Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Alexander Graham Bell

Alexander Graham Bell image dispute

Greetings, I recently have had an image removed from the Alexander Graham Bell page, not because of its content, but because of its national origin. When I attempted to restore it, it was removed again, and again. The party (user: gold coast surf) that removed it would not had done so had the image come from Britain or Canada. The party claims "disproportionate national imagery" and makes generic reference to NPOV, but the IMAGE in dispute, along with all the other images on that page all honor, commemorate or highlight Bell in a neutral fashion. The image is of a US Postage stamp depicting a schematic telephone drawn by Bell, and invented in the US. When I tried to appeal to the party and mentioned that he was free to include images from his preferred countries, he ignored the request. When I placed a POV tag on the article he removed that also, so I had to of course replace it. The issue is about blocking or removing images because of national origin. GWillHickers (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was removed by a third party (not user: gold coast surf) to the issue because it was a commemorative stamp (albeit featuring an image of the first telephone) that was first placed in a section on the invention of the telephone and should have been more appropriately located with the section on "honors and tributes". Once that was done, there was already a commemorative stamp in that section, so the new image was essentially redundant and was removed in favor of the larger image already present. My "take" was that the issue of stamps as "decorative" additions to an article is always troublesome as they rarely provide more than just a "pretty picture". I did note that a disproportionate use of imagery was involved in the article, somehow that was construed as part of the debate. Regardless, the stamp image was in dispute due to it being unnecessary; the issue of national bias was brought up later by user: gold coast surf and has some merit in that WP:NPOV is involved. By this point, the back-and-forth culminated in an edit war and with one editor trying to impose a tag indicating a dispute regarding bias. The tag was not discussed on the talk page nor was consensus obtained so the tag was summarily removed, again by another editor. A look through the edit history and the talk page is instructive as one editor seems to have a bias, but that seems to be to further a philatelic agenda. The article in question is a biography and a commemorative stamp can be apt but two stamps reveals a predilection for stamps. FWiW, the blasting of other editors is not appropriate and in frustration, I asked for the parties involved to "stick to their knitting", however, this request for mediation instead was the result. Bzuk (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points raised by Bzuk i again agree with. As i stated below a 1997 Royal Bank of Scotland Banknote that commemorates the 150th anniversary of the birth of Bell belongs in the commemoration section in honors and tributes/legacy just as a 1976 US stamp that commemorates Bell's 100th anniversary of the invention of the telephone does. As Bzuk points out the commemorative stamp was redundant as there was already one in the honors and legacy section, likewise if someone uploaded a Scottish commemorative 1997 banknote of Bell and incorrectly put it in the section of his birth (that i or anyone will remove to meet WP:MOS), if there was already one in the legacy and honors section then it would be redundant. He also made a valid point in the talk page over the choice of which stamp to use. My point about WP:NPOV and proportionality and avoiding bias was echoed by Bzuk in that two US stamps in the commemoration section is a "repetive commemoration" (as would two Canadian statues or two Scots banknotes) so make a choice which one to use. The bias and suggestion of Gwillhickers philatelic agenda with his use of stamps is a fair comment. With his false accusations its evident that Gwillhickers didnt read the comments carefully as he would have seen the points that i had to highlight below, nor did he need to snipe at everyone. The issue for Gwillhickers to decide is which commemorative postage stamp he would like to use for the commemoration section in "legacy and honors" that honors the memory of Bell. Now i'm finally off to bed folks.Gold coast surf (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view on talk was that I differ with GWillhickers having looked through the edit history of the article and saw the user has inserted images a number of times inappropriately. On one occasion planting a commemorative United states postage stamp of Bell directly below the infobox at the top. Edit dated 31 March. The user Harryzilber then rightly moved it to legacy and commemoration, where Bell is venerated alongside the other nations to whom he identifies do. No one other than GWillhickers that i have seen has continuously inserted inappropriate images that go against wiki rules onto the page, and there is no consensus for doing so.Andymcgrath (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After tagging the article three times with the erroneous tag that the neutrality of the article is in question; all actions that were without consensus, GW is acting entirely on his own, pushing an agenda that flies in the face of the comments and actions by other editors. This type of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is entirely without merit and deserves the sternest rebuke if not censure. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The classic signals identifying a tendentious editor are present:

Repeatedly undoes the "vandalism" of others;
Assigns wp:undue weight to submissions;
On a crusade to set the record straight;
Will not discuss but merely repeats and wikilawyers. 'Enuf said. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The user GWillhickers

The user Gwillhickers has not only consistently breached two wikipedia policies namely WP:NPOV and WP:MOS for images, but he is now stating falsehoods and making false accusations simply because he clearly hasn't read the comments. I point you to the comments of all the users HERE. I advocated neutrality throughout. He falsely claimed that if it was a Scotland or Canada image (and not a US) that i wouldn't have removed it had it been placed in the wrong section (he has also repeatedly put images out of place that other users have rectified). so i stated in my last comment,

"As Bzuk has stated the user GWillhickers has to end this sniping against everyone and cease. Also GWillhickers needs to read the comments again because the user is repeatedly stating falsehoods and making false accusations. I shall copy and paste two sentences of my third comment,

Gwillhickers, retaining proportionality (to meet WP:NPOV) is one aspect, but its also the timeline and image relevance to the text (to meet WP:MOS). The Royal Bank of Scotland commemoration for his 150 year anniversary is a good one, it would be ideal to add to the commemoration section but its not THAT necessry as it looks ok.

If someone uploaded an image of the 1997 Royal Bank of Scotland Banknote that commemorates the 150th anniversary of the birth of Bell and placed it next to the section of his birth, i would remove it and place it in the commemoration section in legacy and honors (if the similar image wasn't already there). I have repeatedly stated commemoration section throughout if there was a commemorative Scotland image uploaded. I maintain neutrality whether its Scotland, US or Canada..that has been my argument from the start. This tirade against users has to end.

That was my last comment, and i and other users have also called for an end to Gwillhickers tirade, its imperative that this ceases. Thankyou.Gold coast surf (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]