Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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."
 * 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."
 * "Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against (removed name) are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion."

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.

Example of orphaning an image from several articles, then immediately declaring it to be a candidate for Speedy Deletion - because it's an orphaned image, 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: and even changing the image that is not the subject of the article. Again, there are more examples of this.

Tendentiousness
This is an example from a single IFD.


 * "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."
 * "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."
 * "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. "
 * "still not getting it."
 * "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"
 * "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."
 * "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"
 * "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"
 * "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.


 * 
 * claim of repeating because he was asked
 * 
 * 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
 * I’ll repeat this until…
 * 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,.

Intimidation example
Upon the closing of, 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.

When the admin did not bow before this inappropriate pressure, FP tried further intimidation, - while trying to mask his tactics of intimidation:; 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.

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:

More personal attacks and threats:

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:
 * Continued here:

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}
 * Civility
 * Consensus
 * Don't bite the newbies
 * Tendentious editing
 * 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)
 * IFD_discussion_concern
 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?
 * Action to be taken on Consensus violations
 * Copyright isn't up for a vote
 * Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg
 * Behavior and Continued concern (FP called these good faith posts "badgering"}
 * 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}


 * Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  MBisanz  talk 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * --John (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the comments of tendentious editing. Justin talk 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  JGHowes talk  -  01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * olive (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Arcayne  (cast a spell)  18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (I've seen this behavior in the past, and am concerned that it hasn't modified in the past year. At all.)

Other users who endorse this summary

 *  MBisanz  talk 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dragon695 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * S. D. D.J.Jameson 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * JRG (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ktr (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bald One       White cat 06:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * RedSpruce (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan 4314  (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * --Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --Michael X the White (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Crossthets (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * &mdash; neuro(talk) 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne  (cast a spell)  18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

 * 1) My deletions were correct.
 * 2) My understanding of NFC policy was correct..
 * 3) My use of the speedy process concurrent to IfD was correct.
 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)
 * 16) Upholding policy is fine, but (at the risk of being hypocritical) try to be nicer about it too. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I read each diff in this RfC. I found one that may have been rude, but it was not directed at any editor in particular. I am more familiar with his work in Macedonia-related stuff, but this looks like another difficult area, and another where he does his work well. (Support 1, 4, 5, 6) Jd2718 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) "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." If this is the main argument against Fut.Perf., then it is both weak and inaccurate. I found no instance of uncivil behavior, and I see difficulties in the efforts of those accusing him to prove any adm misconduct. (Commenting on Stifle: If Fut.Perf. is not "nice" sometimes is because he is German! These damned north-European genes! But he manages to overcome his nature through his great humor! This is not insignificant!)--Yannismarou (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) I'd be very tempted to become another "kangaroo" in this court because there are many more of his edits/views/administrative-actions that I hate, than those that I love. Regardless, his integrity and devotion could never be questioned; he does what he sincerely feels is right, and he does it according to policy. Support all. NikoSilver 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Overall Fut.Perf is a force for good. Non-free images will always be a problem area whilst the wording of the WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guidelines are so atrociously vague. Fut.Perf. is trying to make the best of a bad job, nailing jelly to a wall would be easy in comparison. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Absolutely. We do not have enough administrators who will work to keep Wikipedia free of non-free images, FPAS is one of the few. Furthermore, it's hardly fair to accuse him of tendentiousness when his arguments are accurate. There's not much more to say. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Non-free images will always be a sore thumb for some editors who fail to comprehend why we have these select policies and guidelines that protect Wikipedia in the end. NFCC and NFC are vague, yes, but they make the point across. If one user cannot see why the usage of one non-free logo on 120 articles, they should be sanctioned as such, especially when such unconstructive behavior spreads across four noticeboards and several talk pages. It's a shame we don't have more administrators such as FPAS to do the dirty work that so many never touch for this very reason. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is a damn fine editor Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Fut.Perf has a good grasp of NFCC and is unfortunately (as all of us NFCC enforcers are) subject to abuse by people who do not understand the basic mission of the Foundation.  howcheng   {chat} 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Agreed. E104421 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) NFCC has been correctly enforced by FutPerf Enric Naval (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Aramgar (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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 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)
 * 7) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) My thought is that Admins must set themselves a higher standard of civility and comportment. Baited or egged-on or not... an Admin must set an example that can be followed. One newbie's opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) There is just no excuse for name-calling and insults by an admin.  JGHowes  talk  -  23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Michael X the White (talk) 21:39, 24 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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)
 * 13) I'm glad someone said this, because I was worried I might have to. People are naturally going to hate people who work with these issues- we have to be bold, because there are too many pages which are non-compliant and not enough people who care and we have to appear dense, repeating the same arguments, because people refuse to accept them. It's a horrible vicious circle- if more people started to care, there wouldn't be the problem, but what few editors we have working in this area are getting shot down by the apathetic droves, and spending all their time in circular talk-page debates that they have had a thousand times before. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) FutPerf is enforcing policy as mandated by the owners of this website. There is nothing to see here.  Move on.   Corvus cornix  talk  03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Enric Naval (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Aramgar (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Yes, ignoring civility stuff. &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  talk  01:24, 21 October 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 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) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) user:Everyme 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Yep. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) 100% J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  Corvus cornix  talk  03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) FPAS is a fantastic administrator who is only upholding image policies and guidelines. Any calls for his dismissal or for severe sanctions is uncalled for. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) FutPerf is and admin dealing in very difficult areas where harshness may be needed. Enric Naval (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree with Seicer here. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Word. Aramgar (talk) 03:27, 10 October 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:, , ,

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) Ryan 4314   (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)
 * 9) RedSpruce (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  02:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Orderinchaos 01:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Better to have pointed out where a newbie editor might improve himself than to chase him off of Wiki. To assume that an editor can not improve and become an asset to Wiki is at total odds to what Wiki is all about. AGF, and above all patience. We have all the time we need.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Hobit (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Michael X the White (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) 110% agree. I'm on the French wikipedia even though I only have schoolgirl french and babelfish to help me, I can still be of some use because others can collaborate with me in translating stuff, plus I can manage to spot obvious vandalism and revert it. Over there they're polite about my efforts in their language.:) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Walnutjk (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Agree. &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  talk  01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 10:34, 25 October 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? Ryan 4314  (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:
 * 1)  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'll go for this, taking into my account my point on "retaliation" below. Pfainuk talk 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  MBisanz  talk 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Dragon695 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  The Bald One       <font size="-4"> White cat 06:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) ktr (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) 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
 * 8) 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.
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Orderinchaos 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  — BQZip01 —  talk 02:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Justin talk 08:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree. There's a right way to be right and a wrong way.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Michael X the White (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Walnutjk (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Justin A Kuntz
A general comment is that no editor should place a conditions on taking part in an RFC. That is not embracing the process, telling the community to "go f*** itself" is completely unacceptable.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Justin talk 08:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, much as you may disagree with what people say, they do have a right to say it. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Though clearly RedSpruce's incivility in particular is a problem, ANI seems to be sorting it and I don't see that this RFC needs to intervene. Pfainuk talk 09:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Addendum: FWIW FPS does have the right not to participate here if he chooses not to but he doesn't have the right to restrict people from commenting (with obvious exceptions such as banned users), which appears to be his intention. I feel on principle that rejecting well-intentioned comments because he disputes the legitimacy some sigs is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 * 2) Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ktr (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Yeowch... nasty. Orderinchaos 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I can't believe the audacity!
 * 7) RedSpruce (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Michael X the White (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Walnutjk (talk) 21:35, 13 October 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)
 * 4) RedSpruce (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Orderinchaos 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  — BQZip01 —  talk 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree. A "time-out" might be best for all involved parties... but if one of them refuses to recognize an RfC, what can be done?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) RedSpruce (talk) 22:30, 16 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       <font size="-4"> 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)
 * 2) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Speedies should be carefully used.  Hobit (talk) 20:59, 9 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. 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&mdash;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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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) <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">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)
 * 9) Stifle (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Excellent point. J Milburn (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Hear, hear.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) While FPAS may have been heated in his discussions in the past, they are truly deserved. Going against a hard-set of editors who believe that NFCC and Fair Use policies and guidelines are not applicable to them can be very discouraging and tiring. As evidenced in the recent debates regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg, it can put even the best administrators in a bad mood. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) very good points Enric Naval (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Absolutely. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Aramgar (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 10:35, 25 October 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.

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:


 * 1) RedSpruce (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Justin talk 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) 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 . <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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 in this person's judgement with the tools. 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"
 * 3) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Michael X the White (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongly Agree no administrator should be allowed to bully another editor Walnutjk (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view added by CIreland
Policies such as 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)<b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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)
 * 14) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) No-brainer. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Exactly Hobit (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) I endorse the original statement while totally rejecting the comments by Dragon695, Jerry, SDJ and others who weasel and fudge: free as in freedom. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Interpretations of policy have to be discussed. Agree with Angus about weaseling with the meaning of "free" --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Of course.   JGHowes  talk  16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Aramgar (talk) 03:32, 10 October 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)
 * 7) Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael X the White (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Walnutjk (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 10:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Stifle
See that line under the title? Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? There are clear policies on non-free content, and FPS is doing more than his fair share at making sure they're enforced properly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; you do not need to have three forms signed in triplicate, notarized, and apostilled by the embassy of Kyrgyzstan before doing something. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) CIreland (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Couldn't agree more, but with a caveat: admins also need to follow other policies as well: ADMIN — BQZip01 —  talk 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree, with BQZip01's caveat. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes, with the caveat in theory. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Corvus cornix  talk  03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree, with the caveat. An Admin cannot pick and choose which policies he will follow and which he will ignore. They are here for everyone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Agree, NFCC must be followed because of its legal implications, even if it's annoying Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Michael X the White (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Aramgar (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Better to err on the side of caution over image copyright. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Deucalionite
I have known Future Perfect for a little over three years now ever since our first altercations over some articles I created. As an editor, Future Perfect has provided Wikipedia with countless constructive edits that many users today appreciate and continue to appreciate. As an administrator, Future Perfect has served as a positive force towards ensuring that articles adhere to Wikipedia policies.

Unfortunately, I have recently noticed moments where Future Perfect appears to enforce Wikipedia policies to such an austere extent as to hamper healthy discussions between users. At times, it seems as though Future Perfect exhibits a "my way or the highway" attitude regardless if such a mentality may in fact galvanize users towards questioning his "authority".

On the issue of civility, I find it odd that an experienced administrator like FPS would engage in disputes that only seem to mitigate his ability to remain calm. Moreover, I find it somewhat disappointing for Future Perfect to utilize "colorful" language in situations that require constructive collaboration. No administrator should lose his/her cool over something as simple as a linguistic map, even if he/she makes intelligent points throughout a debate. Even though I understand that there is no such thing as a perfect administrator, users are concerned about the extent to which Future Perfect exercises his "position" as a "rogue administrator".

Personally, I have nothing against Future Perfect. I wish him all the best in his endeavors and hope that users will come to appreciate his contributions. However, it would seem helpful to suggest that he either tone down his "respect my authority" attitude or honorably step down from his position as an administrator if he is unable to deal with users who simply disagree with him. Deucalionite (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Agree, especially with the last sentence.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree, this RFC is not about WMF's NFC policy, but about Fut. Perf's conduct with other editors. In an Arbcom case not too long ago involving a high-profile admin who subsequently resigned their tools, Arbcom stated unanimously that: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing...personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith — are prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind." n.b. prohibited . We have a whole boatload of examples of incivility and insulting, sarcastic remarks by Fut. Perf. (above) that are simply unbecoming an admin. I don't buy the argument that if one is frustrated or feels provoked and/or superior to another editor, then they're given a free pass to ignore this requirement.  JGHowes  talk  17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  MBisanz  talk 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, especially last sentence above. Nobody who talks like this should be an admin here, especially after a user conduct RfC has been opened on their behavior, and knowing their conduct was therefore under scrutiny: "If these new maps turn out to be what it sounds like now, deliberate caricatures made to be as unacceptable and provocative as possible, I will make sure you get banned."; "READ. THE. FUCKING. LITERATURE"; "Is your reading comprehension really that poor, are you just trolling?" --John (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I have never met FP in discussions, but am highly concerned inre civility or lack thereof. Admins must hold themselves to a higher standard as they are the backbone of the body Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support this view and the expansion by JGHowes. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly Agree Walnutjk (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Michael X the White
I have not known FP very much, or I rather used to not knowing him. I only knew he was an admin and often noticed his very positive and constructive edits in many articles. And also I had noticed some good work in banning disruptive users (Emperordarius for example). Until I was called in a discussion about a linguistic map of ancient Greece (in fact, a template: Template talk:Ancient Greek dialects which was later moved). Of course, it is about an issue that we are not going to discuss here, but I saw a large number of the things FP is accused of here: 1)Repeating the same thing "so that the others understand it": "Sigh. Repeated for the millionth-and-sixth time." 2)"Like it or not" style:"We are, however, presenting ancient Macedonian as not part of the topic area of mainstream ancient Greek dialectology. Which is a fact, like it or not, period", "(guess what, it says "Macedonia" where you wouldn't like to see it)", "And "make it look so or this will just go on" sounds very much like a threat of continued disruption. You don't really want to sound like this in a Wikipedia discussion, it's not good for you. You are in no position to give me threats or ultimatums; I've humored your antics for long enough and I'm not going to create yet a fourth map." 3)Not being civil:"It's the f..ing Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages" Also, I realised that internatinally accepted Greek scholars (like Babiniotis), that do not match FP's views are excluded as nationalist propagandists. Later on, I checked there was a problem with FP in another linguistic map in Talk:Greece. A user presented a list of very reasonable arguments, backing the removal of a "minorities" linguistic map. The answer was :"I've already discussed this in the past. No further comments from me here and now." Also, we saw in a large extent the following: 1)whoever opposses FP's views is a POV pushing nationalist and comments offending the Greeks as a nation and Greece as a country:''"If it wasn't for the permanent semi-vandalistic POV onslaught of which yours is just the latest part, who knows, I might even get around doing it some day.", "About the Macedonian naming issues, no further comment. I've had enough of the ridiculous shenanigans of the Greek POV crowd with their ideological obsessions.", "Greek people are generally allergic to it in quite an irrational way.", "all with the intent of softening the oh-so-horrible implication that Greece might have minorities", "Of course, it's difficult to do anything constructive as long as there's a baying mob of POV-pushers permanently attacking this or that of the maps I've already made." (here, note that the "mob" is about ten users, if not more) 2)"like it or not" style and threats :"Your objection about Arvanitic shows how little you've read up on the issue", "  Yes, it's slightly larger, by about 30% in N-S direction, I guess. Oh the horror. Anything else? (Oh, and try to get your facts straight. I did make the corrections asked for by Kekrops. That was all about an earlier draft. Unlike certain others, Kekrops is actually capable of collaborating constructively on factual details where necessary.)", "Will you finally get it into your skull that THIS IS NOT A DEMOGRAPHIC MAP?", "Kapnisma, I respect you as an editor but you will hopefully understand that I am extremely tired of this debate. It is impossible to have this discussion as long as it's being held hostage by people like Crossthets or Hectorian", "Wrong as usual", "Hectorian, I think I've advised you of WP:POINT a couple times before, when you've used this same tactics of tit-for-tat threats, so I'm not going to bother explaining its meaning again to you. You have had ample warning", "Learn history" 3)Concerning an RfC, and also this one, which FP is clearly ignoring and not respecting, thus disrespecting the entire community:"Dude, not a user conduct RfC (although one about you might not be such a bad idea). An article content RfC, of course. Read up on the process." 4) Lack of civility (towards the end): "This is just too stupid. You are being deliberately obtuse, again", "READ. THE. FUCKING. LITERATURE. There is just a tiny chance that you might actually find out the answers to your questions.", "Is your reading comprehension really that poor, are you just trolling?", "I trust even Hectorian will be able to decipher that. Or is the idea too complex for you to understand?" FP was stating throughout the discussion that there was solid consensus for more than half a year. When users he stated agreed with him appeared in the talk page and disagreed, I decided to check an other talk page related to the map (dating Feb 2008). To be brief, I'll only state that a number of similar comments were made ("the speak Macedonian, like it or not", "WP:MOSMAC should go to hell", "ARBCOM bans related to Macedonia are easy this days"'',etc.), practically excluding Greek editors from discussing how the map should be.Only a group of editors that very usually co-operate with FP remained, stating that they are proud to have been able to battle nationalism. When myself I called a fellow Wikipedian who was interested in the case, I myself received a threat.

I strongly believe that admins should be bright example to all Wikipedians. they should be neutral, and should not (ab)use their powers in matters that they are related to, and instead call an un-related admin to resolve the issue. Being an admin does not mean threatening or being uncivil. The second worst thing in all this, is that all this negative attitude continued, while this RfC had already begun, thus completely ignoring the community. And there's the worst thing: Let's revise Wikipedia's title: "The Free Encyclopedia, where everyone can edit". One can ignore rules, but not this one! None should send someone out and also state it was the right thing to do, because their level of English is not perfect, and get away with it. This is breaking of Wikipedia's foundations, and really the worst example for a wanna-be admin, as admninship is not tyranny. In general, FP, being in a safe position, is abusing his power to state that most of the community is less clever than him. That is totally unacceptable. All stated above are totally unacceptable. Yes,FP did usual admin staff aside of these, but that was his job. I recommend that FP should either "find his way" according to the remarks of the community, either step down, or lose adminship for one year, at the end of which another RfC should happen to question whether he should become an admin again. It is a shame that we reached this, when FP can be enormously constructive.But, I'm afraid what needs to be done has to be done.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Michael X the White (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Here, here! — BQZip01 —  talk 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As someone who's never met him, this sounds pretty accurate at a first glance. &mdash; Ceran  ( Strike! ) 21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Walnutjk (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Werdna
Sometimes, people are being stupid. Sometimes their writing is crap. Many of these times, everyone will know it.

However, it is not productive to go and call people stupid, and to say their writing is crap. You will probably not convince them, and there aren't many other reasons to say these things. The result is a production of lots of heat, and no light. Lots of drama, but no figuring-out of what the problem is and how to resolve it.

The solution is not to stop calling a spade a spade – it is important that we are frank and earnest about the problems that contributors have, so that we may resolve them. The solution is to offer constructive criticism. Don't say "your writing is crap", say "your syntax is a bit odd, you should use the passive voice less". Don't say "you're stupid", say "I'm not sure you quite understand the policy".

In particular, don't say "in-universe, who writes this crap?", say "marking as in-universe", or, even better, "fixing in-universe style". There wasn't any need to tack on "who writes this crap?", and it produces a whole bunch of drama.

Earnest discussion and civility are not mutually exclusive. It's very simple to avoid the poisonous tone of some discussions, merely by discussing the issue at hand, without taking a snipe at every opportunity. If we can lose the confrontational attitude, quit sniping at each other, remain calm, and discuss issues sensibly, then Wikipedia discussions will be much nicer.

Some food for thought, somewhat related to the discussion. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view
 * 1) &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  talk  01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --harej 02:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  MBisanz  talk 02:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  — BQZip01 —  talk 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Here here. Someone that's not using image policy to blow smoke over crass behavior. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Well put. Justin talk 08:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)   JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) --Michael X the White (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (if you cannot make the effort to be nice, take it on the road)

Outside View by Wizardman
This took me a while to get through, but I have arrived at a conclusion after looking at all the viewpoints and appropriate diffs. There are two issues at hand in this RfC, those being User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's actions in regards to fair use images, and his civility in relation to them. I know how troublesome on both sides image issues can be, and that it's a very sensitive issue, so of course there's no ruling on that taking place here.

The consensus on the image appropriateness front leans in FPS's favor. While there are some things that both sides could improve on, overall we are a free content encyclopedia, which is where his actions stem from. I ask that FPS try and refrain from engaging in edit warring on IFD/orphan speedy issues so that drama is reduced in those areas, but otherwise sanctions do not appear needed. As for civility, this is a greater concern to editors, and the consensus is not in FPS's favor. There are some who agree with his actions but are thrown off by the civility issues, and just because one works in a difficult area does not give a user the right to attack another. As a result, I caution FPS to be more civil and to avoid personal attacks, on the image front as well as off. I feel that if this user can be civil and understanding while still dealing with questionable images, everything will ideally turn out fine.

Users who endorse this view
 * 1) Wizardman  20:38, 9 November 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.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.