The English Wikipedia is lucky to have several specialist avian photographers; among them, Fir0002, Benjamint, and Mdf have been highly successful in building our gallery of featured avian pictures. But more recently, the most prolific contributor to this category has been JJ Harrison, also known as Noodle snacks. JJ, who lives in Tasmania, Australia's island state to the south of the continent, has been a regular nominator and reviewer at featured picture candidates for some years. In the first of an occasional series of interviews with featured-content creators, The Signpost spoke to him about his photography.

How it all started. JJ's particular interest in nature photography was driven by an abiding interest in animal behaviour and a passion for watching wildlife. "I had a few favourite experiences, but they were more to do with observing wildlife than photographing it. I'll always remember some of those early encounters. Like seeing a wild Spotted-tail Quoll bound around the New Pelion Hut in the alpine central highlands of Tasmania—but frustratingly, the right photographic equipment was days' walk away. Or watching a Black-faced Cormorant fish a few metres underneath me as I was snorkelling—but no underwater camera! Or the amazing sight of thousands of waders and shorebirds in Thailand—often in the distance. And I've had a Yellow-throated Honeyeater steal a lock of my hair to use in building its nest." But he warns that some of his memorable experiences haven't been so pleasant. "I get bitten by members of what are commonly known as bull ants pretty regularly, and I've come fairly close to stumbling on poisonous snakes a few times."

So how did JJ learn the art and technique of nature photography? "I guess you could say I'm an autodidact; the internet has been a particularly useful source of information. The reviewers at featured picture candidates gave valuable technical feedback, although while that trains you to identify problems, it doesn't directly teach good technique. I guess the big one is field craft, which requires you to develop knowledge about your subjects, including the best locations and times of year to photograph them. But even knowing these things doesn't allow you to predict what will happen when you go out: you might have a vague idea of what to expect for a given habitat, but usually you can't predict specifically what you'll come across."

JJ settled on birds as his primary interest because they're the most challenging subject he has tried. "The biggest hurdle is that most of them are small, and afraid of you." But the technical problems of photographing birds in the wild go beyond the subjects themselves: "The best times of day are dawn and dusk, and many species can be found only in low-light environments. This throws up many challenges. Even at high ISOs, the slightest camera or subject movement will result in motion blur. My solution is to shoot lots of photos with a remote shutter release; I might get only a few sharp frames out of dozens."

Thailand. During February, JJ spent several weeks in Thailand photographing birds. There he captured images of species that have no coverage at all on Commons, and in some cases no article on Wikipedia. These images have since been trickling through to the nominations page at featured picture candidates as he's processed his work—selecting, uploading, categorising the images, and allocating them to articles on the English Wikipedia. "I knew from experience at home that my chances of finding the best spots were basically nil in two weeks. So the critical thing was to find and engage a local professional bird guide. His name's Reang, and he has expertise in the birds of Thailand; he's been a guide for more than eight years and speaks reasonably good English."

The Thai jungle they visited is very dense, and this made photography difficult due to low light conditions and the dense foliage that physically obscures the subjects. This effect was exaggerated because JJ was "blind" as far as recognising bird calls goes: "that's where Reang's skills were really important", he says. The other technical novelty for JJ was shooting from a boat. "This was not something I’d tried much before, and it has its own challenges. Any boat movement is greatly exaggerated with a telephoto lens. I spent about two days taking photographs from boats. The first time we started here and journeyed down a coastal river for a few kilometres and out into the ocean. The second time we started here, on a sort of lake with rice fields on the edges." (See the picture at the right, of JJ with telephoto lens on the boat about 15 minutes after starting from the side of that lake. Lotus plants can be seen either side of the wake.)

From land, he took some of the photos from inside a car: "birds ignore cars, but take flight if you get out (I shoot from a car at home occasionally, too). But there were opportunities outside from the roadside too, particularly at Kaeng Krachan, where we walked along trails. At that location, there seemed to be only bird watchers and photographers—mostly Thais. We also spent quite a lot of time in portable hunting blinds in areas birds frequent, such as drinking holes and the ubiquitous rubbish dumps, which contain food scraps that attract birds but, ultimately, are damaging the intricate ecosystem.

Queensland. JJ undertook a photographic trip to the northeastern part of the continent in July. This involved travelling to Cairns and from there along the coast, which is mainly rainforest. Because the moisture content of the habitat is dramatically reduced away from the coast, his work extended to the very different bird species that can be found up to 50 kilometres (30 mi) inland. His output from this trip is now making its way to the featured picture candidates page. Two successful nominations are displayed at the top of this section.

Ethical considerations. JJ says you need to be conscious of the ethics of photographing wildlife. "It mostly pertains to both your subjects and their environment. Feeding birds is usually a bad idea: it will probably help feral species out-compete native species; long-term feeding may also cause dependence among wildlife species, increase competition for (nesting) tree hollows, and spread disease. (I have used bait, but only for one night each in different locations—kangaroo pellets for the Eastern Bettong and Eastern Barred Bandicoot photographs.) Be careful not to damage the environment itself—don’t trample vegetation. In certain areas it's important to wash your shoes and tripod to prevent the spread of disease. Don’t move closer to birds if they're showing signs of stress. If they do fly away, don’t repeatedly follow them. You can get closer by moving slowly and using natural cover; and do avoid loitering around nesting birds."

We asked whether there are differences in the practice of wildlife photography in Thailand compared with what he's used to: "The same broad practical and ethical considerations apply, but every species is different—I wasn’t there long enough to really learn the nuances in behaviour among species. One thing I became aware of is that the use of recorded bird calls to attract subjects into position is much more prevalent. Recordings should be used sparingly in my view. And it seemed that far fewer species in Thailand depend on seeds or nectar, and that feeding on fruit is more common than in many parts of the world."

Opportunities for Wikimedians. Much of JJ's photography involves Tasmanian wildlife. Does he plan to widen his geographical purview? "I don't expect I'll live in Tasmania forever—to start with, I'll need to move for postgraduate studies in the next few years. I've probably been able to get featured images for about a third of the bird species in the state (and less than that for mammals), so there's still plenty of work to be done. Please, we need more photographers contributing to Wikimedia sites, and more editors collaborating with them to write articles." JJ says that Wikimedia has good photographic coverage, and usually at much better resolution than Flickr, in which only 800 × 500 px is typical. "However, the distribution of featured pictures is patchy. For example, I'm surprised how little coverage there is for western Europe and North America. There's lots to be done just about everywhere." He says many Wikimedians don't realise how well-positioned they are to photograph wildlife in other parts of the world. "Once you start to identify species, you'd be surprised just how many are around you. Pay attention to bird calls—they're more useful than your eyes for locating subjects."

After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

This was another active week for the Arbitration Committee. One new case has been opened, for a total of four active cases. Details of cases are correct as of Saturday, August 20.

The Senkaku Islands dispute—over a group of five islands in the East China Sea administered by Japan since 1972 but claimed by China—is itself the subject of dispute here on Wikipedia along with its parent article Senkaku Islands.

The figurehead point of controversy appears to be the name, Senkaku Islands, which, as the Japanese name, has been alleged as supportive of the Japanese side in the dispute. As a result, a handful of editors have been pushing for the Chinese name instead, and many arguing for the anglicized The Pinnacle Islands as a correct, NPOV descriptor. The point has seen many discussions, an RFC, and mediation. Since 2005 the article on the Senkaku Islands has been moved eleven times, but is now back where it started. To what extent the article should acknowledge the other names of the islands has also been a point of edit warring, with the current text including significant coverage. Comparisons to the dispute of the name of the Liancourt Rocks—islands claimed by both Japan and South Korea—have been drawn. In that dispute, an anglicized name was chosen over the Korean or Japanese names, although the dominant consensus has consistently been that "Senkaku Islands" is the name most commonly used in English publications for the islands. Edit warring in the body of the two articles has also been significant, with many users feeling that the article endorses the Japanese claim to the islands.

The dispute has seen established users in good standing on both sides of the issue.

The request was opened on August 13 by Qwyrxian who wrote that (s)he has "come to believe that until the behavioral problems are corrected, we will be unable to make constructive progress on the article content". Eleven parties gave statements and the case was accepted unanimously by eight arbitrators with one recusal. Arbitrator Coren wrote in his acceptance that the Senkaku Islands dispute is "a relatively simple case where it's likely consensus could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does."

Since its opening on August 17 it has seen little activity so far; STSC and Penwhale have presented brief statements of support for the position that 'Senkaku Islands' is not NPOV. Tenmei has posted some stock principles in the workshop.

No drafting arbitrator has been assigned yet.

The case, which centers on the naming of abortion-related articles and related behavioral issues, proceeded into its second week. Three more uses have presented evidence this week:

• MastCell wrote that Wikipedia has difficulties dealing with agenda-driven accounts. He accused DMSBel, Anythingyouwant, NYyankees51 and Haymaker of being such accounts, writing that "most people have an opinion about abortion, and those opinions don't disqualify anyone from editing the topic. However, I think in each of these cases there is clear evidence that the editor's personal views on abortion have overwhelmed their ability to edit within policy on the topic." Anythingyouwant and NYyankees51 have disputed MastCell's allegations.
• SarekOfVulcan presented a few diffs of the general behavior that he felt was inhibiting progress.
• NuclearWarfare noted that "This case is simply an amalgamation of two cases: the dispute over the naming of the pro-choice / pro-life articles and the lead sentence of abortion, as well as some smaller matters" and then gave a lengthy narrative of his work on the lead sentence of Abortion (where he reports that after extensive research he concluded that using the word death in the lead was not NPOV). He also pleaded for strict action from the committee, writing that he "doesn't know what will help solve this dispute in a reasonable fashion, but [he] guarantee[s] that a simple 'everyone go play nice and remember to reread WP:OR and WP:NPOV' will not suffice."

In the workshop Steven Zhang proposed some very broad principles and remedies, Anythingyouwant and HuskyHuskie proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies in line with their respective sides of the dispute.

The case involves allegations of non-neutral editing by Cirt and also allegations against Jayen466 that he has stalked and harassed Cirt. Three more users presented evidence this week,

• Prioryman presented evidence against Jayen466 in support of Cirt.
• Delicious carbuncle wrote in criticism of Cirt.
• Cirt, apologizing for the presenting evidence so late (citing real-life circumstances), said that he was "astonished by the length and intensity of complaints" and that "I’ve reflected on my past behavior and I realize that these complaints have some validity" but countered that he had resolved the issues writing "This case, and the previous RfC and RFAR, have been a learning experience for me, and I’ve already stated at those forums that I’ve withdrawn from the areas in which my editing has been at issue. I undertake to edit in good faith to benefit the project, and to be sensitive to any complaints that might arise concerning my editing." Cirt endorsed proposals by Cbrick77 for a topic ban against himself, covering "new religious movements or their members, and political BLPs, broadly construed", as well as an interaction ban between himself and Jayen466.

The case, which was broken off from the Cirt and Jayen466 case to be a somewhat unusual investigation of BLP policy, proceeds into its third week. The sluggish addition of actual evidence submitted remarked upon last week appears to have ameliorated. This week nearly twice as much evidence was presented as in the first two weeks of the case combined.

• Wnt wrote "it is difficult to give evidence for such a very wide-ranging proceeding" then went on to challenge the prevailing notion of the case arguing that the real issue is not "diminish[ing] or increas[ing] particular reputations" but that it is instead "almost purely a Wikipolitical conflict between deletionists and inclusionists", alleging that "one side makes use of every policy, including BLP, to oppose what they don't like, while the other defends Wikipedia's breadth of coverage." He suggests that "it should be made clear that Wikipedia policies apply to removal of text just as much as addition", for example that "removing mention of open homosexuality from someone's page because you personally think it's a 'negative' thing violates WP:NPOV"—such removal runs quite contrary to current BLP best practices.
• FuFoFuEd wrote that he was being "misrepresented as a champion of BLP violations" and countered various assertions.
• Tryptofish championed two recommendations: that a guideline to deal with subtle search engine optimization editing be developed, and that the committee establish clear guidelines related to arbitrator recusal, citing SlimVirgin's request in June that Shell Kinney recuse herself during a previous request for arbitration, which Shell Kinney refused, as evidence that clearer guidelines are needed.
• Waalkes, a new user with only 36 edits, accused Will Beback and SlimVirgin of BLP violations on Lyndon LaRouche and LaRouche movement, starting off by noting that "BLP policy discourages the use of insinuation and allegations against living persons attributed to anonymous sources", then accusing of them of using such sources.
• DracoEssentialis presented the articles Kimberly Kagan, Sheila Widnall, Jed Babbin, Michael Eric Dyson, and David Hackworth as examples of where BLP policy was failing.
• Prioryman accused Delicious carbuncle of disrupting a BLP to make a point—for which he was given a topic ban earlier this year, although it has since been overturned—and using Wikipedia Review for off-wiki hounding in a campaign against Cirt.
• Count Iblis has thrown up the section headings "The BLP policy leads to censorship and should therefore be abolished" and "Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring", promising evidence at a later date.

The workshop saw little new this week, a few very pointed questions—with the subtext that the case was being unfair to Cirt—for Cla68 from Jehochman and another pointed question from Prioryman for Delicious Carbuncle listing a post of his on Wikipedia Review and asking him to explain. Also a Mathsci posted two standard "proposed principles" adapted from previous ArbCom cases on Decorum and Conduct on arbitration pages, urging civility.

Last week John Vandenberg noted a trend where abstention votes were being increasingly used to give vote-like opinions, which he noted was "causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against". He stated that "The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position." This has been the first time the issue has surfaced around ARBCOM, and the need for a motion was questioned. "Well, I probably would have gone for discussion before writing motions, but meh" wrote Risker, however John Vanderberg's proposal did lead somewhere; after going through six drafts, the motion passed, creating a new "comments" section in addition to the support, oppose, and abstain sections, and advising arbitrators that "abstention votes as a vehicle for comments [... are] not recommended". The motion also guarded against slacktavism, stating "an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal".

Reader comments