Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

Comment on the opinion by Blueboy
As I see it, various charges of BLP violation levied against Geo have been almost uniformly perversely twisted arguments out of left field. The claim that the people in Gitmo's interests were being harmed by publishing the materials in Wikipedia is absurd on the face of it; they themselves in every case as far as I am aware, and all their supporters in the US and elsewhere, were  in the early years desperate to have the information made available; it was the holding power that tried to prevent it. Extensive legal and political battles were necessary to get even the severely redacted information released. the argument was made, but we are publishing material which asserts without adequate support that someone was a terrorist. Seeing that they were being treated as terrorists, in many (but certainly not all) cases without much evidence, the US government was harming them on this basis, i reality and not just as a speculative possibility,  far more than any publicity they might have had here could conceivably have done. I see those charges as a misguided use of Wikipedia policies to contradict the purposes for  which they are intended. (I would certainly not like to think that they represented  an attempt to suppress the material for political reasons; I see no reason to think that this might have been the case in at least the people bringing and supporting this RfC.) It rather was the extreme of the conflict between NPOV and BLP which has played out in many discussions about people accused of crimes.

With respect to the article under discussion, I will comment tomorrow after I re-read the material. But I point out as a preliminary that the BLP rules prohibit mention of something disreputable when it is a minor part of someones life; they have no connection with whether the evidence for the material was given in passing, as long as it meets high standards of WP:V.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG, I may have missed it but who you state: "The claim that the people in Gitmo's interests were being harmed by publishing the materials in Wikipedia": who, and where, made that claim? As far as I am concerned, I have nominated many articles for deletion (and speedy deleted a few before some people overreacted to that) for BLP reasons, because they contained clearly contentious material based on primary sources, court documents, or no sources at all. Take e.g. a look at User:Geo Swan/Iraqi civilian deaths by the 27th Infantry Regiment, February 2004, created in March 2010 (so at a time when Geo Swan should have been long aware of our BLP policies): this page waas totally unsourced, containing things like "Sergeant [name removed by Fram for BLP reasons] shot an Iraqi woman and her two daughters [...] An inquiry was started because the Iraqis were unarmed. One of the two girls died. According to some reports the two survivors were wounded in the back, showing that they were running away, when they were shot." Now, you may endorse a statement that claims that "Thirdly items were speedied with complete disregard or lack of understanding of the principles involved.", but I still believe that the page in question was a massive and severe BLP violation, the speedy the only correct solution, and a user creating (or defending) such a page, while working on many similar or related BLPs, a serious problem.
 * Take another of the speedies: this page was in Geo Swan's userspace for over two years, after the mainspace article was deleted thorugh ProD (he didn't create the mainspace article). The completely unsourced page stated e.g. "[Name removed for BLP reasons by Fram] was Osama bin Laden's special aide, and hailed from Afghanistan's Nangarhar province and was the head of the al Qaeda team that was engaged in negotiations[...]". How can this not be a severe BLP violation? Fram (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you miss in that example is that the information is speedily backed up by reliable sources.
 * "An example of such individuals is Sergeant XXX, who was discharged from the United States army in late January 2006 after shooting a mother, YYY, and her two daughters in mid-February 2004. The group was weeding a beanfield about a half mile from where an improvised explosive device (IED) hit an army convoy near the village of al-Abbassi. The IED caused only minor injuries. Yet XXX, who spotted the women tending their crops, ran hundreds of yards from the bomb site toward YYY and her daughters, WWW and ZZZ. As they attempted to flee, XXX shot them all. ZZZ, 13 years of age, died of her wounds."
 * Reference : Written by a fellow of the Baker Institute of Peace Studies. I was aware of this case simply as general knowledge, having seen it referred to in the documents relating to another war crime. This is not some shoplifting incident from a minor sports player's childhood, this is the killing of an unarmed child. However let that pass: the substance of what DGG says is exactly what I had in mind: this page-
 * " X is a citizen of Afghanistan held in extrajudicial detention in the United States's Bagram Theater internment facility, in Afghanistan.X is notable because he is one of just 30 captives in the secretive Bagram facility who has had a writ of habeas corpus submitted on his behalf.According to the habeas petition he is also known as Y.His 'next friend' is Z."
 * Is deleted as a BLP violation. There is no doubt this person is/was held as described, that a writ was issued on his behalf, that the alternative name is Y and his next friend is Z - and a source is provided. Moreover there is no challenge to any of thee facts, nor is there likely to be.  Nor do they portray X in a bad light, rather they document a possible injustice against X. The only things that would be wrong with this as an article would be the use of the word "secretive" without a cite, a little overlinking, phraseology suitable for notes (which this is) and that it should probably be merged to Bagram habeaus corpus case or some such article.  Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC).


 * For BLP speedy deletions, whether an article can be sourced, and whether it is correct or not, is completely irrelevant. "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" is what WP:CSD requires. So please explain how these deletions were done with "complete disregard or lack of understanding of the principles involved." Fram (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For your second example, we are talking about this page (Rich Farmbrough, it is really much easier to discuss things if you provde diffs or links for your statements). What is the only source? A Wikisource copy (in itself not a reliable source) from a court document (not a reliable source, a purely primary source), which is used in flagrant and pure violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The page did nothing but. Fram (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No you miss the point. Rules for the sake of rules.  These facts are, true, verifiable, non-contentious and non-damaging. The most important point is non-contentious.  Nobody is denying or even challenging these facts. Yet a coterie of WP editors and admins seem bent on attempting to censor them.  These are clearly not the cases for which the above policies are meant, and it is an abuse of process to use them thus. In particular PRIMARY applies to making  interpretive commentary based on primary sources, not bald statements of fact. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Cases? One case, from months ago, where I may or may not have wrongly interpreted policy, and which then would have been MfD'ed after a week instead of immediately deleted. The other case is one where you clearly misinterprete policy, claiming that because it can be sourced, it shouldn't have been deleted. Anyway, these speedy deletions have stopped months ago, after people complained (but DRV didn't overturn the challenged ones, and ANI found no problem with them), and since then I have used only AfD/MfD/RfD for these pages, so even assuming that there was an occasional lapse (among the clearly correct ones), this is not an ongoing issue anymore. Fram (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RESPONSE TO RICH FARMBROUGH: Yet to support those same facts, one must use secondary sources, Rich.  The rules are, as you say, the rules, and your cited rule goes to original research.  These materials are primary materials, and every article smacks of oroiinal research as a result.  That is why they almost always get deleted in RFD's.  The materials are used to denote that the invidual is notable, when they have also clearly not been the subject of reliable, secondary sources worthy of mention in an academic work.  The "exceptions" you provide are not contained in the rules, you have read them into the rules in support of your argument.  The "process" you speak of requires an editor to adhere to the rules in creating articles, and by your own admission, the rules have not been followed, and instead we should look to "exceptions" to validate the breach in each case.  I am sorry, but Fram is dead on with his argument in this regard.  Your points, in my opinion, lack a real basis.  If we were to follow your argument to its logical end, anyone named in a government document "must" be notable, because they were mentioned in a primary source, and that source sets forth "facts".  Thus, Joe the Ragman drives a truck, and was seen heading NB on I95 is a fact, and it may be reflected in a police report, but for Joe the Ragman to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, that fact must be mentioned in a reliable secondary source.  Where we run into problem is when we use that same police report to denote liability because Joe was seen heading NB on I95, the report shows he was then arrested and placed in Sing Sing, Sing Sing is a notable place (look at the WP article on Sing Sing), and therefore Joe must be notable because he was housed at Sing Sing and was mentioned in a police report.  It's all facts, right?  I cannot buy this, and as you also note, the community does not buy this either.  In order to be worthy of mention, the "facts" revealed must be reported in a reliable, secondary source (or better yet, widely reported).  They must be "notable" facts, accomplishments, etc.  I hope that helps make our position clear.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly correct that these pages may not make the grade as articles due to notability issues (in the case of the Bagram detainee I specifically said it should, were it an article, probably be merged). However that is a completely different issue from BLP.  There are three problems with these deletions:
 * The constant shifting of ground, BLP, to notability to fake article -any reason to get a deletion, speedy or otherwise.
 * The fact that there is an "our position" - each item should be examined on its own merits - which was certainly not going to happen at the rate they were being nominated, nor indeed if there is a cabal that has a groupthink "Geo's pages are bad" which is what seems to have happened here.
 * Forgetting the real reason we are here - to create an encyclopedia - in favour of slavishly following rules that seemed to justify a goal set for other, possibly very sound, reasons originally.
 * No-one believes, I hope, that Geo created these pages around as a surrogate mainspace, and they are noindexed, most of them explicitly. So the purpose behind FAKEARTICLE does not apply, and FAKEARTICLE cannot be used as a rod to beat Geo without a massive breach of either AGF or wikilawyering or both.
 * Similarly notability arguments don't cut it in userspace, since pages might well become paragraphs, or be discarded as not making the grade - the whole reason for drafts - which most cases by other users go live without any checking anyway.
 * Finally we come to BLP. I am a great fan of BLP, the principles espoused therein, and more importntly the reasons for it.  DGG is, however, exactly correct that in many (not all) of these cases, information which tends to exonerate the individuals concerned is being suppressed in the name of protecting their rights.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Fram, you cite User:Geo Swan/Iraqi civilian deaths by the 27th Infantry Regiment, February 2004 as an instance of bad judgment that justifies the limitations you suggest need to be imposed on my contributions. Since you cite it I would like you to email me a copy of the last version I worked on.  In addition I request you to tell me the dates I edited it.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't email BLP violations around, like I have said to you a few times already. Your edits: 16:44, 22 March 2010 . . Geo Swan (talk | contribs | block) (1,182 bytes) (first drat) Nothing further... Fram (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailing the author is hardly "mailing it around". If it was copyvio you would get sympathy for refusal, as it is it looks plain unhelpful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Outside opinion about Fram's speedy deletion
I asked to provide an outside opinion about the validity of Fram's speedy deletion. Here is our discussion:

 Hi Alison. You speedy deleted the article listed at Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives after an oversight request. There is some contention at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan over whether this was a valid BLP speedy deletion (see also Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8). Because you can view the deleted material and are experienced with the BLP policy as an oversighter, would you provide an outside opinion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan about whether the speedy deletion was valid? If that userpage draft were submitted to oversight, would you have speedy deleted it like you did the article at the AfD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cunard. I'll leave my comment here, if that's okay, though you can copy them over, of course. I've not much bandwidth for thrashing this back and forth, though. In my opinion, had the page User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim been reported to oversight, I would certainly have speedy-deleted it. 1) It's a living person's real name, 2) it categorizes them as a member of a criminal, terrorist organization with no sources, references whatsoever. This, IMO, is a violation of WP:BLP. I can see that User:Geo Swan had it hanging around userspace with a view to sourcing it and 'rescuing' it, etc, but it had lain untouched for years tho' I'm pretty sure he meant well. The NOINDEX tag went some way towards mitigating this, but it's still not okay for Wikipedia to mention a private citizen and label them as a member of a terrorist organization without as much as a shred of evidence. It's also my understanding that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay detention center are not de facto terrorists - A l is o n  ❤ 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yes, while it's rather well-known that I'm strong on BLP matters, it's my opinion that the above delete is a valid deletion per our BLP policies and WP:CSD as they stand today. Per the letter of policy, I think it should be found that the deletion was valid. In particular, per the above case, "These [...] may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met." - A l is o n'  ❤ 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your illuminating outside opinion. Judging by your description of the userspace draft's content, I am inclined to believe that the speedy deletion per BLP and CSD is valid. I've copied your comments to the RfC talk page per your permission. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(end of copied section) Cunard (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think (though I may be wrong) that anyone challenged that deletion, although Fram cited it as a sound one - making this section rather a red herring. I would, even so, suggest he would have done better to tag it speedy rather than use his admin rights to delete it.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you for the correction. Do you disagree with Fram's speedy deletion of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim as a BLP violation? Or would you have taken the same action had you come across the page? Cunard (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, the action I would have taken is to look at the article history. The original article before it was moved to user space had a reference,  www.andhranews.net/Intl/2007/August/2/Qaeda-militants-arrested-10318.asp  from an apparently reliable online Indian newspaper. The material in the news story fully supports the material in the deleted article. The link was removes as "removed link that was going to be placed on the spam blacklist". The source was placed on the spam blacklist at  because a spammer was making use of it, via Adsense--see also WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/andhranews.net, The newspaper's web site uses  the www.co.cc subdomain registry, which  is also blocked here, and it does give me the impression it might well be a service  made use of by spammers.  But I see no reason why this particular use is not a good reference: the  andhranews web news service is very widely used, and in removing it we are removing one of the relatively few available sources for the area. (The general question of using this siteThis is a matter for the spam blacklist, and I will be discussing it there.  Even if one thinks that it might perhaps not be an actually RS,  which needs I think some further investigation, the fact the Geo did in fact reference the article and clearly did so in good faith,  turns a different light on the matter. (I do agree that  this one reference needed further support.)     DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "the fact the Geo did in fact reference the article and clearly did so in good faith, turns a different light on the matter. " Despite the two "facts" and the one "clearly", Geo Swan didn't do this. User Hourick created the article with a source: this source was already removed (blacklisted) when the article was still in mainspace, and then prodded (December 2007). Three months later, March 2008, Geo Swan had the page userfied, and then didn't do anything with it for the next two and a half years (he also never edited it before the deletion, so basically this is a page in his namespace where his contributions were nil, which is the reason that I didn't include it in Requests for comment/Geo Swan/Deletions either). Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Thanks. correction: The fact that Geo userified an article in his field of interest for which there was a good reference that had merely been barred by a probably irrelevant blacklist for prior use by a spammer....." Ideally he should have worked on it. attacking someone doesn't encourage him to work, but diverts from it.    DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * attacking someone doesn't encourage him to work – very true. Please provide the diffs of where Fram has attacked Geo Swan. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Epeefleche
"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." Could you explain how starting deletion discussions, where the vast majority end in deletion, is a non-consensus approach? If the consensus at these discussions is that the articles (and userspace pages, and redirects) indeed have no place on Wikipedia, then how is nominating such pages a non-consensus approach? Geo Swan has been asked, repeatedly, bu multiple editors, to go through his contributions and remove the ones not fit for Wikipedia. He has promised to do this, he then starts doing this, and then he abandons that effort again. Could you perhaps explain what would be the best method to get these pages out of the mainspace and out of Wikipedia as soon as possible? I have no problem with other solutions, if these pages (those that don't meet the expectations of our policies and guidelines, not the many others that are no problem) would get deleted without any involvement and effort from me, great. Fram (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why we need to have stats made available re AfDs -- specifically, for noms, the percentage of AfDs that fail and those that result in deletion, and the same for creators of articles. And then, we should follow that up by providing circuit breakers on those who have the worst sense for consensus, as reflected in (non-overturned) AfD results.  But let's address this point by point.  Fram -- are you following the person who you are accusing here around wikipedia?  After you respond to that, I will likely have more questions and/or comments, but they will be different depending on your response.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am "following" in the sense that I check his contributions (current and older) to see whether his articles, redirects, userspace pages, ... meet the relevant policies and guidelines, and to nominate for deletion those that I believe should be deleted. I don't make any content edits to articles Geo Swan created or is active on, I don't support or oppose his content additions. I also tend to stay away from any deletion discussions other people have started on pages by Geo Swan (I have closed or commented in a few such AfD's earlier, before I started to look at his contributions; I think I have commented in one or two since, but just as a "comment", not a "keep" or "delete"). I am not active in any content-related discussion with or involving Geo Swan (excluding, obviously, deletion/merging/redirecting oriented discussions). I deliberately stayed out of e.g. Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84. I also have not followed him to any other Wiki-projects (Wikisource, Commons, ...). Fram (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I feared, and as your edit histories suggested. I suggest, as others have done, that you stop hounding the editor.  You are "following" him in the sense that you are "following" him.  It is a big Project, with many articles.  Nobody needs you as the self-appointed Spanish Inquisition.  I would urge you to take to heart the advice of other editors, and back off.  I expect there are many other areas of the Project that could make good use of your excellent constructive skills.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no. Most people agree that the articles I nominate for deletion are indeed usually unfit for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Some of them contain quite severe BLP violations (linking the wrong people to Al Qaeda allegations, mixing two people in one article, ...). It is important to get these articles off Wikipedia. That the author who created all these problems doesn't like the continued attention is logical, but irrelevant. That some people believe that the feelings of an editor are more important than our policies, and are in reality suggesting to let BLP violations stand because otherwise a valued editor may be unhappy, is their problem. To ignore the problems someone has created, just because there are so many of them, is very backwards reasoning. So, until someone else (singular or plural), preferably Geo Swan himself, goes through his contributions and removes all the problematic ones, I will continue doing this. Fram (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be listening to me, and others, with a tin ear. At the same time, you seem to be putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say "the author ... doesn't like the continued attention".  That is what you are focusing on, and the straw man you are having a conversation with.  I said, perhaps too politely, that I and others think that you are being tendentious.  Your following an editor around as your are is not appropriate.  This appears to be a pattern here with you.  You have clearly and admittedly targeted one editor, who you are following around.  Though you are the one who brought it up, it actually is of note that a reasonable observer can conclude by both your actions and your unrepentant tone here that the intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for your target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.  I would urge you, in the strongest terms, to desist.  You have been editing long enough, as have I and others speaking to you, that we all understand this sort of behavior, and how deleterious it is to the Project when one editor engages in it.  You seem to have a problem with one editor, and have appointed yourself his follower.  It is time to stop.  Let another editor, preferably a sysop, know of your concerns, and drop the stick.  If not, we have all been at this long enough that we can anticipate where it will end up, and that's not something that is in the best interest of the Project.  What would be in the best interest of the Project would be for us to have the benefit of your constructive editing and input, but this has clearly crossed the line into a personal vendetta where you have appointed yourself the angel of righteousness.  The game is up, we understand you don't like each other, and I would urge you in the strongest terms to drop it and focus your ample skills somewhere else -- in a manner that does not involve following around another editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not following the editor because of the editor, I am following his contributions to weed out the unwanted ones, in the form of page deletions (I have not edited any pages to remove unwanted sections, to change meanings, challenge specific statements, ... I have only looked at the appropriateness of the page, the topic as a whole, and in the case of userpages whether it violates the userpage policy). I am not interested in Geo Swan as a person or as an editor in general. I have e.g. no problem with his work on ice breakers, or in fact with much of his work related to Guantanamo. You conclude that a reasonable observer may find that "the intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for your target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." I disagree with this completely. My only goal is to make his editing better, so that he doesn't spend hours and hours on pages that are going to be deleted anyway, and so that Wikipedia doesn't have pages that violate core policies and guidelines. You "understand" that I don't like Geo Swan, but this is incorrect. I have no opinion of him, I don't know him, and I don't care: I care about the articles. When I find a source of problematic articles, I try to stop or clean that source. With vandals we warn and block, with copyright violators we start a CCI. Copyright violators aren't always aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they don't like the scrutiny either, and many have left Wikipedia entirely. Should we stop scrutinizing their edits in a targeted manner and only clean up those violations that we just happen to come across randomly? That would be a stupid and ineffective approach.
 * Many deletions already happened before I started with my scrutiny of the pages he created. Those earlier deletions and discussions didn't have any discernable effect on his editing, he continued with creation of the same kind of pages, and the very long-term userfication of most deleted pages. "Let another editor, preferably a sysop, know of your concerns, and drop the stick." I think that a number of sysops are aware of my concerns. What would you want them to do? Let's see: perhaps go through his articles, and nominate for deletion those that are not suitable for Wikipedia? And after how many nominations or deletions do they become involved editors who clearly don't like Geo Swan and should drop the stick and so on?
 * Nearly everyone agrees that Geo Swan has created many pages that should be deleted (and there are plenty left of those); it is obvious that most discussions I started ended in delete or merge, with a few mistakes on my part; it is obvious for any reasonable, neutral observer that there is no evidence at all of any reason why I would target Geo Swan's articles apart from the clear problems these articles have; I have no content dispute with Geo Swan. So basically, you adn a few others are asking me to stop bringing problematic articles to the attention of others, because the creator of these pages doesn't like the prolonged, thorough attention, and because some hypothetical other will carry on when I stop. The first reason is not a valid reason to stop; the second I would gladly follow, if only such a hypothetical person would be around.
 * Basically, it is the duty of any decent administrator to follow around editors when they become aware that they cause problems, of whatever kind, and try to stop new problems from occurring, and try to clean up older problems. The problems in this case range from the mild to the serious, and there are many, many of them, so the removal takes a lot of time. When it then becomes obvious that the editor isn't paying much attention to his problems, makes promises to clean up and change but doesn't live up to them, and gives every indication of not understanding or not caring about policies like BLP and the use primary sources, it is only natural that things get raised to another level, i.c. RfC. If you or anyone else feels that this should go further and want to bring it to ArbCom or wherever you like, be my guest. I don't believe that I have made any serious mistakes, and that I have taken into account all policy-based input I received, and that I am trying to make Wikipedia better with all my actions, and in a policy-compliant way. And if this RfC ends without any commitments or improvements from Geo Swan, or without another efficient method of getting rid ofg the problematic articles he created, then I will just resume my scrutiny of his articles and nominate the problematic ones for deletion, while leaving the good ones alone. That's obviously not what you want to hear from me, but it's the only course that I can take if I want to treat every editor in the same way, which is what a fair and impartial admin should do. Fram (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried. To no avail.  I've seen this before, and would have thought you have as well, in which case we can both anticipate where it will end up.  I'm sorry, because I think you do good work, and think that RFCs and arbcom are time-sucks to be avoided by discussion if possible.  But you won't listen to your fellow editors on this.  And you can't seem to see that you've crossed the line, and its time for you to let your fellow editors and sysops take this up, as your personal involvement here is way over-the-top, and your following of the editor has crossed all reasonable levels.  I'm not going to convince you, at least on this page, so I won't try any further.  I do hope, however, that you will reflect on what I and others have said, take the core wp guidelines of consensus and civility and wp:admin to heart, and after a cup of tea reconsider.  Thanks again for your positive contributions to the Project, which are many.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be glad if my fellow editors and sysops did take this up (and I an grateful for the few editors who are doing this, and who would probably be considered too involved by now as well for having made too many nominations or something similar). I do try to remain civil though, there is no need to be uncivil in this, and I do try to get consensus for my actions, thourhg deletion discussions and now through this. So far, consensus (though obviously not unanimity) has been mostly on my side, so I believe that I take this to heart. Apart from that, I think that it is indeed best that we agree to disagree for now. Fram (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. As wrote here in response to Geo Swan: "Ahh yes, the 'involved admin' approach. This is a fun tactic of the Israeli-Palestine topic area, the global warming area, and no doubt countless other hot-button places around the project; Administrator A intervenes with User B, disagreements ensue, B declares 'you're now too involved with me to be impartial!' to A, to bring te admin actions to a halt. I find this tactic to be quite deplorable, honestly. If Fram had had past involvement with you in regards to all these articles or somewhere in the subject area....says you were opposing sides in talk page debates, XfDs, etc...then yea, I'd buy the 'involved admin claim. But that does not appear to be the case here (unless you have evidence to the contrary). Rather, this admin has approached the matter from an administrative point-of-view, taking action to what he believes to be editing and policy violations on your part by starting the deletion process aganst a bulk of your user-space files. The 'involved' card simply doesn't carry weight here, IMO." Cunard (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to the view by Greg L
"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." Many of the articles I nominate are two to four years old. It seems that the community is not capable of protecting itself. "Suspected jihadists from the Maldives" was nearly a year old when I nominated it this month, and it got a unanimous "BLP violation" reply and a speedy deletion by an oversighter. Who knows how much longer it would have lingered in the mainspace if I had not nominated it? Like I say above in my reply to Epeefleche; if it would look like some other mechanism would get the same results, I would gladly stop going through his contributions and spend my time on other things. But I am not going to stop nominating BLP violations because their creator and some other editors are unhappy with those nominations. You could compare it to copyright violation investigations; when we find that some editor has created some policy violations, a serious effort is done to check all his contributions and to remove the violations. Why wouldn't we do the same with an editor who has created a fair number of BLP violations? Fram (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * but you & the community are doing it. Essentially everything removed that you object to.  Are you going to blame Geo that you either did not try to delete them earlier or that you did not get or thought you might not get consensus earlier? You  have everything you want--you and those who agree with your view have been more persistent in removing them than people have been in defending them.  so why is there need to bring an rfc to get removed what is already getting removed? If  he were recreating the articles as soon as they were deleted, you'd have a possible point. But he's moving them to userspace, generally by consensus at the AfD, and then, after a while, they are being removed from there by mfd. He's not being obstructive. He's not perhaps reacting as fast as you might want, and perhaps also not as fast as I might want,  but he's not obstructing the process.  In the circumstances, bringing an AfD strikes me as unnecessary, and therefore vindictive.   I cannot imagine acting this way towards anyone. The good reason for arguing at Wikipedia is to get what you think will benefit the encyclopedia. You have gotten it. Anything beyond that is personal.   DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Let's look at e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112. "I started moving these pages to wikisource on 2010-12-09. I request two weeks to finish transwiki-ing them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)" I didn't have a problem with that, and the close indicated that a month after December 23th seemed a reasonable period of time for this. Since then, Geo Swan did not transwiki one single page of these anymore (he had done some of them on the 9th), and requested deletion only of the first one (no idea why he didn't the same at least for the others he had already transwikied). Cunard asked on Geo Swan's talk page what the status was of these transwikis, now one week ago, but hasn't received an answer. You may not consider this "obstructing the process", but this certainly looks like it. Fram (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Fram. You are clearly intent on continuing to do what I specifically advised that you not do: take it upon yourself to ride herd on Geo Swan’s activities—apparently because you find the rest of the community hasn’t been dealing with his contributions to your satisfaction. Your above post is clearly intended to convey the message point that the ends (the deletion of numerous articles that had been on Wikipedia for “two to four years” because of your attentions) justifies the means (your continued behavior whereby you concentrate special attention on the activities of a particular editor, Geo Swan).

Your above attempt to justify your behavior by drawing a comparison to “copyright violations” betrays an overly obsessive approach that seems to me to be founded on a faulty assumption: an imperative that doesn’t exist. Biographies on living terrorists of public infamy who lack sufficient notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia (that has articles for minutia as trivial as nearly every episode of ‘The Simpsons’) is not going to bring down Wikipedia, make Wikipedia the focus of ridicule (as have past declarations that public figures had died), cause an international crisis, nor lead to an attack with some biological weapon let loose in a metropolitan area because Wikipedia had an article on some minor terrorist clown who thinks 72 virgins await him in paradise because God is telling him in his head that the killing of non-combatants is something God likes and wants more of.

In short, this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, yet you seem determined stay on what amounts to a personal crusade to ride herd on Geo Swan.

I predict two things from hereon if you don’t heed my advise:


 * 1) Still more wikidrama and the (*sigh*) need for the rest of the community to deal with you two is in store after this RfC concludes.
 * 2) The focus will be on both your behavior—not just that of Geo Swan.

I had advise in my post on the project page for both of you two. I have a strong hunch Geo Swan will try to heed my advise. With articles on Wikipedia, there is loads of other things that could occupy your time. I’m sure you will continue to do whatever it is that pleases you on the project. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That you don't consider serious BLP violations a problem is up to you. Note that when it comes to further scrutiny (ArbCom, or whatever it is you are suggesting), it won't only by my behaviour and that of Geo Swan, but also that of other people commenting, supporting these BLP violations to be left alone, that will be scrutinized. I don't believe that any serious discussion will conclude that having brought many articles to AfD, and having the vast majority deleted, is somehow problematic because they were all by the same editor. I believe that the editor who has had so many articles deleted will get much more flak than the one highlighting the problem and trying to get rid of all of the problems. When you notice a problem, you don't run away because it is a big one, you just work harder and continue with the job until it is finished. Fram (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting you, Fram: …you don't consider serious BLP violations a problem. You mischaracterized my message point, which is sufficiently clear given the totality of the above and what I wrote in this RfC. I had suggested in the RfC that you simply sit back and take a 37,000-foot view and just keep tabs on how the rest of the community deals with Geo Swan from hereon now that you have brought the nature of his articles to the community’s attention. I had suggested that you not get down into the trenches and fancy yourself his personal gatekeeper/ wikistalker / wikihounder, but to merely weigh in *if* the community continues to experience the same problems that you have already addressed. You seem to find that notion unpalatable. You mentioned above how articles Geo Swan created languished for years until your intervention. That was then. Circumstances have changed as a result of your intervention; ergo, your conclusion that the community is incapable of handling this issue going forward without your special brand of hypervigilance is faulty. I find it instructive that Geo Swan hasn’t seen fit to weigh in here to object to the part of my advise in the RfC that I directed towards him. And I’m sorry, but you clearly don’t understand how ArbCom works. As just happened in this judgement springing from two problem editors who created wikidrama that the community had to (*sigh*) and deal with, the remedy is to topic-ban both; ArbCom’s focus is not on the poor unfortunates who took the time to offer corrective advise at AfDs and WQAs. That’s why they’re called “Outside” views. It’s becoming increasingly clear that your attitude about conduct expected on Wikipedia puts you at great risk of eventually proving my point #1, above, to be a true prophecy. It is clearly useless to further engage you here. Ample electronic white space is provided below, which you can use to get in the last word to either show that you are listening, or to dig your hole even deeper with a message point that amounts to how Wikipedia desperately needs Fram down in the trenches giving the white-glove treatment to every move made by Geo Swan. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned above how articles Geo Swan created languished for years until your intervention. That was then. Circumstances have changed as a result of your intervention; ergo, your conclusion that the community is incapable of handling this issue going forward without your special brand of hyper‑vigilance is faulty. – Fram has repeatedly stated that he would be willing to withdraw if someone stepped forward to address the BLP violations in Geo Swan's articles and userspace drafts. No one has volunteered. That Fram is doing what no one in the community has been willing to do does not make his actions inappropriate. Fram has not closed any AfDs or MfDs related to Geo Swan's articles. After editors complained about Fram's speedy deletions of BLP violations in Geo Swan's userspace, Fram stopped his deletions and instead nominated such pages for deletion (as he did here). Fram has been listening to reasonable suggestions from the community. Blueboy96 said in his outside view: I believe Fram has displayed almost saintlike patience with this issue where many would have issued a short block. I could not agree more. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I might well have agreed with you, except that he brought this RfC. The repeated accusation over past matters is not in my opinion saintlike. This especially goes for his explicit warning to editors who might want to defend Geo,  that in some way helping clarify or defend  a person's position involves them in what may be his misdeeds.  I don't thing arb com ever has said and ever will say that giving an opinion that a questioned edit might be good is the same as making it. Or perhaps I should say that the day it does will be the day when anyone can remove anything as BLP violations, and know that nobody will dare speak up otherwise. When Wikipedia discourages discussion of the application of its policies in favor of anyone who wants to bully their way through them, only the bullies will work here. I'm not saying that anyone does such bullying now, but  the tendency is developing, and we need to prevent it.  I commend Greg for defending the unpopular. I wish more people here did similarly. And perhaps the reason nobody has stepping in to do Fram's work is that other people have better judgment of when an issue is substantially corrected, and better know the dangers of over-concentration of a particular person.    DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I acted saintlike, but thank you to the people who described me thus, it is appreciated. I have no problem with people claiming that Geo Swan acted in good faith, or that he contributed many things to Wikipedia, or showing me where I am wrong in some nomination. I have a problem, and I believe ArbCom would to, with people e.g. rapidly voting "keep" on a number of AfD's without even looking at the material (like Rich Farmbrough did with a dozen or so AfD's, including ones like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Guantamao expl a which was a very blatant BLP violation. Please, DGG, do me a favour, and read the actual deleted page, and compare it to Rich Farmbroughs claim in that AfD that "This is valuable working documentation, which Geo has built up with painstaking meticulousness." You have done nothing so blatant, of course, but your disregard for our BLP policies is sometimes painful as well, coming from an admin, i.e. someone who should know better. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Kara Karga training camp, you claim "The BLP issue is a red herring, since there's a well-sourced article in mainspace that includes the fact". Having a source for a claim in some other article is completely irrelevant to our BLP policies, and your answer only addresses the final point of the deletion nomination, and not the substantial violation of the policy that deleted pages shouldn't be kept indefnitely in userspace.
 * In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review/Mohammed Ibrahim (Guantanamo witness), you are one of the reasons that this serious BLP violation is not deleted, by claiming e.g. that "that is is reasonably possible that an article can be written in some reasonable period.", for an abandoned draft of three years ago about a person with zero claim to notability. You go on to claim that "There are no BLP issues--what little there is, is a link to the documentation." Having a page on a redlinked "guantanamo witness" only on the say-so of someone else is not a BLP violation? Just imagine that it was your name on that page, just because someone had named you of a namesake of you as a witness. BLPPRIMARY is very clear: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Such a page is the only thing we have to support the assertion that this person is a Guantanamo witness. Then again, you didn't believe that that part of the policy was relevant in Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8 either, claiming that the only thing that matters is "do no harm", and claiming that I was selectively quoting the policy and wikilawyering without bothering to back this up. With such statements, you are supporting the many BLP violations Geo Swan has made, and giving him the impression that his actions are policy based, when they aren't. Then again, in that DRV of three months ago, my final comment was "Perhaps it is time that someone indicated to Geo Swan that instead of attacking the messenger, he should go through his user space and remove all potential BLP problems himself. If he doesn't clean up his mess, someone else has to do it, and no one has volunteered so far." Seems familiar...
 * In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/training camps/Camp Nine (Afghanistan training camp) you start with some wrong and inappropriate comments, which are rather amusing in hindsight: "keep it is not productive to interfere with an established contributor who has a very strong track record for bringing material up to mainspace standards." A very strong track record which is just slightly contradicted by the 200+ mainspace articles (and counting) which have been deleted or userfied after spending months or years in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless many of those pages did not get a proper review because of the rapid fire mass nominations. Basically, a lot of good work has been destroyed, mainly on technicalities, and in some cases simply wrongly both by spirit and letter of the rules. Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks for this perfect illustration. Admins who consider BLP violations "technicalities" are more of a problem than most of the things discussed here. Apart from that, please DRV those articles you feel have been wrongly deleted by the spirit and the letter of the rule, then at least you have some consensus for your view. Until then, I have consensus for mine, while your is an unsubstantiaed opinion. Note also that many of the 200+ deletions happened before this episode and without my intervention, when people haphazardly stumbled upon these pages and nominated one or the other: it is not as if the fact that way too much pages of Geo Swan should never have been in the mainspace can somehow be hidden by claims about incorrect or too rapid AfDs... Or take the latest one, again without my interference: Articles for deletion/Akhtiar Mohammed (Guantanamo detainee 969), an article tagged for notability since December 2009, i.e. more than a year ago and long before I started nominating any of his pages for deletion. Nothing rapid-fire here, plenty of time to be improved, but again it took another's editor time, review and an AfD nomination before Geo Swan got it deleted as page creator, close to five years after it was created... Fram (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Geo got it deleted as page creator, contrary to your characterization of him as recalcitrant and champion of "owned" content at any cost. And drawing attention to a "non rapid fire" nomination by someone else, doesn't mean that others by you weren't. You do not have consensus, except vacuously, that the deletions were all correct. And I very much doubt that there would be consensus for implementing "Merge and redirect" closure as "Redirect" as you have done.  Moreover there is a long standing interest in the area by the nom in that case - which has brought matters to XfD at a quite reasonable rate as far as I am aware.  And certainly you know of his long standing interest - so it is strange you would say it is "haphazard stumbling". Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Congratulations, you have just ruined any chance at future cooperation
On November 4th Fram wrote "Congratulations, you have just ruined any chance at future cooperation."

In the RfC/U they cited a message they left on User talk:Geo Swan, on November 2nd, that listed 13 userspace pages. The message was written as a suggestion that I should consider requesting deletion of those 13 pages. Note:
 * 1) Fram did not identify this apparent suggestion as a directive.
 * 2) Fram did not explain the nature of their concerns with these userspace pages or why I should request deletion of them.  As I am not a mindreader I was reduced to guessing.
 * 3) I looked at these 13 pages, and in three instances, I did request deletion (Fram has said elsewhere it was just 2 pages.)
 * 4) For other pages I thought I could guess at Fram's concern, but those concerns seemed to me to be of a nature that they could be addressed through editing, and did not require deletion.  I did edit them, noting that I was doing so in response to a suggestion they were a problem.
 * 5) * I feel editing them, to address what I guessed as Fram should not have been seen as some kind of vandal act of defiance, but as a step in a dialogue.
 * 6) For the remainder I couldn't guess as to why Fram suggested deletion.  I openly and transparently said so, and requested an explanation.
 * 7) Fram left a note with the edit summary "Congratulations, you have just ruined any chance at future cooperation".  In the body of that comment they wrote "I haven't looked at all your responses yet, but one at least makes me worried about your honesty and/or knowledge of BLP policies."  Within minutes of leaving that note they started using their administrator authority to begin unilaterally deleting userspace pages I had created. It seems to me that a note like that:
 * 8) ...that note was extremely inappropriate because administrators should never exercise their administrator authority when their emotions are engaged.  Administrators who are engaged in a discussion with an ordinary contributor, who feel their emotions engage, should not then assume administrator authority.  If they felt that an action that required administrator authority was required they should rely on previously uninvolved administrators to take that action.
 * 9) Fram's comment of November 2nd contained zero explanation, and yet their angry comment was as if the November 2nd comment had identified themselves as an administrator, who was writing as an administrator, and had explained why they were issuing a directive, which would have consequences if it was not obeyed.  Yet Fram's comment of November 2nd was (1) written as a suggestion; did not identify them as an administrator; did not identify themselves as exercising the authority entrusted in them as an administrator; (3) did not offer a single word of explanation.
 * 10) Fram's angry comment of November 4th did not acknowledge that I had not ignored the apparent suggestion of November 2nd, but rather devoted hours to guessing at why they suggested deletion.  It did not acknowledge that I made good faith attempts to address their concerns, requesting deletion of some of those pages, and editing others to address what I guessed to be their (unstated) concerns.  It did not acknowledge that I had left civil requests for explanation.

Would we let Jimbo Wales act as Fram has acted? I don't think we would. I respect Jimbo Wales, and I am grateful to Wales and Sanger for starting the wikipedia, but I am a volunteer, not an employee, and I don't feel I would be obliged to show unquestioned obedience to either of these two men.

I tried out the Citizendium, Sanger's 2nd wikipedia-like project. I have never interacted with Wales, but I did interact with Sanger. And while I was respectful and professional to him, I did not offer him unquestioned obedience. It is going to require a lot of convincing for me to offer unquestioned obedience to Fram, who is not a wikipedia founder and President-for-life.

I suggest that this is what the record of Fram's comments and actions shows he or she required of me. I suggest it appears that Fram felt entitled to treat anything short of unquestioned obedience as an act of vandalism.

What I think the subsequent record shows is that I was the one who showed patience -- not Fram. I think the record shows I continued to make attempts to engage Fram in collegial dialogue, and that, true to their apalling comment, they would not engage.

A few days later Fram characterized my attempts to engage them in dialogue as "mock civility". I found this a very disturbing comment. It seemed to me and continues to seem to me that this comment exposes a fundamental misunderstanding as to why the wikipedia has civility policies and requires all participants -- even administrators -- to interact with others in a collegial manner and to extend the assumption of good faith.

Being civil to our friends, and those who agree with us is so trivial that most of do so without noticing, and without any special effort.

Civility is important, collegiality is important, the assumption of good faith is important, because it allows individuals who disagree to work together. Civility is important because it allows us to work with individuals we don't like for one reason or another. In my opinion it is even more important for the project's trusted administrators to exercise civility and collegiality because we should be entitled to look to them as examples of behavior we should emulate.

Fram's mockery of my attempts to engage them in civil dialogue, their characterization of my attempts as "mock civility", was abusive and it was disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs or links for any statements you put in my mouth. I may or may not have made them, but it makes life much easier for everyone if you supply diffs, so that people may see whether I really did say or do what you claim I did, and what was the context of those things.


 * One element I'ld like to comment on, is your insistence that the fact that I didn't indicate that I was an admin in my message from Nov. 2 is somehow important or relevant. Obviously, your reaction on anyone's questions, requests, ... shouldn't be different based on whether they are an admin or not. More importantly, the Nov. 2 isn't the start of the process, but a point in the middle: you were or should have been well aware by then that there was a problem with many pages in your userspace, and you should have been well aware that I was an admin, as evidenced by User talk:Fram/Archive 21, a conversation from 11 October 2010 (I.e. a few weeks before the above discussion) where you complained about my G10 deletion of a page in your userspace, and about the edit summary I used, which was already using up your limited store of good faith. This was a page you created in December 2009, not in some distant 2006 or so, and which contained only [name] " is alleged to be a senior member of al Qaeda." No source, no links, nothing. If someone had found such a page in my userspace, I would have thanked the admin that deleted it, and checked whether I had any other pages with the same or similar problems.
 * Since then, Geo Swan has seemingly interpreted every deletion or nomination as an indication of bad faith towards him: User talk:Fram. As I replied there "Deleting material is not an indication of good or bad faith towards another contributor. Like I said in one of the DRV's, it's not about the editor, it's about the content.". I don't think I have ever stated that Geo Swan is acting in bad faith. I did say in this RfC that he suffers sometimes from "Ididn'thearthat", but that is being fixed in a mindset, being too sure that you are right and the others are wrong, which is separate from being a bad faith editor. Apart from those comments on his editing pattern, I don't think I ever discussed his motives or character. My actions have been based on the articles in the first place, and when I considered his actions in dealing with these insufficient, even after they had been implicitly or explicitly pointed out by different people (e.g. the MfD on his "review" userspace subsection, and other discussions on his talk page), I did no longer wait for him to take any corrective action, but started doing this myself. When it became clear that speedy deletions, despite none of them being overturned, were too controversial for some people, I have brought my other concerns to the appropriate fora for community discussion. Have I made a few comments that could have been phrased more delicately? Probably, I make mistakes, and try not to repeat them. Are these few comments an excuse for the main points in this RfC? I don't think so...
 * I don't believe that I have refused to answer any questions Geo Swan asked (although I may obviously have missed one or another), but I have refused to answer at length when he asked the same question twice and I had responded at length the first time. On the other hand, I don't see an answer to e.g. the questions by Cunard (User talk:Geo Swan) or Iqinn (same header, same page, different section), or to the question by Ncmvocalist (User talk:Geo Swan). This isn't new or only caused by your current lower level of activity though: when Horologium posted a request User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2010-October, you didn't reply at all either. You are not obliged to answer, of course, but please, stop the civility / collegiality complaints, and work on the actual problems. You believe that the RfC was not correctly cerified because "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." There is no requirement that the concerns should be explained in a way that you feel is "civil, collegial and in good faith": you must be made aware of the concerns, and given proper time and place to respond to them and/or act upon them. When Horologium placed a civil explanation of his concerns on your talk page, you didn't even answer him... Fram (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, "public documents" and documenting policy changes
I have worked hard to follow both the spirit and the letter of all the wikipedia's policies, guidelines and established conventions. I will follow policies I disagree with. I will do so graciously, and with no WP:POINT tricks.

In one of their flood of xfd Fram admonished me for having created documents that relied on "public documents", in defiance of WP:BLP. I thought I was sufficiently familiar with WP:BLP. I have re-read it many times. Unfortunately it gets edited about a thousand times a year.

Sure enough sometime in the previous year the policy had a prohibition against using "public documents" added to it.

I haven't started any new articles that relied upon the documents from the Guantanamo captive's annual reviews in ages. I believe it has been years. Yes, I did start many articles that relied on documents from those reviews, but mainly in 2006, back when WP:BLP was merely a proposed guideline.

I haven't used any of those documents since the addition of the phrase "public documents" was drawn to my attention.

So, how did this phrase get added to the policy? I could find no record of a discussion of adding it on the policy's talk page. And why is the policy being edited 1,000 times a year?

I suspect that most of those edits are by individuals who think they are doing mundane, low-level, copy-editing, so unremarkable it does not merit any discussion. I think it is likely that some well-intentioned copy-editor slipped in this change in wording without realizing what a serious change to the policy it was.

What is a "public document"? Is the 9-11 report a "public document"? The report of the 9-11 Commission was drafted by US Government employees and appointees. The 9-11 report is very widely cited by scholars, journalists, human rights workers and other authoritative commentators. It is considered authoritative. The 9-11 report is very widely cited here.

The 9-11 report names many individuals, and it is cited in many of articles. Yet if we were to go with the literal meaning of this change to the policy, we would have to excise the ten thousand times we cited that report.

I'd like to get to the bottom of this change in wording. Maybe it was discussed somewhere, and I just can't find that discussion. Maybe this significant change wasn't discussed first, but after a meaningful discussion there will be a consensus that it should stay.

While it is in the policy I will comply with both the letter and the spirit of this change. But I feel entitled to disagree with it, and to argue for its retraction, in appropriate fora. Geo Swan (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It has long been policy and general practice that articles, and certainly contentious BLPs, should be based on reliable, secondary, independent sources. The actual wording in the BLP policy may be relatively recent, but the general principle has been a basic policy element for years. The problem is not so much that you weren't aware of some change to the BLP policy (which is more a clarification than an actual change), but that your interpretation of what are primary sources and what are secondary sources is (or was) so different from what almost anybody else thought (as shown by Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84, part of the "Evidence of disputed behavior" of this RfC), coupled of course with the fact that you are working in a highly sensitive and contentious area focused on BLPs in difficult situations. Fram (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Our policies change, our standards change
Our policies change, our standards change. Nothing should be grandfathered, when it no longer complies with our current standards. But no one should have their motives or character challenged for contributions they made which complied with our policies at the time they made them, if there is some question as to whether those contributions comply with our current standards.

I find myself repeating myself -- I have always been committed to full compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the current state of all our policies. Geo Swan (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When you created e.g. Articles for deletion/Suspected jihadists from the Maldives, it was already a clear policy violation. You have had articles deleted through AfD for years. This is not about a recent shift in policy that suddenly made these pages unacceptable. You are obviously free to challenge any policy and guideline you disagree with, no one has denied you that right. Fram (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing statement?
This is set to close in 12 days as the 30 day timer would be up (and as it is, quite obviously, inactive at the moment). I don't think there is a need to wait much longer to start devising a closing statement if that's how this is to be closed. Copying statements from the stated views:


 * 1) 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).
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) has sometimes resisted guidance on these issues; Geo Swan should reconsider his approach when receiving such guidance.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) is urged to avoid creating BLP articles (even in the userspace) until he has sought a mentor for BLP issues. Ideally, he 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.
 * 7) is reminded to continue communicating in a civil manner with Fram.
 * 1) is reminded to continue communicating in a civil manner with Fram.


 * 1) 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 Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff).
 * 2) has made numerous MfD and AfD nominations (involving content created by Geo Swan) which have generally been in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * 3) 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.
 * 1) 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.

Thoughts? Although any suggested additions/modifications/removals are welcome, bear in mind that participants pretty much all need to agree and this statement should go towards resolving this dispute in order to have a chance of success (so if you're going to suggest something that others aren't likely to agree with at all, like removing 9 out of 10 points, it might not help at all). As RfC/Us are a means of coming to agreements, ideally participants will approach a close of this RfC/U with that same frame of mind. Of course, if it's preferred, the RfC/U can also be closed without any statement (which is also the inevitable outcome if everyone cannot agree on a statement). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to wait with any closing statements until after Geo Swan has made his comment, which he was drafting two weeks ago, and if necessary until the discussion about that comment by Geo Swan has ended; or until Geo Swan indicates that he will not be making a further comment after all. Perhaps someone can remind him of this RfC and ask about the status of his comment, considering that usually RfCs end after thirty days. Fram (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on his talk requesting the status of his response. That said, it would make sense to go through this statement in the meantime because if history is anything to go by, it takes some time for participants to come to this sort of closing agreement (even if it is only about the current status of the RfC/U). It will help establish the level of agreement or agreements made at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * my thoughts are that some parts of this close represents the views of only side of the discussion.. not a consensus. Geo has already done no.5, no.6. is not a significant ongoing issue, and no.7 is self contradictory.  He could be reasonably asked to continue behaving politely.  With respect to fram, I'd remove a few adjectives, but add some qualifiers.   DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I read, the views have stated that he should move the material of this nature (and that's what seems to carry the endorsements, presumably because it can apply to future material of this type). The same appears to ring true for #6. I do see your point about #7 and have amended it as an ordinary reminder. You need to be more specific about the adjectives and qualifiers for Fram. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DGG, your comment about #5 is incorrect. Geo Swan has not requested deletion of the material at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112 though he has transferred them to Wikisource. Ncmvocalist, since the wording of #5 may not be clear enough, would you clarify it to emphasize that the endorsements call for Geo Swan to request deletion of the pages he has transferred to Wikisource? Cunard (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Amended; is that clearer? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Fram has no objections to the closing statement, neither do I. I agree that should make a statement (or indicate he will not make one) before the closing statement is finalized. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, we have no jurisdiction over Wikisource, and Wikisource seems an exactly appropriate place for at least  some the material he transferred there. If you disagree, you could  challenge it there, but his talk page there shows no objections have been made to what he's doing, except for the advice that one of his pages should be transferred to Wikipedia.  That material is inappropriate here doesn't mean it was inappropriate there. Activities at Wikisource are out of scope here; it's a sister project, and I think they would rightly object to any attempt here to tell people what to do there.  I am not disagreeing with a statement that he needs to be alert to the need to move inappropriate material out of Wikipedia.
 * I continue to disagree with no. 6, which, if a problem in the past , is not a significant ongoing problem. Perhaps a different wording such "strongly cautioned to be very careful about"   would do better.  There is no reason at all to think it would be a future problem, unless of course you do not AGF, but #2 speaks to that.   Any possible earlier need for mentorship has been handled by this and prior discussions.
 * I think there would be great virtue in making a close that all parties could agree to, which is the meaning of consensus. It might not be as strong as some would like, but it would be stronger than others would like--I put a very high value on consensus, and I'm willing to be much more critical than I think justified, for the sake of agreement. A single agreed statement is the best way of preventing future problems.   DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misconstruing my comment. I do not object to the pages Geo Swan is storing at Wikisource. I do object to his continued retention of those pages at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112). Cunard (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I did indeed misconstrue your comment. I agree with you that it should be removed from here now that it is on wikisource, in accordance with our standard practices, and I have personally asked geo to do it.    DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made some amendments which should (at least in part) help. I'm trying to be faithful to the statements in the RfC/U and their meaning; not sure if it's there yet, but it does seem to be getting closer to the meaning of what is written. There's still another 10 days to go so if views have changed about what is needed or not needed, this is the time for updates to those views. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I continue not to find the present wording acceptable i suggest:

G3. has sometimes resisted  guidance on these issues. Geo Swan should reconsider his approach when receiving such guidance." // G6. is urged to avoid creating BLP articles (even in the userspace) without very careful consideration for BLP issues.

F1. has displayed considerable patience in dealing with the "suspected jihads" BLP.

F2. has made numerous MfD and AfD nominations (involving content created by Geo Swan) which have generally been in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines

I point out that this is not my own view of the matter,. It is a compromise view, which I think the most likely way to avoid further concern about the problems presented here. A response that either Geo or Fram might regard as directed against them is much more likely to exacerbate matters.  DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As nobody else has commented, I've actioned most of these changes. That said, I'm not particularly sure that leaving out the mentoring proposal is a good idea given the level of support it seemed to attract; though I'd be willing to take it out altogether if nobody is willing to be his mentor. There are a lot of admins who have endorsed the statement of the dispute; is not one of them willing to mentor on BLP issues? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is here; Badlydrawnjeff should be on the wikimedia board, as far as I am concerned. Geo Swan would make a great administrator, and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. -- Kendrick7talk
 * No offence but your comment in this RFC and your !votes that you just made in somewhat related Afd's seems to be based on personal preference rather than policy based argument and reason. IQinn (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to act as a mentor if Geo Swan will let me and if someone else is willing to be a back-up in case RL gets too hectic and I have to get off WP for a week or something. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)