state of constant flux. Recently I was challenged for using these references when BLP prohibits relying on "public documents". This surprised me, as I thought I was sufficiently familiar with BLP. It turned out that I was familiar with earlier versions of BLP.

I will comply with all our policies. Now that I have been made aware thatthis phrase has been added to the policy I am complying with it. I do think I am entitled to try to trace how this change entered the policy, as I consider it a major change, and I could find no record of any discussion on the talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo_Swan#BLP, "public documents" and documenting policy changes.

4.

As above, our policies change. Our standards change. No contributor should be described as a problematic contributor for contributing material, in good faith, that complied with the policies and standards at the time they contributed it, if those policies and standards have changed in the meantime.

I am not suggesting any material should be grandfathered, because it complied with our standards when it was created. But, often, deletion is not the only remedy. When the problem is an article has no references, or has bad references, one remedy is to look for and use better references. When the problem is the insertion of copyrighted material, one remedy is to rollback the article to prior to the insertion of the copyrighted material.

5.

I'd like to respond to some of the outside opinions offered. In particular I'd like to respond to Stifle's comment, which contains serious inaccuracies. Stifle wrote that:

"when they are deleted, has them userfied and they sit indefinitely in userspace, or are moved back to mainspace, re-AFDed, and re-userfied ad nauseam."

I am concerned that reaqders who take Stifle's comment at face value would interpret it as if I had an ongoing pattern of repeatedly restoring deleted articles. I am concerned that the face value of this comment is that I have restored many deleted articles, "ad nauseum".

I have restored some deleted articles, after they were userified. I think I have been careful, when doing so. I can't recall any that were deleted following a subsequent {{afd}}. I doubt any administrator would agree to userify an article a second, third, fourth time, if they thought that article was going to be restored to article space, unless the requester could show there were really significant new references.

I acknowledged above that I had userified articles that went stale. I acknowledge this again. I have recently, since staledraft was drawn to my attention, requested deletion of a great many of them. There are some remaining to address. Why haven't I addressed all of them? My health.

Several administrators warned Fram that his or her intense scrutiny of my activities gave the appearance of bullying. I felt bullied. My blood pressure rose to dangerous levels. I had to take a break or I could have had a stroke.

I remember that the warning under the save button used to bluntly warn contributors that by clicking "save" they were agreeing they understood that their contributions could be "edited ruthlessly". I agreed to that. But my interpretation of that warning is that we are only agreeing to cope with challengers who remain civil and collegial. My interpretation of that warning is that our challengers are authorized to be very candid on editorial issues. My interpretation of that warning is that it absolutely does not warn us to expect personal reflections on our motives or our character.

Users who endorse this summary:

Geo Swan (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Gigs

It is always difficult when a user who is acting primarily in good faith begins to run afoul of our policies. Geo Swan has conducted extensive collation of primary source material that borders on original research. This, in itself, is not necessarily forbidden in user space as an adjunct to article development, but when the subjects of the material are low profile living people, we must apply our policies more strictly.

I and others have repeatedly asked Geo Swan to remove excessive primary source material about low profile individuals to his local PC or other hosting. Instead of taking advice, Geo Swan seems to take this as a personal attack and has resisted most guidance.

Fram has been accused of being on a harassment campaign against Geo Swan. I can't comment much on this, other than to say that I believe most of the MfD and AfD nominations have been in line with our policies regarding excessive primary source material on low profile individuals.

Users who endorse this summary:

Gigs (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IQinn (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero | My Talk 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Especially agree with 'resisted most guidance'. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Fetchcomms

I don't think Geo Swan is consistently acting in bad faith. I don't think that many of the articles in question are appropriate for their own articles, but this RfC is not about articles and their content, so I hope it doesn't turn into an argument about that.

From what I've seen over the past few months, Fram (talk · contribs) (and a few others, though not as regularly, I think) have been going through and XfDing material Geo Swan created. This RfC is not about Fram, and while I think both Fram and Geo Swan should be able to communicate in a more civil manner all the time, there's nothing about the XfDs that is contrary to policy.

I think that Geo Swan should act on the compromise to transfer material to Wikisource and/or save it to this own computer. But I don't think there's no way to come to some sort of calm agreement on this issue. Perhaps some mentoring on the BLP issues or mentor approval before creating articles?

Users who endorse this summary:

/ƒETCH COMMS / 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fetchcomms that Geo Swan is editing in good faith but needs a mentor to review the articles he creates for BLP issues. I endorse Fetchcomms' suggestion that Geo Swan should transfer the material listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112 to Wikisource and then tag the listed pages for deletion per {{db-userreq}}. I asked Geo Swan about the pages two days ago but have not received a reply. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and also, I agree with the comment by Cunard (talk · contribs) in this section, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the edits, the apparent habit of nom to follow his target here and seek to delete his contributions (in what is often a non-consensus approach) is especially troubling, and may cross the line into that of disruptive editing. Coupling that with this effort on nom's part begins to paint a disturbing picture. I would think it best, to avoid needless drama, if nom were to find other areas of the playground in which to play. If not, I fear the community may have to waste time with an inquiry that we could all otherwise avoid.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
per Cunard. While the RFC is not in and of itself about the articles, they are the elephant in the room. One cannot ignore them and realistically assess the problem. Horologium (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DGG

I agree with Fetchcomms, above, that Geo is not editing in bad faith, and also that not all of the articles are appropriate. I think the XfDs by Fram are in good faith also, at least as viewed individually, as honest and often reasonable objections to some of the articles. However, I think that bringing this RfC when there is essentially no new material to be examined (the "ongoing" work cited above is from several months ago) , along with the continuing XfDs, shows what I will mildly call an unwise concentration upon a particular editor. To the extent there remains a problem, consensus at the XfDs is quite adequate to take care of it. . I recognize that this RfC is about Geo, but I do not consider that bringing it was appropriate, because it is more likely to increase hostility than to resolve the situation. if it goes further , the behavior of all parties will be examined, and, as usual, I doubt that any of the parties will be happy with the result. I really suggest that it ought to be withdrawn, and we return to dealing with the articles--and the even more important problem of trying to improve the articles on the subject, which is the common interest of Fram as well as Geo. I would also urge Geo to consider further the advisability of withdrawing some of the most easily challengeable material, in order to help put the matter to rest. I've advised him so from time to time; he has often followed my advice, at least in part, & I suggest he very seriously consider following it now also. Insisting on the material, and insisting on the RfC, both could be taken to show a degree of persistence that encourages animus; by now, such feeling probably does exist. This situation needs defusing, not aggravation.

Users who endorse this summary:

DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
/ƒETCH COMMS / 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Quigley (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Stifle

I also make no allegation of bad faith. The issue I see is that Geo spends a lot of time writing poorly-sourced articles about barely-notable Guantanamo Bay detainees, argues for the articles to be kept because the person clearly exists (ignoring notability concerns), and when they are deleted, has them userfied and they sit indefinitely in userspace, or are moved back to mainspace, re-AFDed, and re-userfied ad nauseam. Userspace is not a holding pen for nn-bios, and should not be treated that way. I endorse the call for a moratorium on Geo Swan creating any more bios in mainspace until each of the bios in his extensive userspace collection has either been improved to such standard that it can be moved to mainspace (and some uninvolved third-party approves of it, or an AFD on it closes as keep), or deleted.

Users who endorse this summary:

Stifle (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in all respects with Stifle's statement and strongly echo his endorsement of a moratorium on Geo Swan's creating more BLPs until he has cleaned up his userspace. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IQinn (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero | My Talk 00:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle is right on this score. See [3] --Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough

Firstly, I don't believe this is correctly certified. The examples do not show Fram and Cunard attempting to resolve a dispute it shows them discussing ways to get what they want, particularly the User talk:Cunard which shows planning an RFC - that does not qualify as attempting to resolve the dispute.

Secondly, the attempts to XfD masses of Geo Swan's material was ill conceived and carried out almost completely outside the collegial approach that we try to foster in Wikipedia. Fram was asked by other users who wished to take part in the XfD's to slow down, and refused.

Thirdly items were speedied with complete disregard or lack of understanding of the principles involved.

Fourthly items which were closed "merge and redirect" have been simply redirected.

Fifthly numerous editors, including admins and I believe an arbitrator requested Fram to step away from the situation which he refused to do.

Sixthly, the resulting stress on Geo Swan seemed to drive him from Wikipedia - and indeed even his work at WikiSource dried up - as can be seen from his edit history. I was pleased to see him back, but it appears that there are going to be attempts to drive him away from the editing the part of the encyclopedia in which he is undoubtedly a world authority. (I confess I had doubts about Geo's work when I first came across it, but I read the Seaton Hall reports, the transcripts of several dozen OARDEC tribunals, and several of the habeus corpus cases, and his work is substantially sound.)

Seventhly, Geo has always behaved with extreme civility even under a hail of hundreds of XfD's which do take (or should take) considerable amounts of time to properly process - many of which seem to have gone to deletion under spurious grounds - for example misinterpretations of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP. Therefore, while I am sure there have been errors, for example articles which should have been list entries, as Geo himself says in a number of essays, I cannot and will not fault his behaviour, and I find the proposed outcome of this RFC wholly and totally without merit.

Users who endorse this summary:

Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I worded it a little differently, but I endorse this statement also. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quigley (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astute comments here by Rich. We do need a better effort by nom to address such matters in a more collegial, less drama-filled manner, before bringing it to this level.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the takeaway I get too, though I will point out Geo Swan has gotten a bit sloppy about articles, I've run across at least two in the past couple weeks that he created or was primarily responsible for that caught my eye that should have been deleted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JimCubb (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Blueboy96

I would normally be inclined to agree with DGG and Fetchcomms' views of this issue if not for what was revealed as a result of the "suspected jihadists" AfD. That article was, without a doubt, one of the most egregious BLP violations I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The source for this article only mentioned the subjects in passing, something which overwhelming consensus dictates should be avoided at all costs in BLPs. Quite frankly, I was surprised it lasted nearly as long as it did; I would have spiked the article immediately without resorting to an AfD (a course that would have been more than justified per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff). The fact that this came from a user who has been here going on seven years (roughly as long as I have been here) makes it especially troubling, and all the more so since this issue was raised for him as far back as November.

I believe Fram has displayed almost saintlike patience with this issue where many would have issued a short block. Given the circumstances, asking Geo to pull back from editing BLPs is more than reasonable. We ask users with a history of bad uploads to review the copyright and image upload policies before uploading any more images. Shouldn't we treat BLP problems any differently?

Users who endorse this summary:

Blueboy 96 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IQinn (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minima c (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero | My Talk 00:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Greg L

Wikipedia has too few editors who are knowledgeable specialists in a field. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to completely drive our specialists off the project without ensuring we have gone the extra mile to correct behavior and separate adversaries.

I’m not saying this is the case, but sometimes, editors being driven off the project can be the result of an editor who is simply unabashedly dismissive of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars and is defiant of community consensus on various issues; the latter can certainly happen because we are all susceptible to a bit of WP:OWN when we do the heavy lifting to create and maintain a new article. In circumstances like these, they might be a fine writer but they simply aren’t a good fit for the collaborative writing environment that is Wikipedia.

But other times, editors can be driven off of Wikipedia through what they perceive as wikihounding. I’m not saying this is what is occurring here either. I don’t know and I simply don’t have the time (real life calls) to wade though all the atomic-level, blow-by-blow links and the details that WQA’s like this can generate. Nor is it necessary to wade through all the provided links here as a prerequisite to offering my observation here. Why? Because common sense and being an experienced wikipedian is sufficient to know that it is often the case that both of these elements are present in terrorism-related disputes.

It is clear to me that Geo Swan has broad and detailed knowledge on terrorist-related articles. It certainly does Wikipedia no good if Geo Swan creates articles on terrorists who are so obscure that their stories don’t receive broad and persistent coverage in at least one of the English-speaking country’s press; that is a critical litmus test for notability. So…

To Geo Swan, I say this: Your clear interest and expertise in terrorism-related matters is a valued specialty to grow the project. All that effort and time is utterly wasted if it results in lists of deleted articles like this. I suspect that by now, the rules of the game are sufficiently clear to you that you can mostly comply with the expectations of the community and the letter and spirit of Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines—if you chose to. I strongly encourage you to toe the line from hereon and direct your expertise to articles that you know full well are highly notable so your contributions stick and make a difference.

To Fram, I say this: I suggest you back off a bit and just maintain a 37,000-foot oversight of how things are going with Geo Swan. The community is perfectly capable of protecting itself with AfDs by allowing other editors to first nominate one of Geo Swan’s articles for AfD. Nothing de-spirits an editor faster than feeling that they have their own albatross (named Fram, in this case) dangling around their neck with their every edit. If, after a few weeks to a few months, there is a clear pattern of conduct out of Geo Swan that others are having to deal with, then that would be an appropriate time for you to jump in since you are uniquely knowledgeable of his long history and the continuing pattern of his conduct. But to be clear; what I would expect to see from you—if there is a future problem out of Geo Swan—is that you are pointing how the rest of the community is continually having *issues* with Geo Swan, not that *you* are continually having issues with him and don’t approve of his edits.

Users who endorse this summary:

Greg L (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced, thoughtful view here. Adherence to it by all sides would tend to limit the needless drama of further RfCs such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. JimCubb (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this happen too much with editors who reject the "mainstream American" view of this part of the world. -- Kendrick7^talk00:57, 13 March 2011

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

Geo Swan (talk · contribs):

has been editing Wikipedia since 2004; it was troubling for an editor who edited Wikipedia, for this duration of time, to create the BLP article "suspected jihads" (which was later deleted via AfD).
has not acted in bad faith, but has been repeatedly asked by several users to remove his excessive primary source material about low profile living persons from Wikipedia.
has sometimes resisted guidance on these issues; Geo Swan should reconsider his approach when receiving such guidance.
is reminded that BLP policy is applied more strictly than several other policies on Wikipedia; it is important that the content that he submits on Wikipedia is in full compliance with this, and other policies/guidelines, both in letter and spirit.
should delete the described excessive primary source material from Wikipedia; if he wishes to retain it in whole or part, he should transfer that material to a local PC or other hosting (such as Wikisource) as the pages would be deleted, as appropriate.
is urged to avoid creating BLP articles (even in the userspace) until he has sought a mentor for BLP issues. Fetchcomms has expressed a willingness to be a mentor if another user is willing to be a back-up mentor. Ideally, Geo Swan should come to an arrangement where he does not create such pages without approval from his mentor. In the meantime, he may wish to consider spending more time on articles that are highly notable.
is reminded to continue communicating in a civil manner with Fram.

Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

has displayed considerable patience in dealing with the "suspected jihads" BLP (where he would have been justified in spiking the article without resorting to the AfD, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff).
has made numerous MfD and AfD nominations (involving content created by Geo Swan) which have generally been in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
should step back to allow other editors to nominate Geo Swan's articles to AfD, as appropriate. This would help avoid any unnecessary appearance that he is fixating himself too much on a single editor, Geo Swan, or engaging in a harassment or mass deletion campaign of some sort. Additionally, Fram is reminded to continue communicating in a civil manner with Geo Swan.

In the unfortunate event that issues persist, the matter should be taken to WP:ANI or, if appropriate, escalated to the next step in dispute resolution - arbitration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.