Talk:Aafia Siddiqui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KeptSouth (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 19 July 2011 (→‎BLP: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidateAafia Siddiqui is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted

BLP

I remove the image from the infobox because it violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG. Another editor did not take this BLP concerns serious and reverted the inappropriate image back with an edit summary that does not address the concern and does not make much sense.

"This is being used"

Please explain and discuss. IQinn (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Iquinn hopped from another dispute, a few minutes ago, over to starting this one. He removed this long-standing image—writing as his edit summary "remove as per WP:MUG".

As he presumably knows, since he cited to it, wp:mug says in pertinent part: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light."

I restored the image, w/the edit summary "This is being used". The words "... in context, as her criminal charges, penalties, and status also appear in the infobox" appear to have been truncated; apologies for that computer glitch.

Iquinn seems to think that, at least when people accused of being terrorists and convicted of crimes are concerned (that's where we seem to meet), wp:mug requires that no mug shots or composite wanted images be used. He is incorrect. wp:mug clearly applies to images being used "out of context". This, in contrast, is used in context.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


* I agree with Epeefleche. The image serves to illustrate the subject in question, is the product of the FBI and is therefore free use, and there is no reasonable expectation that another free picture can be used. Merely stating that the use of the photo to illustrate the individual by citing because it violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG is no good at all; how does the use of a photo violate Wikipedia’s policies? I assume IQinn is referring specifically to the WP:MUG section of WP:BLP. However, it states as follows:


That is intended to cover unflattering booking photos like this James Brown booking photo or this one of Lindsay Lohan. To use unflattering photos of such celebrities when there are lots of free-use alternatives in those articles (see our Lindsay Lohan article) is to unnecessarily besmirch their reputation. In the case of Aafia Siddiqui, she has no reputation to besmirch because she is notable only for her infamy. Were it not that she was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list and were it not for the fact that she shot up some soldiers, there would be no article on her.
And finally, the argument that this picture “casts her in an unflattering light” is specious and doesn’t hold water. It looks like a passport photo and, although the image was used as part of an FBI Most Wanted poster, this image is not of the poster with its “MOST WANTED” text (which would be unnecessarily inflammatory) but shows only the photo itself.
Bottom line, the objection of IQinn has been noted and has been soundly rejected as unsupportable on the facts and on Wikipedia policy. There is now a consensus to undo his deletion of the picture and I will do so in a moment. I caution IQinn, who has a long and distinguished record of editing articles in favor of Islamic extremists [I’ve looked at iQuinn’s pattern of edits before and—just pardon me all over the place for noting here what my opinion is—but it appears to me he has a pattern of editing articles in favor of Islamic extremists. I caution him] to not follow his own threat in his edit summary (∆ edit, here), which read (BLP removed as per WP:MUG see talk and do not reinsert until the dispute is resolved). The dispute doesn’t have to be resolved to IQinn’s satisfaction, it need only be resolved by consensus. Now resolved per consensus. IQinn has sorely misapplied what WP:MUG is about and his bias in this regard is palpable.
If IQinn wants this photo deleted because he somehow finds it “casts her in an unflattering light”, he can first go find a more flattering one of her to replace it. Greg L (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
completely agree with Epeefleche and Greg L. she is a convicted felon and a suspected al-qaeda terrorist.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche it would be helpful not to put words in my mouth i never said or thought and Greg and Wikireader41 it would be helpful not to agree to something i have never said.

This image in the infobox reduced the individual of this biography to a FBI created Facial composite and presents her in a false light. It is not an image of her, it is an artificial facial composite created by the FBI. It shows how the FBI thought she might look like and does not represent the individual of this biography. And no matter what you personally think about Dr. Siddiqui WP:BLP, WP:MUG does apply to her equally as to all other individuals on Wikipedia with no exception. We take BLP very serious. Here are a few images of Dr. Siddiqui. [1], [2], [3] - IQinn (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Good for you. Now go contact the editors of those papers and get them to put their images into the public domain so they can be used here. You can find the procedures for doing so starting at our main page. Perhaps you can find one of her when she was 16 years old, had pony tails in her hair, and was washing the feet of orphans. I’m not sure that would best illustrate the individual given what made her notable, but that would sure be more flattering. The trouble is, the only question is whether this one is unnecessarily unflattering. It isn’t; I’ve seen more unflattering passport photos. And it’s free and in the public domain. When I went back to undo IQinn’s POV-pushing, I found that another editor, User:Wikireader41 undid IQinn (∆ edit, here). I caution IQinn (again) to not edit against consensus. The consensus is clear and he is overruled. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
right now this picture is the best we have. If we can find a better picture in public domain i would have no problems replacing it. IMO it looks exactly like her & is not a composite. please do not add tags just to make a point and Iquinn get over your problem with accepting consensus. this is not the first time you have indulgesd in such pointy behaviour. --Wikireader41 (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove POV tags until the dispute has been solved and all involved editor agree to do so. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
please do not place unnnecessay tags before discussing here and building consensus. we know you are upset at being over ruled about the picture here. please read WP:POINT and desist from putting tags that are not warranted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Wiki (for the most part--and most certainly w/his removal of Iqinn's remarkably POINTy tag) and w/Greg here, and stand on what we all said above. And agree that Iqinn's tagging of the article, when every single editor who commented on this point disagreed w/him, was tendentious and disruptive. We don't tag-bomb articles to mar them, simply because we have a non-consensus view. I would ask him politely to avoid disruptive/tendentious editing in the future. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations that do not address the content issue. If you constantly remove the POV tag you can be sure you are in a dispute and the tag should stay until the conditions for removal, listed below are met. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this dispute or the resort to disparaging other editors. The picture is actually quite flattering to her now; it is a passport picture from many years ago when she was younger and more attractive. If IQinn wanted to argue against putting the face picture showing her apparently beaten and unconscious in the infobox, I would agree, that one is unflattering and probably a violation of MUG. --KeptSouth (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I figured out the reason for the excessive dispute: to get the article locked to better control editing because there is new information from RSs or perhaps semi-RSs on Siddiqui's actual case.KeptSouth (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Facial composite created by an artist of the FBI not an authentic image. You have any reference that say it is a passport pricture? You can find more information here. I think Collect sums it up pretty much. But i have no idea what you mean by new information and locking up. Any links to new references that you can share with up? I do not know what you mean by that. IQinn (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you say 6 times at the outset of the noticeboard discussion that the picture is a "facial composite" and everyone seems to accept this at face value so to speak. But where is the proof? I looked at the three references you gave and none of them say it is a facial composite. As far as I can tell, the caption in her Wikipedia article that says the pic is a facial composite is unsupported speculation. Maybe it's a passport picture, maybe it's a student ID, who knows...but there is no proof, I believe, other than your assertions and perhaps some OR comparisons with other known photos, that it is a facial composite. Please correct me if I am wrong. The wanted poster had another pic with her in a scarf - why not use that instead as way to resolved this old dispute - or do you believe or have proof that it too is a "facial composite"? Finally, a bit of common sense - why on earth would an investigative agency use an artist's representation when a real photo was available? The woman had lived in the US for 11 years for crying out loud, and photos of her were available to the FBI KeptSouth (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original image source says that it is a facial composite and i think nobody has challenged that because it looks also like a facial composite. You say: "Maybe it's a passport picture, maybe it's a student ID, who knows" Well, if we do not have a reference for that than we can not assume that and we can not even assume that it is Aafia Siddiqui.
I would not have a problem to use the image with the scarf at all and i think there is no reason nor proof to believe it is a facial composite. So that would be a possible solution for me.
Finally, there are many reasons for the FBI to create facial composites even when a real image is available. E.G.: changing the age or creating one that shows her without the head scarf. You can find more reasons here Facial composite. IQinn (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. The "original image source" from 2004 and 2008 says nothing about it being a derivitive picture. The simply statement is made that: "THis is a picture of Aafia Siddiqui from her wanted poster at the FBI Website http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/siddiqui.htm It is in the public domain". In 2010 a Wikipedian added that it is a composite. You have relying on an assertion by an anonymous Wikipedia contributor which is OR and contrary to the uploaders' description. There is no reliable source which says the picture is a composite including the sources you cited in at the beginning of this little, but lengthy dispute. The FBI used the pic on a wanted poster - they did not designate it as a composite on the wanted poster. If it were a composite they would have said so and adding that to the description of the pic is pure speculation and OR. And again, why would they use a composite when the woman had lived in the U.S. for 11 years and they would have had access to numerous acual photos of her. In other words, you have raised a complete red herring and succeed in restricting access to edits on the article for several days based on another editor's OR, unfounded assumptions and personal speculation. Great game. KeptSouth (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Back to the content issue

Wikireader41 in reply to your last content focused reply. 1) You do not address all arguments i gave. 2) That we to not have another image is no justification to use one that shows the individual in a false light. 3) The image is a doubtless a Facial composite. IQinn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We’re done. The consensus is clear. Stop harping because no one is required now to respond to you. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg L first of all as you think that i am editing articles in a islamic terrorism manner i suggest you stay out of this debate. It is clear that you are not interested in discussing the relevant points. 2) My arguments have been shown that the image shows the individual in a false light and that it violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed. Discussions are not decided based on possible meatpuppet votes and edit warring (just to mention for the newbies) rather they are decided on valuating the given arguments. Valid counter arguments have not been provided so that we have to assume that i am right and the image needs to be removed. IQinn (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
…and yet… no one else here still agrees with you. In the military that’s called “So sad — too bad.” On Wikipedia, harping against consensus is called being tendentious. Are you waking up to any of this? Goodbye. And, again, please stay off my talk page. Dealing with you editing against consensus shouldn’t be like catching a case of herpes that never goes away. I didn’t say you are a bad person or lack good faith (though that last bit is seriously called into question by your refusal to abide by consensus). I said I think your edit history demonstrates a bias that comes across as POV-pushing. I still feel that way. I see from your edit history that you’ve been blocked before for misusing {IDONTLIKEIT} tags so I assume your problem isn’t a lack of understanding of the rules but is borne out of an unwillingness to conform yourself to conduct expected. If you can find the ability to abide by the rultes, then happy editing and all the best. Greg L (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Greg your reply is a bit uncivil because of the rude language and all this false ad hominem. And that you refuse to discuss the content issue in a civil way and that you can not provide valid counter arguments shows clearly that you are POV-pushing and that my arguments are right and that the image should be removed. You might take a walk outside. IQinn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anyone else on this thread agreeing with anything you write? You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well Greg it is obvious that you have a different POV and that you like the image that violates BLP. But we do take BLP very serious so you should address the given arguments instead of wasting our time with attacking the person you do not agree with that is uncivil and a waste of time. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s obvious we don’t agree on that either. Let me know when Epeefleche or Wikireader41, or anyone else around here actually agrees with you on this issue regarding that picture. You’ve been overruled. The picture stays. What part of “consensus” do you not understand? All of it? Greg L (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg you have to address the arguments and you have to provide valid counter arguments. That's how you discuss in a civil way and reach consensus. That you three have the same POV is obvious and irrelevant (some could even be called in as meatpuppyies who knows).

This is a BLP issue and and it is a BLP violation. The article almost borders hate speech and one major reason for that is the image in the infobox that is not an image of Aafia Siddiqui. It is a Facial composite created by the FBI and not an image of Aafia Siddiqui. To present this facial composite in the infobox as if this would be Dr. Siddiqi violates WP:MUG, WP:BLP. The image shows the individual in a false light and you are welcome to address these reasons and arguments. Simply to refuse to discuss in a civil way is not an option. IQinn (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you: The article almost borders hate speech. Well, there you go. Now you’ve displayed your POV-pushing bias for all to see. Nice move. I’m wasting my time trying to get you to see reason. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that you do not think that the article in its current form borders hate speech has exposed your POV and that is the x time that you disrupt the discussion with arguments against the person instead of addressing the content issue what is indeed POV-pushing and disruptive. Best. IQinn (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is iQuin’s {POV} tag necessary?

To iQuinn: Please stop changing the section title to something that makes you happier. I’ve changed it to something that speaks square to the heart of the issue of you slapping an {IDONTLIKEIT} tag after an overwhelming consensus was to restore a picture of this terrorist. If you don’t want a section titled Is iQuin’s {POV} tag necessary? being started to deal with your disruption and tendentiousness, then stop slapping articles with the tags when an overwhelming consensus isn’t to your liking. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Greg: rudeness, insults, and name-calling is uncivil. WP:CIVIL IQinn (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the {IDONTLIKEIT} tag at the top of the article, which iQuin put there just minutes after being overruled on the inclusion of a picture (∆ edit, here). Terrorism-related articles often have those. This is a high-profile article that has had the benefit of vigorous tug of war by both sides of the camp and is amply cited. I don’t see the need for the tag one bit. Note that the litmus test for whether the tag stays there is not whether there is an editor who is dissatisfied with the tenor of the article and wants to be a hold-out, but whether there is a consensus to have the tag or not. Ergo…

  • Delete tag As I stated above, this is a high-profile article that has had the benefit of vigorous tug of war by both sides of the camp and is amply cited. I don’t see the need for the tag one bit. It was put there by IQuin minutes ago after he didn’t get his way with a photo. That is disruptive editing and is just editwarring by different means on the same issue. This sort of disruption may be met with sanctions if he persists. (This just after he whines at my talk page about my alleging he has a history of POV-pushing.) (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tag completely unwarranted as he is upset about the picture and unwilling to accept consensus against removing it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tag. Per above discussion. Iqinn -- please desist w/your disruptive, against consensus, POINTy edit-warring. I note that Iqinn has been blocked for edit-warring about tags in the past, and would request that he stop doing so here, so as to avoid a possible similar result. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I try not to weigh in on these terrorism-related articles because one has to jump through so many hoops and red tape to deal with tendentious editors because they are so profoundly motivated. If he does much more of this sort of thing (editwarring via {IDONTLIKEIT} tags after a consensus does not go his way, someone give me a holler and we will see about dealing with the root of the problem. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment False accusations that do not address or solve the content issue. IQinn (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a POV and there is no consensus needed to add the tag. What is needed according to our rules is listed here:

When to remove:

  1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
  2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
  3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
  4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.
None of this is given so i re-add the tag. And i suggest you stop edit warring about the tag as this is just a proof that this tag is needed until these criteria have been met. Thank you very much. IQinn (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the consensus is overwhelming that the article has no problems as it is and it does not need a tag. It would be impossible to get ALL editors to agree with anything on WP. this place works by consensus. please remove the tag yourself and submit to the consensus.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what is wrong with you today, IQuinn? Right in the tag is text that reads “Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” And when you follow that link, you are taken to Wikipedia:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute?. And what does it say? This: …you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. That is the only applicable standard. The consensus is clear to delete the tag. So it will be deleted again. If you put it back, you are editwarring against consensus. Your allegation that “all editors involved in the article have to agree to remove it” is utter nonsense. Please don’t do that again. I wish you well with your other edits. Greg L (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Iquin read Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Constructive tagging. I quote "Especially in the case of a tag such as NPOV, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed." you never started a discussion about NPOV on this talk page and indulged in drive by tagging to make a point.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have quoted you the rules for the POV tag above. If you want to change policies than that is not the right place here. None of the criteria for removal are given and your edit warring about a POV tag is a waste of time. Better you stop removing it and let's come back to the content issue. IQinn (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provide a link to these rules. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and have you even tried to read the section the link to which I have provided. please also provide a link to where you got these rules that you are talking about so that we can get them fixed. you are the one edit warring here nobody else. glad you now think it is a waste of time.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iqinn left out some relevant points.

First , Template:POV usage notes say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame." Given that we already had discussion about the issue that is the crux of this matter, and consensus was against Iqinn, and then he decided to tag it, we have a bit of quacking going on that suggests that what the template tells Iqinn to avoid is precisely what he did. He should not have applied the tag in the first place.

Second, the usage notes say: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view.". That is not the case here, as demonstrated by the above discussion, and therefore the template should not have been applied in the first place.

Third, the template tells us that placing the tag on an article may be tendentious. That is certainly the case here. Iqinn should understand that this tag is not a carte blanche for him to mar an article with a badge of shame, simply because he is upset that every single editor (i.e., consensus) disagrees with his suggestion that there is any POV issue at all here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit warring Greg again deleted the POV tag against our rules. He engages himself in ridiculous edit warring over a POV tag what simply shows that he is in an dispute where the tag is needed. Against our rules for the tag: (from the Wikipedia POV tag page)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV

When to remove:

  1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
  2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
  3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
  4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

]

None of this is given IQinn (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t provide a link. I seriously doubt anything on Wikipedia says “All editors involved have to agree to remove it.” That sounds like horse pucky. As I wrote above, the only controlling policy is provided right in the tag and it says there must only be a consensus to remove the tag. And finally, quoting IQuinn: Better you stop removing it and let's come back to the content issue.. No This is a tactic that tendentious editors are fond of. They loose a consensus on an issue and then resort to {IDONTLIKEIT} tags in a vain hope to force protracted discussion until they get satisfaction. Tags may not be used that way. The consensus is clear. The issue is done. If IQuinn continues to edit against consensus and editwar via varying tactics, he may not like the outcome one bit. BTW Don’t change the title of this section again. I started it as “Is iQuin’s {IDONTLIKEIT} tag necessary?” and it stays that way. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iqinn -- as demonstrated above, in this string, you failed to meet the criteria for applying the tag in the first place. As such, it was properly removed. The template is not a carte blanch for you to mar an article -- even for a few days -- where you are simply reacting to the fact that editors unanimously disagree with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His Back to the content issue subsection, above, shows that he is accustomed to using editwarring tactics like this to force others to deal with him until the heat death of the universe. It doesn’t work that way. The consensus is that the picture of Siddiqui stays. Loosing that one, he then resorted to an {IDONTLIKEIT} tag. The consensus was to get rid of the tag, which right in the tag was the link showing that the tag is to be removed when there is a consensus to do so. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for a POV tag are more that given and that has been show. So your edit style removal of the tag is against our rules and disruptive. Greg kept edit warring and he has come clear that he miraculously thinks that i edit articles in a way that supports islamic terrorism just because i have a different opinion than him. What shows that he can not assume WP:AGF and all his edit warring and comments proof that. It seems to me that he has fallen in a mode where he thinks he has to defend the US's reputation and forgot totally that this is not a war here. It is WIKIPEDIA were we need to assume WP:AGF and discuss in a civil way. So he better take a walk outside and stays away from this debate. He has disqualified himself. IQinn (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you aren’t even writing in English (what I’m reading above now). Just because you repeat falsehoods does not make them true. As I’ve stated twice before (and now a third): The tag provides a link pointing straight to the requirement that it is to be removed when there is a consensus to do so. I note that you still didn’t provide a link to a supposed policy page that states “All editors involved in the article agree to remove [a tag]” despite repeated requests that you do so. Are you going to or not? If you are unable to, that would sort of look like you wrote something that lacked that certain element of *truthiness*. Greg L (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Greg you you are lacking truthiness and you are misinterpreting and engages in rediculous edit warring over an POV tag. What's wrong with you?

These are the rules you keep violating

When to remove:

  1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.
  2. Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).
  3. The problems in the article have been resolved.
  4. All editors involved in the article agree to remove it.

None of that is given.

IQinn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. That’s a template documentation page—not policy—and it is pure crap and needs to be fixed. Those things are written by specialist template authors (not everyone has access) and are often screwed up one way or another because of the way they are worked on (out of the loop to a varying degree). I’ll start on that bit in a moment. Now…

A consensus always rules; that’s in our Five Pillars. The governing rules for deletion of the tag are built right into the tag. Sorry. I’ve provided one below so you can read what it actually says.

Try reading the “Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” bit. You may think that the governing rule ought to be “Until IQuinn is happy as a clam.” It doesn’t work that way. Everything governing how to resolve this issue is simply by consensus. If you don’t like what the tag says with regard to what it takes to remove it, go get the tag changed or go change Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the rules for the tag and i think it is a bit WP:POINT that you want to change the rules now after you are in an dispute over the tag. Well you broke this rules and these rules are specially written on the tag page for editors like you who start edit warring over an POV tag that points people to a unsolved discussion instead of providing valid counter arguments and to discuss in a civil way. IQinn (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I showed you the governing policy pages for removing the tag; the tag itself points to the policies. They’re right in the tag. This much is obvious. Please stop pretending these clear-as-glass policies don’t exist and/or don’t apply. Do you really think that Wikipedia could function at all if the malcontent editor who slapped a {POV} tag had to agree to remove it? That’s beyond absurd. Failure to respect the consensus view is bound to result in bad ‘cess if you persist. I suggest you get with the game plan. The consensus here is clear. No one else here on this thread agrees with you. Your refusal to accept that consensus does not make it incumbent upon us to continue to respond to your tendentious harping. Goodbye. I have real life to attend to. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pretending that there has been a content focus discussion that led to any form of consensus. I warn you one more time mot to edit warring over a POV tag that you kept removing against our rules for removing this tag. That might be my last warning. IQinn (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The operative word there was “might.” No one agreed with you. It was three to one and the views of the majority were consistent and well founded in policy. That’s called a consensus. In your book, there is no such thing as a consensus unless it’s the one you like. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Recognize yourself? Greg L (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does not matter how many times you put your "vote" here. Better learn how civil discussions work and provide compelling counter arguments to the content issue instead of tendentious removing of a POV tag. That is indeed. LOL. IQinn (talk)
  • Delete tag because there is growing consensus that the photo should remain. I support the photo remaining, because it isn't especially disparaging, in my opinion, and the caption explains the source for those who might have a problem with it. The caption explaining it's an FBI composite should of course remain - partly because the mere fact that there is an FBI composite photo makes that image notable enough for inclusion, in and of itself. First Light (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected this page for 3 days due to edit warring. The parties are urged to follow dispute resolution in lieu of reverting. Deadlocked discussions may make progress through a third opinion or a request for comment on article content. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, disputes should be resolved through civil discussions. IQinn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you causa sui. Greg L (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll shelve my draft ANI (which I've been told is a way for a deadlocked discussion to make progress, when the deadlock is caused by a filibustering editor who fails to respect consensus, and violates our edit-warring rules). As with all of the editors who have warned Iqinn today and discussed this issue with him at length, but not brought him to the relevant edit-warring or AN/I noticeboards as they have sought to "reach" him, I think it preferable to him being blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one who was edit warring was obviously you and Greg. And i,ll shelve my draft ANI that i started as it seemed to need enforcement that editors who are in a POV dispute do not edit war over the POV tag. What is simply disruptive. IQinn (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. You edited against consensus (unanimity, in fact, other than your personal view), and violated 3RR with gusto – deleting the image 2 times and then tag-bombing the article 3 times, reverting a series of editors, all within a mere 2 hours, and all because of your personal markedly non-consensus view as to the propriety of the image, and have consistently ignored everything that all the editors on this page have said to you. You tag-bombed the article in the wake of unanimous disagreement with your assertions. You didn't meet the criteria for applying the tag in the first place – that subjects the tag to automatic removal. Your applying the tag in the wake of the above discussion is short of good faith, and rebuts the presumption. You are not entitled to have a discussion on this tp, make arguments that zero editors believe, and then tag-bomb the article ... and argue that even though everyone disagrees with your reading of the guidelines, you are entitled to give the article a badge of shame. That meets what the tag instructions describe as "tendentious" tagging. It would be helpful if you would stop that approach, and – more than just repeating yourself here – take heed to the points made above, that indicate why it was not appropriate for you to edit war, engage in disruptive editing, ignore consensus, and tag the article as you did in the first place.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IQinn wrote above as follows: The article almost borders hate speech. His POV-pushing bias is obvious here. Why are we wasting our time trying to argue with him after a consensus is reached? He will deny a consensus exists and do as he pleases. It seems unreasonable to think he can be reasoned with and conform to conduct expected. Just state “a consensus exists, sorry” and be done with it. If he edits against consensus then deal with it at ANI. Greg L (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, that is my opinion and not POV-pushing why don't you discuss the given arguments instead of attacking other editors for no reason? That would be nice. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown you the relevant policies and i told you the community rules for removing the tag that you broke. It seems to me you do not understand what a POV tag is. It does not mean that the article is not NPOV it means there is an ongoing discussion about disputed content and that is the case. Adding the tag to the article to point to that dispute is not tendentious. Repeatedly removing of the POV tag while the dispute is discussed on the talk page is "tendentious", edit warring and against all our basic rules, policies and spirit. And well the question is not if you personally believe that an argument another editor brigs forward is valid and that obviously collide with your personal POV. You have to provide valid counter arguments and to discuss them in a civil way. Not personal attacks and edit warring. That leads to nothing. IQinn (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It’s four to one against you. The majority’s views are consistent and well founded in current policy. Deal with it. You didn’t get your way on this one. End of story. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well start learn counting and start learn how civil discussion and consensus works. IQinn (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm… OK, I’ll start learn counting. I count now: Greg L (that’s 1), Epeefleche (that’s 2), Wikireader41 (that’s 3), and GFHandel (that’s 4). Happy now? Your writing The article almost borders hate speech reveals your bias and why no amount of discussion will work with you. So, once again, you just have to understand how a consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that you do not think that the article borders hate speech reveals your bias. And once again you have to understand what a civil discussion, counter arguments and consensus means. Sorry. IQinn (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Without objection, I will list this dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard for third-party review. Any objections? --causa sui (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m done here. I trust he will cool off and see reason. I see no need for dispute resolution when there is a 4:1 consensus where the majority’s reasoning is consistent and well founded in existing policy. This started with one single editor removing the picture. Three editors objected and cited good reasoning to keep it. Minutes later, he tagbombed the article. Now it’s 4:1 reasoning that the tag is just editwarring via different means. Above on this page, he wrote as follows: The article almost borders hate speech. His bias is evident and extreme. Did you see his response to the 4th editor, GFHandel when he weighed in? Why are we ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room on this one? To take such a lopsided consensus to third-party review would just reward tendentiousness. He should have been blocked an hour ago.

    Tendentiousness does not make it incumbent on other wikipedians trying to engage in an all-volunteer hobby to perpetually respond in kind until the heat death of the universe. All we need to do now is ignore his tendentiousness (he’s not saying anything new). If he continues to edit against consensus after the article is unlocked, we’ll deal with his disruption then. 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • If we assume good faith, and don't examine whether Iqinn has rebutted the presumption, I don't think we need DR at this point. We have one editor edit-warring with four. Let's assume that he will respect consensus, in which case another noticeboard -- as I indicated above -- is a wast of the time of all, and as is suggested above might just be feeding the problem. If, on the other hand, non-consensus editing continues unabated, as reflected above, some noticeboard would make sense, but RFC/U may be the preferable course at that point. Frankly, when the issue is of this ilk, DRN has from what I've seen over the years been more of a time-suck, and RFC/U has been more effective with this type of editor-related issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, attacking the editors you do not agree with is not the right way and does not solve the content issue. The image was removed because of BLP and the continuous reverting back in the article is against policy. So i started a discussion on the talk page and added the POV tag to notify people of the dispute. I laid out my arguments why this Facial composite in the infobox violates [[WP:BLP], WP:MUG but instead of addressing these arguments and provide valid counter arguments the other site just keep ridiculously removing the POV tag. That is POV-pushing at it's best instead of a civil debate regarding the content issue. Keep content focused do not attack other editor and provide counter arguments that prove your point. Refusal of that and edit warring leads to nothing. IQinn (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you, Iqinn: The image was removed because of BLP and the continuous reverting back in the article is against policy. Why do you state opinion as fact? If that sentence were accurately written, it would read as follows (without passive voice): I removed the image because I thought it a BLP violation. That the other editors continuously restored the image back into the article (after I continuously kept removing it) was, I think, against policy. Trouble is, no one else agrees with you. Your continually putting it back was after the consensus was clear. Four other editors don’t agree with you. That doesn’t deter you, does it? You have a pattern of this sort of behavior on Wikipedia. After the fourth editor weighed in against you, you pretty much told him you didn’t care squat about his or anyone else’s opinion. You’re always right. Is that it? According to you, this article almost borders hate speech (bad, bad consensus) and you’re gonna fix that. Is that right?

Epeefleche: Please stop feeding this one for the day. M’kay? The proper remedy is obvious if this sort of thing picks up after the lockdown ends. Greg L (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Epeefleche. Iquinn stated what he thought was a problem. 4 other editors opined that it was not. He continues to insist that it is and push his POV. It is clear he thinks this article "borders hate speech" and is trying to disrupt it. This is a behavioral issue. Kind of an inability to WP:LETGO. If he persists I would support taking this to ANI and/or RfC/U--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Greg that is a perfect ad hominem attack based on false accusations and inappropriate suggestions, (yes i work in a controversial topic area and i have an POV as you have your POV but that does not mean you could engage in a civil debate) You did not address the given relevant arguments regarding the content issue. They have not been addressed and that you after all this time still can not come up with valid counter arguments suggest that you are wrong. But you are still welcome to do so or any of the other editors. The Facial composite in the infobox violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG for the given reasons. (if you can not find them above than i have no problem to repeat them for you.) When will you start engaging in a constructive civil debate about the arguments regarding the content issue? IQinn (talk)

Ideally, I would like to avoid an outcome where one user is railroaded by a small talk page discussion. Consensus is something that we build continuously, and a bigger consensus is better than a small one. Further, it's everyone's responsibility to seek amicable resolutions to content disputes. In light of the fact that I am not personally willing to use blocking, I persist in my belief that wider review in a controlled, dispute resolution-oriented environment is necessary. Are there any suggestions, outside of WP:DRN, for how that can be achieved? --causa sui (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Causa Sui, thanks for your great work. I found some of what you wrote very wise and it made me believe in Wikipedia again. As this is a BLP and because i have remove the image on WP:BLP, WP:MUG grounds i think it would be the best to get some independent input from the WP:BLPN first. I have just posted the case there. I just would like to ask all involved editors not to jump there and to disturb the discussion. I think everybody here has made their case. So it would be wonderful to get some independent input and ideas form BLP experts, it might also calm down this discussion. Let's wait for the suggestions there. So we might do not need conflict resolution after that. Let's see how it goes. Regards. IQinn (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After you get through sucking up to admins in a vain and transparent attempt to curry favor, let’s talk about your post at BLPN. Yup, saw that. You used unfortunate wording to make it look like you were “gosh golly gee” looking for advise (forum shopping) where you gave your reasoning and then mentioned “Possible counter arguments”, as if there haven’t already been a number of them offered here. That was just an *accidental* tone of yours, right? It couldn’t possibly be Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring, could it? All four of those forbidden activities are in just one bullet point in a whole list at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors, which looks like awfully familiar reading considering the present circumstances. Greg L (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a BLP issue and the BLPN is a very good place to get independent input on BLP issues. What are you afraid of? I think nothing more to reply to your comment here as that ganging up on me with tactics of rumor, innuendo, discrediting, isolating and intimidating as it has been done here i this discussion is by best a waste of time. IQinn (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I afraid of? Why poor unfortunate wikipedians being sucked into the “vortex phenomenon” when a tendentious editor refuses to abide by a consensus. You spin-doctored over there to purposely mislead others. That’s clear. Spare me the “AGF” because it’s clear you deserve none by your blatant actions. The forum-shopping (prohibited under these circumstances) might have been forgivable were it not for the colossal misrepresentation of the facts. Greg L (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you keep ganging up on me with pure nonsense. Simply not the right way. And thanks for admitting that you can not assume WP:AGF. IQinn (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see how the BLP/N discussion evolves. If necessary, DRN is still on the table. I'd like to remind everyone of the limited utility of further arguing. What this dispute needs now is more eyes. And, for obvious reasons, I'll be very glad if and when another neutral editor takes over mediation. --causa sui (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus rules, causa sui. Without that bedrock principal being adhered to, chaos rules. Now that the issue has been raised over there, they can come here. Whatever the consensus is here applies to this article. If you want to be extra helpful here, causa sui, it would be nice if you just stepped in to declare “win or tie” as regards what you see the true consensus is. That’s the root of the problem with tendentious editors: they will deny a consensus exists except for the one they decided upon. I truly don’t care which way this issue goes. I only care that a properly arrived at consensus is abided by and respected. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had half a dozen editors express views here. If wp policy is not followed, as I indicated above the more effective way forward is AN/I or RFC/U. I would say let's assume that all editors here will edit in good faith, and in accord with consensus. If they prove us wrong, let's address it through one of those noticeboards. DRN is more effective in deadlocked positions that lack consensus; it is not built to further filibusters. Let's assume the best of all editors here, and move forward based on that assumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epeefleche has hit the nail precisely on the head. There are plenty of dispute-resolution tools available to avoid wikidrama when someone filibusters. Denials that a consensus exists when others feel one does are common on Wikipedia. Rather than gang up and revert the editwarring editor in hopes of setting him up for a 3RR violation, AN/I is the best way to defuse and put the dispute in the hands of uninvolved admins. Greg L (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Wikipedia 101 : Tags and tendentious editing are not tools to circumvent consensus

Understanding the principals of Wikipedia 101 (Wikipedia:Five pillars and WP:CONSENSUS): The documentation page for the {{POV}} tag has been corrected so it no longer misleads editors by suggesting that the tag can’t be removed until all editors (including the editor who placed the tag in the article) are in agreement to remove it.

The documentation page now says (among other points) that the tag may be removed when There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved. The {{POV}} tag itself provides a link to the governing policy on Wikipedia (What is an NPOV dispute?), which states that the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved and/or the tag may be removed when there is a consensus that it should be removed.

There is nothing about Wikipedia that allows a hold-out editor, after there is a consensus established to remove the tag, to insist the tag remain there until he or she gets satisfaction on the editorial issue near and dear to their heart. Tags are not “OK, then EAT THIS until you make me happy” tools of the hold-out editor after a consensus has already been established on a particular issue.

WP:CONSENSUS has a section titled Consensus-building pitfalls and errors. There a number of prohibited behaviors are detailed, including tendentious editing, forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. All of these may not be used to subvert a properly-arrived-at consensus.

Editors who consider themselves part of the consensus view are also not allowed to editwar even though they consider their position on tag removal or tendentiously restored text to be correct. If they remove the tag and warn the offending editor and that editor again restores the tag against consensus, calmly leave a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

An incident report does not need to be a time-consuming, lengthy post; in fact, if you have a talk thread establishing a properly arrived at a consensus on the edit dispute, or if there is a talk thread establishing a consensus to remove a tag, about all you need to do at the ANI-incident report is simply provide a link to the discussion thread.

If it is clear that the editor is editwarring against consensus, admins have some well-used means to put an end to it.

Consensus-building, moving forward with regard to the picture

It was clear at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that WP:MUG is not being violated because it does to present a person in a disparaging light. Thus, what to do with the image shall be governed by local consensus here on this talk page.

The majority of uninvolved editors at the noticeboard did say that it presented a BLP problem and should be moved elsewhere in the article. I advise the regulars here to follow the advice of the requlars the noticeboard. Enforcement of BLP issues is much more serious than other areas of Wikipedia policy. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding what to do about the FBI photo composite picture of Aafia Siddiqui
  • Keep or move within the article The image is free-use and is a photo-composite depiction of her appearance. It was produced by experts specializing in the art with the intention of having an image of her that was as faithful as possible so that she could be captured. Non-free-use images on the Web showing her wearing scarves show that the composite is a faithful representation. It therefore does not falsely depict her. As with realistic CG illustrations like this astronomical image, that can easily be interpreted as actual photos, the widely observed practice is to caption the image with “Artist’s impression”. In the case of the image of Aafia Siddiqui, the caption states Facial composite, created by FBI for a wanted poster and the words “facial composite” are linked. It therefore is not misleading. The image does not cast her in the “disparaging light” (I’ve seen passport photos that are less flattering) that this mug shot of Nick Nolte does, which is the issue WP:MUG is addressing so that our articles on celebrities don’t become grocery store check-out aisle gossip rags. Greg L (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the advice of the majority of editors at WP:BLPN. To not do so would be an inadvisable course of action. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Somewhere ... for the reasons explained by a majority of the editors both on this talkpage and at the BLPN. Note -- even of the minority with contrary views, some clearly either: a) found it to fall within what is permitted by the applicable guideline; or b) misconstrued wp:mug, as was apparent by what they said.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the article, but not in the infobox, since that seems acceptable to the majority of uninvolved editors at WP:BLPN. First Light (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aafia_Siddiqui&oldid=440319224"