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

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC).

Gwillhickers (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Gwillhickers is apparently a stamp collector with knowledge of the subject area and he has uploaded many, many pics to commons, which is commendable. However, he has demonstrated an obsession with placing his uploaded stamp pics into related articles with no regard to their noteworthiness or context in the article. His stated position is that the display of stamps, without exception, is much more important and descriptive of the subject than any other images. His arguments are usually based on reasoning such as wp:ilikeit, wp:idontlikeit, wp:noharm, and other stuff exists. When editors note the Manual of Style for images, Gwillhickers initiates a series of repetitive and endless talk page posts attempting to justify his stamp photos. No matter how many other users disagree, and no matter how many links to guidelines and policies are offered, Gwillhickers' insists his philatelist perspectives are correct and he becomes wp:pointy. Gwillhickers regularly interprets the Manual of Style and editor conduct rules to suit his own justifications and continually responds to editors who disagree with him with posts of redundant justifications of his own invention.

Gwillhickers readily employs consensus calls in an effort to garner support for a stamp already opposed by multiple editors. When the consensus call vote opposes his position, he becomes unceasingly argumentative with opposing voters, rather than allowing the consensus to conclude the matter. He continues posting until the talk pages are rendered chaotic. Gwillhickers habitually states that no good reasons have been given to counter his arguments. The end result of his actions halts progress on substantive article improvement. He regularly inserts images into articles without a summary edit description, and readily resorts to edit warring. Gwillhickers also regularly inserts images of stamps without regard to the space limitations of the target section or target article.

Desired outcome[edit]

Gwillhickers will accept that his view, no matter how correct he believes it to be, is not the only view that matters. If several editors offer good arguments as to why they believe he is incorrect, he will accept that any continuation of the argument is disruptive. Accepting that, he will remove himself from that discussion. Gwillhickers will cease canvassing for support and adhere to the proper procedure of RfC and accept its outcome. He will also refrain from using identical arguments on the talk pages of articles where he has a conflict of interest and cease bringing up side issues that attempt to distract from the original conversation.

Description[edit]

While this RfC was triggered by Gwillhickers' behavior at Talk:Abraham Lincoln, there are several articles over the past year that have been stalled and or turned chaotic by his actions; among them Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Harrison. The Jefferson article dispute is one of fringe theories although it has been pumped full of stamp photos. In total there have been five articles disrupted by Gwillhickers. There is no possible way to list all of the diffs that apply to this situation and unfortunately some reading of talk page threads will be required. It's also somewhat difficult to report exact diffs for Gwillhickers due to his habit of often editing his responses five or six times, each time he makes a response.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

About 31 March 2010 Gwillickers began to add postage stamp photos to the article. Edit warring began about 15 May when one stamp photo was removed. After several removals and replacements of the stamp pic Gwillickers proceeded to place a npov tag on the article. This tag was removed and replaced several times while Gwillhickers began a series (5 sections total) of "discussion" topics on the talk page where he dismissed the application of MOS:IMAGES to his own favor despite several editors explaining its use. [1] [2] [3]. Disruptive talk page behavior continued until a mediation request was filed by Gwillhickers who then claimed it had been rejected (?) but on 1 June User:Sarah replied essentially backing what the defending editors had been saying all along. She also explicitly pointed out Gwillhickers' disruptive behavior which apparently failed to serve as a reminder to Gwillhickers in the article disputes outlined below. On 7 June, Gwillhickers replied to Sarah still convinced he had done the right thing. Of course this brought on more commentary and a parting shot by Gwillhickers. The result here was that the excess stamp pic was removed along with the npov tag but not without an extremely verbose and combative disagreement. (Information on this dispute was assembled by Brad (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harrison[edit]

On 20 December 2010, Gwillhickers added a lengthy, poorly sourced section called "Harrison and US Postage" to the article.[4] Believing it to violate WP:TRIVIA, at least in part, I (Coemgenus) trimmed it back and removed the parts not related to the subject of the article.[5] Then followed an extremely lengthy series of contentious talk page discussions. I suggested the material was too tangential to Harrison and should be moved to US Presidents on US postage stamps, if it belonged anywhere. User:Reywas92 joined the discussion and agreed, noting also that Gwillhickers' non-standard HTML coding should be removed. After several days, he agreed to most of the HTML concerns, but still insisted on including the stamps. Gwillhickers rejected all policy considerations I or Reywas raised. I also suggested that his citation, to the entire thousand-page Scott catalogue, was inadequate.[6] User:Collect, who did not oppose inclusion of the stamps, suggested how Gwillhickers might cite the material more specifically. He still has yet to do so (this same situation prevails at Abraham Lincoln, which makes me suspect he does not actually have access to the catalogue he purports to cite).

I suggested some compromises that would mention commemorative Harrison stamps along with other kinds of memorials to him.[7] To my mind, this was still no better than a trivia section, but I wanted to get some sort of compromise and move on. These he also rejected, instead adding even more stamps and postal history.[8] User:JasonCNJ suggested my original compromise was better. Gwillhickers continued to disagree. I asked an experienced editor, User:DrKiernan, to offer a third opinion. He also agreed the stamps were trivia.[9] Gwillhickers disagreed, again, also suggesting that I prove, somehow, that the scholarly biographers don't ever mention this stuff.[10]. I pointed out the impossibility of proving a negative, but by then we had moved on.

I solicited a request for comment.[11] DrKiernan and User:Wehwalt explained the nature of FA biographies, summary style, and reliable sources. Gwillhickers dismissed these editors, who have more than 50 FAs between them. At this point, User:Charles Edward, the other primary co-author of the article joined in to agree that the stamps thing was trivial and tangential to Harrison's biography. This went on, and on, and on, until finally the current version of the page emerged. It's still in violation of WP:TRIVIA, as I see it, but I was exhausted of arguing with him and wanted to get off that talk page and back into writing articles again. I acquiesced, which I regret, because I fear it encouraged the same tendentious editing to spread to Abraham Lincoln. --Coemgenus 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidents on US postage stamps[edit]

On 11 January 2011 in two long threads lasting 3 days at Talk:US Presidents on US postage stamps, Gwillickers argued with Hammersoft and others over interpretations of the Non-free content criteria. Hammersoft was patient and went to great lengths to help Gwillhickers understand the policy. Soon after, several non-free images were removed. (Information on this dispute was assembled by Brad (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Gwillhickers has been disruptive and tendentious for more than four months in 2011 (repeating points he had made earlier) in his arguments against 1) editors' decision to add a paragraph to the Lead that addressed Jefferson's likely paternity of Sally Hemings' children, which has been widely accepted in the academic community for the last decade; 2) with noting her by name; and 3) with addressing their children and relationship in the article. He preferred to have such content reduced or preferably all in the article on Hemings herself. For people not familiar with this issue, there is academic consensus that Jeffersonian scholarship has dramatically changed since 1998-2000 to acknowledge TJ's paternity of Hemings' six children and their 38-year relationship; this is a major change in the scholarship on Jefferson's life of the past 180 years. Books published on Jefferson and race relations in VA since 2000 demonstrate this consensus, and major awards have been made to Annette Gordon-Reed, the historian who led the re-examination of evidence even before a relevant DNA study that showed a match between the Jefferson male line and an Eston Hemings descendant. Because of this, most other editors had a consensus that the issue deserved mention because the nearly 200-year-old controversy had been essentially resolved, that it was "Jefferson's controversy" as he was the powerful, public figure; and that it needed to be discussed sufficiently so that readers could understand the issues.

As the Talk Page Archives 8, 9, 10, and the current talk page show, Gwillhickers' most recent efforts to shape the article according to his views went on at least from January 2011 through much of May 2011, with a circular repetition of points and arguments, moving from asking for a reduction in content, to re-introduction of arguments about Jefferson, the facts, the problems with academic scholarship and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, rather than focusing on the article. He introduced side issues, argued that academics were all biased, directed editors to introduce content and find sources to prove what he thought were valid and "viable" alternatives, rather than providing sources to support his views. Relatively early on, he neutrally called for a vote on reducing the portion of the main article devoted to Hemings and this issue (saying it was UNDUE WEIGHT), but none of the other editors who voted with him on this issue returned to contribute (even by comments on the Talk page) to the article during the long months that followed. (The section was reduced and has had few comments from anyone but Gwillhickers; it may never reach consensus.) He argued almost alone against several other knowledgeable editors on the Talk page who referred extensively to published historians as sources. He refused to concede to the point of "following academic scholarship," or the many institutions that have supported the conclusion about Jefferson's paternity, arguing they were politically motivated. For instance, as late as April 19, 2011 he wrote:

"Organizations like at Monticello are highly visible and in the public eye are easily goaded or intimidated by the sort of racially charged tactics we saw being used here by an other editor back in March. Elected officials are easily manipulated this way. All you have to do is mention 'racism' and they will jump through one hoop after another for you. I tend to distrust accounts from places like this and from most of academia who often go along with their peers for social/political reasons and to protect/secure their annual grants."[12]

On 1 March 2011 Gwillhickers began a consensus thread and proceeded to canvass uninvolved editors. He was warned twice and instructed to use RfC instead. On March 5, 2011, another editor at the TJ article filed a fringe theory comment related to Gwillhickers' pushing his views and sometimes misrepresenting the views of other editors in his response; it continued until 15 March 2011. This provides another example of the circular arguments and additional viewpoints which Gwillhickers thought should be covered. The reviewer said that the other editors on Thomas Jefferson were properly following the academic sources. Parkwells (talk) 6:12 pm, 31 May 2011, Tuesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

After a FAC that closed on 1 May 2011 in which concerns were expressed over the amount of stamp pics in the article, consensus was reached and the pics were reduced per MOS:Images. Gwillhickers claimed on his talk page that the removal of the stamp pics were "illegal removals". On 6 May he began to disrupt a conversation over the removal of stamp pics in this section. On 15 May he began a new thread claiming once again that removal of stamp pics were "needless and petty illegal reverts". On 19 May in this thread he accused an editor of making "slanderous remarks". On 23 May he began this section attempting to gather consensus on the same topic of stamps that already had consensus. This section descended into total chaos and hoping to reinforce his views about stamp pics, he began canvassing on 25 and 24 May leaving messages such as this one on multiple user talk pages. If one of his canvassed subjects did not respond in a manner that Gwillhickers approved of he returned and prompted them to respond correctly. Gwillhickers has apparently and finally accepted consensus on the issue. This was another example of long, disruptive and combative discussion threads on the topic of stamp photos. (Information on this dispute was assembled by Brad (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that some of the dispute threads are now flowing into Archive 21 starting here and below. Brad (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Applicable diffs and links provided above.

Attempts by certifier Coemgenus[edit]

I made many attempts to resolve this on talk pages, like this proposal on Talk:Benjamin Harrison: [13]. More are listed in that section.
I also submitted the dispute to RfC in an attempt to draw in neutral third parties. [14]

Attempts by certifier Carmarg4[edit]

I participated in the very lengthy discussion on the Lincoln talk page referenced above. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts by certifier Parkwells[edit]

I participated in the very lengthy discussion on the Thomas Jefferson talk page referenced above: 1) about including information on Hemings and her children in the Lead (as it was the major change in Jefferson scholarship in nearly 200 years), and 2) about the content of the section on the Hemings controversy. Gwillhickers continually resisted "following the scholarship", accusing academicians of political bias, saying there were other viable alternatives (in his opinion) and wanting those discussed and sources identified by other editors.Parkwells (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts by certifier Ebanony[edit]

I participated in lengthy discussions on the Thomas Jefferson page; it is described accurately in the above summary. This includes the Sally Hemings discussion in the lead, as well as the Hemings section, and slavery. On policy 1) Gwillickers engaged in disruptive editing by demanding changes to the article over and over during a period of several months; endless demands to change the page. His personal attacks are frequent, and other editors went to extra lengths to accommodate him, including rewriting entire sections (which is no small task). His behaviour was so extreme that I stopped editing on Wikipedia as a direct result of this sort of bullying/historical manipulation. All attempts to reach an agreement, even with a request for comment by a third party (twice), have failed. Disruptive is an understatement. I terms of policy 2), Gwillickers' editing was tendentious in the extreme. He made some of these edits to the article main space, not just the talk page like he claimed on this very page on June 9th in his defence argument: "Tendentious editing. Editing? This issue involves talk page disscussions, not editing to the main page". Here is the link to one main page edit he made, which demonstrating his defence to be false: [15]. I reported to the OR noticeboard for it, so he know this [16]. He denied this before [17], and I directly confronted him on it [18]. An administrator commented on Gwillicker's fringe claim to the main page, saying "I see him adding unsourced speculative interpretation when the article ought to be based on the conclusions of mainstream historians." [19]. Here is yet another example of his adding information not supported by sources, and his arguing for his own POV; this discussion on his own talk page demonstrates his awareness of the changes he himself made to the main page [20]. Gwillickers is not only biased, he is dishonest.
Gwillieckers is also tendentious because his false claims presented Jefferson in positive light, and Sally Hemings and academics in negative a light, directly contradicting the historical consensus; he claimed bias on the part of scholars as well as that of editors here (with no evidence, which is a personal attack). He then disparaged living scholars in January (calling them drug users) [21] & then again in March (against a highly respected African American scholar, Gordon Reed) [22]). He also made outrageous & highly offensive accusations against Hemings without any evidence (that a 14-yr-old took advantage of Jefferson). He violated policy 3) canvassing when he tried to force changes to the Jefferson page through a manipulated vote, something an administrator commented on [23]; he then engaged in what I believe was another attempt at canvassing by involving his friend/s to argue on his behalf on the Jefferson page.
Here Gwhillihers made a request to his friend on March 2nd [24]. Within a few minutes, his friend responded on his side (no pretense of neutrality) & his response is visible in several places in the archive [25], specifically these edits [26], [27], [28] which were highly suspect. Nor is this an isolated incident; on March 15th he again solicited his 'help' [29]. The nest day his friend asks how he can help [30], and Gwhillihers directly tells him [31], and that conversation is here: [32]. This directly the Sally Henings material, and shows how Gwillhickers used these methods to coherence editors into making changes based on "input" by other so-called neutral editors, when they were people he had solicited openly.
Gwhillihers violated 4) fringe theories, and I reported him to the noticeboard [33] for his extreme and inaccurate version of history. So did other editors like JoeBobAttacks [34]. He claimed there were "possibilities" of other Jefferson's fathering Hemings children, having zero evidence for such a claim, and adding this to the article's main page. This is only a partial list of his actions. He also distorted the archive page by altering my comments, and refusing to fix his inaccurate and unwarranted changes to my comments, as I remarked in his talk page [35]. Because he deletes items from his talk page, including several peace offers I made, it is not always apparent what he is doing. The point is that he made no attempt to resolve problems even when others have tried. Ebanony (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few extra notes. In Gwillicker's comment below he wrote regarding the Sally Hemgings section "This is indeed a controversy where many items were discussed, on the talk page." This is the same sort of denial tactics he's used for months. Hemings is a controversial topic, but there is no controversy concerning her relationship with Jefferson, at least not anymore in the academic community. Gwillicker's behaviour violated civil behaviour norms as well as the rules on WP:PA, personal attacks. I clearly addressed this on his talk page [36], and warned him numerous times about that. He scorns, mocks and verbally abuses people for pointing out policy. It is not possible to contribute to pages where this editor works. That is why I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia; all of my efforts are wasted.Ebanony (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look at some of Gwhillickers postage activity. On the Patrick Henry article he added a stamp section [37] and pictures [38]. He made no fewer than 39 edits during a one week period in Nov 2010 [39]. He made no attempt to discuss these changes on the talk page [40]. He added claims in his text which the citations he added do not support. The current version is out of place, not properly aligned and totally unnecessary [41]. It's like a crusade to put up postage stamps on every page elated to US historical figures.

Whilst he's got no qualms about adding postage stamps everywhere, he targets blacks, women and slaves; when he's not inventing history and speculating that a 14-yr-old child seduced Jefferson, he's making outrageous claims against Annette Gordon Reed (an African American scholar), or targeting blacks for removal from webpages. Case in point: In the Jefferson article dealing with black slaves, he took it upon himself to remove the one picture of a slave who had laboured on Jefferson's plantation. His reason? "Not even Washington's or Franklin's images are on this page." [42]. Why did he remove the one picture of a black slave but argue for white - totally unrelated whites at that - to be included? That section is about black slaves. There was no legitimate reason to remove it.

Another example of tendentious/biased editing: In his crusade to "Omitted moral comentary made by historian mentioned by name", he cut out legitimate criticism of Jefferson by a scholar he did not like; the scholar focused on Jefferson's racism, but Gwhillicker's would have the reader believe there was no racism on Jefferson's part - this from a man who says blacks came from primates! We can't gloss over that, though Gwhillicker's tried to over and over again. [43]. He invents his own wiki rules, and this is HIGHLY disruptive & biased. Ebanony (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwhillickers a) removed the scholar's name and b) misrepresented what he said. "Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves due to his fear of freed blacks living within white society, his dehumanization of black slaves, and his personal financial debt." He changed it to this: "Jefferson was reluctant to free his slaves out of his concern of freed blacks living within white society and his personal financial debt." [44]. Nowhere does Finkelman say that; Gwhillickers made it up, and this is something that makes TJ's behaviour towards slaves look better than it really was. Why is Gwhillickers allowed to invent history? BTW, this he did in the article's main space.Ebanony (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jefferson main page from August 2, 2010 to June 16, 2011 Gwhillickers has made at least 331 edits [45]. On the Jefferson talk page for the same period, at least 346 [46]. So in less than one year (most edits from Jan-May 2011) he made no fewer than 677 edits on TJ's page. If that is not disruptive, then what is? This is only one article; shall we count the other edits he's made?Ebanony (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other attempts[edit]

--Michael Romanov (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers § My encounter experience

I have had several encounters with Gwillhickers that left me with a mix of confused feelings concerning his capabilities to be a positive, non-disruptive contributor to Wikipedia. Because I am involved in WP:STAMPS, my encounters were related to articles on stamps, use and licensing of stamp images, and some other WP:STAMPS activities.

May to August 2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 7. Gwillhickers was an initiator of, an essential contributor to and/or a reason of several usually lengthy debates within a short period of time, including Displaying Images of U.S. Postage Issued after Jan. 1, 1978, 1978+ stamp image upload, Viking Mission 'Fair-Use' Upload, Fair Use appeal, Adding Wiki' links, Page titles, Central index of postal history, Fair Use size limitation, Commons uploads, eBay as a stamp image source, Ebay item template, and Commons categories for U.S. stamps. He looked like a user with the misunderstanding or incomprehension of the basic Wikipedia and Commons principles and rules of functioning. He even did not see differences in policies and resources between Wikipedia and Commons. At that point, I just thought why a person would not read the rules (e.g. WP:NFC#Images, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9, WP:ALSO, WP:WORLDVIEW, WP:LOWERCASE, etc.) and lend his ear to what other users say. And why so many words and lengthy clarifications that distract other editors and cost a lot of their time?
July 2010: User talk:Michael Romanov#Soviet Postage stamps. I tried to explain him how to license the Soviet stamp images and few other basic Commons rules, and he seemed to have a smattering of the Commons principles understanding and be negligent of that, so that my impression was that he might be a trouble with his numerous additions of images on both Wikipedia and Commons. I thought that this could be because he is a novice. However, later he claimed [47] that he had been editing Wikipedia since 2006, though under a different user name, and, therefore, is not a novice.
July to November 2010: Talk:Postage stamp. Major concern of several editors [48] was the definition and the lede of that article because he messed up that and ruined the article. He refused to understand or to agree with others on WP:MOSBEGIN, WP:STYLE, WP:SYN, WP:RS, MOS:IMAGES, WP:IG, and purpose of "See also" and "External links". Finally, the whole lede issue and other problematic sections previously touched by Gwillhickers were resolved [49] by two anonymous users who decided to be WP:BOLD in this situation.
August 2010: Talk:Admirals (philately). In editing this article, Gwillhickers demonstrated violations and/or incomprehension of WP:STYLE, WP:NOT, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, MOS:IMAGES, WP:IMGSIZE, and WP:ETIQ#How to avoid abuse of talk pages, as can be seen on the article talk page.
August to September 2010: User talk:Gwillhickers. My concern and concern of other editors [50] were his Commons uploads and again Postage stamp. He was negligent of his image uploads and terms of their use. As for Postage stamp, he continued refusing to comprehend WP:LEDE, WP:MOSBEGIN, WP:MOS, WP:Synthesis, WP:OR, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:GAME, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ETIQ and other guidelines.
January 2011: Talk:US Presidents on US postage stamps#Overuse of non-free images(?). A long-long talk, which is a usual Gwillhickers' discussion style, with signs of his violating WP:GAME and WP:NICE. I supported Stan Shebs there and agreed that the policy of minimal use for NFCC should be observed, with no more than 3-5 non-free images being used in that article. It took one day for Gwillhickers to wrap up his final comment, using 7 single edit steps, which is also his usual manner.

Overall, I agree with what is said in Statement of the dispute, Desired outcome, Description and other sections on the front page of this RfC. But I disagree with Gwillhickers' view that we have here false accusations against him. My overall impression is that such a conduct on Wikipedia should be considered as disputed behavior. --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Coemgenus 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carmarg4 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parkwells (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AW (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ebanony (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Michael Romanov (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Brad (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arman Cagle^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the criticism of Gwhillickers on this page and in particular with Michael Romanov's comments on the talk page. I have watched Gwillhickers's edits to a number of philatelic articles. He is highly disruptive, refuses to listen to other, experienced editors' views and follows his own agenda no matter what the facts are. When he is shown that his edits directly violate Wikipedia guidelines and principles, he refuses to accept reality, reverts others' corrective edits and argues endlessly to justify his position. Gwillhickers is harmful to this project. Ecphora (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly encountered Gwillhickers on Thomas Jefferson. He strongly promotes what I'd call a "boy-scout view of history", i.e. history as it might be taught in K12 circa 1955, with Great Men and little room for criticism and dispute. This is not unusual, but what is is that when confronted with modern scholarly sources, he never concedes that he is wrong. At best he temporarily withdraws. But more often, he turns to attack modern scholarly opinion, describing it and academe in general with terms and phrases like systemic bias, highly peer driven, esp at the administration level,goose-stepping, [the result of] peer pressure and intimidation., caught up in a political/peer driven trend prevalent in many of today's academic circles, go[ing] along with their peers for social/political reasons and to protect/secure their annual grants(..). I don't mind the stamps so much, but I'm concerned with this anti-intellectualism and his apparent inability to change his mind even if confronted with the weight of academic opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gwhillickers appears to believe that being featured on a stamp is such an immense honor that stamp portraits are more notable than other representations, but that's simply not the case. The Post Office sticks a portrait on a stamp to make money for the Post Office. That is absolutely the only reason; no matter how loudly their marketing department brays about patriotism and loyalty and honor, they're in it for the dollars and only for the dollars, and nothing else matters.
But the real problem here in my opinion is not the stamps themselves but the editor's view of his place in Wikipedia. Gwhillickers appears to believe that facts are of equal or lesser value than opinions, and especially his opinions. He also places a great deal of value on traditional respect and deference to authority, but he feels victimized when academics - people who have studied portraiture and history for decades and who have forgotten more than he or I or any of us will ever know - are considered more authoritative than he is. He simply wants, desperately, to be the Great Man (as Stephan Schulz says), even in a small way on Wikipedia: when he doesn't get the deferential respect that he feels the Great Man is entitled to, and especially when someone he doesn't agree with does get that Great Man respect, he feels victimized, lashes out, and damages the project.
Gwhillickers, if you're reading this and I hope you are, I sympathize with you. I sometimes catch myself wondering why these whippersnappers aren't treating me with the respect I "deserve". Then I grow up a bit (yes, at my age), calm down, and ask myself: who the hell am I to think I deserve any added respect just because I'm middle-aged? Truth is, I don't: I'm just expressing a bit of middle-aged entitlement. I'm not entitled to have my opinions treated with any more respect than anyone else's just because I've to date avoided getting hit by a car. I'm not entitled to anything that isn't specified by statute (which here is peace, order, and good government - I'm hoping for 1 out of 3 some day). I'm not smarter, I'm not better, I and my opinions (however dearly held) don't deserve special deference - and I could probably learn a lot more from those whippersnappers than they could from me. And I certainly don't deserve to have my opinions trump established fact: I'm not God. Take my advice: hop off the pedestal and accept that you are just another person, and that disagreement does not equal disrespect. It's liberating not to feel victimized all the time: it really is. I'm not a Great Woman; you're not a Great Man. We're just people, plodding along. And that's okay. --NellieBly (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I have had my share of debates on discussion pages, like most others. It is merely a gross exaggeration and a personal opinion that these discussions have caused 'chaos' and have 'disrupted activity'. Most of the disputes revolve around the deletion of good faith and relevant contributions with no discussion. -- This is what has initiated most if not all so called "disruptive" discussions. -- I am not sure what user Brad hopes to accomplish with this. Does he wish that I not dispute matters at all? In the latest debate I attempted to gather consensus in an appropriate manner on the Lincoln discussion page by leaving notices to users interested in US history. Brad accused me of approaching users who did not agree with me, which is a flat out untruth, as all I did was point out to 'one' user that he had overlooked the call for consensus. I made every attempt to try and resolve an image issue with discussion and consensus and in response Brad has tried to paint the affair as something dishonorable and deceitful. All I ask is that you look into Brad's concerns in light of this slanderous accusation and that you instruct him to deal with issues in an honest manner. If there is any particular item of concern, please bring it to my attention. Thank you.

Also, please note that this 'issue' only involves the discussion of placement/inclusion of images in a legacy or other appropriate section, and that in every case I have abided by consensus once that consensus was fairly established. The volume of 'complaints' dumped on this page, aside from being a gross misrepresentation of my activity and my intentions, is unwarranted as there has also been no MOS or other policy violations. If I had ignored consensus and carried on with no regard for it, or Wikipedia policy, then there would be a definite issue here. The claim that I am 'disrupting' affairs is false and is apparently only the product of personal scorn, and seems to be made in retaliation to the note/response I left Brad when he accused me of unethical canvassing activity on the Lincoln discussion page, where I had to inform him of what is appropriate canvassing and what is not. Again, I have always discussed matters with a civil tone and have never resorted to misrepresentations or outright slander and have always gone along with consensus. I simply do not know what else users like Brad expect from me. This issue is blown way out of proportion and only brings discord and resentment to the pages in question. If anyone is creating a disturbance it is most certainly Brad, as his approach has been hostile, unfair and unwarranted from the very beginning. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Brad's opening statements:

" ... However, he has demonstrated an obsession with placing his uploaded stamp pics into related articles with no regard to their noteworthiness or context in the article."

I have always included stamp images into sections to which they relate, and have on numerous occasions ( 1, 2, 3) discussed such matters when it was warranted. I am hoping that you hold this editor accountable for these statements and ask him to supply any evidence of such claims.

"His stated position is that the display of stamps, without exception, is much more important and descriptive of the subject than any other images."

At no time have I ever said that stamp images are "more important", "without exception" than other images. Here also I am hoping you hold this editor accountable for these statements, and when it is confirmed that I in fact have never made, or even suggested these things, that you will instruct this editor to refrain from making such gross inaccuracies of my activity in the future. -- I have now lost count of the inaccuracies Brad has dumped on to this page. That he is making such statements with no apparent concern for the truth in a transparent forum such as Wikipedia would seem to indicate that this user has other issues he is really dealing with. All I ask here is that this matter be brought to Brad's attention and that he is dealt with in a manner that is appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations[edit]

This is in response to the several false accounts Brad has made in this discussion.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1 Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

2 Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

3 Wikipedia:Canvassing

4 Wikipedia:No legal threats

5 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

6 Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Disruptive editing. I have made honest attempts to discuss matters on the discussion page where these sorts of issues are supposed to be resolved. Brad has yet to provide actual proof, not even an explanation, that any of these discussions has prevented anyone from making contributions. Unless user Brad can supply this material, rather than making general claims, this account remains patently false.

Tendentious editing. Editing? This issue involves talk page disscussions, not editing to the main page, so here also Brad's general claims prove to be discressionary at best and in my opinion, raising an issue like this without actual proof is in fact Tendentious editing on user Brad's part.

Canvassing. This has already been addressed above. Here also Brad's account is less than accurate, as there are indeed several ways to conduct appropriate canvassing. This was brought to user Brad's attention, yet he still comes to this page with yet another false account of my activity.

No legal threats This is a gross misrepresentation. I have made no legal threats to anyone. Please instruct user Brad to supply any evidence of this accusation. In the recent past I have used the term illegal deletions in response to one user, but this was in reference to Wikipedia policy -- No 'Legal Threats' were ever made.

Conflict of interest Brad has yet to outline this activity. I am assuming he is referring to my stamp collecting, and that any edits involving stamp images constitute this "conflict of interest". Is it also Brad's contention that people with a love for America should not be making edits on the various U.S. history pages?

Fringe theories. Here I am assuming reference is being made to the Sally Hemings controversy that occurred on the Thomas Jefferson page. This is indeed a controversy where many items were discussed, on the talk page.

Wikipedia is a transparent forum, so it completely amazes me how anyone can make such a litany of false claims where any claim can be checked on as a matter of routine.

Users who endorse this summary:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views[edit]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Baseball Bugs[edit]

Maybe the rules have changed, but it was my understanding that U.S. postage stamps are copyrighted and cannot be used freely like most other works of the U.S. government can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, U.S. stamps prior to 1978 are public domain, as per Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Some rules apply, but that is up to Commons and not up to an RfC here[reply]

Outside view by Collect[edit]

This is a rather useless RfC - the USPS has rules and guidelines for use of images online, and, as far as I can tell, Commons follows them correctly. This is an attempt to do on Wikipedia what can not be done on Commons. Any issues about improper use belong on Commons and not here, in any case. Images of stamps, banknotes and coins are widely used in reference books and biographies in the "hardcopy world" and so they should be equally welcome on Wikipedia. The editor in question has behaved fully properly and in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and this is an attempt to make what is, at best, a content dispute from a person who dislikes using such images, into some sort of "evil conduct complaint." Everyone should have a cup of tea, and let this one disappear gently into that good night. Cheers.

Users who endorse this summary:

Collect (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Alanscottwalker[edit]

I don't think this Rfc is useless. I participated in the discussion at Abraham Lincoln and thought that Gwillhickers arguments became repetitive and he refused to recognize consensus for much too long. Toward the end of that discussion, I reviewed "American Civil War" and was bothered that there were so many stamps on that page that it looked like an article about stamps. I advised Gwillhickers to moderate his use of stamps on all articles as it seemed to be overly contentious and to adversely effect content. (Also, there are often better, more relevant, and more interesting pictures.) With the help of other editors, we convinced Gwillhickers to remove many of the stamps in the civil war article, and to his credit, he did so, but not until Gwillhickers unfairly attacked another editor. (see Talk:American Civil War#Images and postage stamps). Gwillhickers is obviously committed to stamps and putting them in articles. As noted on the talk page for this Rfc, another uninvolved editor says that Gwillhickers goes against consensus, as he does so. That may sometimes be true and I would not doubt it, given my limited review of the record. I really wish he would create articles about the stamps, themselves, instead of these fights, and moderate his use of stamps.

Users who endorse this summary:

Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--JimWae (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC). I have tried to stay out of this belaboured discussion. I agree that stamps are over-used on several articles and that there is a consensus that such is the case. Despite what I perceive to be a consensus for removing some of these images, the stamps have been repeatedly re-inserted by Gwillhickers. I do not think any sanctions are necessary so long as he accepts the outcome of these "proceedings".[reply]
Brad (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC). I was one editor who participated in the discussion at Talk:American Civil War#Images and postage stamps. I believed the discussion ended in a positive way both to pagespace and to the parties involved. However, I was previously canvassed by Gwillhickers to participate in the discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln. Though I had been watching that discussion previous to the talkpage post, I chose not to involve myself partially because of the unwelcome solicitation. If Gwillhickers can abide by the decision here, I would be glad to see the user continue working productively in the history content area.[reply]

Outside view by Stan Shebs[edit]

After reading a bunch of the talk page back-and-forth cited above, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and a thought or two of quitting WP altogether. No one is covering themselves in glory here; the disputants are skirting the bounds of acceptable behavior when they start making references to other editors being "lying" or "slanderous" or "dishonest" or "edit warring" or whatever. Quoting newbie editor mistakes from over a year ago is not evidence of anything, except that newbies make mistakes. Everyone needs to take a chill pill, and really assume good faith even if the other person wholeheartedly disagrees with everything you're saying.

I think this case is an example of a deep flaw in the FA process, which is that it can become an echo chamber where a small group of like-minded editors fend off anybody who disagrees because it's not "consensus", as if a half-dozen editors among 15 million ever plausibly represent a supermajority view. It's Gwillhicker's bad luck to be interested in a less-popular aspect of popular subjects. Although I admire him for persevering (whereas I've given up and try not to think about the FA process anymore), realistically it's just too hard to get anything new or different through the hermetic seal, and my advice is that he could be happier and more productive avoiding FAs and working on other articles.

That said, I am deeply disappointed in the complainants here. I don't have any advice for them, because my impression is that they are smugly convinced of their own rightness on everything, and if Gwillhickers does take my advice, will simply interpret that as justification for reprehensible behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

Stan (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC) With a few brief paragraphs user Stan Shebs has spoken volumes. I will not even attempt to expound on what he has said here, with but the one exception that I would not sum up all of the editors here with such candid measure, and I am sure he has not.[reply]

Inside view by Brad101[edit]

I first encountered Gwillhickers in February 2010 when he added File:USS Constitution 150 Anniversary Issue of 1947-3c.jpg to the USS Constitution article; an article that I brought through FAC in late 2008. I had long thought that a pic of the Constitution stamp would compliment the article so I was glad to have the addition. I made some corrections to the position of the pic and removed some unusual (for a FA) html in the image caption. All was well until later in the year when Gwillhickers returned and replaced the html and made some other edits to the photo like removing alt text that went against Mos Images. I corrected them again and a short while later Gwillhickers changed them back. I probably left a note on his talk page about his odd edits (I can't find the thread) but the conversation continued on my talk page where I further explained the reasons for Mos Images. Gwillhickers began to debate Mos Images however he also agreed not to make the changes again. I did not see a reason at that point to continue the conversation.

In March of this year I was canvassed by Gwillhickers regarding the controversy then taking place at the Thomas Jefferson article. I thought it was strange to be contacted out of the blue on a topic I had never even edited on. When I visited the article talk page I found a full blown war going on over several different topics or so it appeared to me at the time. I did not partake of the chaos as Gwillhickers appeared to have been the instigator of the ongoing disputes.

In April of this year I submitted USS Chesapeake to FAC and began helping out with existing FAC articles and their reviews. I found the Abraham Lincoln article listed there and worked in earnest on the review. After the FAC closed without promotion I decided to stay with the editors and help improve the article in the hopes that the next time it went to FAC it would pass. The synopsis above in the evidence of disputed behavior area is what I saw and witnessed after Gwillhickers discovered the stamp pics had been removed from the article. While that debacle was progressing I recalled that Gwillhickers was the one who had canvassed me on Thomas Jefferson so I decided to revisit that article. I discovered there that months of disruption had been carried out by Gwillhickers. Picking up on other comments that editors were saying at the ongoing Lincoln debacle I began to look around at other presidential biographies and noticed the abundance of stamp pics and ran into the stamp debate at Benjamin Harrison. More and more over a period of days I found additional instances of Gwillhickers' campaign and disruptions for stamps.

At that point I felt that some sort of solution to the disruptions had to be implemented. I felt there were several policies being violated in many articles with many editors. I wasn't sure exactly what process should be used but after reading around and realizing that Gwillhickers had already been given various warnings about his behavior (especially at Alexander Graham Bell) I figured that RfC/U was the best place to begin. I started a draft in my user space and contacted several editors who were the most involved in the disputes in the various articles. While some of them didn't bother to respond enough of them did to add their own experiences and certify this RfC.

While I'm the one who decided to gather information for this RfC and actually clicked the post button when it came to filing it, this RfC was an entire group effort in the making. After the filing of this RfC many other editors have appeared with more and more information on Gwillhickers' behavior than I ever expected. One thing I'm not surprised over is that Gwillhickers' response above here levels the gun directly at me and blames the filing of the RfC to justify his behavior.

I've been editing WP for over five years and to my best recollection this is the first time I ever felt like I had to file some report about another editor's behavior other than vandalism or the like. I'd much rather be doing something else. The essential reason why I'm even bothering to add this personal view of Gwillhickers' behavior is because I feel that No Legal Threats hasn't been explained completely. Going by the perceived legal threats I feel that Gwillhickers has most certainly geared some of his responses to be perceived as legal threats. Since at least one of his threats (slanderous) was aimed at me during a dispute I didn't take it as a simple mistake.

Users who endorse this summary:

Brad (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution[edit]

Proposal 1[edit]

To resolve this dispute, Gwillhickers is asked:

to observe the one-revert rule when editing;
to adopt a strategy of minimizing conflict between himself and other editors;
to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming repetitive or combative;
to observe consensus and the common-sense interpretation of applicable rules;
to consider engaging with a neutral mentor for at least six months.

Users who endorse this proposed solution

Coemgenus (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the dispute resolution, if there is a reasonable time limit. In other words, these conditions are not for an indefinite period of time. Possibly no more then six months from a predetermined date is suggested. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the friendliest way, I'd strongly suggest Gwillhickers do page work outside the normal watchlist, not because the work with stamps is unimportant, but because that editor's work with stamps will likely improve within the context of a more rounded wiki-experience. Such energy and effort can be used to everyone's benefit. BusterD (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parkwells (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

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

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