Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

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: 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

A lot of users have issues with FPAS' behavior and policy interpretations. This seems to be primarily centered around image issues.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

• FPAS is not to remove images from articles, then immediately speedy them as orphaned.
• FPAS to stop engaging in edit warring over disputed images.
• FPAS is to be civil at all times and not attack those who disagree with him; nor should he make insulting or disparaging comments; especially to new editors.
• FPAS to assume good faith at all times.
• FPAS is to refrain from tendentiousness by repeating the same arguments over and over agian on IFD and DRV discussions. {He clearly states he will repeat his same argument until someone "gets it").
• FPAS to not close or delete contested IFDs for a period of one year or until he regains the trust of the community.
• IF FPAS believes a user's image uploads should be evaluated, then he should engage on-wiki a neutral administrator with image expertise to evaluate and communicate with the editor in question.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} FPAS is a tendentious and uncivil administrator whose antagonistic, combative comments and tactics are combined with an overzealous, extreme and often incorrect application of Wikipedia image policies and guidelines. Editors and administrators who disagree with him are subject not only to his lack of good faith and incivility, but also to his tactics of retaliation and intimidation. This combination creates an extremely hostile environment for all editors who disagree with him. FPAS ignores community input and consensus in favor of his own narrow viewpoint, and has ignored community input on his behavior. FPAS has circumvented policies by deliberately orphaning images to then use a speedy deletion process rather than IFD, and has even edit warred in an attempt to keep the images orphaned.

While a lot of FPAS's image work is indeed valuable, this is far outweighed by his over-aggressively hostile, bad-faith, accusatory and retaliatory manner when dealing with editors who disagree with his views of image policy and the value of images in Wikipedia articles. The main problem is the manner in which he goes about things, even if every image call he makes is correct, this does not excuse his incivility or violations of other policies. This behavior needs to stop immediately, or FPAS needs to step back from IFD discussions entirely and focus on other areas of Wikipedia.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Civility

• “who writes such crap”
• "cheap excuse for lazy writing"
• You must be kidding. We don't hide behind fig-leaves. If you agree it is "not all that critical", you must advocate deletion, unless you are a vandal trying to sabotage the project's mission. This is a blatantly bad-faith, disruptive vote
• "You can't "create" a langage (what nonsense), you "standardise" it, that's what they did. And the rest of this paragraph is an incoherent mess."
• "No, it just means you are unwilling to take the rules seriously. Show me the part of the rules where it says you can use any image to illustrate an even just because the event is notable. It's just not there. NFCC says something entirely different. If you can't see that, you have a reading problem."
• "Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event."
• [1] FP responds with more incivility to a request to be civil.
• WP:BITE: "Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well."

Tendentious and disruptive editing

Abuse of process

Removes images from multiple articles, then puts them up for deletion as “orphaned”, without disclosure of prior edits. Then edit wars to keep image out of aricles.[2][3]

Example of orphaning an image from several articles,[4][5][6][7] then immediately declaring it to be a candidate for Speedy Deletion - because it's an orphaned image[8], a clear abuse of process. There are many examples of this tactic to short-circuit IFD by FP.

FP also edit warred to keep the image out of the articles: [9][10][11] and [12] even changing the image that is not the subject of the article[13]. Again, there are more examples of this.

Tendentiousness

This is an example from a single IFD.

• [14] "It's only a very minor point, but just for the record, no, you are mistaken, they are six different images, no two of them are the same, look more carefully at the backgrounds. But it's of no big importance. What's important is, in the context of Wikipedia fair use debates, the whole talk about "iconic" historical images refers to one very special exceptional situation: those (very few) images that are so famous that they in themselves, as creative works of their photographers, become the focus of encyclopedic discussion. An iconic image is one where you'd want to spend at least a few paragraphs discussing the photograph as such. Not the ship and its actions in the war, but the photographer and his work. Who took the photograph, when and why, how was it published, how did the public react to it, and so on. The photograph, not the ship. There is nothing of that sort in any of the articles here, obviously."
• [15] "They are six different photos, none of the ones I linked to is the same. I was pointing to them to show that there isn't any one that is individually iconic, in being individually more firmly entrenched in collective memory than the others. I'm sorry, but I still have the feeling you don't quite realise what "iconic" means."
• [16] "Since the existence of other photos was questioned: Here's just five of them ".."my point was that none of these has any special status, as a photograph, that makes it particularly memorable and "iconically" associated with the event. A memorable scene, yes, an iconic photograph, no. "
• [17] "still not getting it."
• [18] "Please don't misrepresent policy. Those criteria are neither part of what legal "fair use" is, nor are they part of our NFCC. Your statement is miles away from either. NFCC demands that an image "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and that this understanding cannot be imparted in any other way. Nobody has as yet made even the slightest attempt at substantiating how this image does so. Simply claiming that it does won't work"
• [19] "I'll repeat this until you finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? (By the way, if that museum you point to has the "jolly roger" on permanent display, you could go there and take a free photo of the Jolly Roger. Wouldn't that be a much better way of illustrating the scene?). And you still haven't illustrated how the photograph is iconic. If it was, wouldn't that museum be showing it? (Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while."
• [20] "Saying so don't make it so. You wont't get away that easily: you need to explain how it contributes. Exactly what is it that it conveys that text couldn't? Name it. Describe it. Simply asserting just won't work"
• [21] "I'll repeat this until people finally understand it: You are still only arguing about the importance of the situation. When will you start talking about the contribution of the image to understanding the situation? That contribution is close to zero"
• [22] "If you want an image of what the submarine physically looked like, go and take a free photo of its identical sister ship, which is apparently a well-preserved museum ship somewhere in Britain. It's not as if any visual difference between the two would be significant for the article, would it? And you are still making that logical mistake: "being the only nuclear submarine which sank a ship in wartime" is not something you can illustrate anyway, so why quote it as an argument here? You want to treat image-worthiness as a function of how important the object of the image is. That's not how NFCC#8 works. We don't include images because they are somehow associated with something important, we include them if and where they teach us something, concrete, visual, about it. This one doesn't."
• FPAS notified here and his response "No surprises. Quite on the level of intellectual integrity one has come to expect" with the summary " yawn. Wake me up if something new comes up there, because I'm not going to watchlist it"

Example summary

Conqueror comments.

• [23][24][25][26][27]
• claim of repeating because he was asked
• [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]
• Oh, and please, spare yourself the ad-homs and personal attacks, I'm rather tired of those and they do get boring after a while
• I’ll repeat this till you understand this[40]
• I’ll repeat this until…
• [41] advocates using an image of a similar object other than one of the actual subject of the article.
• adds it on the 12th.

On this single IFD page alone, FP made 38 non-minor edits between 8/12 and 8/18, ATBE 3.33 hours. While FP commented on six different IFD's on this page, a vast majority of his comments were on HMS Conqueror (24 or 63%).

This single page IFD page aslo includes one of the many accusations of FP submitting one of his "retaliatory IFD's" against another editor, [42].

Intimidation example

Upon the closing of the Conqueror IFD, which went against FP's wishes, he launched an extremely hostile, bad-faith assault against the closing admin, essentially blackmailing the admin by threatening to have him desysopped if the IFD closure wasn't withdrawn, because the admin had mistakenly uploaded other unrelated potential copyvio images months in the past.[43][44]

When the admin did not bow before this inappropriate pressure, FP tried further intimidation,[45][46][47] - while trying to mask his tactics of intimidation:[48][49]; when this failed to force the admin to retract the IFD results, FP then made good on his threat to take the matter before AN, where he posted a totally inappropriate, biased and inflammatory section title, with bad faith, uncivil accusations.[50]

FP failed to convince anyone that the admin had purposely violated policy, they instead found that it was a simple mistake. FP continued his personal attacks and bad-faith accusations long after the accused admin had admitted and apologized for his mistakes, and attempted to explain what had happend and why.

Personal attack and completely uncivil lack of good faith, further pressure and threats:[51][52][53][54]

More personal attacks and threats:[55][56]

FP continued his hostile and aggressive comments even in the face of community consensus against his proposals and conclusions about the admin's behavior. The AN only served to bring to light FP's own poor behavior, where he was heavily criticized; criticism which he summarily dismissed or igonred.

• The details can be found: [57]
• Continued here: [58]

This is only one example of FP's tactics of intimidation. His continued denial of community input and refusal to modify his behavior have led to this RfC.

Although FP was mainly correct about the two images in question, his methods, strategy, and conclusions are appalling.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:Consensus
3. Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
4. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
5. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

1. IFD_discussion_concern
2. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?
3. Action to be taken on Consensus violations
4. Copyright isn't up for a vote
5. Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg
6. Behavior and Continued concern (FP called these good faith posts "badgering"}
7. When quality control volunteers ignore the wikipedia's civility policies

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:#Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)^[59]

2. --John (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. With the exception of the comments of tendentious editing. Justin talk 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. JGHowes ^talk - 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. olive (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Other users who endorse this summary

1. MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Dragon695 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. JRG (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
5. ktr (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. The Bald One ^{White cat} 06:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:#RedSpruce (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Per BQZip below, I endorsed on the basis that the prosecution don't set the penalty, the community does. Orderinchaos 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. In general, I support this view, though the "punishment" need not be so severe. I hesitated to support this view until I read answers 6 and 7 below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

1. My deletions were correct. [60]
2. My understanding of NFC policy was correct. [61].
3. My use of the speedy process concurrent to IfD was correct. [62]
4. My practice of checking other editors' upload logs was correct. [*]
5. Making inappropriate images deletable by simple editorial removal was correct.
6. Telling a n00b who knew no English at all and only came here for political soapboxing that en-wiki was not the right place for him was correct.
7. My accusation against Dreadstar was correct.

The rest could be discussed, but not at this RfC.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. At least 1-5, haven't looked into 6 or 7. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Absolutely. Black Kite 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
8. I agree to 1-5, I do not have knowledge of 6 or 7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Policy-wise, you were right on. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
10. CIreland (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
11. William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
12. user:Everyme 10:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
13. In terms of policy, FPS was largely correct. I consider his comportment while executing that policy as distinct. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
14. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
15. --Damiens.rf 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

View involved editors

Comment olive

An editor, and especially an administrator in a controversial discussion must be able to distinguish between his or her own opinion and an objective judgment of the situation. The most objective way we have here on Wikipedia to judge fairly any editor’s action is through one of several, community-based, decision/discussion making processes. No editor or administrator should consider himself judge and jury as in these opinionated comments: “You are a liar and serial copy right offender” Or these kinds of judgments based on personal opinion: “I want you desysoped” And this isn’t the Wild West or Chicago in the 30’s. "Too bad. I guess you just missed the last chance of coming clean”

Judging another editor, and then based on that judgment assuming that that this now gives one the right to name call and threaten can only cause escalation of the initial problems. In this case [63] the editor attacked remained calm and tried to explain his situation, although the attacks continued. I would like to suggest that an administrator must show better judgment - must be able to clearly understand an individual judgment is opinion and not fact. At no time by our own standards on civility, are name-calling and threatening even remotely appropriate. An administrator who thinks that the personal analysis and judgment of a situation gives the right to treat another editor in a way that is less than respectful might consider taking a break from such situations for awhile.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. For me the comment My accusation against Dreadstar was correct. says it all, the comments were just plainly out of order. Had they come from an ordinary editor it would have been an instant block for incivility. Refusal to recognise errors in judgement is not a good sign, equally those who seem prepared to condone. Justin talk 18:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. On principle. There may be IAR exceptions to the "respect" principle (WP:RBI comes to mind) but in those cases the users are generally vandals to be ignored, and certainly not good faith editors. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes, points 6 and 7 in his defence completely convince me we have a much bigger problem than I originally thought. Orderinchaos 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. ditto to what Orderinchaos said — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Black Kite

I'm not going to comment on the civility concerns, and there may be some areas where FPAS has made mistakes in process and behaviour, but some of this RfC consists of evidence which doesn't appear to understand the situations in which the edits took place, and I am going to try and outline some of this background.

For example, the "Tendentiousness" topic on the IfD above - this is an editor trying to argue a point of policy with other editors (some of whom don't appear to actually understand the point he is trying to make) - it's not "tendentious" in the slightest. Apart from the very last example, he's civil throughout. What point is this paragraph trying to make? - because it provides no evidence of problematical behaviour at all. Also the sentence "Removes images from multiple articles, then puts them up for deletion as “orphaned”, without disclosure of prior edits." Well, here's news - when you remove non-compliant images from articles, they quite often do become orphaned - which is a reason for deletion. Strange that. I would also point out that WP:3RR clearly contains an exemption for removal of non-compliant copyrighted images.

Sadly, as per usual on Wikipedia these days, making these comments is probably pointless; the "Free Encyclopedia" ideal was trampled over a long time ago, and these days most people blithely accept dozens of editors plastering hundreds of non-compliant stolen images over our articles. Unfortunately, the amount of crap that is guaranteed to come your way (typical example, typical comment)) if you try making those articles compliant with WP:NFCC means that there are very few people trying to stem the tide of copyright violations, because they burn out quickly. Something really needs to be done properly about this - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not people's personal webspace. I personally had a two month break because I realised I was getting to the point where I might say or do something I regretted and I am much the better for it. Perhaps FPAS could consider the same, or at least disengage from fair-use activities for a while.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Black Kite 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, I also quit the project following outrageous harrassment arising from my close of a deletion discussion of an image and benefited from the break. Frankly the vandals and goths have already trampled over the free content garden and any admin trying to judge consensus against policy rather then headcount is going to be driven out sooner or later. Take a break Fut perf and do something where your excellent qualities as an admin will be recognised and appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse sans the Free Encyclopedia lamentation. Patrolling images doesn't always require falling onto your own sword. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Fut Perf is enforcing policy, as an admin should. Some civility concerns are valid, but most of the evidence presented above is not evidence of incivility but persistence. Fut Perf should work to explain himself more clearly and calmly, especially to new users (this results in more compliance and an understanding of what this project is about). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. I have noticed more and more that when editors don't like or don't understand the policy, it's not the rules they go after, but the person who enforces them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes. Maybe PFS can take a break and be happier, but the issue remains that we have the blanket problem of treating deletion of an image that doesn't belong here as some sort of negative or neutral act. It isn't. It is net positive and it is thankless work. The only thing Spartaz, Black kite, FPS and others get for deleting images that are posted on wikipedia in violation of the NFCC is crap. As I said in the linked AN/I and talk page threads, FPS's conduct while doing this sometimes becomes uncivil and confrontational. But we can't conflate that with some misguided sense that image removal is some inherently heinous act. I might write up some summary along those lines later but for now I'll just endorse this one. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Yes - FPAS is acting correctly according to policy, as an admin should. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
9. It is the defense of inappropriate, nonfree images which is an inappropriate act. It is not an inappropriate act to ensure that such images are removed, regardless of the popularity (or lack thereof) of such an action. This is a free content project, we should make exception to that only in limited and exceptional cases where necessity is shown beyond doubt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
10. CIreland (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
11. user:Everyme 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
12. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside View by Spartaz

Is this the same RFC that Fut perf was threatened with because they speedy deleted some un-free images? Since the deletion of the images in question was endorsed at DRV and to the best of my knowledge there is no pattern of Fut Perf's deletions being regularly overturned reference to images in this RFC is specious and a waste of the community's time.

Fut Perf deals with serious problems in many contentious areas and does on the main a fine job of inserting clue and handling multiple sock puppetry in nationalist and ethnic articles. Like many admins dealing with this kind of stuff they occasionally lose their cool but we should be applauding their overall contribution instead of hanging them out to dry for a small section of their output. Fut perf is an outstanding admin and, if we are serious about avoiding admin burn out more of us should help out in the difficult and contentious areas instead of critising those who already take on this onerous work.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Black Kite 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Agreed - there isn't a pattern being of his deletions being overturned, which there would be if there was a problem. Also, if this Request for Comment is about image deletions, why is the evidence section padded out with article content discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Well said. Fut.Perf has been generally a good admin to the mentioned sensitive articles. I don't think WP:BITE is the case in Liancourt Rocks and Macedonia. The former article has a long history for every disruptions, and was once totally unreadable with broken English. This diff[64] does not show any evidence of incivility to the new user. I'm often attacked by some editors for my English whenever they lose their position, well his comment is not the level to be accused for, given that so many fake "newbies" keep emerging on the article. Although he may cause discord regarding image policies, to me, Fut.Pert is trying to stick to the policies.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Well said. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Completely correct. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Maybe I would take issue with "outstanding" but I think on the whole he is doing a decent enough job that he shouldn't be pilloried. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
8. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
9. user:Everyme 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by MBisanz

The Arbitration committee said in Abu_badali:

Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged.

Comments such as

I am not patient at all with people who lie and cheat about their images. And I'm growing more and more impatient with people who hypocritically turn up at my talk page to badger me. Just go and do something else. I am not interested in discussing my behaviour with you in particular.

rem misplaced comment rejects possibility of a free replacement image in haste of deleting a possibly unfree image.

Somebody who vandalises will be called a vandal, somebody who trolls will be called a troll, somebody who abuses copyright will be called a copyright abuser. Somebody who lies will be called a liar.

and this series: [65], [66], [67], [68]

Seem to run counter to that admonition from the Arbcom

Additionally, non-image comments such as:

Also, your English is too poor. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia and it is really only for people who have some good working knowledge of English. You cannot really participate on such a difficult topic if you can't write well.

and

rv badgering

have no place in the English Wikipedia.

I would encourage Future Perfect that if he finds image work too stressful for his temperament, that he refrain from such confrontational situations in the future.

After I posted this, Future Perfect posted a most troubling note to my user talk:

...I apologised for removing his posts, and then I just told him, in simple, neutral words, that this wasn't the right place for him. He never posted again. And that was the right result. This guy may have been the nicest person in the world, but he wouldn't have become a constructive contributor in a thousand years.

Seriously, so a newbie editor who lacks high performance English language skills is to be driven the project.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Narson (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Pfainuk talk 19:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

#Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Justin talk 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Dragon695 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. --John (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
5. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. ktr (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. The Bald One ^{White cat} 06:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

#RedSpruce (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. JGHowes ^talk - 02:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Orderinchaos 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Excellent summary of the complete issue at hand. Disagreements happen, but the repeated incivilty and inability to retract obviously improper behavior is inexcusable and needs to be addressed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan4314

Er I've never done one of these before, so you'll have to forgive any faux pas. My view is simply, why does Fut Perf need to be an administrator? I really do mean that as a question and not in a nasty way, I get that deleting non-free images is his "thing" and that's laudable. But if that's just his thing then why does he have to be an admin to do it? Couldn't he remain a normal editor and just flag up non-free images to other admins? Ryan4314 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ktr (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Justin A Kuntz

Personally I think the tendentious comment was pushing it, it was really irrelevant; there were equally opposing arguments for those opposing deletion. As I personally see it, the main issues are the lack of civility, the edit warring to remove images, browbeating those who disagree with him and the retaliation against those who disagree with him. I think the main issue is that FPAS has some issues with civility, no-one is after his head, contrary to what he himself seems to think, they would just like him to recognise that he has a problem and to do something about it. The only reason we're here is that he doesn't seem to realise that he has a problem. His edit history is replete with comments from other editors urging him to modify his behaviour.

What I did find surprising is those admins who support him, seem to excuse his incivility.

A lot of the time he is right about images, when he gets it wrong he appears to be unable to accept that he is mistaken. He is often right but goes about his mission in completely the wrong way. Justin talk 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: #Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I'll go for this, taking into my account my point on "retaliation" below. Pfainuk talk 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Dragon695 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. The Bald One ^{White cat} 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
5. ktr (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Narson (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - Agreed. The RFC does go too far on tendentiousness. That he is passionate is not, prima facie, a problem
7. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC), with the exception of the characterization "He is often right," since I have not investigated his contribution history sufficiently to know this, and my personal interactions with him have been in situations where he has been wrong.
8. This seems like an appropriate summation. Workload doesn't provide an excuse to be uncivil. It is clear to me that "long term preventative remedies" such as civility parole are more trouble than they are worth, but one outcome of this RFC should be demonstrated community concern in FPS's conduct--not demonstrated widespread concern that his deletions or methods of deletions were improper. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Orderinchaos 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
10. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Pfainuk

I think we have a a few issues here, but I will try and be brief. I think the fact that FPS is open to accusations of retaliation - the fact that such accusations can have been made by several people apparently independently - means that he has sailed a bit too close to the "involved admin" wind and if he was to go back down to close hauled or further he might make a bit more headway. There's no smoke without fire, even if the fire is misidentified.

I do think it's fair per WP:BOLD to remove non-NFCC-compliant images from articles and then tag for speedy deletion as orphaned. But I don't think edit warring over it is fair, in cases such as this where the 3RR "unquestionably" rider did not apply IMO (and while I appreciate that this isn't what WP:3RR says, the argument to delete at IFD was based on the two NFCC that do not qualify the image for speedy deletion by CSD I7 - presumably because they're very rarely not open to debate).

I think the civility issues are very significant. We should not have admins that call other users "jerks" (and so on) and I am very concerned that others - and particularly other admins - appear to defend this. Burnout is not an excuse for any user to become uncivil, and that goes especially for admins. If this is burnout, then it strikes me that the best course of action for FPS to take would be to take a break from image deletion.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pfainuk talk 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Justin talk 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

#Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Dragon695 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Narson (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

#RedSpruce (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Orderinchaos 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ty

Speedy deletions were permitted in the first place for admins in order to avoid needless discussion where there would obviously be consensus for the action. If there is significant dissent over a particular use of this process, it would be better to allow an *fD (in this case IfD) to take place to achieve consensus. If the deletion is justified, the discussion should reach the same conclusion. Particularly, a unilateral action should not be taken against the current consensus of a debate in progress. If there is an issue with that, then a good solution is to bring the debate to wider attention.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ty 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --John (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3. ktr (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. The Bald One ^{White cat} 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - IFD is there for a reason whether copywright exists or not
5. Narson (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - Slightly tangentical, but correct.
6. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Pfainuk talk 09:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Justin talk 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Pretty uncontroversial stuff I think. If there's dissent at an IfD from people with a reasonable understanding of the NFCC, it's not good to close it as a speedy. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

# I can't understand why every single wikipedian wouldn't sign this section.... but notice it still seems partisan. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Orderinchaos 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Seraphimblade

I believe that sometimes, a core issue gets forgotten here: This is a free content project. That had gotten so widely forgotten, in fact, that the Wikimedia Foundation had to step in and remind us [69]. This resolution is quite clear in that use of nonfree content must be minimal. It must be essential and unequivocally necessary, not simply helpful or pretty. I know this is a tough pill for some to swallow, as articles with images are better looking than those without. But for a free content project like this one, that's simply not enough. FPAS enforces this resolution as it should be enforced, taking a skeptical, "Is this really necessary?" approach to nonfree content. That's exactly what "minimal" means, and a WMF resolution cannot be overridden by local or even project-wide consensus.

It is true that FPAS has lost his cool in some cases, and while I don't specifically condone that, I wonder where the RfCs are against those who have violated policy by gratuitous use of disallowed content, and then harassed FPAS for enforcing the policy that forbids it? Overall he does good work in thankless areas, so FPAS, I'll say it here—thanks for handling those tough situations as well as you do.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Well said. An RfC against those who repeatedly violate NFCC? Pigs might fly. Black Kite 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Narson (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the 'FutPer is Jean Valjean' theme. The foundation spells out its policies, which include minimal use of things like NFCC for historically significant events and irreplacable content (like logos). FutPer does his best to uphold his interpretation of those policies, just needs to accept other interpretations exist.
4. Exactly. Free content encyclopaedia is absolutely not a consensus issue; it is even beyond mere policy. CIreland (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes. Future Perfect has shown quite a lot of patience in this work. --Amble (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Agree that an RFC against NFCC violators would be more appropriate than one against Fut Perf. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
7. user:Everyme 10:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Agree that fair use images should be minimal for the Wikipedia spirit.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by RedSpruce

Fut perf has clearly been rude and bullying in his interactions with many editors. As MBisanz pointed out above, this is not the sort of behavior that should be employed by someone who is enforcing complex and confusing rules that are often open to varying interpretation. Furthermore, many editors, like myself, feel the non-free content rules are often arbitrary, silly, and unnecessary, and that overly rigorous enforcement of these rules is sometimes a form of deliberate disruption, comparable to Slowdown strike#Rule-book slowdown.

Someone who's going to make the enforcement of these rules his major task on Wikipedia needs deal diplomatically with editors who hold different views of the rules in question and who object to his many, many deletions of valued content. Fut perf has shown himself to be quite uninterested in diplomacy. If anything, he seems to enjoy being rude and bullying. RedSpruce (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: #RedSpruce (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Justin talk 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. ktr (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC). Definitely rude and bullying. That person has history; going back at least four months (the time I joined WP; when that individual welcomed me with an indefinite block).Note: User was actually blocked by User:Moreschi ([70]). Black Kite 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Note: After User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's request. He attempted to have User:Islander "reign" me and User:Elampon in (who was scared away by the bullying of biting-admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here) before (Sorry Islander to bother you again, but I've now got both these guys edit-warring on my own user talk. Could you do me a favour and reign them in?). User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Moreschi often cooperated in blocking other editors (in articles where User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was involved) he admits that somewhere, I believe to User:Kékrōps. ktr (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

#Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree. (Point 1:) I think some of the people involved in trying to enforce the copyright rules go overboard and are deleting things that are not *clearly* against policy, and are definitely not against copyright law. (Point 2:) I've seen way too many examples of this particular user indulging in personal attacks of this nature to make me feel confident my decision to support this user's RfA some months back was the right one. Orderinchaos 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC) with the caveat that I don't endorse "silly"

Outside view added by CIreland

Policies such as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus. However, the question of whether particular content is in violation of policy may be freely discussed and decisions reached. Such decisions are subject to the dispute resolution procedures; decisions which are believed to violate policy can be appealed.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Justin talk 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
3. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Agree with the second part, disagree that each project is not entitled to set their own fair use criteria, as was recently pointed out by foundation chair Anthere on Wikinews. You do realize that Wikinews is allowed to use Grant of License images (~cc-by-nd) under their EDP? Yes, the foundation passed a non-binding resolution filled with wonderful things, but in the end each project sets the policy. Using fair use does not make the project any less free for %99.99999 of the consumers out there. If you want to promote media freedom for distribution, commons is that way -->... The rest of us will worry about what's best for making a high quality encyclopedia, where the use of fair use does not impact our consumers' freedom. We aren't forgetting anything, it is just that for most editors, the ideological purity is not something we're interested in. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Agree entirely, especially that consensus may not override mission. If you want something that's not focused on free content, Myspace is that way -->... This is a free content project (see the top left side of your screen right under the pretty globe), so if you would prefer to use a lot of nonfree content, feel free to work with the ideological purity and refrain from doing so or find a non-WMF project with goals more to your liking. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC) It is true that "policy cannot be overruled by consensus", however how that policy is to be interpreted and enforced can only be determined by consensus.
7. Endorse. "We are a free project" means we do not charge people to use the site, and we do not have advertising or other moneymaking schema in place. As far as redistribution goes, our stated policy is "All text is available under the terms of the GFDL". See that little word "text" there? That's no omission, only our text is globally redistributable. Each image has it's own licensing, and the onus is on the user to determine if their external use is allowable per the license on each such image. That's exactly why every image has an image description page. Otherwise, if images were all under free license, we would only need a history tab for attribution, like all of our other (text) content. For a zealous admin (or small associated group of admins) to take the policy a step further under their own interpretation of policy or under their own creation of pseudo-policy that employs sharply narrow views along with bullying and incivility is wholly unacceptable. Such individuals are accountable to the community, and this is subject to consensus. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
8. What "free" means, in the context of this project is certainly up for debate, and should be controlled by consensus. Being granted the tools does not give license to any one editor (or small groups of editors) to begin enforcing their particular interpretation of policy, regardless of consensus. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Endorse, and note that "free" is quite clear - see m:mission - "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Consensus can never override this. (Edit: other than project-wide consensus, of course; thanks Pfainuk)Black Kite 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Noting that WP:NFCC can be altered by a project-wide consensus (within the bounds of the Foundation licensing policy). Pfainuk talk 17:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Obviously Pfain makes a good point but in general and regarding localised consensus, this is correct. Narson (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Endorse and support Jerry's point above especially. One admin cannot go around enforcing his own idea of where consensus should lie, the consensus has to come first. Unless we are talking about a violation of WP:BLP, WP:OFFICE or something similarly urgent, there is no deadline and process should always be followed. --John (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
13. I think the community needs to discuss this situation more broadly, and I think the editors who have signed above have made some excellent points which are largely in accord with my own (that we do need rules but the rules need to be reasonable and should not be autocratically enforced except in dire emergency, which none of these cases has represented) Orderinchaos 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inside/Outside view added by BQZip01

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had disagreements with Fut Perf in the past (to the best of my knowledge confined to the IFD pages). I'm placing this here because I have no "dog in the fight" here, but I understand my past interactions could be taken as "involvement".

There are a few significant issues here. The first is Fut Perf's view on what should be deleted. His views, while I believe are not completely in line with Wikipedia policy, are just that: views. They hold no substance on their own and are a topic of academic debate. No big deal there. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about things and that's what talk pages are for.

The second is the application of such views, which is where most of the problem lies. I concur that the misleading nominations and comments were out of line and should be atoned for in some manner. I suggest just taking some time off from the IFD "circuit", take a deep breath and just let them go for a while. We'll be fine without your contributions for a few weeks.

The third is the most troubling, that these issues are the result of an admin, who is supposed to know better. C'mon man. We have our disagreements, but some of those comments are WAY out of line for an admin. Intentionally running someone off of Wikipedia? That goes completely against the whole Wikipedia concept. Furthermore, to continue to hold the view that insulting a newbie to Wikipedia and driving him off was in some way appropriate is so far out of bounds for an admin that sanctions of some kind should follow.:

"Telling a n00b who knew no English at all and only came here for political soapboxing that en-wiki was not the right place for him was correct."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Orderinchaos 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
5. ktr (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
6. I might also add that on occasions asking an uninvolved admin to take a look would not be out of place. Justin talk 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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.