Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

More explanation required

I think more explanation is required for some of these diffs. For example, what is supposed to be wrong with saying "Yet another voter who doesn't get the difference between the notability of an event and the usefulness of a picture of that event"? This may possibly have a slight tone of annoyance, but I don't understand why this constitutes evidence of unacceptable conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The abusiveness of an RFC/U can typically be measured by the percentage of "evidence" links that are plain nonsensical and only thrown in to artificially inflate a case. This one ranks high on the scale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, even if the one's Phil refers to are discounted, there are plenty left to support this RFCU. And FPAS' repeated refusal to address these issues with multiple users is what brought this about. His utter disdain for recognizing the concerns of others is seen in his response here too.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this RFC is, in general, too hostile and tends to over-egg the pudding (Talking about the 'faith of the community). Not to say I don't think there shouldn't be a RFC on FutPer, I do have issues with how he carries on, but the tone (and suggestions to ban him from things right off the bat) puts me off. First get everyone to agree on what the problem is, then get remedies for that. Narson (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

And then I see: this. Narson (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you expect someone to react when they get hauled into a kangeroo court on specious charges? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame him in the slightest. Black Kite 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While the RFC does go to far, I expect him to behave in a civil manner still. If there was a 'because I was feeling frustrated' clause to civility and NPA, it would become meaningless. You cannot argue he is enforcing policy on the one hand and dismiss his breaking of policy on the other. Narson (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Good admin work is no excuse for repeated long term incivility and badgering of those who disagree with you. FPAS has a real problem with those who disagree with him at IFD. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only know a very little about the image related issues, but your opening comment is very harsh and exaggerated, so I could not assume whether you're in a good standing.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of this RFC is "FPAS is a tendentious and uncivil administrator...". That is incivil in itself. FPAS responded to incivility with some of his own. If it had been me I'd have leaned more towards sarcasm, but as I said, I don't blame him in the slightest.Black Kite 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC was posted by Sumoeagle, not by Tracy. Also, we arn't in the playground. You can't yell 'He hit me first'. The RFC, as I have said, goes too far. You will notice I have not put my signature in the endorse section and that is the reason. Narson (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC notice on FPAS' talkpage was posted by User:Jerry, who endorsed the RFC along with SumoEagle. No, we're not in the playground, but even outside the playground, if you hit someone with a stick, sometimes they're going to hit you back. Black Kite 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The point about the "jerk" comment was of course that this was the second notification, after Jerry had just minutes earlier signed here, under an RfD that clearly said I already had been notified by somebody else. Plus, it was in the third person, as if he was talking to a third party. That's a sign of either jerk- or dickishness. My response was totally in the spirit of our policy: WP:AGF is a practical application of Hanlon's Razor. The alternative would have been less nice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he was copy and pasting the same notification? Maybe he didn't see the other message? I'm still baffled that admin are trying to justify incivility. Though perhaps this is one of those things we won't agree on. Narson (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Big difference between "justifying" and "understanding". Though since it now appears to have been a second notification, I "understand" it even more. Black Kite 19:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an intentional copy/paste of the same exact notification that I sent to every participant in the previous discussion. As an attempt to be transparent that such notices were sent, and to ensure that FPaS had been informed. No, I did not read the entirety of his user talk page to see the section where another user had already told him about the RFC. I just hit the "new section" button and pasted away. My previous experience with RFC notification templates was that they included an excessively large light bulb icon, and I did scan the page quickly for such an image. Perhaps that template has been changed or maybe the first notice did not use the template. I do not see how this is any example of me being a jerk. If there was an RFC out there where I was being discussed, I would surely appreciate a good faith courtesy notification, the earlier into the discussion, the better. The fact that the notification came from someone on the "other side" would not force me to try to find a way to assume malice. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look closely at what you signed just fifteen minutes before you posted to me [1]. Are you in the habit of not reading what you sign? That's pretty dangerous. Read it now, in case you still haven't. – By the way, maybe you didn't read what you signed here [2] either? So you think our "non-free content rules are often arbitrary, silly, and unnecessary" and enforcing them is disruption? In that case you shouldn't be a sysop in this place. Please resign. The mop is only for people who endorse the rules they are supposed to enforce. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the first signature, it does not say "users who certify all of the statements and evidence above", it says "users who certify the basis of this dispute" (those who have attempted to work with the person and have failed). {emphasis added} True, I did not read every linked discussion and do a lot of research before signing the certification section. I have had my own personal experience with your behavior, and have tried on several occasions to ask you to be more civil. Instead of listifying these occasions and making a big pile-on of evidence, I just certified the basis for the dispute. As for the second one, I did read it, and I do agree with it. For an administrator to ignore ongoing discussions' consensus to enforce his own interpretation of policy, no matter how "right" he is, is certainly pointy and disruptive. It is not enough to "own" the truth; we have process, and we have guiding light that requires collaboration through discussion and consensus. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and this [3] is really a document that requires desysopping straightaway. " 'We are a free project' means we do not charge people to use the site?? Wow. So, our commitment to producing free content doesn't pertain to images, that's what you're saying? Are you familiar with the foundation resolutions at all? And you really think I would listen to you explaining policy to me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) So, instead of straightforwardly attempting to look at your behavior as described by numerous other wikipedians, and trying to find any legitimacy, and make any effort whatsoever to work toward a peaceable solution, you have resorted to trying to refocus the discussion on my adminship? Look at the title of this page... especially the part after the slash... that's your username up there. If you truly feel that my comments here are the basis of a valid reason for desysopping (which I am rather certain you don't), then why not make another RFC with my name at the top? That would help keep the thing tidy and on-subject. Why not take a few minutes and NOT use the edit button, but just read all the comments people have left and ask yourself very seriously "is there anything here at all that is at least partially true?" And then search for that place inside where you can rise above the ego and say "hey, I guess you might be right about..." and "I agree to try to do better at..." Nobody is asking you to fall on your sword. Notice that desysopping was not mentioned until you did above? If you would agree to certain few stipulations requested, you might find a bunch of people striking-through their comments and leaving new ones like "Wow, I am impressed that FPaS has made what seems like a sincere promise to try to do better". You would not have to give up any of your opinions on image policy to do so. Instead, you would have to only agree to certain few things:

• Not intentionally orphan images and then delete them under the orphaned criteria (a clear circumvention of process)
• Be civil. Suggestion: use available templates (or develop your own templates) to explain things to people. (Possibly even ask someone who has expressed concern here to review these templates and let you know if they are civil enough).
• Seek to educate people before punishing them. Try to see things through their eyes. Don't say "liars and cheats who want to ignore rules just to make their article pretty." Say "well-intentioned wikipedians who want articles to look good and don't yet understand image policy." Look at dealing with their image misuse as an opportunity to collaborate with them.
• Don't speedy close IfD's against the existing consensus, no matter how flawed. Simply close them at the normal time, and defend them at DRV as required. From the support you have gotten here, there seems to be ample admins to help close them without the need for you to rush in and do them all yourself.
• Ask for help. If you feel emotionally involved and worry that you might lash out at somebody, take 10 minutes off. Maybe ask some of the people who have expressed concern here to help you. I'd be willing to reply to people for you from time to time, if it would help you.

Can't we work together to try to find a win-win? Why does it have to be desysop you or desysop me? Why is a win-lose the only way forward? Its sad and ironic that you seem hurt and angry that this RFC is in progress, yet you rebuffed my attempts to resolve these concerns on your talk page just a week earlier. Note that I had nothing to do whatsoever with this RFC being started. In fact I have never had any conversation with the nominator before or since. But I did predict it would happen. I directly told you so. What do you say we try to bury the hatchet and take these lemons and make lemonade, huh? I'm not trying to lecture you about policy. I never even said that I understood the image policy. I have no doubt you know it better than me, and that's precisely why I avoid IfD, and did not even argue with your deletion of my images. It's not the technical details that are the problem, here, it's the technique. I am sure that somebody as smart and as dedicated to this project as you could easily overcome these problems with a little honest effort.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

With all respect for your good intentions, your involvement has not been helpful. I don't need now, and didn't need a week ago, people going preaching at me. And your list of suggestions still contains a lot of things I don't accept, as I think I've said often enough. Number one, for instance, is simply wrong. The idea that editorial orphaning would be a "circumvention of process" is plainly bizarre. It's simple editing. -- If you want to "bury the hatchet", why not do what Narson has been doing: simply continuing collaborating with me on image matters, in a way that demonstrates they actually are making an effort at taking the policies seriously? You will notice I can be terribly nice then. But as long as I see you "endorsing" this and "certifying" that and "notifying" here and there, this is what you are going to get from me. By the way, on a personal level, I really don't see what I did to deserve the escalation from your side. I was extremely civil and friendly when I approached you the other day; the angry reaction was all yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heraclitus once said "It is in changing that we find purpose." Leo Buscaglia quoted this once in a presentation I attended at Saint Michael's College about finding a way to make peace with the people around us. He said that as important as it is to love ourselves and have self-confidence, it was equally important to not cling-on to our existing patterns of thinking and acting. He said if we find ourselves repulsed by another person's words or actions, that it is likely because that person is holding up a mirror and showing us a part of ourselves that we don't like to see.

You were not extremely civil and friendly when you approached me the other day. On the contrary, you pointed me to an edit you made, where your edit summary accused me of deception. And in the past you have wiki-stalked me on different occasions, trickling notices of image deletions to my talk page every few days for weeks on end, stating "I have been combing through more of your contribution history and have located more concerns" and "I will continue to look over all of your contributions and encourage you to do the same". You told me that my image uploads were unacceptable because they lacked the image fair use criteria. I added the criteria template, then you later (months later) came back and deleted the images from the articles and then later deleted the images as orphans. This comes across as "If you don't do X, then I will do Y" followed by "You did X, but now I am going to do Y anyway, because I can." As an experienced editor I found this difficult to tolerate, but as new editors, I would think that some people would feel very unwelcome and oppressed by an administrator using such tactics. Then for discussions to be closed contrary to what the participants are unanimously agreeing-to seems like admins are a superior group of people who are simply above the rules. All wrong. All bad. All unacceptable.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC) (portion redacted as explained below) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I had not the slightest recollection until this minute that we had a history like that. When I contacted you the other day, I did not remember we'd ever interacted before (as I said earlier); and when you told me we had, the only thing I could find was this brief passage: User_talk:Jerry/Archive_2#Re: image closures, which seemed reasonably friendly. The quotes you give above do vaguely ring some bell, but I still can't find them in the archives and cannot for the life of me remember the context. I was utterly astonished when you reacted as you did the other day. Knowing there was such a prehistory I can sort of understand it a bit better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I'm perfectly mystified. "trickling notices of image deletions to your talk page"? I'm sure I've trickled notifications to many people, but I can't find anything in your archives. When and where was that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Refocusing to this discussion. Are you certain that you can't agree to the list of things I provided above? I did not say that you couldn't orphan images. I said you should not orphan images and then yourself delete them as orphans. This is creating the reason for the need to delete, which curcumvents the intentions of the deletion criteria. And I did not say that you could not close IfD discussions contrary to the headcount. I said do not speedy close them; that comes across as an effort to quench the discussion and close it the way you want the outcome to be. The discussion period established by the deletion policy provides for wider discussion. I can't see your valid objection to the rest of the things I listed. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else beside me find it strange that Jerry apparently has an old grudge against me, but, on being politely asked to tell me what it is, evades the issue by changing the topic here, and refuses to talk elsewhere [4]? He seemed to be interested in talking just a few minutes earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually to be brutally honest what I find problematic is that even if User:Jerry had some old grudge against you, he expressed his problems with you in a perfectly civil manner, yet you chose not to engage in that discussion but sought to take things off at a tangent. What would have been so very wrong about responding to his approach positively instead of demanding evidence of past conflict? What good does raking over the past serve? Seriously what good does having another dig do, yeah I know I do the same sometimes but I have been trying to change. Justin talk 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for words. I am not "demanding evidence", I am honestly just simply striving to understand what happened. I told him I was astonished at his angry reaction the other day; for a moment he seemed glad to see that channel for personal talk opened; he then came out about something I apparently did to him that he felt bad about; I told him I couldn't remember what that was. I honestly couldn't, still can't. I just want to understand what reason this person has to feel maligned by me. I can't find it anywhere in my or his edit history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously I asked several straight questions there. For a start, what would have been so very wrong in simply engaging with his approach without coming over all Hercule Poirot and demanding evidence? What good does raking over the past serve? And most crucially do you think having a dig helps? Justin talk 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you two going around and around is not helping? You are just going to get dizzy and throw up on my shoes. Narson (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a not so subtle hint that I'm doing the mission orientated thing again? Justin talk 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I might call it 'Haggis Hunting' in place of 'Tilting at windmills'. Narson (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerry's accusations of stalking

(undent) People, this may all be very amusing to you, with haggis and windmills and whatnot, but I'm getting rather irritated. This is a serious matter, seeing as I am being accused of yet more patterns of long-term abusive behaviour. Up to now, I was just genuinely confused: Jerry said I did something wrong to him, he had me on the defense, and at the same time I was wondering why I could have forgotten all these things so thoroughly.

But now I've spent over an hour trawling through the logs. I checked my whole contribution history, every edit of mine to user talk space back until January 2007. I checked Jerry's whole talk page history, every image-related notification posted to him back until January 2007. I checked Jerry's deleted-contributions history, every single edit he made to an image page that was later deleted, back to January 2007.

It's simply not there. It didn't happen. I never did these things to him.

There is nothing even remotely resembling the scenario he described above. I first thought he might have mistaken me for somebody else. But that can't be it either. Nobody else did such things to him either.

My only interactions I've ever had with him were: on 31 March 2007, when I tagged/deleted a couple of images and corrected some mistaken deletion-tagging decisions by him made in February 2007, with a subsequent polite discussion between us; a few days later a single polite posting from me to him explaining why I had reverted another edit of his (unrelated to images); and then on 18 August 2008 when I again approached him about a bunch of images, among them some old remnants of basically the same old issue from February 2007, having in the meantime forgotten the previous contact. In the meantime, all the image-related notifications he ever got were the usual mechanical messages from BetacommandBot about formal shortcomings of his taggings and rationales. To the very best of my knowledge, I was not in any way involved in either orphaning, tagging, notifying or deleting any of these images between March 2007 and August 2008.

In all three instances where I initiated contact with him, I was perfectly polite. The only complaint he raised that has some basis in reality is that I once used the word "misleadingly" in describing an action of his. That's all the terrible insult and incivility I am guilty of. And everybody who knows English will recognise that to say that somebody's actions were "misleading" is not accusing them of bad faith.

I would appreciate if Jerry would at this point provide diffs of whatever other contact we had that I may have overlooked. Otherwise, I think I may expect an apology from Jerry for this baseless set of accusations, and his retracting from this RfC (including removal of his "endorsements" from the main page). I cannot see why I should accept having him sign "comments" about my behaviour under these circumstances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if we came across as glib. I think the orphaning then deleting thing that Jerry said was a general reference to something you had done, rather than something specific to him. If the rest is untrue, if Jerry is mistake or whatever, I am sure he will apologise. Do you not though find it odd that when you feel wronged, you expect an apology, yet when you are abrasive to others, you expect understanding and tollerance? Can you see where others might feel tha you are sometimes not being as patient or civil as you could or perhaps should be? I am serious when I say that if all my interactions with you were as pleasant as our interaction on the Falkland invasion page (where you were, I must say, very adept at handling a potentially stressful situation), I certainly would have no problem with you beyond the odd discussion on the ins and outs of image policy interpretation. Narson (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing about orphaning and then deleting was something he very definitely claimed I did to him. As for apologies, you know, I don't go demanding apologies for all the smaller and greater insults I've heard from people (like Baseball Bugs the other day). I will always prefer a good, straightforward, honest insult (given or received) to a devious elaborate piece of untruths. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I also can not find the scenario I described in the history of my current user account's talk page. This page seems to start much later than my actual beginning of editing here, but I don't know why that is. I see that the first edit is a welcome template, so I assume that the history for this user name is complete, but there were two other user names before (this account was acquired through usurpation), and I had edited under IP's before that. But all likelihood is that I have in some way confused some of the details with that of Betacommand, Orphanbot, and/ or BetacommandBot. But it is also possible that the discussion I am recalling occurred in-part in places other than my talk page, eg. image talk pages,,, who knows? It seems all very familiar to me, and even you initially said it sounded vaguely familiar. However, I am willing to redact a small portion of the statement, but the sentiment remains. Since I did not initiate this RFC, and none of what I said was in the RFC summary, I don't see how it affects anything. Last week when I was talking to you about the "misleadingly" edit summary; you said: "...I am somewhat less patient with people who simply want to dodge and circumvent the policies in order to push as many pretty images into their favourite articles as they can. I am not patient at all with people who lie and cheat about their images..." That is a drastically different light than you attempted to shed upon it above.

I must again ask you to simply take the focus off me and what I did or did not say in that one little paragraph that you object to, and look more at the HUGE section below it where I outline what I think is a reasonable plan to work toward a common avenue for a peaceable resolution to this RFC. I will strikethrough the offending text, and do offer an apology, as it is likely I got at least some of it wrong. But what are you going to do to try to satisfy the other concerns? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The "dodge ... lie" comment you quote was never directed at you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that now, but it certainly looked like it was directed at me. Perhaps there is a bigger picture of what was going on that you were talking about that I am not aware of? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was. The whole "bigger picture" of conflicts that this RfC is about. Remember, I didn't say that while talking about my conflict with you. I said it in response to your attempt at intervening about my conflicts with those others. The "lie and cheat" was obviously referring to the affair with Dreadstar; the "dodge" to the behaviour of certain parties at certain IfDs. I obviously assumed you had made yourself familiar with this conflict before coming to preach to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: The "I will continue to look over all of your contributions ..." et cetera you quoted me with, where did you find that? Are you saying you paraphrased that from memory? It looked like a literal quote. (Yes, it is something I can imagine I might have said, in this or similar form, to somebody, but unless you are have some sockpuppet or something I never said it to you, as best as I can see.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That bit is etched in my mind... but I can't find it. I redacted it, but now you are persisting to ask me about it, so all I can say is that I am certain that something close to those words was said, but I find no diff. If it occurred on the talk page of a deleted image (like one of the ones for Patricia Racette, maybe?) then it won't be in the viewable history. I'm not going to go to the trouble of searching through deleted image talk pages after combing through deleted contributions... I just redacted the offending part, its easier. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've checked all the deleted image histories, I can gladly check the image talk histories too. But I don't see how we would have met on any of those, if I wasn't active about the images in the first place. Anyway, have you any hint about when this would have been? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I will still insist you retract your endorsements. It's a matter of credibility. If you can't even reliably remember, let alone judge, what went on between us two, and if all your interaction with me during the last weeks was apparently tainted by a profound misperception on your part, what standing can you possibly have to judge me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I'm the only one here trying to help you find a peaceable solution. You need me to stay in this RFC, you might not see it yet. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help find a peacable solution, you're welcome. But I won't accept your signature in places where people are judging my behaviour. Remove those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently my memory has not changed since I left this edit on April 5th 2007. Was I also wrong then? I agree that evidence is hard to find right now, but I do not agree that there is no basis for what I said. I still maintain, as Justin said, that it is less important to search for proof of past difficulties, and more important to work on resolution to the concerns expressed by more than just me here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can see there is that you were making an unwarranted leap to an assumption of bad faith, just like on the two other occasions I contacted you you always seemed to jump into a position of defensiveness that was quite unwarranted. If you look at my (non-image) editing profile, you'll find it was quite unreasonable to assume my noticing of an edit at Greeks would have been due to stalking. Greece-related articles have always been my central editing area and are naturally on my watchlist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I made specific reference to the past, "over 4 months", and "wikistalking me again". It was not simply a bad faith premonition of an isolated future event I was thinking up. But I am quite sick of discussing this now, so by all means please have the last word, and I will allow others to continue this RFC discussion as they see fit; it has now disrupted my normal editing far too much. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to explain to you how to read your own posts? Obviously, the "four months" was referring not to the timeframe in which I had allegedly stalked you previously, but to the timeframe in which you had made comparable edits. And the "again" can only have referred to my going through your image edits, which happened to have been one week earlier. That's what you must have meant, unless you were being delusional. And even so, you happened to be wrong (and can't have been very certain about it anyway, because you removed that response five minutes later [5]. I probably never saw it, or I would have responded at the time, reassuring you in my inimitably patient and polite way that stalking had never been my intention.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Spartaz and PhilKnight

Good admin work is no excuse for repeated long term incivility and badgering of those who disagree with you. FPAS has a real problem with those who disagree with him at IFD. FPAS has been in at least three AN/ANI threads this month. His badgering, foul language, and all around bad behavior have been seen in multiple threads involving multiple editors over a long period of time. Saying he does good admin work does not validate that. Interestingly these, issues seem to involve IFD only and not other areas he works at. That is why a break from IFD work is called for here. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively editors disagreeing with Fut perfs image closes and deletions could try using the existing appeal process at DRV instead of trying for tarring and feathering at one of the public lynching boards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. For image work admins, appearing regularly at ANI probably means you're doing your job properly. Black Kite 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a helpful philosophy. There's no reason why a deleting admin can't establish a good rapport with other editors. It might take more time and need some more discussion, but it's worth it to the project overall. Any short-cutting ends up backfiring by creating a whole body of disaffected users, wasting time on AN/I and here. Ty 02:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In reality though, just like in any other field of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, an image use admin will have no problems developing a rapport with 90% of users once they have had things explained to them reasonably and civilly. The remaining 10% though, will refuse to Get The Point however many times the situation is re-iterated. I can show you lots of talkpage conversations that show this pattern (one is linked in the RFC). Eventually, of course, some disgruntled editor runs off to one of the drama boards. Hence my comment. Black Kite 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And if he'd been civil throughout, nothing will happen if they do run off to the "drama boards". However, when it veers into incivility it only escalates the problem. There is a damn good reason why we have civility policies and I'm increasingly bemused by the notion that breaking policy in one area is somehow justified by enforcing another. Well it isn't and should never be. Justin talk 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; however in most cases it is those who insist in continually breaking imsge policy who are the ones who have civility problems (see the RFC and the section at the bottom of this page for examples). Black Kite 14:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm... the section at the bottom of the page is my "Three Issues" post, in which I try to separate out Wikipedia image policy from the enforcement of it and FPS's behavior while enforcing it. What "civility problems" do you find with it, exactly? There are no personal attacks in it, simply an attempt to understand what underlies FPS's continued rudeness and intransigence under specific circumstances.

Please don't indulge in that old Wikipedian game of calling any argument that opposes your position "uncivil" or "disruptive". I wouldn't have started this RfCU, having little confidence in them as an effective process for solving problems, but now that it's here, it's at least worth giving it a try to see if we can air things out and perhaps come to some common ground. That's never going to happen if people's points of view are off-handedly dismissed as uncivil without even engaging their arguments. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"rem misplaced comment"?

What's wrong with an edit summary of "rem misplaced comment" when someone removes a comment that was posted in the wrong place on his talk page? [6] FPaS had already responded to it under the proper heading. This is getting silly. --Amble (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just misread the context, I've been explaining it to him on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Nevermind then. --Amble (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it is of course annoying that one has to spell out even such details. He didn't apologise for the false accusation either. And others blithely "endorsed" the section while it was there. Do these people check what they sign under? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. Why am I not surprised? Black Kite 21:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not surprised, because you assume bad faith to begin with. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult not to, when people blithely sign under a section with contains misleading quotes taken out of context which they clearly haven't examined. Black Kite 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About that newbie...

Re this "addendum" by MBisanz to his statement [7]: Since he has again managed to maliciously rip my comments out of context, here is the whole of what I wrote a few minutes ago on his talk page [8]:

WP:BITE is not a suicide pact. It is a means of protecting good-faith newcomers who make their various harmless mistakes but have a potential of becoming useful contributors. Its purpose is not to protect those who have no such potential at all. The person in question knew next to no English, couldn't write a single sentence in English, and all he was here to do was to beg us: please write everything according to my nation's POV, I know no other POV, so it must be the right one. I wasn't rude to that person, I didn't insult him, 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.

From this, MBisanz sums up my "most troublesome" stance: "Seriously, so a newbie editor who lacks high performance English language skills is to be driven the project."

Did anybody even read what that newbie had written? This wasn't a matter of "lacking high performance" in English. It was a matter of lacking even the most rudimentary basics, in addition to being an obvious POV-pusher. I am myself a non-native speaker of English, I have the highest respect in the world for people who come here to work in a language that is foreign for them; I work with non-native-English contributors in my main areas of editing all the time. I know what they can do and what they can't do. Now, what the person in question had written was this: [9]

I want to say, why you says liancourt rocks? I say false? I want to say, "dokdo is korean's rocks!" but japaness says, "Takeshima is hapan!" Japaness says false. Dokdo(liancourt Rocks) have been korean's rocks since i-sabu(이사부) conquest dokdo in 512! Buy the way, japaness says that is false!! I have knew sing,"dokdo is korean(korean name : dokdo nun au-ri-dang(독도는 우리땅)", since I was baby. It sing says, dokdo is korean. please talk:dokdo is korean. If you know dokdo is japaness, please know dokdo is korean. please remember this discussion, please!

If anybody thinks the project would be better off if we had encouraged this person to contribute further, I really can't help you. Most troublesome, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really can't say you acted badly in this situation. It's one of those issues that attracts a lot of idiots, and I really doubt they'd have ever got better, or were interested in anything else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, you acted correctly there. Kelly ^hi! 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are standard templates listed in Category:Poor English welcome messages if anybody's interested. They use reasonably similar language, if slightly softer in tone. I also really can't say you acted badly in this situation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those templates; I didn't know them. If I had known them I would probably have used one, although I'm far from convinced the Korean wikipedia would have profited from his contributions either (or he would have been interested in contributing there, for that matter). But I can't keep two hundred user page messages in memory all the time, and on that occasion I wanted to be quick, for various reasons. Also, I was seriously concerned that if I worded it any more softly I might not even be understood. English has that bad habit that when you are polite you need to be syntactically complex. That would very likely have gone right over his head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Outside view by MBisanz

Moved from the outside view to here. Discussion is not allowed under outside views.

Comment

• "rejects possibility of a free replacement image in haste of deleting a possibly unfree image." - actually, Fut Perf was correct there. The design itself is copyrighted, so no replacement will ever be free. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I see no problem with the "Somebody who vandalises..." comment, and the snippet posted to MBisanz's user page needs to be taken in its full context - [10] - which shows that it is taken completely out of context, and FPAS was quite correct in his actions. Black Kite 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Contrary to WP:SPADE, calling people names does not help anything, it only puts the target on the extreme defensive and makes them more resistant to what you have to say. I know, having fallen into the this trap, that it is tempting to do so for the momentary gratification, but it will never accomplish a thing beyond that. Also calling someone a thief because they have different views on fair use is never acceptable. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Outside view by Ryan4314

Moved from the outside view to here. Discussion is not allowed under outside views.

Comment Actually there would be no need to be an admin to flag non-free images for deletion. Justin talk 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The only thing FPaS seems to be occupied with lately is image deletion (and incivility). ktr (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jerry wonders why...

every Wikipedia doesn't sign Ty's view? Yes, it's uncontroversial, but Well, personally I don't want to be seen to be legitimising an RfC that attempts to hang one of our best admins out to dry whilst completely ignoring the background to which image work is done. After all, I see people are still signing MBisanz's view with its out-of-context quotes. Black Kite 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't sign it because it's not necessarily correct. If a nonfree image is invalid by policy and the WMF resolution, there is already a speedy criterion for that. Consensus, in that case, is irrelevant, as free content is our ultimate goal. Exceptions are permissible only in limited circumstances, and those circumstances are not necessarily where a lot of people would like to keep something. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reading it again, you're right. Refactored accordingly. Black Kite 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would never ignore reasonable policy-based arguments, either in speedy-sidestepping an IfD or in closing it canonically but against headcount. What I do ignore, and any admin must ignore, are arguments that are blatantly, self-evidently against policy. That goes for arguments of the type "But it passes NFCC1!" when the delete argument is "it fails NFCC2". It's a very simple, entirely transparent error of logic. Detecting it is not a matter of "interpretation", just counting 2 and 2 together. NFCC consists of a set of criteria, each of which is an independent necessary, but not sufficient, criterion. The letter of the policy is crystal clear about that. You can't defend the breach of one criterion by pointing to the other. To the best of my memory, all the keep votes I overruled in that batch of speedies the other day were of that type (or even weaker). The fact that many established editors, even admins, are a victim of that misunderstanding doesn't change the fact that it's plain wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What you don't seem to get is that the only reasonable way to determine how NFCC policy should be interpreted and enforced is by consensus reached through discussion -- that's the Wikipedia way. When you "side-step" (i.e. ignore entirely) an ongoing IfD in which the participants have expressed their opinions concerning an image's acceptability under NFCC policy, and usurp that debate by deleting the image based on your own interpretation of what the policy means and how it should be enforced you vastly overstep your perogatives as an administrator. You have been given adminstrator's tools in order to implement the community's decisions, and when you make those decisions on your own, without regard to (indeed, in blatant disregard of) a legitimate consensus debate, you have done something you are not authorized to do, no matter how many other deletionist adminsitrators are doing it as well. ("Other people are doing it" is just a form of the "Other things exist" fallacy.) Your tools give you the capability of doing certain things, but they don't carry with them the blanket authority to use them whenever and however you want to. Your inability or unwillingness to recognise the limited nature of your authority, your attitude towards other editors, your habit of retaliating against those who have tried to stand up to you, these are things that are very worrisome, especially when they are combined with what is clearly an extreme view of how image policy is to be enforced.

I would say that you are much too involved with this particular task, and have almost completely lost perspective. I think you should step back and stop working on images for a while, and turn your attention and your talents to helping the encyclopedia in other, more positive ways. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I hear this "it's just your interpretation" mantra one more time I'm gonna puke. Or better, just stop reading. It's not my "interpretation" that 2+2 != 5. It's also not my "interpretation" that NFCC consists of 10 separate conditions that must all be met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would pick up something to settle your stomach, because it's unlikely that you're going to stop hearing it as long as you cannot recognize the obvious fact that Wikipedia's image policy is nothing at all like a mathematical equation. Like many works of human social and political policy, it's imperfect, sometimes less than completely clear, and therefore subject to interpretation. Not only that, but the manner it which it should be enforced is also subject to interpretation. Clearly, you don't want that to be true, you want it to be something precise, mathematical, absolute, but regrettably, that's not the case, and pretending otherwise will not make it so. That's why your behavior in acting as if it were a clear and precise thing is running you into an increasing amount of trouble - you put your foot down, insist that you're upholding the policy and ignore the fact that how the policy is to be interpreted isn't your personal domain, no matter how cut-and-dried it all appears to you to be. It's also probably why you go off the tracks in terms of civility too, since (in your eyes) we're all trying to convince the world that 2+2=5, when (as you see it) that's absolutely not the case. Well, this isn't math, and it isn't engineering, it's human relations, and you had best pull back from the edge of absolutism you're teetering on and recognize that the policy you're following so dogmatically ain't what you think it is. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In a sense, you of course hit the nail on the head here: If I sometimes go off the tracks in terms of civility, it's out of exasperation because you are all trying to convince the world that 2+2=5. Yes, that's what you're doing. It's not a matter of math, nor of human relations, nor of engeneering, but of simple reading and simple logic. NFCC does consist of ten independent conditions that all must be met, no amount of talk will change this simple fact. Everybody who can read a simple sentence in English can see it, and everbody who has served as an administrator for more than a few days ought to know it. And yes, I get to the limits of my patience when people persistently close their eyes to this simple fact. I have no understanding for that, at all. Yes, it can totally drive me crazy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not those 10 conditions are met, is down to an individual interpretation and there can be considerable differences of opinion, because it is not as black and white as you maintain. And its not a case of sometimes going off the tracks in terms of civility, you do it frequently and are openly hostile to anyone commenting on your lack of civility. If someone disagrees with you, it is not a case of you are right and they are wrong but you don't seem to recognise that. You also go about convincing people of your argument in totally the wrong way, brow beating people just puts their back up. The RFC is about your conduct, not image policy, no-one is "after your head" and I suppose that many people are unhappy that it has come to this. I've said it to you once before, you need to take a step back, you've become very mission orientated. I only mention that because I can be very passionate myself about topics close to my areas of interest, I can be very mission orientated myself. I suppose the difference between us, is that I've learnt to listen to others when I get in that zone (and the people involved are welcome to comment if they feel it would help). I see people trying to do the same for you and you fling it back in their faces. Whether or not you should refrain from image deletions I'm not convinced either way but you do need to recognise your conduct is becoming a problem. This isn't a personal attack but an honest comment as I recognise in you traits that I have myself. Justin talk 11:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. In the specific instance of my 23 August deletions, the issue was not that there was a disagreement whether certain criteria were met or not. The issue was that a bunch of people (including admins) were stubbornly claiming criteria were irrelevant just because one other criterion was met. And then they had the nerve of accusing me of putting my "interpretation" of policy over theirs. Say what you will, but that's a point where my willingness to engage in polite and patient discussion just ends. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue was more that ther were different interpretations of the subjective parts of the various criteria. At least that was my view. Narson (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not in the batch of 21 August IfDs that I speedied on 23 August, no, it wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I have got the wrong IFD debate. My mistake, I apologise. Narson (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If they were uncivil, then the appropriate response is to raise it at WP:AN. If they were incorrect about policy then it could be dealt with at DRV or at an RFC. Its never appropriate to be uncivil, particularly as you're an admin and supposed to represent all wiki policies. That seems to be the bit that you're not understanding. Justin talk 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This would be a lot more convincing if there were a string of successful deletion reviews to show that FPaS's image deletions have been incorrect. --Amble (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's primarily because when you get to DRV, the burden of proof (as it were) switches to those who want the image to be un-deleted. It may not be what official policy says, but in reality, the assumption at DRV is that the deletion was legitimate, so if the closing admin has what looks like a legitimate argument, it makes it practically impossible to overturn. (This is especially so when the argument involves image policy, which is wielded like a sword of righteousness - much like in the real world in the USA, where playing the "terrorism" card after 9/11 trumped just about anything. Right now, in Wikipedia, the NFCC card is being played by folks such as FPS with impunity.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no such switch, because the burden of proof is always on those making a fair use claim. --Amble (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, either I'm right or you're right, but either way the burden is on the people trying to overturn the deletion, which easily explains why there's been no "string" of DRV overturns. Doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with FPS's interpretation of NFCC policy. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that IfD, unlike AfD, is sparsely populated with "regulars" and any given IfD is more likely to attract those editors disposed to retaining an image. That's not a fault of any individuals but is a systemic problem. The purpose of an adminstrator is such a context is to weigh the arguments presented with respect to image policy. Whilst there are differing interpretations of the relevant policy, there is only a limited latitude within which reasonable interpretation exists. Recent outcomes at Deletion Review have could be taken to suggest that FP's interpretation of policy is within the boundaries of reasonable interpretation and that the opinions of his detractors are not. CIreland (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I would say that recent outcomes at DRV can be taken to suggest that FPS's infractions have not become so widely known that his actions have been subject to the proper amount of scutiny. (That could change, as the number of complaints at AN and AN/I have been increasing.) Combine that with the propensity (for reasons I've stated above) for DRV to be biased in favor of maintaining deletion, and DRV results are easily explained.

Incidentally, if poor attendance at IfD's is a problem, then editors who nominate images for deletion should make more of an effort to notify people about the nomination. Notifications should be required to be placed on the talk pages of all articles the images appear in - that would help perk up attendance. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the point I was trying to make was that notification of an uploader and of an article's main contributors (whether via the talk page, user talk pages or the image page) is what causes a predisposition to retention. By contrast, DRV has a much wider base of participation. CIreland (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly understood your point, which was that IfDs are unreliable because the only people who participate in them, according to you, are the editors who are actually interested in the image under discussion -- and you think that's a bad thing, for some reason. You apparently think it's better for the people who hang out at DRV to decide these things -- let the pros take care of it.

You know, maybe the perceived "unreliability" of IfDs explains why folks such as FPS have resorted to deleting images in an entirely out-of-process manner, because they weren't getting the results they wanted by going through proper procedures? I mean, dammit all, when an experienced image warrior like FPS heads out for a night's image patrolling, and he comes across something that looks suspicious, and he carefully examines the image and decides that it doesn't meet NFCC requirements, and then he puts it up for deletion, that image had damn well better be deleted!, or what's he doing all that work for? What do we think, he's got time to fool around with the ignorant opinions of a bunch of yokels who wouldn't know NFCC #8 from Pike's Peak? Jeez! Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The participants are not representative and have a tendency to be "involved". They are, of course, not stupid - in many policy areas, adminstrative actions not the least, we recognise the problem of "involvement" and seek to minimize it. I, for example, do not block editors with whom I am involved in a dispute because I am likely to predisposed to regard them unfavourably; that doesn't make me a foolish yokel who doesn't know the blocking policy from <insert alliterative geographical feature>. CIreland (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bodega Bay? The Red River? The Zyder Zee?

Bet you think I'm all wet. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, your analogy to involved admins doesn't really (you should pardon the expression) hold water. It's recommended that an admin not use their tools regarding a situation or person they're involved with because when they use their tools they act as a person in authority, and it is important that those types of decisions be made by unbiased people. It's different when it comes to editing the encyclopedia. In those situations we want people to be involved and interested in what they're discussing. We don't disallow the editors working on a certain article from deciding amongst themselves what should go into the article, we encourage them to work it out, and bring in neutral third parties only when things hit a stopping point and they're unable to decide for themselves.

There's no difference in regard to images, being interested and involved doesn't mean you put your brains on hold, it means you are better equipped to understand the potential value of the image - and it goes without saying that there are going to be people who edit an article, and would go to the IfD if they knew about it, who are opposed to any particular image and will speak out against it.

It seems to me that your assessment entirely discounts the very basis of how the project works. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Irreplacability

There seems to be some confusion over the replaceability (or lack thereof) of a given image. Being irreplaceable is necessary but not sufficient. This must also mean that the article would be inadequate as only text, since if a text only article is sufficient, the image is replaceable by free content (text alone). This condition is not often satisfied. In most cases, an article about something nonfree is sufficiently good without any nonfree media. The rule is "no nonfree content". Exceptions to this rule must be made on a case by case basis, and there must be a very good reason. Kim Phuc meets this requirement, as the article simply could not be what it is without displaying the iconic image that leads there to even be an article. Nike or Coca-Cola do as well, as their logos are in themselves iconic and discussed in reliable sources. Such also goes for Virgin Killer, where the album cover was in itself a significant topic of reliable sources. But a nonfree image should never simply be a pretty for the infobox. If sources do not choose to discuss the logo, cover, what have you, what justification do we have for including them? In this case, the nonfree media is replaceable by text alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, such an interpretation is extreme in the extreme and if applied would eviscerate the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for explaining exactly why this RfC is so comedic. You've just described Wikipedia policy as "nonsense", because what Seraphim says is exactly what WP:NFCC#1 says. If a sensible contributor like you has that opinion of image policy, is it no wonder that the world and his dog tramples all over it? Black Kite 05:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't be. That interpretation of it would essentially do away with all fair-use of images and that was specifically rejected, if you recall. But it does bring out why there is this continuing conflict, because one side is attempting to reach their goal – i.e. the removal of all non-free images – using a policy which was never intended to achieve that rejected result. That's why FPS's interpretation of the policy seems so extreme to people such as myself (and who are you calling "sensible" incidentally, don't you know that I'm "unreachable by rational discourse"?) who wish to be able to use non-free images when they are necessary, when free images aren't available, and when they clearly fall into the bounds of acceptable fair use.

And i would point out that there are other aspects of this RfCU which have nothing whatever to do with image policy: lack of civility, edit warring, retaliation, using administrator status as a weapon, and so on. You may believe that the RfCU has been brought as a retaliatory act, and perhaps there is something of that aspect to it around the edges, but the bad behavior of FPS is quite real, and can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand, a slap on the back and saying "He's our boy, he's doing God's work."Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This RFC is also not, IMO, about image policy. It is his behaviour that concerns me. If FutPer realised he needed to remain civil when dealing with such things and shoudn't seek to further engae with editors he is in dispute with, I'd be more than satisfied. It is this 'I am correct so I can be uncivil' attitude that seems to have come out from several people on this RfC that is concerning. Narson (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I should add that FutPer brought up an issue on the Occupation of the Falkland Islands page yesterday, and I found him to be very civil and he has patiently explained things as he sees him and were that my usual experience of him, it would be barnstars or what not rather than RfC. Narson (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Narson, you hit the nail squarely on the head, the RFC is not retaliatory, were it so I would have had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Neither is it about image policy, the image posse proclaiming he is right seem to forget that doesn't excuse violations of other policies. That several people are prepared to justify incivility and edit warring by an admin is simply inexcusable. Justin talk 09:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But it ultimately all stems from image policy - or, rather, a mistaken idea held by FPS that Wikipedia image policy is akin to 2+2=4 (see section above). He sees people denying it, in effect trying to convince the world that 2+2=5 and he digs in his heels and tries to stop the absurdity.

The problem, of course, is that our image policy is nothing like a mathematical equation, it's a piece of social policy meant to regulate the behavior of human beings between each other, and it's full of the usual vagaries and ambiguities that things of that nature always have. Try to deal with it as if it an equation, and you're bound to have problems, which is what FPS has at the moment. I would predict that if he were to cease being an image cop, there would probably be little or no civility or other behavioral problems from him at all. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Not even I am claiming that there should be zero use of non-free images (even though it would make my life a great deal easier, and other wikis - notably de - seem to cope without it just fine). The point is that NFCC needs to be strict, or else the project risks sinking under a deluge of copyright problems. Unfortunately, this often conflicts with the concept that many users have of fair-use - i.e. that "this article doesn't look aesthetically good without images, therefore I must be improving it if I stick any old image in, regardless of its copyright status." The question is where the bright line should stand, and hence why NFCC exists. Black Kite 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To diverge from things a bit, I acknowledge the intent of things like NFCC is to ensure images are only used in a way that is compatable with a stricter system than copyright law (Seriously folks, Wikipedia is stricter than copyright laws, which may be one source of confusion?). That is perfectly good, but to suggest that NFCC is in anyway clear on all points is, I think, unfair. Much of NFCC is subjective in its terms (Using legalese in a policy document without definitions of the words is a great way to cause confusion, for example). However, what I think has to be realised is that just because FutPer's interpretation of NFCC differs from ours, it is in no way 'wrong', and IFD is there for us all to discuss the interpretations. Some cases are black and white. Some are grey. Further on from that, people have brought up the fact FutPer is a 'deletionist' up to be negative, I want to make it clear that deletionism is a valid stand point and one I get behind on occasion. Focusing this RfC on image policy is going to get nowhere really, because it is unfair to hold FutPer up as some avatar of deletionism or strict interpretation and let people whack at him like a pinata. So perhaps all sides can agree to disagree on image policy and look at the other aspects? Narson (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV versus IfD

It's been mentioned above that there aren't a "string of successful DRVs." That has no bearing on whether or not FPaS should be circumventing IfD by closing debates as "delete" where the only recommendations were to "keep" or speedying images where ongoing debate is occuring. What he effectively does is flip the script, moving from having to make a case for deletion to forcing those who wish to have the image restored to make the case. This is an unfair use of the tools, in my view. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo. [11] Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're not Jimbo, just for the record. And sometimes he's wrong as well. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo of course didn't make that deletion because he wanted to say: Hey, I'm the god king, I can do what I like. He made that deletion because evidently he felt that was what policy required. As I said, ask him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  This RfC isn't about Jimbo. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• But as long as I know my understanding of policy agrees with his (in addition to that of all the other admins who closed my DRVs), you'll have even more of an uphill battle trying to convince me of the opposite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  That's the point of this thread: you use the fact that the burden of proof switches at a DRV to your advantage. This is a grossly unfair use of tools. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• But that's really just as it should be, as I think somebody else already pointed out. With non-free images, there ought not to be (and, in the practice of most IfD closing, really isn't) such a thing as a "no consensus default to keep", as with other XfDs. Non-free content is allowed only by way of exception. That means there must be an informed consensus for its inclusion. This makes NFC closures radically different from others. In the hands of a competent closing admin, the defaults already are turned round at the IfD stage anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  You have made your opinion on this matter abundantly clear. But it's just that: an opinion. The fact remains that at IfD, no consensus defaults to keep. That's just how it is. At DRV, no consensus defaults to delete. You use this to your advantage which I believe is a misuse (not abuse, which requires malice, but misuse) of your tools. It creates a stratafication of editors into classes by those who can enforce their views with tools and those who can not. This is unhealthy at best, detrimental to the project at worst. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, the "fact" is that at IfD, many competent admins, not just me, are already treating NFC cases as "no consensus default to delete". My "opinion" is that this practice is correct, because it's the only consistent application of the foundation principles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  And those admins (and you) violate the guidelines given to closing administrators at the top of the IfD page. That others do it as well does not make it correct. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is long before SDJ's time, but you know damn well that Jimbo has repeatedly asked that he not be quoted per Jimbo or Jimbo says so or Jimbo does it in policy discussions. Jimbo is not a trump card and quite frankly he has drastically cut back on his administrative actions to help foster the notion that he is not the be all and the end all. FPAS, no matter how right you are, if you believe the supports are incorrect, it your responsibility to take it to deletion review. Using your admin tools in a policy dispute is not acceptable. It would be best if IfD was left to more neutral administrators. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Utter nonsense. It is always within the responsibility of an admin closing an XfD (or performing a speedy) to weigh arguments, and to discard those that are out of policy. People do that all the time, and that's what I do in dealing with IfDs. When you believe (or rather: have incontrovertible proof) that an XfD argument is contrary to policy, you are not only entitled but obliged to ignore it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that FPAS is quite correct here on both counts. As to IfD, we have always, since moving AfD away from "Votes for deletion" quite deliberately, decided and held that XfD is not a vote. An admin who counts heads rather than reading arguments when closing an XfD is doing a poor job. FPAS is also quite correct that only in exceptional circumstances is nonfree media disallowed. The WMF resolution states that such use must be "minimal". Using nonfree images everywhere the law would allow us to get away with it would be maximal (after all, we cannot go farther than the law allows, not for long!) However, as a free content project, we very deliberately use far less free content than the law would allow. That's also why we require a nonfree rationale for any nonfree image. The default assumption is "nonfree content is not allowed", if you want an exception, it is incumbent on you to state how this particular use passes all of the requirements for the use of nonfree media. If you cannot convincingly do so, the use is unacceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

The incivility issue is a serious one, and I've tried to address FPaS several times regarding it. He doesn't appear open to changing his communication style though, so I'm not sure where to go from here. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I assumt the next step is arbitration, but anyone hoping to specifically address FPS's behavioral problems should be prepared that at arbitration the image policy qiestions are going to predominate even more than they have done here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's dedication to Wikipedia is laudable and no one questions the vital necessity of IFD work, where the potential for conflict is inherently significant. As such, a thorough technical knowledge needs to be coupled with patience and the ability to communicate in a non-confrontational way with other equally high-minded editors. Fut.Perf. regrettably often resorts to abrasive language and incivility towards other editors in IFD-related discussions. There is just no excuse for name-calling and insults by an admin. Suppose a would-be admin declared at his RfA, "I am going to disregard AGF and call other editors vandals whenever I think they're wrong, and I will ignore or mock other editors when they bring concerns about my conduct to my Talk page" - would such a candidate get even one support? Obviously not. Yet here we have a veteran admin who does exactly that, repeatedly and unapologetically. This is really inimical to the entire concept of Wikipedia as a collaborative, volunteer project. Simply put, if this admin is unable to observe these fundamental requirements expected of all editors, he should not be participating at IFD. JGHowes ^talk - 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect example of the sort of background here

Have a look at the recent history of Ann Beattie and User_talk:RedSpruce. If we can have this conversation about one of the least controversial parts of our image policy, imagine what it's like when you're debating the finer points of NFCC#2 or 3a!!... Black Kite 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• ....and [12]. This is the reality of the situation here. I hope that people will consider that in relation to some of the perceived incivility by FPAS. Cheers, Black Kite 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the issue is whether FP is doing some great work on Wikipedia and whether that includes some stressful environments.It is clear that many believe that to be true . I have no experience in that area so couldn't say. The issue is more clearly how he handles that stressful situation. At the point where any of us makes a situation difficult because we aren't handling the environment very well, so that the best collaborative situation is impossible, well, a break from that kind of environment might be a great thing..... just gives perspective and rests the mind for a bit.In asking for comments, I feel, this is not about damning an editor's entire body of work but rather about improving situations editors have found to be difficult.(olive (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Comment Well again as I pointed out elsewhere, if someone had been uncivil we have means of dealing with that and individual admins don't have to act alone or feel they have to take all the crap. Equally taking it to DRV would have meant leaving it a short while and the result would have been the same. Except that RedSpruce wouldn't have felt that his viewpoint had been ignored, he'd had a fair hearing and quite possibly he'd have gained a better understanding of image policy. Justin talk 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the whole conversation, including the part he removed, you'll see that I explained civilly the issues involved, and even pointed him to a flickr image of the person involved, suggesting he could contact the creator of that image. However, as you'll see if you read the talkpage now, RedSpruce, like many editors, doesn't have an interest in understanding policy, he just thinks it's wrong, and can therefore be ignored. I've disengaged with him now as I can't be bothered to counter his repeated playground insults, and I don't particularly want him to get himself blocked, as he's a good contributor apart from this issue. Black Kite 20:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Three issues

Essentially, I think there are three issues here:

1. Wikipedia's image policy;
2. How Wikipedia's image policy is to be enforced; and
3. FPS's behavior when enforcing image policy

I completely agree with those saying that this is not the place to discuss #1 -- although given the nature of the case, it's inevitable that it's going to keep seeping in through the cracks, no matter how hard we close the door.

On the other hand, I think the remaining two issue are intimately related. Reading his comments above, it's obvious to me that to FPS, how the image policy is to be enforced is crystal clear. It's as obvious to him, so he says, as 2+2=4. So when other people disagree with him, he either looks upon them as fools or idiots, who can't understand that 2+2=4, or as people who are deliberately out to hurt Wikipedia, i.e. as vandals.

This explains why FPS gets all rigid and repetitive -- Think about it, how would you go about explaining 2+2=4 after all the obvious arguments had been rejected? You'd get repetitive and rigid and frustrated too! -- and why he starts to behave in an uncivil manner, being rude and authoritarian, and retaliatory, because, to his way of thinking, he's dealing with people who are vandals, or something quite close to it.

So #3, the behavioral problems of FPS, is closely connected to his view of #2, how Wikipedia's image policy should be enforced. If it were somehow possible to clarify for FPS, perhaps through arbitration, (since I'm unaware of any other available pathway), that enforcement of image policy should be based on consensus arrived at through debate (in the case of image deletions, at an IfD), and not on the opinion of any one administrator, even if other administrators back him up. The basic argument cited in support of FPS's way of dealing with things seems to be one of special expertise, that image policy is so complex it takes a person with special technical knowledge to enforce it, so it cannot be left to community consensus to decide. I would object to that argument strenuously, and point out that ordinary people with no special technical knowledge routinely decide complex technical, social and political issues every day, when they sit on juries in the Anglo-American system of justice.

Perhaps rather than seeing his role as being a technocrat, deciding things that we cannot, it might be better if FPS was to think of his role in image deletion as being a prosecutor, presenting a case. If FPS sees an image that clearly seems to him to lie outside the boundaries of image policy, he should endeavor to convince the people discussing its deletion at IfD of why he feels that way, using his special knowledge to guide the discussion to what he believes is its proper conclusion when the IfD is closed (by another admin, of course).

By ignoring the process that's been set up and usurping the authority of the consensus to decide these issues, FPS drives a knife into the heart of the Wikipedian system, but by helping to guide and channel discussion, he would reinforce the best parts of that system, and, more often than not, I think the final result would be the same, without the disruption to the community. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Jerry

I am extremely troubled by the recent behaviour of Jerry (talk · contribs), one of the "certifiers" of this RfC. Jerry apparently feels entitled to sign as a certifier because some days ago he had approached me with a moralising appeal to behave more nicely [13], to which I gave an (admittedly, terse) rebuke at the time [14]. Yesterday, two days into the RfC, Jerry came out with a complaint, evidently full of personal bitterness, of how the two of us allegedly had a history of conflict: I used to harass, wiki-stalk and threaten him over image-related issues for many months, back when he was a newish contributor [15].

As I have explained more fully above, this story is purely imaginary. I wondered how it could happen that I had so utterly forgotten such a series of events; I checked the history, and found: it just didn't happen. Nothing of what Jerry claims about me is true. He has completely dreamt it up. Jerry has admitted that he "can't find" the diffs to prove what I did to him. They don't exist. And yet, despite offering an apology (for not being able to provide evidence), he has reiterated that he vividly remembers these events, and that he is fully convinced I did something horrible to him.

Note that I'm not accusing him of lying. I trust that he honestly believes what he says, and that in some way he is under heavy emotional stress with this issue. And yet, in reality, the full extent of my contacts with him prior to 22 August 2008 was this: (1) a notice and subsequent friendly discussion about image tagging on 31 March - 1 April 2007 (here), (2) a notice about a revert of his on an article on my watchlist, which incidentally occurred a few days later (here), then nothing for over a year, and then (me having forgotten about him in the meantime), (3) another notice about images on 18 August 2008 (here). That's it. Each of my contacts was perfectly polite and matter-of-fact; to each of them he reacted with a response that ranged from slightly defensive [16], to overtly distrustful [17], to extremely hostile [18]. His mind seems to have been magnifying some perceived criticism and turned it into something huge and sinister, to the point of completely losing touch with reality.

Now, under normal circumstances I would just shrug it off, say a few reassuring things to him and let it be. But he is still "certifying" this RfC, and "endorsing" several of the responses to it. I asked him to retract his endorsements. I believe that a person who has such a severe and irrational emotional issue with me, and whose perception of me and grasp of reality is so severely tainted, should not be among the people who go on record in this process as judging my actions, conduct and character.

He has refused [19], and is in fact refusing to even talk about the issue any further.

I cannot and will not let this stand. This is now a serious matter for me, a matter of honour. I want my name cleared of this, and I cannot and will not accept his voice among those who criticise me. He has no standing and no credibility for doing so.

I hereby state that I will consider this whole RfC null and void, and will permanently refuse to take anything said on it by anybody into any consideration, as long as Jerry's signature is found anywhere on the main page.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Another person who signed multiple items on this RFC and whose "outside view" was signed by others, RedSpruce (talk · contribs), has just got a final warning for rampant insults and disruptive editing over non-free images (ANI). Same goes for his signatures as for Jerry's. Out with them, or I'm out of here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I agree that Jerry's involvement has been unhelpful. Overall, in my humble opinion, there probably should be a discussion beyond the scope of this RfC to gain consensus about what should happen in cases of local consensus versus policy in regard to fair use images. Obviously, my own view is fairly close to that of FPaS, that is policy should override a 'wrong' local consensus, however there are editors in good standing arguing that it shouldn't. However, leaving that debate aside, I don't think FPaS needs to respond any further to this RfC. Obviously, if I was a more patient, clueful, and nicer person then I would be a more effective admin, and this principal applies to just about everyone, but otherwise I don't there is much else to say. PhilKnight (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the need for that discussion about how a local consensus debate relates to image policy -- it seems to me to be the nub of the widespread divergence of opinion about image policy enforcement, and some clarity, one way or the other, would be welcome. If you want some support in getting that discussion going somewhere appropriate, please call on me.

On the other hand, concerning FPS's behavior, I obviously disagree. There are issues brought up here about how FPS deals with other editors that go beyond his dispute with Jerry, and it would be nice if he would address them rather than use that as an excuse to ignore the valid concerns of other editors. In my case, for instance, I didn't go out looking for an image warrior on the other side of the issue, FPS came to me, dropping in on my talk page to threaten me with a block after I restored a number of reasonable fair-use images to articles. It's stuff like that, aggresively going after regular and productive editors in an attempt to browbeat them, which has ended up with the creation of this RfCU. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise ought to acknowledge that his approach has been problematic and work with someone (not necessarily anyone here) to moderate his behavior. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would echo Ed, that this is beyond image policy and about FutPer's interactions with others. Ultimatums such as the one above are unhelpful and just serve to get peoples backs up Narson (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Ed and Narson. FPaS might consider this whole RfC null and void, and will permanently refuse to take anything said on it by anybody into any consideration, as long as Jerry's signature is found anywhere on the main page. but what matters here is not that; he's the one being accused and examined here not Jerry. I think he can initiate a new RfC for Jerry if he deems it necessary; he shouldn't try to distract people from the current RfC. ktr (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I already redacted my comments and explained why the endorsement of this RFC still stands based on the response to my request on FPaS's talk page about a comment he did in fact leave on an edit summary which I interpreted as an attack against me. Of course, if FPaS had been willing to have the discussion with me at that time, as opposed to leaving what I thought were snotty remarks and dismissing my attempts to discuss this with him, he may have been able to assure me that I had misinterpreted his intentions, as he has since done here on this RFC talk page. This goes to the root of the complaint here, however; that FPaS approaches some users with a harsh tone (intentional or otherwise) and when asked about it becomes blatantly uncivil. I see no reason even *IF* what I said in the redacted paragraph is factually incorrect. The remainder of what I have said is true, or at least unchallenged at this point.

I tried in good faith to offer FPaS an opportunity to see this RFC through to an amicable win-win outcome, but he is stuck trying to punish me for the redacted comments. I redacted them already, and nobody else here offered any follow-up commentary based on those statements prior to redaction, so what is the continued problem? FPaS needs to focus on the complaints of the other people and ignore my comments if they are in his way; I even do not mind if somebody just deletes them, and moves them to a "/redacted" subpage, if it would make him feel better about it. He has still not addressed these other people's concerns legitamately, as far as I can see. He seems intent on making this about me, and not about him.

I did not start this RFC, and I had no hand in it becoming started. I never once had any conversation with the nominator before or since the RFC started. It is not about me. FPaS seems to want to hit the "move" button at the top of this and rename it to WP:RFC/Jerry, so he can just ignore the comments that others have made and just go about what he was doing. And Phil Night, how can you say that my involvement has been unhelpful? I have tried to outline some reasonable concessions that FPaS could easily make that could bring this toward a peaceful and quick closure. So I made some statements which were subsequently redacted, from my recollection, possibly from a period of time that I was bedridden with Cancer, (March to May 2007) and maybe I got all the details all confused. When it was brought to my attention I apologized and redacted it. It has no bearing however on the remainder of this RFC, and so "Sorry, now get over it" applies. It has been redacted. Calling for me to enendorse this RFC and the outside views of others is just plain obtuse, and seems like a ruse to ignore the real issues. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An ultimatum is just symptomatic of the underlying problem, there are plenty of other users endorsing the RFC but now they're simply being ignored. The high dudgeon has the appearance of a pretext to avoid tackling the underlyng issue. Justin talk 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That thought crossed my mind too, but I think it would be appropriate to assume good faith and credit that FPS's feeling that his honor has been besmirched is genuine. Still, even so, it's going too far on his part to ignore the entire RfCU and the expressed opinions of other editors because of a conflict with one particular editor. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what User:Future Perfect at Sunrise means by Out with them, or I'm out of here? That he's going to get out of WP (i.e. quit)? Maybe he could elaborate on his histrionics (first towards Jerry and now towards RedSpruce)? I doubt it, as he first has to get off the stool he got himself on looking down on the rest of us. ktr (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And now two. This is not FutPer's RfC, this is a RfC about FutPer. This is becoming somewhat farcical. Narson (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but now that he has publicly stated that the two signatures were what was preventing him from participating here, he may find himself boxed in and forced to do so. Or, he might find yet another excuse for not engaging. Either way, we'll learn more about FPS's character from what he chooses to do. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to 'box him in' or 'force' him. This isn't about punishing him or dragging him kicking and screaming. It is about helping him avoid conflicts, and making editing a bit more bearable for those who happen to 'frustrate' him. If he doesn't want to change his style, there is very little we can do about that. Obviously it will have consequences for him, but if he doesn't see there is any validity to the concerns, then we cannot force him. Narson (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this was your motivation. What I meant is that FPS had boxed himself in by demanding the signatures be removed, so that when they were he might find it impossible to refuse to participate. Obviously, I was wrong, since he's maintaining his decision not to engage.

I suggest that should FPS come up with another ultimatum, it be ignored, as he seems not to keep his promises. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

For the record I did it as an attempt to remove a roadblock to allow the RFC to continue. If those users wish to restore their comments I've no objection. If had helped avoid this escalating any further I'd have been happy with that outcome, however, if FPAS isn't going to embrace the process there isn't much we can do about that. Justin talk 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying Jerry's behavior was ideal at all. But that does not give FPAS the right to be uncivil and demand others stay off the RFC. This sort of attitude by FPAS is what brought us all here in the first place.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Distraction technique won't work here. FPAS would be well-advised to answer the points made against him whether or not he regards the other participants as good editors or not. --John (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FPaS deleting images without putting them through the IfD process

File:Sarre86.jpg and File:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg have both been deleted by FPaS without going through the IfD process. They were mentioned in the IfD debate of 28 August for File:Chislet mill.jpg, but no actual IfD was raised against either image. Surely this is a gross abuse of privilege to use admin tools in such a manner. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they met speedy criteria, then no...Narson (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I say that they did not, and therefore there should have been a debate to reach a consensus on such deletion or retention of the images in question. It seems to me that FPaS is going through all non-free images I've uploaded and trying to find a reason to remove them, whether or not their use is justified. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that Fut.Perf. has not been placing {{ifdc}} tags on image captions notifying that the image is at IFD, as should be done. JGHowes ^talk - 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That has never been a valid part of the policy. It was written into some process header unilaterally by someone a few weeks ago, but never became widespread practice. I agree it would be a good thing in principle (perhaps better than notifying uploaders in fact), but as long as the automatic tools don't offer it I'm not going to do it manually. To be quite frank: too much work. Image deletion stuff is tedious enough as is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have to correct myself; apparently a call for {{ifdc}} was there all along (though in a confusing place where it was easily overlooked); I was confused by the fact that somebody else (who evidently had also overlooked it) recently added a redundant additional "requirement" to also add notification on talk pages. But be that as it may, I stand by my position that neither of these steps is something human editors ought to have to waste their time with. In this day and age, we should expect such features to be at least offered by the semi-automatic tools (like Twinkle), or, better still, be fully automated by a bot. Really, all we ought to be doing for IfD is to edit the IfD page directly; all other notifications, including that on the image page itself, ought to be easily doable by a bot watching the IfD pages. (And, quite frankly, people interested in articles that have non-free images on them can damn well keep the images themselves watchlisted too. Everybody with half a brain knows that every such image is permenantly subject to scrutiny.) – For now, I've tried to clarify the IfD instructions and added a feature request with Twinkle; until that is hopefully implemented, I reserve my right to continue working as before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This shows nothing but contempt for working with other editors. Notification to editors of deletion noms is standard practice.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Further update: It now turns out it was all a bug in Twinkle, which was supposed to be doing these notifications all along. I found the bug and corrected it, so this issue ought to be solved for the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Signatures

OK I have been bold and removed two signatures. If what I did was out of line, please feel free to revert and I will accept whatever admonition the community decides. Justin talk 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just fixed up the formatting slightly on those because it was restarting the numbering. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I hadn't realised I'd done that, thank you. Justin talk 08:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it looks as if you may have opened the door for FPS to actually engage here and talk about the concerns that have been raised about his conduct. On this thread at AN/I, he wrote:

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself.

Looking past the language, his demand has now been met, so one hopes he'll be around soon. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is appropriate. It is standard wiki policy not to edit the comments of others, much less their signatures. And FPAS demanding someone not participate in an RFC is very un-wiki. And FPAS telling people on ANI to go "F* yourself" while asking others to be civil is even more intriguing and a symptom of what brought about this RFC in the first place. And his supporters seem to want to justify his incivil behavior by saying he's defending image policy, yet these are separate issues. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Redspruce has unstruck his signatures, so we're back where we started. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait and see FutPer's response before we come to conclusions. As an aside, was the two line sarcastic 'view' really helpful Stifle? Narson (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed. Jerry and Redspruce and all the rest have the right to say whatever they want. But I have the right to not respond. I responded as long as there was some semblance of rational good-willed discussion; now I am perfectly within my rights to ignore any process that looks as if it grants the opinions of such people validity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest then that we close the RfC in a day or two then? If people still feel aggreived or such, they can appeal to ArbCom to hear a case or use other dispute resolution. I apologise for any part I may have played in preventing the RfC from getting anywhere and wish FutPer all the best. Narson (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Narson, I'm sorry that I came across as sarcastic. I was trying to make the point that some users at this RFC seem to have unrealistic expectations on what should be required to delete an image. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for singling you out there. I simply thing that the image thing is a bit of a big damn albatross to hang around FutPer's neck, and everyone leaping up and down about the albatross only keeps it there. Narson (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(dedent)Although I vowed to stay off this RFC for a week, events keep happening that prevent me from reasonably doing so without causing disruption. The removal of my signature under unclear terms was such a situation. I hereby endorse the removal of my signature. Now that my signature has been removed, and my statement has been redacted (by me), and I have agreed to stay off this rfc for a week, (which I now extend to indefinate), you no longer have any reason to talk about me here any more. It no longer is by any stretch of the imagination about me. Now you can finally refocus on the discussion at hand. If you do not, then it is undeniable proof that you never had any intention of doing so in the first place, IMHO. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would agree, as was suggested above, that a more general RfC about the processes regarding fair-use on enwiki would be more productive, as it would probably remove the more personal accusations that have pervaded this one. Black Kite 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is about Future Perfect at Sunrise though. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a small part of it, really. The major issue appears to the validity of certain non-free images and process at IfD. Black Kite 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a specific discussion of those issues would be useful, if they can lead to some badly-needed clarity, but the opening of such an RfC doesn't preclude the continuation of this one, which can then be more tightly focused on the behavioral issues (incivility, retaliation, etc.) which have been raised about how FPS goes about doing his image deletions. I believe that such a focus is the desire of a majority of the complaintants here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that, now that Jerry has done the honourable thing and retracted, and Redspruce has been blocked, I'll shortly be back here, as promised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you, BlackKite, that this is mainly a debate about NFCC policy and procedures. Quite the contrary. My specific complaint which brought me to this RFC as a certifier was Fut.Perf's repeated instances of incivility and insulting tone unbecoming an administrator, and refusal to discuss the matter with concerned editors, as I've previously stated (see "Incivility", above). JGHowes ^talk - 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A thought

It seems many people here are using sarcasm...

...make sure to use it as often as possible. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's not helpful to the discussion and I don't mean that sarcastically. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Encouraging people not to use sarcasm isn't helpful? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's not relevant or germaine to the discussion. This section doesn't add anything to the points presented in the RFC. And, your comments in the endorsement section aren't really a place for you to air your grievances. You've already written your own "Inside/Outside View" and that would be more a more appropriate spot. That, or the talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right. Keep comments civil. Assume good faith. None of that is appropriate here.
• As for my comments, they aren't a place for grievances to be added, but if I support something in general, but not quite all of it, I will annotate accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New start

Since FPS has said that he'll be back soon to participate, I thought a new section for a new beginning might be worthwhile. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments

Okay, as promised, here I am again. Here's my comments, with sincere thanks to everybody who helped keeping this RfC a halfway reasonable place.

So, what do we take from this RfC?

What I've been doing

First, I invite everybody to scrutinize my performance on image-deletion matters during the last few days, while this RfC was happening. As people may have noticed, I've been active on IfD and the speedy queues every day.

• I had a discussion about public domain images with the people from the Falklands project here, where people have afterwards praised me for the friendly way I handled a difficult topic.
• I dealt with yet another longterm problem uploader (here, note: not a newbie), who I took great pains explaining our policies to politely. (Somebody else blocked him later; I had no hand in that.)
• There were several IfDs where I have given nuanced votes for keeping fair use items (that might otherwise have fallen to deletion)
• Obviously, there were again several IfDs that I closed against some numbers of opposing votes. I've seen no complaints that any of those closures were out of policy. – I'd like to point especially to one that I came across yesterday, here. I was very much tempted to close this as delete against numbers, and I still think I would have been entitled to do so. I finally opted not to do it but register my opinion as a voter instead. This was not because I felt I couldn't have overridden the invalid keep votes, but rather because I saw that what I felt was the most crucial delete argument had not yet been clearly articulated in the discussion.
• There was one case where a deletion was challenged on procedural grounds. The uploader, one of the participants of this RfC, jumped directly into attacks and assumptions of bad faith on my part (see a few sections above here). I didn't hit back on him, as I could have, but engaged in a polite discussion explaining the process/policy issue to him on DRV, and also gave him friendly encouragement for some free-content solution he sought [20].
• I dealt with a problematic old fair-use case [21], going the extra mile of finding and uploading a more suitable replacement myself and fixing the fair use situation, and was later thanked by the uploader for constructive way I dealt with it.

Now, all I can say is, this is the type of action I will be striving to offer, as best I can.

About the rest:

Policy

Obviously, there are points where my critics and I will continue to disagree. This goes for the interpretation of image policy and presumably also some aspects of deletion process. However, this RfC has shown me not only criticism but also substantial support for my position on these matters. I therefore come away from this RfC with my conviction strengthened, not weakened, that what I understood to be the policy actually is the policy, and not just what my "interpretation" told me the policy should be. My critics will have to live with the idea that on these issues I give greater credence to the judgment of people like Spartaz, Calliopejen1, Cumulus Clouds, PhilKnight and many others – and also Jimbo – than to theirs.

This goes, of course, for the fundamental issue of how restrictively the contentious NFCCs need to be handled. It also goes for issues of process. To clarify here, I maintain that the following process matters are correct:

• Votes in XfDs that are clearly outside policy can and must be discounted. This includes, but is not limited to:
  • arguments that are based on a principled opposition to the foundation goal of reducing non-free content or a refusal to acknowledge that this goal applies to images.
  • NFCC-related arguments that effectively claim some NFCC could be ignored just because some other is met:
    • "It's a dead person, therefore it's irreplaceable, therefore it doesn't matter if it's from a commercial news agency!"
  • arguments that reduce "replaceability" to the question of whether a replacement is already readily available rather than whether it could be created, or that refuse to consider replaceability with text:
    • "I looked on google and found no free image of this type of object; you can't reasonably expect me to go find a collector who possesses one and visit him to make a photograph!"
    • "But an image is just so much better for the reader's experience; describing it with text is so much more cumbersome!"
  • arguments that are directed at diluting the understanding of some NFCC to such a degree that it would become vacuous:
    • "It's related to the topic of the article; therefore it is useful; therefore it passes NFCC8!"
      (=> therefore nothing that is related to the topic of the article can ever fail NFCC8; NFCC8 is meaningless)
    • "It's a photograph of a past situation; therefore it cannot be repeated; therefore it's irreplaceable!"
      (=> therefore nothing that is from the past can ever fail NFCC1; NFCC1 is meaningless.)
    • "We are non-profit and educational and use low-resolution images, therefore we don't infringe on the owner's commercial interests!"
      (=> therefore no image can ever fail NFCC2; NFCC2 is meaningless.)

• Most NFCC-related deletion issues are speedy deletion criteria. This means that the community has decided that a single admin can judge and decide these, without consultation and discussion, if the NFCC rules are met in a straightforward way. Despite all their shortcomings, these rules are quite often clear enough to make this applicable.
• If an image is at IfD and an NFCC-related speedy deletion criterion applies to them in parallel, the speedy deletion process may be followed, just as if the image had instead been tagged for the {di-...} queues. This is true unless there are substantial, policy-conformant arguments brought forward against the applicability of this same speedy deletion criterion. In judging whether such an argument is either valid or discountable, an admin has the same degree of responsibility and discretion as with handling {hangon} tags at normal speedies, or !votes at normal XfD closures. The same standards of what is a discountable objection apply as described above. The existence of "keep" votes that fail to address the criterion can never bar speedy application of the criterion.
• Speedy deletion processes can be handled by a single admin, from tagging the image, judging any objections, to performing the deletion. There is no need to tag an image and then leave the decision to somebody else.

If people continue to disagree with me here, I will kindly ask them to take the discussion to some forum whose focus is not personalized on me. Even if they disagree, I trust they will at least recognise I have some reasons to be personally convinced, in good faith, that I am doing the right thing when I act on this basis.

Other incidents

A small number of other incidents have been given a lot of attention in this RfC. There's the (totally unrelated) issue of the Korean n00b. About that, I've said all there is to say, in the section above. People will have to accept that I acted with the best of intentions. People whose judgment I respect have also reassured me that I acted correctly. For this reason, I will not accept further criticism about this incident, and will regard any attempt at bringing it up again as a poorly judged attempt at mudslinging.

The second case is the one about Dreadstar. Now, I know this will be offensive to some, but here too I stand my ground. I am still firmly convinced, and I have brought forward what I still believe to have been incontrovertible proof, that Dreadstar did not just make some mistake in uploading his images, but that he was cheating, persistently, consciously and over a long period of time, on multiple occasions, and that he never, even in apologizing, told us the truth. I am also still firmly convinced that this fact (plus the overall lack of competence he showed in some other image cases that were indeed "just" good-faith mistakes) should bar him from performing any admin functions on image-related matters. I have nothing to take back here and nothing I will apologise for. (Just for the record, I also cannot for the life of me believe that "Littleolive oil" was speaking in good faith when she defended him.)

Incivility

That leaves us with the charge of incvility. Now, this is really a no-brainer, and there would have been no need for this RfC just for that. I know as well as anybody else that I lost my cool on a number of occasions. Somebody, I think it was Ed Fitzgerald, gave a pretty insightful analysis of the mechanism somewhere above. I generally try to be as nice as I can, but yes, I can be a damned arrogant asshole on some occasions. Where I've caused unnecessary offense in the context of the IfDs in the past, I apologise.

I do not at present really feel it in me to apologise for those hard words that fell in the immediate context of this RfC, and I'm not asking for apologies from anybody else in return.

To regain my calm I hereby promise that I will take a break from image deletions for the next, say, 48h or so. As a contemplative exercise, I will be studying (and uploading) penitentiary psalms instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That you are mindful of the frustration that images can cause, and the influence it can have on your behaviour, certainly more than satisfies me. Narson (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Pfainuk talk 09:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I'm the one mentioned above, I though I'd take this opportunity to reply. Any non-free images I've uploaded to Wikipedia were uploaded with the intention of making the various articles they were used in better. In many cases, it's been a number of months since they were uploaded and therefore it came as a bit of a surprise that they were nominated for deletion after that amount of time. I did feel that my uploading was being scrutinised and images being nominated for deletion after I became involved in both the ANI and RFC. I apologise to Fut.Perf if that was not the case (I'm not saying it was the case, but that's how it felt). If this RFC means that Fut.Perf will take more care in explaining policy etc and not deleting images when there is discussion going on about their deletion/retention then something good will have come of this RFC. I admit am not fully conversant with all the policies about images etc. I intend to contribute as many images as possible to Commons. If I feel there is a non-free image which could be used in the future, maybe I'll ask Fut.Perf for advice about it before I upload it. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FPaS' gravest vice is incivility. As we can conclude from his response above, he remains unrepentant and arrogant. Only for that, he ought to be excluded from his privileges, restrained and supervised until he gets mellower. Judging by his history, lenience won't work for him, it's time he gets his schooling like everyone transgressing the rules of WP. After all there's plenty of administrators who are far more civil and in control of themselves than this one here. WP is not in a shortage of administrators or people who can fit that role. ktr (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, FP. Good faith is what allowed me to defend Dreadstar. Good faith is what allows me to accept that you will upload the penitentiary psalms an an important step you mean to take in regaining your equilibrium. Good faith allowed me to look at, and know an editor's blameless history, accept an apology, and know that editor will continue to contribute in a meaningful, civil way to this community as his history shows he has done in the past. Good faith requires that I treat other editors in a way that is not arrogant, hopefully, or dismissive. It requires me to try to feel and understand what its like to walk in their shoes. Good faith is about the ultimate civility because it means I must treat other editors as they need to be treated to be as productive as they can be, but is not about me, or what I want or need. Good faith requires us to treat other editors with dignity and respect knowing we are all capable of more and supporting each other in achieving that "more".

In the comment above you did not extend the same good faith I extended to you when I came to this RFC, assuming you weren't aware of you incivilities, and would like know about and to correct them. Fair enough. I consider the remark above to be thoughtful, but insulting, and based on nothing, given my record. In your comment here, I see that you are in essence asking for the good faith of the editors here to believe that you have the intention of amending your periodic lack of civil behaviours. You might consider extending that same good faith to the editors you deal with.(olive (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Can I just say, as another admin that deals with non-free a lot, that it is a refreshing change to read mjroots comments, and I think it points out perfectly a lot of the problem that we have with non-free at enwiki. Which is, precisely, the "article X has loads of non-free images in it, so why can't I use mine?". Unfortuately, the answer "well actually, article X is using them completely against WP policy as well" tends to not have the impact that it should. Enwiki has shot itself in the foot by adopting the ludicrous fair-use issue that the USA has, and eventually it boils down to this - either

• We allow no non-free images at all - see de-wiki, or Veropedia
• We allow all non-free images and throw the "Free Encyclopedia" idea out of the window
• We sort out - precisely and exactly - WP:NFCC, and more importantly we then make all our articles compliant. Because that's the problem at the moment - WP:NFCC is ignored completely until someone notices the violation, but by that time it's too late, and the enforcing admin is subject to all kinds of abuse (I know this from personal experience) which eventually burns people out.

Let's make a decision, and STICK TO IT. Black Kite 23:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kite. Just for the record, I'll say here again that in such a discussion I'd actually come down squarely on the side of those arguing against a complete prohibition of non-free images. I'd hate to have an article on Picasso that couldn't show Guernica. There's a core of non-free items that we really need and that are clearly legal. Also, my own motivation and impetus in working for a strict compliance with the rules is really not quite so much the "ideological" (as it were) issue of the free-only ideal, but concerns about actual legality, plus a dislike of the intellectual dodginess of false fair use claims. I certainly agree NFCC is less clearly defined than it could be, and I have my own ideas about what I would do if I could rewrite the whole thing from scratch, but of course the prospects are dim. It doesn't centrally belong here, but maybe you'll forgive me if I just post here my ideas about what I think NFC policy should be. (Section below) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Justin A Kuntz

I have to say I was impressed by the above but with certain reservations.

1. I feel that FPAS has dismissed the problems over civility a little too lightly for my liking. FPAS is an admin and an admin should remain civil at all times, sometimes even when severely provoked. a) an admin should be applying ALL policies including WP:CIVIL and b) when an admin is uncivil he is basically saying I am in a position of authority and if you don't do what I say I will squash you like a bug - is that good for the project. Well no it isn't, it gives admins a bad name and provides ammunition for the people who bad mouth Wikipedia. I went back and looked at your RFA and a common comment was just how civil you were. What changed - you've acknowledged above its an issue.
2. I guess we may have to disagree but interrupting an IFD to speedy delete is short circuiting the process. If you don't like the results there is always DRV. It doesn't have to be done right now this very second, which leads me to my next point.
3. This is not directly aimed at FPAS but I detect a certain impatience with those deleting NFCC images. There seems a marked reluctance to go through IFD and to use the Speedy process, simply because its quick and avoids the "nausea" of an IFD debate. The point you guys are missing is that some of the images you wish to delete do have a valid fair use rationale, their use is justified and improves the encyclopedia. Sometimes you get it wrong but there seems to be a marked reluctance to admit to error or to consider debate as a way forward. The wiki process might be frustrating and slow, it infuriates me, but generally it works. Yes it is a free encyclopedia but for now fair use images are permitted, some might not like it but that is the policy we've currently adopted.
4. A final point for the deletionists, sometimes there is a fair use image but the fair use rationale may not correctly be expressed or the article would need improvement to justify its use. Tell me why do you not use your expertise to help those editors to fix that problem? It might take a little longer, be more effort but at the end of the day the result is an improved encyclopedia and that's what we're for. Justin talk 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the answer to your last point is clear: because their intent is not to help make fair-use images conform to policy, it's to use every nook and cranny of policy to delete as many images as possible. They may not express it that way, they may not think of themselves as battling against fair-use, they may even believe that they are simply enforcing policy in an even-handed and straight-forward way and helping Wikipedia by ensuring that it's not subject to copyright lawsuits, but looking at what they actually do (such as, as you point out, deleting images that could easily be brought into line with policy), there's little doubt about what they're actually working to accomplish.

Just as in biology, where "nothing make sense except in the light of evolution", none of the deletionists' actions make sense unless what they're about is deleting images in any way possible -- and it's really got to stop. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Ed, that's drivel with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever. I don't believe that there exists any admin whose Wikipedia existence is devoted to deleting images because of some bizarre form OCD. In reality of course, admins have to work in a lot of areas, where they administer Wikipedia policy. Whether that is blocking vandals, ensuring articles conform to WP:BLP, ensuring NPOV or removing images that fail our copyright policies, it's all the same thing. Admins don't just "believe" they're enforcing policy in an even-handed way, in 99.9% of cases that's what they actually are doing. An admin that wasn't doing this on a regular basis would not be admin for too long. As another point, you know that what you've written isn't true, because (for instance) I communicated to you my attempts to find a free image of Ann Beattie the other day. Your comments are in bad faith and you should strike them. Black Kite 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, all I can do is call 'em as I see 'em. After many, many months of this stuff, AGF gets kinda frayed around the edges, and the best I can do to give the benefit of the doubt is assume that people honestly believe they're doing the right thing, even as they serve to fracture the community by ignoring people's concerns. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Justin's point 4: I actually do that, where it's worthwhile. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Unfortunately doesn't happen all too often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is commendable but to be frank about it, you make mistakes, once they're pointed out you do seem to have a point accepting you're mistaken and in those cases this is an issue. I did point out that in most cases you are in fact correct, the occasions where it is not clear cut are the issue. I would also have appreciated some comment as to the issues around civility, do you agree for instance that is beholden on an admin to uphold civility at a higher level than an editor for example. Justin talk 18:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What non-free image policy should be

Much of the present problem with NFCC is due to a historical inconsistency in how the policy has developed over time. There was the time when we accepted, side by side with "fair use" justifications, also "by permission" justifications (including "noncommercial-only" and all that). Then came Jimbo and said "by permission" is out, totally. "Fair use" was retained, and complemented with "NFC" conditions.

------------------------        ------------------------
|    by permission     |        |       fair use       |
------------------------        ------------------------
            |                                |
            |                                |
      not allowed                  ---------------------
                                   |       NFCC        |
                                   ---------------------
                                             |
                                             |
                                          allowed

The result is, uploaders were discouraged from seeking perfectly legal "by permission" arrangements, for images that would have been really useful to have, and instead sneak them in through the "fair use" door with dodgy rationales. Which, in copyright terms, is much worse: it's certainly better to ask a copyright owner for permission than to falsely claim we have the right to just ignore him!

Few people notice that the core of the NFC rules are actually worded now in such a way that they could already perfectly well apply also to "by permission" images again. But much of the talk around it, like all the templates used and all that, still treats "fair use" as a prerequisite or part of NFCC. Also, there are two historical layers in our policy texts. The older parts of NFC (e.g. the examples of "unacceptable use") describe FU in a narrow, legally responsible way, focussing (correctly, in my opinion) on the aspect of "transformative use". The newer layers of NFCC do not stress this aspect.

This is what makes it all so messy. What I would like to see would be: rework NFCC in such a way that it explicitly acts as a second threshold for images after having met a first threshold of either FU or permission. But, in return, tighten up our understanding of FU to a realistic, much stricter real-world definition: FU is really only where there's "transformative use" (i.e. the focus of our discussion is on analysing the work of the copyright holder). That way, we'd have:

Non-free images must be

1. legal
2. indispensable
3. formally correct

In more detail

1. "Legal" means: either
   1. by permission (legal though non-free license for use on Wikipedia)
   2. narrowly defined fair use ("transformative")
2. "Indispensable" means: essentially what NFCC1+8 do now, but with a stricter and more concrete definition.
   1. Can't be replaced with a free image.
   2. Can't be covered with words alone.
   3. Serves as a necessary illustration for a point of substantial, well-sourced, non-trivial analysis that is explicit in the text.
3. "Formally correct" means: has a rationale, is used in article space, and so on.

Visually:

         ---------------------    ----------------------------
Legal:   |  by permission    |    |"transformative" fair use |
         ---------------------    ----------------------------
                   |                             |
                   -------------------------------
                                 |
                      ------------------------------
Indispensable:        |   no free image            |
                      |   can't be treated by text |
                      |   substantial analysis ... |
                      ------------------------------
                                 |
                         ----------------------
Formally correct:       | has correct tag     |
                        | has rationale       |
                        | has copyright source|
                        | is used in mainspace|
                        -----------------------

I think this would be a lot more logical, and probably easier to communicate.

This way, the typical screenshots and other fiction-related stuff could still go through the "FU" door, while for historic photographs, portraits of dead people and so on we'd get an alternative, better defined and more realistic (while still not arbitrarily wide) opening. The only thing I have honestly no idea how to fit in would be the routine use of logos for infoboxes. But then, I've no idea how they fit in under the current arrangements either.

As for deletion process, this three-threshold system could be linked to three processes: everything that fails threshold one should be speedied as obvious copyvio without any notification period at all; everything that fails threshold three should be speedied after a notification period like the current {di-...} system; and threshold two (which contains all the subjective criteria) should go through IfD.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really very good stuff. I would really try your best to get something like this up and working. It may take a long time to make progress, but you make some very good points here and I think what you've said here has potential. Definitely copy this bit somewhere other than this RfC talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is a fact that the NFCC criteria are not completely clear, and very easy to misinterpret. This would solve a lot of those problems. Black Kite 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

But you can't say on the one hand that image policy is unclear, and on the other hand claim that one specific interpretation of it is the one and only legitimate one. If the policy is unclear, then you are correct in saying that it should be cleared up (not that I endorse FPS's particular scheme - I'd favor one that is more in line with established fair-use practices), but until it is cleared up, the only reasonable way to decide how to interpret it in this system is by consensus, which is the mechanism that is being routinely bypassed by individual administrator action. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. It depends on the image. In most cases, NFCC is easy to interpret in terms of a particular image - yes, image X meets NFCC, or no, this use of image Y doesn't meet one or more criteria. However, sometimes you have a situation where the use of a particular image could be interpreted in a number of ways, and there's where the problem lies. Black Kite 16:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually you make a very good point and its one I agree with up to a point. In a lot of cases it is fairly easy to interpret, however, in a number of cases it is open to interpretation. In those cases, it should be down to a consensus interpretation and this is where IFD is of most value. In these cases short circuiting the IFD process with a speedy is incorrect IMHO. Where I disagee is that NFCC policy is easy to interpret, no it isn't its very much open to interpretation and two editors could read and come out with diametrically opposing viewpoints. Justin talk 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't think any reasonable editor would argue that totally blatant violations shouldn't be dealt with expediently, but I believe admins who do a lot of image work need to be a lot more sensitive to knowing when an image is in blatant violation and when there is going to be disagreement. If there's even a whiff of a possibility of legitimate disagreement, they shouldn't proceed as if the image is a blatant violation, and once real contention does show up -- say, in the form of "Keep" votes in an IfD -- admins need to back off and allow the community to decide how the policy is going to be applied to the image in question. To go ahead and delete an image on NFCC grounds in the face of expressed opinions from other editors of its compliance is to take into one's own hands what should be decided by consensus. And that's something that doesn't need any change in policy, it just needs image workers to understand how far their authority to delete extends. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 20:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem like a not-so-hot idea?

One of the problems that people has complained about on this RfCU about FPS's behavior, is the habit of retaliating against people he's been in conflict with. Given that, and the fact that I've been pretty heavily involved here and elsewhere in critiquing FPS, and that we've been in conflict for a while now, wouldn't it seem like a not-so-hot idea for FPS to be leaving notices on my talk page about images I've uploaded? Wouldn't the avoidance of the appearance of retaliation seem to indicate that he would be better off avoiding me for a while, and referring any image problems he has concerning me to another admin? I don't think the problem he flagged is any particular big deal, but it rather looks as if he's dogging my steps, something that one would think he would be avoiding. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So, just to follow up, FPS confirms that he's watching me like a hawk:

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere.

This is really quite incovenient for me, since I had planned next week to start my super-secret campaign to destroy Wikipedia by uploading hundreds thousands millions of non-free photographs, placing them in articles on flimsy pretexts, and then contacting all the copyright holders, getting them organized and suggesting they start a class-action suit against the project. I was even going to kick in a buck fifty to help pay for a lawyer. We'd have brought Wikipedia to its knees.

But, thanks to the diligence of FPS, I'll have to postpone my devilish plan until I've allayed his suspicions and bored him to tears with normal edits and policy-compliant image uploads.

Still, maybe it's worth the inconvenience to have that warm comfy feeling you get when you know someone's looking over your shoulder, keeping you on the straight and narrow, helping you to know what's right (i.e. whatever FPS thinks) and what's wrong.

As I said to FPS on my talk page: he's got some balls. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See, that's always the problem with making super-seekrit devilish plans of destroying Wikipedia. They are easily found out. You foiled mine, I'm foiling yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less amused I am. There really is something very, very wrong with an admin following around an editor because the editor doesn't agree with the admin's views on policy. I've filed this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not alone in feeling uncomfortable about this, [27], apparently a polite request to have another admin look over a speedy deletion by FPAS is not permitted because "I just can't allow for editors to just shut me out from their favourite turf". Justin talk 10:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he and his supporters have been through mine too, I agree it should be done, but it is definitely not a smart diplomatic move, which is why I guess people started this RFC against him. I like the fact he enforces policy, but not his incivility, we could get any old robot to learn policy n tag images for deletion, admins need to have people skills. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

People complain even more when bots tag images. Plus, there are only so many issues that a bot can actually tag for- orphaned fair use and no copyright tag being the most obvious ones. If you have demonstrated that you have a poor understanding of our non-free content policies (I'm not saying you have, I don't know you, I'm just speaking generally) then an admin experienced in the area (which FPOS is) reviewing your uploads is a perfectly reasonable action to take. J Milburn (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(add) Sorry, I should've explained, when I said "robot" I didn't actually mean robot as in "bot" like "Orphanbot". I was making an allusion to a machine. Also I don't have a problem with my old uploads being checked out, in fact I even gave FPAS my full blessing to delete one of my images (File:Royal Marine Blowpipe Falklands.jpg, I think I said it on the talk page history) and i don't have a problem with the policy, just his incivility. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A poor understanding is not a disagreement about policy, NFCC policy is somewhat labyrinthine and involved; there is room for doubt and ambiguity (and hence for consensus debate through IFD). If it were an individual who'd consistently uploaded images in good faith against policy that is one thing, it would be appropriate in those cases to do just that. However, it becomes unacceptable when its an admin involved in a dispute over policy, in which case they should recuse themselves and ask someone else to do it. To do so simply after disagreeing over policy, smacks of retaliation and I am not alone in feeling very uncomforable when an involved admin does that. What is the issue with asking someone else to look at it, it removes any suggestion of impropriety. I mean am I missing something here, what is so wrong about that? Justin talk 10:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if we had an infinite number of the fabled 'uninvolved administrator'. If you asked me to find five admins who would be good contacts for this sort of thing, I would name people who were already involved in this dispute. Are we all 'involved'? Am I now involved? I've just nominated a number of Ed's images for deletion- is this bad faith? Furthermore, no matter how difficult a policy is to understand, misunderstanding it is still misunderstanding it, and an administrator correcting those mistakes (whether they themselves are currently involved in a dispute about said policy or not) is a good action. If FPAS was deleting/nominating images that were obviously OK, then that would be a problem. He isn't- it doesn't matter who makes it or who corrects it, a mistake is a mistake, and correcting it is a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, how many admins are there on wikipedia but there are only five qualified enough to comment? Somehow I feel that is somewhat of an exaggeration. Justin talk 12:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's about reviewing the images, there are in fact not that terribly many of us who regularly do NFCC-related IfDs. It's a handful. And we need at least one to remain uninvolved to the end so they can close any IfD, remember? - Well, anyway, if you want one who hasn't yet commented on this RfC (I think), try the fearsome Peripitus, terror of anything smaller than a jellybean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry still don't see the point, any uninvolved admin can review policy and decide the pros and cons of an argument. Justin talk 12:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that the claim is being made that NFCC policy is so complex, that understanding it so difficult and fraught with potential mistakes, that only a handful of admins should be allowed to vet images. It's what might be called the "Argument from Technocracy", and it fits right in with FPS's attitude concerning overriding or totally ignoring ordinary consensus debates. The argument goes that only someone steeped in the intricacies of image policy is qualified to judge whether an image is compliant or not, and once one of this handful of admins has ruled on an image, consensus is irrelevant, since the people involved in any community-consensus debate don't have the proper understanding of the policy required to make judgments under it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[To J. Milburn] Yep, you're involved. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 10:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys? I think we have to seperate 'Bad ideas' from 'Things that are bad'. FPAS has plenty of admin watching him and while I would not want to do what FutPer has done, it is his mop, his choice. Providing FutPer is aware of the risks, providing he is aware that civility is important, providing he works within policy, I don't think we should be mothering him. As long as someone is a productive editor, we should be looking to keep them so, not over burdening everyone by imposing grey-ish half bans and such. So we would restrict what FPAS would do then we'd have several other editors checking everything FPAS did....it doesn't make sense. FPAS knows he gets frustrated and knows that leads to incivility, I think the duty of the community is to make him aware of that problem so he can take what action he deems appropiate. Beyond that, I am sure FPAS knows the consequences of future incivility and FPAS does not strike me as a climbing the reichstag type, so I think we can trust his human instinct for self interest to ensure his future success. Narson (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Great. I assume Spartaz is too. Who else would I contact... Stifle? Involved. FPAS? Oh, wait. If you only accept your images being nominated/deleted by someone you've never met before, then, judging from the amount of bad images you upload/defend, you're going to become immune very quickly. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think I have never until today even interacted with J Milburn. Sorry J., it seems the mere fact that you touched my RfC seems to have tainted you. The badness of hyperdeletionism is contagious, you see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Directly, yes, today is the first time we have talked as far as I remember. This epitomises Ed's ridiculous notion of who is allowed to point out that he is wrong. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Breaker

(out) Nah, there's no coordination going on. From User talk:J Milburn:

==Ed Fitzgerald==

I was independantly reviewing their uploads and realised we were cutting against each other so I'll disengage. Drop me a note where you get to if you don't finish them all and I'll carry on if I get time later. Spartaz Humbug! 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And from User talk:Spartaz:

== Ed Fitzgerald ==

I checked each image down to Image:Tales of Hoffman poster.jpg, then checked non-posters down to Image:Lion has Wings.jpg. You're welcome to take another look/review those I didn't, or comment at IfD. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I'm such a bad boy, I've now got three admins working around the clock to vet all of my image uploads! Amazing!! Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked for an uninvolved admin to review it on ANI- you've said many times that it was only the fact that it was FPAS that was bothering you. Now you have not one, but two other admins reviewing it, but you're still not happy. Why don't you decide what it actually is that's irritating you? J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You actually had me laughing so hard that it took me a moment before I could respond ... but what can I say? "Oh what a world, what a world!" Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I've pleased someone. Care to elaborate on why I'm so hilarious? Or perhaps care to explain why you're not happy with anyone reviewing your uploads? J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Innuendo, very good, full marks! Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

These are the same set of image content abusers who complained about the protection (and deletion from 120 pages) of Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg. They had the image reviewed on four noticeboards and talk pages, and it was listed at RFPP where unprotection was declined. It was decided that the image grossly violated NFCC by all but one administrator, yet Ed and a few other select editors continued on (and still continue on). You can ask for reviews upon reviews, you can abide by "consensus" (which doesn't trump image policy or copyright), but the longer that you continue on this track, the more that your edits, Ed, will be questioned and profiled. seicer | talk | contribs 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, Seicer, I am quite clear that I have been targeted at this point, and I am also very clear that, as you confirm here, it's because of my opinions. Thanks for the chuckle, not as good as the laugh I got from J Milburn, but still welcome on a rather tense morning. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shut up. Seriously, if you've not got anything productive to say, just shut up. No one's targeting you because of your views, don't try and paint yourself as some kind of political prisoner. I reviewed your uploads because you obviously do not understand our guidelines and policies, and now you're just sitting here telling us you're laughing at our comments. You've just changed, in my eyes, from someone who refuses to accept that we're a free encyclopedia, but is still a productive editor, to a common troll. J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

JM-"Shut up...just shut up...common troll" Huh? It seems you're not the only one who has problems with those who disagree with you. This is a free encyclopedia that does allow some FU material, whether you like that or not. I'm not saying Ed's conduct has been ideal, but by this edit you are showing yours isn't either. And such comment from an admin is even more unacceptable. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've not got anything productive to say, shutting up is generally the best course of action. Telling us how he was laughing at our comments without even replying to them reeks of trolling (what purpose could that possibly serve, other than as some attempt to troll?) and I'm one who calls a spade a spade. I have no issue with people disagreeing with me- I was chatting with Narson (someone on the other 'side', if you will) on IRC before, and we managed to not reduce the conversation to trolling. If you actually review the discussion, you'll see I told Ed to shut up when he stopped contributing anything useful- until then, I discussed the matter perfectly civilly with him, despite receiving abuse back from a friend of his, along with accusations of bad faith from Ed himself. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I'm a productive editor or not can be determined by my edit history (over 75% of which is to articles, despite stuff like this which just eats up time and energy), and I'm simply reporting the facts of what occured when I read those comments: both of them made me laugh! However, I wouldn't say that I found them amusing at all.

As for being targeted... well, I'm not going to review it, but I'm pretty certain that an uninvolved person (perhaps the proverbial "anthropologist from Mars", who's heard all about this Wikipedia thing and has come down to take a look) can easily follow the evidence trail from expressing my opinions about image policy right to having three admins cull through my contribution history looking for problems. It's not at all complex or convoluted, it's pretty much a straight line connection. To my distress, it seems that nobody really cares, which is causing me to re-think some of my notions about this place, but that really has no bearing on whether the relatonship exists. It clearly does. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole "deletionist" versus "inclusionist" debate is tiring. With comments like [28] and [29], you make it no secret that you wish ill against those who uphold NFCC/image copyright policies and guidelines. This isn't about your opinion Ed, this is about your poor interpretations of policies and guidelines that are there for a reason: to protect Wikipedia from potential lawsuits and ill press. seicer | talk | contribs 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, comments such as this (from SteveCrook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) are not acceptable and will lead to a block. Just as a note... seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• actually the point of my message was to avoid over scrutiny but your image uploads suck and you clearly don't understand our iomage polices and you ´haveno buisness wasting the time of other users forcing them to clean up your mess. The idea of you sitting judgement of users enforcing the rules is what is really laughable here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to wrap this RfC up

This talkpage is generating more heat than light, and isn't being productive now. The RfC itself has pretty much stalled; the nominator's statements have 18 endorsements, whilst FPAS's reply has 23. Some good ideas as to how NFCC could be streamlined have occurred, and this discussion would more usefully be continued at WT:NFCC. My summary would be

• It is clear that NFCC policy needs to be policed effectively, and that we do not have enough admins with their eyes on it, for various reasons
• Admins active in enforcing image policy need to ensure their civility is good at all times, whilst understanding that they are likely to meet hostility from editors that do not understand the concepts of fair use
• Equally, harassment and abuse of administrators and editors upholding our image policies needs to be dealt with severely
• Sometimes editors may need more help with image rationales - this may be an issue which needs rewriting of the image upload pages. Also, the image upload pages may need to more clearly state the more common situations in which non-free images are, and are not, allowed
• We need more people with knowledge of image policy active at IfD
• In a minority of cases, more than one interpretation of policy is possible for certain uses of certain images
• Editors who dispute image policy need to do this through discussion at the centralised policy pages, rather than edit warring on article pages
• Limited consensus can never override policy

Black Kite 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the RfCU should be closed, as there is little or no indication that it will result in any needed behaviorial changes on FPS's part, however, I'd say that your wrap up is a good summary of only one side of the discussion here. The other side might be summed up somewhat differently:

• An effective image policy is important to Wikipedia, but the policy must have the consensus agreement of the community, and the methods used to enforce it must also be backed by consensus.
• Wikipedia in general needs to do a better job of explaining its image policy to all editors, admin and non-admin, and, as importantly, to make explicit to admins the limits of their authority and the accepted methods to be used in policing images, and to editors their responsibilties for insuring that the images they upload are compliant with policy.
• The responsibilty for image compliance lies with the uploading editor, but admins working in the image arena should endeavor to use their knowledge of image policy to help editors fulfill the mechanical requirements of that policy if it's possible to do so. There is no excuse for an admin to delete an image that they know can be made compliant by a simple change in a license or fair-use rationale.
• In the most flagrant and blatant cases of image policy non-compliance, an individual admin can and should act to delete images, but when reasonable objections are raised, the admin should immediately back off and allow normal procedures (IfD, DRV) to deal with those images. There is no rush to remove images, there is time to allow process to take place.
• Individual adminsitrators do not have the authority to overide a local consensus discussion when the discussion has been reasonable and expressed in terms of image poicy compliance. The community's understanding of policy, expresssed in consensus discussions, overrides that of individuals, no matter how knowledgable and proficient in image policy they consider themselves.
• Abuse and harrassement of any editor by any other editor, admin or non-admin, is not to be tolerated, but admins who deal in image policy should understand that they are working in a contentious topic area, and be as sensitive as possible to the concerns of editors who primarily work in the content area who have uploaded images for use in articles.
• Admininstrators, who have been given addiitonal powers by the community, must also maintain the trust of the community, and must always deal with other editors as civily as possible. With their additional power comes the additional responsibility of maintaining civil behavior.

I may have missed some issues, but I think that covers the ground fairly well. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Ed, most of your points are unexceptionable (in fact, many of them reflect mine when you look at it), but this one is wrong and illustrates exactly where a lot of the problems lie here
      • You said Individual adminsitrators do not have the authority to overide a local consensus discussion when the discussion has been reasonable and expressed in terms of image poicy compliance. The community's understanding of policy, expresssed in consensus discussions, overrides that of individuals, no matter how knowledgable and proficient in image policy they consider themselves. No - because often editor's concepts of image policy can be wrong. In the case of clear violations of policy, admins absolutely do have authority to do this, just as they would have to override NPOV or BLP problems. Local consensus absolutely does not, and never will, override policy. Black Kite 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Black Kite has to say here, but I have some concerns, noted below. Note that FPAS's supporters were focused on the image policy and those endorsing my concerns tended to be focused on his incivility. If I don't mention one of BK's points, it means I agree with it and/or have no concerns about it.

• Item 2, Yes, but FPAS still does not seem to realize the serious of his incivility and the disruption his treatment of others causes. I am concerned this pattern of behavior by him will continue.
• Item 3, Why are you only concerned about treating abuse of admins severely and not abuse by admins?
• Item 6, Yes, and users, including admins, need to respect that and not use disagreement as an excuse to be incivil
• Item 7, Yes for general policy but as to how it applies to a specific image needs to be done on that image page or its IFD page, in a calm, rational, and respectful manner
• Item 8, Yes, but I foresee continuing problems here with how "limited" is defined and whether certain images do or do not meet FU policy, especially NFCC#8, where most of the disputes seem to center.
• New item, I strongly disagree with the habit some image admins have of orphaning an image so it can be deleted in 7 days rather than nominating it for IFD. I've also seen some of them delete/remove whole sets of images with no notice whatsoever to anyone. This practice is not right either. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to your new item - when images are orphaned, their uploaders are notified by BJBot - for example [30]. Some admins orphan images straight away (there's not a problem with that if images are clearly non-compliant) but some tag the article first - I created [[Template:NFimageoveruse]] for that very purpose. However, its use has been of limited success - users tend to either ignore it, remove it, or delete a couple of images when there are many incorrect images on the page. However, I still believe it is better to use it, as it stands you in good stead when you do remove the images.

Also, as regards your "Item 3" reply, the use of the word "abuse" meant verbal abuse - most of that is aimed at admins, but in the rare occasions that admins may be guilty of that, it was covered in my second point about civility. Black Kite 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

This talk page now weighs in at roughly twice the size (170kb v. 87kb) of the RfC itself! Remember to come by the afterparty at WT:NFC! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, we've got some fair use images of vol-au-vents and cocktails for all. Black Kite 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we did until I deleted them all. *burp* seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions Outstanding

Actually I personally think that its not quite time to close this RFC. I have asked a number of questions that appear to have been lost in the noise repeatedly.

• I am more and more concerned that the problems of civility are being dismissed all too lightly. The vast majority of those repsonsible for bringing this RFC are commenting on civility, from day 1 those defending FPAS' conduct have turned this into a discussion on image policy - as if that excuses incivility. An admin should be applying all policies equally including WP:CIVIL at all times. When an admin is uncivil, they are basically perceived as acting with overbearing authority and that isn't good for the project. And actually as I notice someone commented during the RFC, even when an editor is being an absolute asshole it is beholden on admins to keep their cool and remain civil.
• Why is there this headlong rush to delete any image perceived as failing NFCC?

1. If there is an IFD in progress closing it via a speedy delete is completely unnecessary and just creates conflict. If you feel it went the wrong way there is always DRV. It doesn't have to be done today. Speedy is a process created to remove egregious examples of policy violation, it should be the exception not the norm.
2. I perceive there is a marked reluctance to use IFD due to the "nausea" of an IFD debate. The wiki process might be frustrating and slow, it infuriates me, but generally it works.
3. In the rush to expunge as many free images as possible, mistakes are being made. There appears to be a marked reluctance to admit to hurry and a mission-focused zeal in pursuing deletions against consensus. And by consensus I mean that the image is permitted by policy.

• I believe there is a culture developing among the deletioniststhose administering image policy, where they see they are the only ones who really "understand" image policy and that no-one else can administer that policy. Sorry, no, any admin can administer read, understand and apply policy - and I have seen no convincing arguments to the contrary.
• Where there is a dispute about removing images from articles, edit warring is never acceptable. That is edit warring to remove images or edit warring to keep them. There does seem to be a double standard here. Justin talk 09:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you are spot on. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea I'm mainly concerned about an admin being uncivil, I have no problem with the policies and I'm sure that's the way many of the others feel. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To reply to these in turn

• Whilst not wishing to gloss over any possible civility problems, most problems of civility are aimed at admins. Both issues must be dealt with at the same time.
• There isn't a headlong rush as far as I can see - there are still thousandso of articles with non-compliant non-free images. Also, removing images from certain articles doesn't always preclude them being used correctly elsewere.
• As soon as you use the word "deletionists", you lose credibility, I'm afraid. Why not just assume bad faith completely? And you complain about civility? It's a reasonable word to use in articles space, but the facts are that admins who work with images always end up deleting a lot of images - for the simple reason that people upload them, credit them and use them wrongly. Unless you can think of a way of stopping people from doing this, there are always going to be a lot of image deletions. This in no way makes admins "deletionists", and I'm afraid I tend to lose interest in things written by people who use this phrase, because I find they're not open to discussion. Apart from that, you've got the problem back to front. The main problem is that a lot of people don't understand image policy at all - or, even worse, they think they do know it when they don't. Or even worse than that, they think they can ignore it (see above for examples).
• Repeatedly removing clearly non-compliant images from articles is not edit warring, and there is even an exemption in WP:3RR to cover this. Of course, should any use of any image be at all contentious, the talkpage (or tagging) should be used first. Black Kite 10:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've redacted deletionist, you're right its a phrase I picked up elsewhere and though I thought it was in common use, I hadn't thought through the connotations. In fact, that is no excuse at all and I can only apologise for its use. I realise the need for scrutiny on none-free images, my frustration stems from the fact that where there is a dispute over whether or not something falls under fair-use provisions - and there is some latitude for disagreement - there does seem a reluctance in certain quarters to accept that community consensus is the solution.
• Removing non-compliant images isn't edit warring, however, where there is a dispute over the fair use rationale, repeatedly removing images is. Image policy is not digital as some seem to think, there is room for debate and community consensus on fair use rationales. I agree that where use is contentious or disputed the talk page or IFD is the correct route. But in the case I was involved in, that wasn't what happened. The edit war stopped when I refused to continue it. So repeating the point, there does seem to be a double standard here.
• With respect, there does seem to be a rush to delete images and avoid the IFD process altogether as too slow. In my opinion, that is generating conflict as in those cases where there is room for debate the speedy process is being used inappropriately.
• Repeating the same point, any admin is capable of commenting on image policy, there is no need to restrict it to a limited number of admins specialising in a particular area.
• Dragging back to the main point, civility is the big issue here. Once again the comments have focussed on image policy and circumvented the issue that no-one seems to want to address. And actually admins are in a difficult position here, they really do have to maintain a higher standard than normal editors. For me it is an issue that people seem prepared to excuse incivility, particularly when someone is an admin. Being honest I struggle sometimes myself. Justin talk 10:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for redacting that. I generally agree with most of your other points, by the way. One thing though that I think does restrict the number of admins working on IFD and other image work is precisely what is being discussed - civility. Let's face it, given the choice, what admin work would you do - one which routinely involves you being flamed or something which is useful to the encyclopedia but uncontroversial? I don't know why I do it myself, to be honest - perhaps I'm a masochist. Hence my comments about civility all round - as soon as editors realise that if images need to be deleted, it's not because the admin is some evil vandal, the more admins that will be willing to work on such areas, and thereby better consensus at IFD and elsewhere. Black Kite 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. In part answer, where there is serious incivility then the obvious answer is to apply WP:CIVIL, ultimately including a block. Where it starts to affect an admins behaviour to other editors, then perhaps they need fellow admins to give them a nudge before its gets so serious that they need to take a wikibreak. Justin talk 14:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on civility, but I think FutPer has gven his word he will behave and we should accept that. I agree that the bit above does make it sound like admin should smack the crap outof editors who are uncivil but seems understanding of admin who are the same. The issue of deletionists i'll leave aside, I tend to favour deleting a lot of the time myself. On removing images, i think it is clear that they should be removed if they are clear violations. If the image in general is up for deletion discusion, perhaps it is a little premature to remove it (as obviously it wasn't clear cut). I would echo that removing the images and /then/ stating the image is orphanned is disingenuous and I don't think there is agreement evenwithin the admin community that this is the way to do things (I've seen Relvse warning annother admin about it). However, this is really outside the RfC surely? As I said before, those who seek, on both sides, to make FutPer the posterboy or avatar of image policy, do him a disservice. Narson (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict. Damn you Justin)

Actually on civility I'd probably be content with a recognition that admins are in difficult position and that ideally they should be a poster child of civility (if you don't mind me borrowing the analogy). Edit warring to remove images in the areas we're discussing hasn't been addressed and as FPAS indicates above that he feels this is appropriate then I tend to think its an unresolved area for this RFC. On that I'd like to see recognition that the Talk Page and IFD is the appropriate route for resolution. Justin talk 11:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RE "but I think FutPer has gven his word he will behave and we should accept that." Where did FPAS say that? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how no one has answered this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See above under "My comments," subheading "Incivility": "I know as well as anybody else that I lost my cool on a number of occasions. Somebody, I think it was Ed Fitzgerald, gave a pretty insightful analysis of the mechanism somewhere above. I generally try to be as nice as I can, but yes, I can be a damned arrogant asshole on some occasions. Where I've caused unnecessary offense in the context of the IfDs in the past, I apologise." --Amble (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to distinguish a vow in FPaS' chatter. He's just beating about the bush as usual. ktr (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you've got all you're going to get, especially as FPAS' reply to the RfC has more endorsements than the RfC itself. Black Kite 09:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may think. ktr (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite-that comment does not say not say anything like "FutPer has gven his word he will behave". Though he did apologize. He has yet to address his future conduct. Your point about the FPAS endorsers being a few more than my endorsers is pointless as FPAS and his endorsers have tried to turn this into a RFC on image policy and ignore the core of this RFC, which is his rude and incivil behavior. When you look at that issue, there is overwhelming support that his behavior is unacceptable. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unofortunately for that viewpoint, the majority of the quotes in the "Civility" section do not show major lapses in civility. Most of them are blunt and direct, yes, but few of them are incivil. The 3rd, 5th and 6th quotes especially are pretty standard replies to editors who Don't Acquire Clue after many repeated (civil) explanations of image policy. And "overwhelming support that his behaviour is unacceptable"? No, there isn't. Black Kite 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That is pure malarky. Claiming FPAS is not showing major civility lapses is downright laughable and that you think so shows just how the standards of behavior have fallen around here. We may as well just say "Come to wiki and ignore the Golden Rule too because you can act as you like and not be held accountable for it". Yes, there is ample support his behavior is unacceptable. You and his other supporters are just using the cloak of image policy defense as an excuse to defend him.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you, BK, nor I are going to change our view on this. Would you or FPAS like to be treated the way he treats those who disagree with him? This issue is all up to FPAS. If he continues his his pattern of behavior, further DR issues are sure to follow--as someone else has already mentioned. If he mends his ways, then the goal of this RFC has been accomplished and we can all get on with encyclopedia building.20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you could find incivility issues with any user. As has already been said, much of the 'evidence' of his incivility is pretty pathetic- if that's the best you can pull out of a user who has been here that long, then I don't think we exactly have a major issue. Furthermore, have you ever tried to repeatedly explain something important to someone who just doesn't get it? What about trying to explain it to several people? What about several people who are reverting you without comment, dismissing you and even abusing you? That's what FPAS deals with every day. It's not easy, and even omnipotent admins are, though it may shock some people, human. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys I do think you're glossing over the problems with civility. FPAS initially treated the RFC with contempt, in the midst of it at one point he told the wiki community to "go f*** itself" and he imposed conditions on taking part. With respect I don't think his friends are doing him any favours by excusing his behaviour in light of his imagery work. It will only get worse. Justin talk 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no-one is excusing anything - we are trying to point out the reality of the situation, which is that admins who do image work are repeatedly subject to some incredible incivility, and it's not surprising if - occasionally - our replies may not be the epitome of correctness. Seriously, try an experiment - have a look at this list and find a few articles with serious copyright problems (for best results, choose a popular culture article, especially on a popular TV show or anime), then remove the violating images from the article. Then watch your orange bar light up with abuse. It's an interesting experience. Black Kite 23:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A simple direct question, would you consider me guilty of that? Justin talk 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple direct answer - No. Black Kite 23:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, perhaps you may see where I'm coming from now. Anyway I think this has just about run its course. Justin talk 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin is correct. FPAS may have dealt with some people repeatedly, but certainly not me nor many others. The mere fact that are so many here complaining about his behavior should tell you there's an issue. Dismissing these concerns because you want to defend FPAS is not going to solve the problem.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not tell the community to go fuck itself- he said he was willing to talk about the issue, but that it "needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done", otherwise it could. I'm not going to pretend it was the most tactful thing to say, it certainly wasn't, but the spirit of the comment was not "fuck Wikipedia, fuck the community, I'll never talk" it was "RfC doesn't work, but does create a lot of animosity. I don't mind this being done, but it needs to be done in the right way". It certainly wasn't the worst comment I've ever read... You imply that myself and others are defending FPAS simply because we support his image work- it looks to me like you're focusing hard on his incivility because you don't support his image work. Now that you've realised there are still people who respect our goals, you're trying desperately to find something else to moan about... J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no I've consistently commented on civility right from the start, in addition I recused myself from aspects of the RFC that I thought were incorrect. Those defending him turned it into an argument on image policy. Oh and I think you'll find right from my very first comment I pointed out he is usually correct about image policy. In light of that I hope you will reconsider you last remark, because it is clearly a personal attack. Justin talk 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If my comment was a personal attack, so was yours. Let's not be ridiculous about this. It is clear to me that almost all of the animosity here is because some people refuse to our goals. Right now, I have the feeling that there are too many people ignoring important things in favour of rubbish. I think I need a Wikibreak. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely how? You've impugned my motives twice now on no basis whatsoever. Please substantiate them or withdraw them. Justin talk 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You did sign your agreement to an opinion that "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 Rule-book slowdown." This directly expresses a rejection of the non-free content policy and an unwillingness to see it enforced. --Amble (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I qualified my signature with a note that I didn't agree with all of it and spelled out my concerns separately, explicitly that usually FPAS was correct on image policy. Did you read that far? Justin talk 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any qualification on your endorsement of RedSpruce's view. Where is it? --Amble (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, well in retrospect I don't agree with everything RedSpruce said. You'll notice I also signed CIreland's views as well, that explicitly endorses image policy. So as I'm actually talking about civility, do you think there is no evidence of it? Justin talk 15:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You accused myself and others of supporting FPAS because of his image work, and I accused you of opposing him because of his image work. I repeat, if my comment was a personal attack, so was yours. Let's not go fishing for personal attacks, it's not going to achieve anything. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm

I know its only an essay but sarcasm is humorous and does make the point quite nicely. But FPAS' regular resort to sarcasm has to be about the single most common cause of conflict that I can think of. Justin talk 11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pleasant exchange

Just wanted to say, in fairness to FPAS, we had an entirely civil exchange over an NFCC issue the other day and I would like to commend him on that. Bravo Zulu! Ryan4314 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that, I am referring solely to the exchange on our talk pages and was not aware at the time, that he immediately complained to the closing admin in a related IFD. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Geez. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What "free" means...

This IS up for debate, even if Angus thinks me weaselly for stating as much. There is vigorous debate about what "free" means in the context of this project. And for those who think it means one thing (no (or next to no) non-free content) to attempt to enforce their views with tools isn't appropriate. Additionally, it's a bit silly to pretend that there isn't debate on this point, as the debate has raged for a very long time about what it means to be "free" in this context. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We're a free encyclopedia, which means that we use free content. We also allow non-free content, but this should obviously be used with caution if we hope to reach our goal. I don't think there's much debate about what our goal actually is, or about what content we define as 'free' (with exceptions, obviously- fiddly discussions regarding derivative works and such)- the main argument is where we draw the line on the amount of non-free content we use. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's free because there's no charge to use it. That's a big achievement. The other aspect is free content. It's not actually free, because it has strict limitations if it's GFDL, but it's called free nevertheless. There are two incompatible goals, one being to create the ultimate reference work and the other being to have free content, or rather as much free content as possible with the minimum amount of non-free. However, as soon as you allow any non-free, then you can no longer claim it's a free encyclopedia in terms of free content. There's a lot of double-think going on here. The major problem is that wikipedia is no longer an enthusiast's hobby: it is for many people the prime source of information which they treat as reliable (even if they're cautioned not to). That is a high responsibility, and to my mind is the rather more important goal. To fulfil that means that non-free content is going to have to be used to the maximum allowed, when free content is not available and in circumstances which would otherwise result in a deficient presentation and sometimes a downright misleading presentation—a glaring example of that being de wp Pop art. It's disgraceful to present that visually as representing pop art. So there is debate for very good reason. Ty 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still on?

I wonder what people hope to achieve by continuing to add more "outside views" and "endorsements" to this RFC at this stage? I mean, does anybody seriously expect I'm still reading it?
As far as I'm concerned, everything that had to be said here was said by early September. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that, sometimes, it needs to be said more than once - especially when the behavior in question seems to continue uncorrected. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not certain that this was ever resolved. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)