Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

AN/I filed this morning
Gwillhickers filed an AN/I this morning regarding more edit warring over stamp photos. Brad (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread is now archived here. Brad (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Stamp copyrights
It's my understanding that US stamps issued prior to 1978 are in the public domain. Stamps issued after that date must be fair use. Brad (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're right, as per Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading Collect's comments, I want to make clear that neither Brad, nor Carmarg, nor I wanted to use this RfC to say that stamps on Wikipedia violate copyright (except for the fair use problem, to which we were not parties). That's not the problem.  --Coemgenus 00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly correct. Nothing in the RfC has anything whatsoever to do with copyright. Brad (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New edit wars
Gwillhickers is now insisting on the placement of stamps at Buchanan, Garfield, FDR and Kennedy, and referring to my removal of the images as personal to him. My repeated removal of these images is limited to those articles to which I am a major contributor, and is not personal in nature. In each case a link to the presidential stamps article is provided.Carmarg4 (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "is 'now' insisting on"? Those images have been there for roughly a year, page depending, with no issues until you came along. There is no crowding issues and there was only one stamp image, in Legacy, so there certainly was not 'too many'. These were the reasons you originally made issue with, and after I addressed those issues, you attempt to drag in other issues, ala edit waring. In fact Carm' you in particular have provoked an edit war more than all of the other editors combined, as it has been you who has been making the deletions, almost always without a discussion beforehand. -- Also, your latest concern for "noteworthy" has overlooked several images (A Buchanan mural in Belfast(??), a stone marker (for Garfield's house) donated in 1955, etc.) on those pages which are far less "noteworthy" than a U.S. President appearing on the nation's postage. All "Gwillhickers is now insisting on" is that you respect revert / Status Quo policy and not target my contributions, and present valid reasons that go beyond the realm of personal opinion, and that you practice consistency and use the same 'yardstick' on the many other images you have conveniently overlooked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you discuss these deletions before deleting, or did you just zap them on your own? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we have. See the RfC. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Bugs meant did you discuss them on each separate article. We certainly have gone over the issue as a general matter more than once.  --Coemgenus 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm concerned about is whether you're zapping free content for possibly dubious reasons. I don't see how "space" is an issue. Load-time might be, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Garfield, another editor removed stamps and asked for comment on the talk page. There was no response to this prior to my removal of the most recent stamp, which was reverted by Gwillhickers, asserting a personal reason. I have removed it again citing the WP guideline in the summary line. I will initiate another discussion on the talk page. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re:"noteworthy:" -- Yes, but he didn't remove them all, as you are attempting to do now, and that editor didn't target these images because of personal scorn. I can say that because originally you approached me in a friendly tone with no intentions of targeting and outright elimination of these images, as you did with three images on three different pages inside a ten minute period -- all the while you overlooked several images that were clearly not "noteworthy". If you were acting on principle alone you would have not ignored all of these other questionable images, you would have respected Revert/Status Quo policy, and would not have engaged in Harassment/Hounding practices, not to mention your personal remarks and jeering. You 'claim' you are acting out of concern for policy -- but your 'actions' tell us quite a different story. Easy to see, Carm'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Kennedy and Buchanan, I have initiated a discussion of the issue (space and significance) on the talk pages. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The presidents' articles I have worked on have indeed had load time problems/flags for being too lengthy. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did removing images help that problem significantly? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe so. We may be getting off topic. The salient point is that I have provided WP guidelines to support my edit. which Gwillhickers consistently refuses to acknowledge across multiple articles. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There were no crowding or page length issues on those pages, at all, and you have engaged in no discussions regarding these images on the JFK, FDR, Garfield and Buchanan pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting the word out
Is it disreputable to notify other users of this RfC? I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS, but there have been many editors involved with this situation who might have something to add. --Coemgenus 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a frequently-used page or maybe a project page that you could post a notification on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would posting on the talk pages of the articles in question be appropriate? --Coemgenus 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a question you had best ask an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and stamp issue
According to Wikipedia's fifth pillar Five Pillars Wikipedia does not have rigidly fixed rules. However, concerning stamps, if there is proven copyright violations in terms of stamp related photos, then the stamp photos would automatically be excluded from any articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the photos have passed the copyright criteria, then I do not see any controversy in themselves of placing Presidential stamps in Presidential articles. Stamps are neutral and do not present any known controversy. I believe there is no rigidly fixed rules concerning stamps in Presidential articles unless they violate copyright infringements. In searching Wikipedia, I have found an article, U.S. Presidents on U.S. postage stamps. This could be placed as a link in the memorial sections of the Presidents, if a majority of editors agree. This is only a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In terms of creating articles, I believe that editors need to come to an agreement in terms of article content. This implies some form of democratic debate and majority rule. Gwillwickers and all other editors including myself need to respect the majority opinion. If a majority of editors do not want stamps in the Presidential articles, then, the stamps need to be excluded. I believe enough constructive debate over the stamps has been reached and a majority of editors have voted to ban the stamps. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this RfC is not about copyright issues. In the case of the Lincoln article MOS:Images was applied and eventually boiled down to a consensus on not allowing a stamp pic in the article. MOS Images needs to be applied to articles when controversy breaks out on any type of pic; not just stamp pics. Meeting MOS Images is required to pass a FAC which the Lincoln article is attempting to do. Brad (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's true, but I agree with Cmguy777's point that most editors are against all the stamps in biographical articles. --Coemgenus 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is Gwillwickers going against the concensus of other editors? As has been mentioned before, there is an article on Presidential Stamps on Wikipedia. My only suggestion was to have a link put to this article.  If that is not a popular opinion, then that is fine.  Again, all editors need to go by consensus even if the stamps in themselves are not controversial. The MOS:Images page gives a good standard for photos and can be applied to the article for FAC. It might be best, if possible, to get this issue resolved before launching the FAC on Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * May I ask why stamps in the articles in question are being BANNED? What is this banning of stamp images akin to? Are you saying that no stamps should be allowed at all, and that you have a consensus on this?? I find this rather absurd, to be banning all stamp images. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 02:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This RfC is not about banning stamps. There is a conflict of interest over stamps and Gwill's insistence on inserting them into articles. The Desired outcome section makes no mention of banning stamps. See George Washington or Daniel Webster or Ulysses S. Grant for the reasons people are getting tired of stamps. Brad (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brad, if people were actually getting 'tired' they would have said something long before now on those pages. Also, Washington should get a separate section for stamps and currency, as his image appears on postage and currency more than all president's combined. No, not to cover 'stamp stuff' (quantities issued, paper type, artists, etc) but to cover the history and legacy involved. What some people are 'tiring' of is this notion that the Post Office is not a branch of the federal government, and that its role and honors displayed on postage is no more noteworthy than some stone marker or plaque in a park somewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Founders Intent. I am not for banning stamps in biographical articles.  I was for putting the memorial stamp in the Lincoln article.  However, a majority of editors have decided not to put the stamp(s) in Presidential biography articles, in essence a "ban".  I apoligize for the use of the word "ban" rather then majority rule. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My I suggest adding List of people on stamps of the United States in the See also section of each President as appropriate? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several such pages, but they approach the topic from a philatelic perspective, not a historical one. Inclusion of a stamp image here is based on history, national honors and legacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

General Statement by Gwillhickers
When I came to the Lincoln page (again) a month or so ago, there was a concern for 'too many' stamp images, and this idea was not contested by me. My only issues have been over their 'elimination', entirely, esp when it is done for highly opinionated and discressionary reasons (e.g.not noteworthy), and when it is done with no discussion and no regard for Wiki' revert/status quo policy. I also take great exception by one or two editors who have made clearly false statements regarding my activity, esp regarding canvasing, which I see one of my critics has |has himself engaged in here, alerting Parkwells and Ebanony with whom he knows were upset over the consensus to correct problems on the Jefferson page. -- My intentions regarding the placement of stamp images has always been for the good of the article and for Wikipedia. I know from my own experience that many, if not most, seasoned stamp collectors engage in the 'hobby' in a historical capacity. When collectors (there are millions for this hobby/study in the USA alone) do a 'google' for a given stamp or cover, search results for Wikipedia come up (very) often. When they check out the Wiki' stamp article it very often links up with the various history pages, thus bringing more readers, historians and potential contributors to the history pages. Conversely, readers of the history pages can click on links to the various philatelic (stamp) pages, thus, each subject supports the other in terms of readers/potential contributors. This is but 'one' of the reasons for including these stamp images. Having said that, I will be the first to admit that often times I have been more than enthusiastic about their inclusion. If there is concern for 'too many' I have no big issue with that -- however, their systematic removal, entirely, is clearly an other matter. If there is room, and there almost always is, these images are well placed in a legacy section. While being honored on a postage stamp does not compare to e.g.'The Gettysburg Address' it is certainly not a 'trivial' affair either, and greatly reflects the individual's prominence and legacy in history, and is most certainly a notable advent, suitable for legacy or other such presentations. The removal of these images, esp when there is no space or other issues, and esp in cases where the image has been on the page for a very long time with no issues, is the basis for my objections. Removal on such sketchy basis is largely responsible for much of the debate. -- I had a similar debate with Coemgenus about such an issue where there were three stamp images in the Harrison legacy section. After consensus and debate he acknowledged that "Compromise is, indeed, the name of the game.", and we finally agreed that one stamp image in Harrison/Legacy was suitable, so I am hoping that he and others will make such considerations before they take an axe to the contributions I have made over the last year and a half. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [ec] Your perusal of my contribution history should also have shown you that I sought an administrator's advice before doing that, and followed that admin's suggestion on the wording to use. . I ask you again to please use the preview button when editing.  Your constant revisions to your edits make it difficult for anyone to respond to you without getting an edit conflict.  --Coemgenus 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't change the fact that we all engaged in a fair compromise, which is what you emphasized. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers, I agree there is nothing inherently controversial on stamps in the Presidential autobiographies. The other editors, for their own reasons, do not want the stamps in the article.  The tally for those editors in favor and against was overwhelmingly against.  I was in favor of putting in a commemorative stamp.  However, editor's majority rule needs to apply to all articles.  If compromise means working together to make a GA or FA then I am all for that.  However, the stamps have not been eliminated from Wikipedia.  There is a quality article on Presidential stamps. I had suggested to put this link in the biographical articles, if other editors consented. In an election, the majority vote rules.  Since I and yourself got outvoted, let's put the stamp issue behind us and get the Lincoln article FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support Cm', on that one note anyway. There was a consensus on the Lincoln page based on 'too many' and 'crowding' considerations. I do not believe there is such a consensus on the other presidents pages, otherwise the issue would have come up long before now. This is confirmed by the fact that there have been stamp images, for some time now, on these pages without any issues at all. Also, there was and is a consensus to have 'one' stamp in a Legacy section on the Benjamin Harrison and other pages. Unfortunately these images have been received by a couple of editors as if I were trying to put Hitler's image into the article. Ridiculous. I have stepped back from the Lincoln page some time ago and hope it becomes a FA. Consensus is split, in favor of no stamp images on the Lincoln page and was based on 'either/or'. I don't think it was overwhelming however, esp since some of those who opposed did so on the basis of having i.e.Mt Rushmore rather than Lincoln's first stamp. There is no consensus to remove all stamps entirely from president's pages simply because it is a postage stamp. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you, Gwillhickers, have been working on the US Presidents on US postage stamps article. My suggestion is not push the stamp issue in the Presidential or biography articles, since this is causing some controversy.  Why not get the Presidential stamp article to GA or FA status.  FA status would get the word out on the Presidential stamps.  I recommend getting the "non-free images" controversy settled. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have laid back on matters, even on pages where these images existed with consensus for a year and more. There's really no reason why a compromise can't be made. Most editors have issues with 'too many' stamp images, and rightly so in some cases, but there are only a couple editors who would like to remove them entirely, in all president's pages, pages where they have had consensus for more than a year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My own view has always been no more then three stamps to a Presidential article. Other editors, respectfully, want to limit these stamps in the biographical articles. The  US Presidents on US postage stamps is, in my opinon, both informative and important.  I believe that "laying low" for awhile on the stamp issue is a good thing.  Thanks for your knowledge, concern over, and interest in commemorative stamps, Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sort of difficult to just lay low under the circumstance -- not so much with the placing of a stamp image in an article (I haven't since trying to restore images at JFK, FDR, etc) but with dealing with this highly creative forum where I seem to be dealing with everything but the ghost from Christmas past, and all the while one editor in particular continues to violate RfC policy here while another has ignored consensus policy for existing images/content on several other pagers. It would be much easier for everyone to deal with this issue if a couple of editors were not hell bent on a search and destroy mission for any and all stamp images in president's articles. Compromise? Seems a couple of editors have purged that word from their dialog entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would hope editors are willing to "compromise" with other editors in a fair and impartial manner, if that is all possible. My only suggestion, Gwillhickers, is to stop all stamp related edits, until any issues can be resolved or remedied.  Letting things cool down for awhile is a good thing. For the sake of arguement, I do not have any disputes with Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Other issues
I see Ebanony and Parkwells are trying to drag other issues into this discussion, and are no doubt involved because I organized a consensus to reduce the great volume of material that was being crammed into Jefferson page regarding Hemings/slavery, using the page as a coatrack for this topic -- all the while sections covering i.e.The Declaration of Independence, etc, where being gutted by one of these same editors who was very knowledgeable about Jefferson. I just wish to remind them here that there was an overwhelming consensus to correct that problem and to put much of this material on the dedicated pages that cover these two topics in great length. If e.g.Ebanony had respected Wiki' policy and the consensus to correct this problem and concentrated his efforts on the appropriate pages his efforts would not have been "wasted". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a result of Gwillhickers' canvass, selected editors voted to reduce the space allotted to Sally Hemings and her children in the Jefferson article. There was not a consensus to move all the material to her article, as the historical controversy was properly not about her, but was because of Jefferson and his position, and belonged in his article. The changes re: Jefferson's paternity represent a change in nearly 200 years of Jeffersonian scholarship, so are very significant.  None of the editors who voted with Gwillhickers contributed to the work of trying to make the section shorter while satisfying Gwillhickers and other editors on the summary of the historical controversy making sense.  During this time, Gwillhickers continued to dispute the consensus of academic historians re: Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children on the Talk page, and to complain at length and repeatedly about academic scholarship, and that there were viable alternatives (in his view) of interpretation of the evidence, although that issue has been settled for about a decade. He did not offer any sources to support his view.  The minority view report has been strongly criticized, as noted in the article.  After working on both a draft of a separate "controversy" article, and months on the Jefferson article, I got tired of it.  Have not completed the separate controversy article, but have added relevant material about the paternity consensus to articles about Sally Hemings and her children who have articles. Parkwells (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My encounter experience
[Michael Romanov's essay moved to main page]
 * I am totally gobsmacked over this new development. Would you please repost what you have here under the Evidence of disputed behavior section and then sign your name under the Users certifying the basis for this dispute. This is where it should be; thanks. Brad (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It would probably be best to post this information on the main page, not the discussion forum. Brad is correct. If there is a complaint like this, it needs to be in the correct section and on this page Ebanony (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I'm gobsmacked that "number of edit steps" became a legitimate criticism somewhere along the line. I'm irritated every day by edits I see on my watchlist, but I keep my mouth shut about them, and accept that different people have different work styles. Stan (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stan, your comment is out of place & doesn't belong on this page.Ebanony (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this actually is the place for comments and discussion. --Coemgenus 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, Stan. I just meant that because it could be really irritating, as you mentioned, when a person comes back and forth to a single comment or statement for numerous times by changing a small word or even a sign at a time. Yes, that could be somebody's work style. But in WP there are other users who should also be respected because it costs somebody else's time to check out all those tiny edits (including almost meaningless ones), especially on talk pages. Isn't it a distraction? --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The extra edits only involve grammar, spelling, links and things of this nature. If I was changing the content or the meaning of the passage in such a manner then you might have a valid point. You expressed a concern for lengthy discussions, yet you drag this sort of thing into the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As Gwhilleckers well knows, there is a sandbox and preview button which enable the editor to see changes; proper use of the tools eliminates the need to make multiple edits. It really is excessive & it literally means hundreds and hundreds of edits. But Stan, if you think editors are here because of few edits, then you should examine the evidence on the the main page. His editing is EXTREMELY disruptive, and that is just one example of it. We're not just editors who don't want changes to pages in question; this guy demands changes that violate wiki policies and have no basis is history whatsoever. He then attacks people for it, as any objective person can see reading the evidence. The guy ruins articles, bullies people and makes it impossible for anyone to edit. Nobody argues for 5 months to get a change to an article; he does. He has a problem. Ebanony (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The guy ruins articles"?? Ebanony's exclamatory overage as anyone familiar with this editor should know is the product of his experience on the Thomas Jefferson page. And the debate he spoke of lasted about two months, not five, and involved and was prolonged by this editor in particular. I arranged a consensus call, and there was an overwhelming consensus to fix matters on the Thomas Jefferson page he and another editor were primarily responsible for. Some of my critics here even consented to fix the glaring undue weight/content problem that had existed for almost a year. While the major contributing editor was gracious enough to begin summarizing and linking to pages where topics were covered in (very) great length this editor went through great lengths to derail this effort, to say the very least. He was adamantly opposed to the consensus and fought it, every step of the way, and behaved with the same tone and manner he has just demonstrated now. Any consensus he tries to pass off on this page should be considered in this light. Also, this is a different dispute. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminder: The introductory section to this Requests for comment forum reads: 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. -- Can we please observe RFC policy, clearly delineated on RFC main page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebanony, I *have* reviewed changes and the interminable talk discussion, and one of the things that jumps out at me is the sharpness of your tongue when the discussion drags on (and not just with Gwillhickers), and a tendency to overdramatize ("ruins articles"? how is that even possible in a system with an undo button? :-) ). Have a little faith in the strength of the community as a whole. Stan (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only a sample of what has been 'spread' around lately. Makes it very difficult to deal with the legitimate concerns i.e.'too many', and I think perhaps he knows this fully. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole point
Before we descend into the same rabbit holes that litter the article talk pages mentioned here, we should keep in mind that the subject of this RfC is Gwillhickers and his disruptive, tendentious editing. The point of this RfC is to find a solution to the problem that we can all agree on, rather than taking the process to arbitration. The stamps, Sally Hemings, and the MOS are facts related to the dispute, but the dispute is over Gwillhickers's behavior, not the facts underlying his many talk page wars. --Coemgenus 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a difficulty then, because he doesn't think his behavior is problematic, or even that much different from the behavior of the complainants here. It's a little risky to escalate to the AC, as it is known to sanction both parties in a dispute, and the talk pages I've reviewed show enough name-calling on all sides to justify the hammer coming down on everybody involved. Stan (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Risk? Are you trying to intimidate someone?  At any rate, I think discussion of the issues here may have already been ameliorating.  Time will tell, of course.  But your talk of risk is just bizarre. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't want to involve arbitration, Stan. I've spent six years here without any dispute getting anywhere close to this level of contention, and I liked it that way. Every time GWillhickers is a significant contributor to an article, it results in a talk page fight or an edit war.  I've never seen an editor with that kind of record, have you?  I had hoped the weight of opinion displayed here so far might convince him to moderate himself without arbitration.  So far it hasn't, but hope springs eternal.  --Coemgenus 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Every time" is not nearly the truth. And may I remind any newcomers to the discussion that most of the editors only have issues with 'too many' stamp images, only a couple editos are insisting on removing them entirely from the president's pages.
 * -- As 'records' go, I have never seen but a couple of the current editors become this obsessed with a (very relevant) image in a legacy section, and I have dealt with hundreds now. The lengthy disputes have occurred largely because when issues (image crowding, etc) were addressed, new ones took their place, becoming more and more discretionary (i.e."not noteworthy") to the point in some cases where I was accused of unethical canvassing activities in my attempt to gather the very consensus I was accused of ignoring. This is the 'slander' I referred to previously as I feel this was a rather low blow and warranted such description.
 * -- In cases where stamps occurred in some of the other sections, I made mention that these images were suitable as illustrations but made no insistence on their inclusion, and in some cases opted to remove them myself. But when one or two editors decided to eliminate all stamp images on president pages entirely, even on pages where they existed with consensus for a year or so, the issue was further compounded. Now one of these editors is acting as if he can do this because he is a "major contributor", raising ownership issues, and has repeatedly deleted several stamp images that were on these various pages with consensus for some time. After trying to restore these images (targeted inside a ten minute period, ignoring other less "noteworthy" images) I once again refrained from restoring the image so as not to escalate matters.
 * -- Now it looks like we are dealing with the various president pages on an individual basis, one of these editors asking for approval of an image that was already there it begin with, ignoring consensus policy. Since I had consensus to begin with on these pages (Buchanan, Garfield FDR, JFK) I should just put the images back, but instead will let editors weigh in. And some wonder why this has been dragged out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, you were fortunate in missing Wik, Cognition/172/whoever, etc. (It's too bad policies aren't named after the particular users who forced their adoption, it would remind everybody that they were responses to specific problems, not just random ideas.)  Gwillhickers has irritated me on several occasions, but I don't feel the need to share my every irritation with the rest of the world.  We do put out contradictory advice - "be bold" but "respect consensus", and some people handle the contradictions more deftly than others - a large number of people handle it by quitting WP, which is unfortunate, because we end up with a smaller pool of editors who don't have many conflicts because they're all thinking the same thoughts.  So, do you want Gwillhickers to think the same way you do, or to hold - and express - his own view?  Or is it that you expect him to give up on his own view when you disagree with it? Stan (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stan, you're right: I am glad to have missed those users and their discontents. And you're right that the rules are contradictory (not to mention the "ignore all rules" thing).  Applying Wikipedia's rules, such as they are, requires more maturity, patience, and self-restraint than some people possess.  To your more specific point: no, I don't want GWill or any other user to merely echo my beliefs.  If I wanted that, I'd start my own website.  I've been involved in content disputes before and there are rules and parts of the MOS I've disagreed with.  Any user, if he stays around long enough, will say the same.  The difference here is that most users' disagreements are not so cronic, so widespread, and so tendentious as GWillhickers's.  When I was a new editor (and Gwills is not new, he edited under another name as early as 2006) I disagreed with more expeienced editors on a few things, and we had some back-and-forth on the talk pages.  But when it was clear the consensus was against me, I accepted other editors' better understanding of the rules and, in time, came to agree with them.  That's the part Gwills doesn't get.  He argues everything ad naseum and persists in his wrongheadedness in the face of overwhelming disagreement by many experienced and well-meaning editors.  That's the difference, and that's the reason for this RfC.  --Coemgenus 13:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's important to emphasize that in two cases the articles were FA and FAC related. Harrison is already a FA and Lincoln is attempting to pass FAC. The standards for passing FAC continually get higher and higher as the years go by. If an article really wants to maintain it's FA status or pass a FAC it must follow all of the FA criteria in addition to MOS criteria. We must follow the MOS regardless if we disagree with it or not. Gwill continually debates these policies on an article basis when he should be debating at the MOS level. The old saying "If you don't like the law; change it" applies here. Brad (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus -- This has already been addressed. This page alone is filled with examples of why matters have persisted. I think as the record will show that Coemgenus has contributed much of the ad naseum activity, if we must call it that, compounded by this sort of broad brushed referral. Consensus is split and varies, divided by a concern for 'too many' stamp images with only a couple editors, Coemgenus in particular, wanting to systematically remove all stamp images as they encounter them, and on pages where they have had consensus for more than a year. As Stan points out, a handful of current editors, certainly not two or three, can not be representative of consensus on all of these pages. Another editor has initiated discussions on the Garfield, FDR and other pages to establish a consensus where these images already had it for more than a year, removing the images beforehand, in violation of consensus policy which is clearly spelled out: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Many of these images existed for more than a year, and were removed against consensus with no discussion. This is a violation of policy, not guidelines. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "This has already been addressed." You say this a lot.  As far as I can tell, it means "I have already disagreed with you; why have you not acquiesced in my assertions?"  Yes, it's already been addressed.  Everything on this page has been addressed at least once.  That's why we have the RfC.  You're just proving my point.  --Coemgenus 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit break
So, if I may, the basic gist of the complaint is "we want Gwillhickers to behave differently", and Gwill's response is "but I don't think I'm behaving wrongly". Somebody needs to give ground somewhere. Although I've never been on Arbcom, I've certainly read a bunch of cases and was involved in a couple, and it seems like a bad idea to escalate this; nobody has especially clean hands, and a grouchy Arbcom will lay down punishments all around - "none of the disputants may edit US president articles for one year" as an example. I'm developing a proposal in my mind, but in the interim, I'd like to confirm that everybody *does* want a non-Arbcom compromise, and is not just accumulating evidence for an eventual case. Stan (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that some editors choose to keep engaging with Gwill in debates. I myself keep my engagement with Gwill to a bare minimum because I realize that if I engage then I'll have trouble disengaging. I think that might be one point of any proposal that might be suggested. BTW I placed an edit break here. Remove if warranted. Brad (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stan: a non-Arbcom solution would be great. I'll be interested in what your proposal will be.  Brad: you're right, engaging with him just tempts me to get uncivil, but if I don't engage I'm concerned he'll interpret silence as agreement and then claim there's concensus for his views.  --Coemgenus 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's also true. He's already determined that because no one has objected to his edits in other articles that must mean there is consensus in his view. That's one of the tired old arguments he brings up again and again and again. It's very similar to Other stuff exists. Brad (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with 'other stuff does not exist'. These third person chats you have on my behalf have largely compounded matters, esp your 'attempt' to paint my canvassing activity as something unethical and deceitful. As much as I am peeved with a couple of other editors, that, sir, has been and remains the lowest blow of them all. These catch-22 attempts are becoming clear. i.e. 'Attack Gwillhickers -- and then accuse him of dragging out the issues when he defends himself.' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * STOP IT! Jesus H. Christ on a pointy stick.... Stan (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Coemgenus. The archive is full of this same argument (these same arguments) over and over, not just once. It's like a broken record: just keeps on repeating. No one is "engaging" or even arguing with him here; I've ignored his attacks on this page. As to Stan's comment "; nobody has especially clean hands, and a grouchy Arbcom will lay down punishments all around". Nonsense. Stan, you are saying that there is improper conduct on the part of all; you have no evidence for such an accusation. We are not here because of "our" behaviour, but because of your friend Gwhillickers'. Have fun trying to prove otherwise, but it won't work. The improper conduct is clearly on the part of one. We'd all like him to stop doing those things, but I'd welcome an admin decision because he ignores every rule, warning etc and you know it. Ebanony (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The guy ruins articles, bullies people and makes it impossible for anyone to edit" - sweeping ad hominem from you, right here in the RfC. I saw much more in the same vein in your user contributions.  Also, Gwillhickers is not my "friend"; I wouldn't even have known about this contretemps had not Coemgenus pinged my talk page.  I'm not going to be making any admin decision, I'm just thinking of ways to avoid Arbcom, because if you guys don't cool it, that's surely where this is going to end up. Stan (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my quote and I stand by it; your characterisation is not an accurate description of my words. Any neutral observer can see his personal attacks, endless disruptions & demands and call them what they are. I welcome an admin decision for I have nothing to hide, and it would be for the good of the articles. Ebanony (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is telling is that the both of you would rather discuss me and my flaws instead of taking seriously the criticisms given by a variety of editors; they've given ample evidence to support their claims. Conspicuously absent is the ability to respond on the main page to them or to even concede that there might be some merit. This is why editor after editor gets nowhere with Gwhillickers, and never will. We've tried, now admin need to do their job. Ebanony (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as of a few months ago, this editor has nothing to hide, as his tact and approach has been demonstrated time and again and continues to do so now. This editor chooses to remain vengeful and hostile with his broad brushed mannerism and unfortunately still holds deep grudges from a good number of months ago. That is all I should say, this involves another dispute and this user Ebanony's entire platform here runs against RfC policy as I have already linked to previously. -- Stan, what I believe is most important at this juncture is how stamp images will be received in president's articles. As for my particular behavior, and the platform this RfC was called on, and the editor who filed it, that will perhaps shed light on all matters involved here. Again, I don't know what the filer of this RfC actually expects from the outcome, and whether or not this forum actually serves to resolve image issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not here for accusations of "grudges" or other claims like "runs against RfC policy"; there is 0 evidence for that. More importantly, try to focus on making improvements here on this topic. We asked you to stop being disruptive; to stop making personal attacks; to observe the rules regarding original research, fringe theories, neutrality (bias), among the other legitimate problems we've raised. Instead, you drag up unrelated issues and make new accusations; understand clearly that you cannot attack people with impunity. You went on for months calling people "liars", talking about "rape" & "torture"; you demanded apologies, had tantrums; you ignored all historical research, and demanded conformity with your highly distorted and inaccurate version of history. Then, when confronted with the facts you attacked the scholars by calling the drug addicts and biased; then you had the audacity to claim Sally Hemings seduced Jefferson when she was 14, as opposed to what he actually did. You just make things up. Please don't fill up this page with more of the same. This page is about Gwhillickers' behaviour, not the "liar, liar" argument you always use to deflect attention on others. All I see is more of the same broken record and personal attacks. Ebanony (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should go to Arbcom then, no one seems able to control themselves. Stan (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * :"No one seems to control themselves". Sorry Stan, but I don't agree with what you're saying, least of all this or the constant threats/warning of admin. When you make comments like this "STOP IT! Jesus H. Christ on a pointy stick....", it's clear you're trying to prevent discussion. This is a forum & people will discuss things. Why you keep saying admin should say this or that is beyond me. As to Gwhillickers, if you don't understand the RfC or why it was called, then review the main page of it because it's there, and I wrote it here too. Ebanony (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had asked for a simple yes/no response in this section, not further rounds of claims and counterclaims. I see you're going after a different editor now. Stan (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebanony, Stan came here hoping to introduce a solution to prevent this RfC from escalating further. Renewing your assault on the overall dispute is non-productive and hindering any solutions. Stan was trying to help. Don't hinder his intention by attacking a potential peacemaker. Brad (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Stan, Cm' ASW, Collect, and others'. See you around in the pages maybe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I don't know why Stan came here & cannot speak to his intentions. Second, I have never said I oppose a solution; in fact I've been asking for one for months. Third, Stan keeps talking about admin, which I interpreted as a threat to go there. If he was acting to bring a resolution, then I missed it (my apology for that). What I'd prefer is on the main page - "The desired outcome": . I too would like a yes or no answer: is it going to stop? If not, then what is going to happen? Ebanony (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought "I'm developing a proposal" was pretty clear, in any case I'm glad to hear you're on board. Stan (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This user (Ebanony) is clearly out of control, once again. Aside from violating RfC policy here and trying to provoke further conflict by using this forum as a coatrack to vent personal frustrations he is/was back on the Thomas Jefferson page and is already hounding everyone there and has now caused the page to be protected from editing until further notice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a peculiar view of the situation. You might want to reread WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does good faith include accusing people of 'ruining articles', or saying that someone "makes it impossible for anyone to edit". What about ignoring clear and overwhelming consensus, only to return to the page with such behavior that causes it to blocked from editing? -- As for a couple of others, does AGF include accusing a user of having a "Boy Scout" view of history, or accusing him of deceitful canvassing activity trying to get an established consensus -- while at the same time being accused of ignoring it? What about running to a (this) RfC noticeboard where the 'worst' thing posted that can actually be verified is having an opinion and not agreeing with some people? -- AFG is a two way street, the likes of which I have been run over on here at this now highly compromised and abused RfC forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stan, I'm very interested in "developing a proposal", and I welcome details on this. We're all adults, and I'm sure everyone here wants to work something out. So, what can I (we) do, Stan, that would help?Ebanony (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to demonstrate my desire to seek a resolution, I've stricken out my earlier comments (most). I hope that helps focus us on task. Ebanony (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is only a suggestion for resolving any stamp issue. In my opinion, editor consensus is fickle and can change at any moment.  In that, I disagree that disputes over stamps can be resolved solely on the basis of concensus.  Gwillhickers can agree not to edit anymore on the stamp issue, until these issues are resovled.  I have never had any disputes with Gwillhickers and has to my knowledge stopped placing a memorial stamp in the Lincoln article.  In that, Gwillhickers, has demonstrated the ability to cooperate.  I do not know of every contentions Gwillhickers is allegely involved with, however, I believe through discussion these issues can be successfully resolved or mediated. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus can be fickle, which is why I attempted to garner as many 'votes' from editors involved in history as was practically possible. Looking over this RfC, I remain amazed that in the attempt to make a point about 'my' (? it takes two) lengthy debates so many questionable practices were resorted to. i.e.While I was accused of unethical canvassing two other editors (Brad, Coemgenus) did exactly that and went as far as to target two users (1, 2) with which they knew were at odds with my bringing consensus and sanity to the Jefferson page, which was clearly out of control as almost everyone knows. A couple of other users weighed in with (highly opinionated and petty) issues that had nothing to do with this RfC, yet this RfC's creator just sat there and let these violations continue also.  All said, there is one common theme to almost all of the complainants: Gwillhickers addressed their highly discretional arguments, and continued to do so when other highly discretional arguments took their place. e.g.Trivia, "noteworthyness" image crowding, html use, etc. Had I a history of ignoring consensus and making edits that continuously went against it, acting uncivil, etc, then this RfC might be called for. Again, this RfC was/is petty and called because I had disagreements that could not be challenged intellectually, on talk pages, and for no other reason, and its loudest and longest complaints come from editors with whom I had past debates, again, on discussion pages, where this type of thing is supposed to occur. That is no doubt why at this late date this highly abused RfC continues to be ignored by the people who overlook RfC issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution
The subject of this RfC hasn't edited in a week, and this page seems similarly stalled. I've proposed a solution that might avoid conflict in the future and I hope people will weigh in on it so that, assuming GW's vacation is only temporary, we can help him work on Wiki in a productive, civil fashion. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do as well.Parkwells (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)