Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

---

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

---

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

Statement of the dispute

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

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

Desired outcome

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

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

Description

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

Civility

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

Tendentious and disruptive editing

Abuse of process

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

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

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

Tendentiousness

This is an example from a single IFD.

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

Example summary

Conqueror comments.

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

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

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

Intimidation example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Orderinchaos 17:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)^[59]
5. --John (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

Outside view by Black Kite

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Black Kite 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, I also quit the project following outrageous harrassment arising from my close of a deletion discussion of an image and benefited from the break. Frankly the vandals and goths have already trampled over the free content garden and any admin trying to judge consensus against policy rather then headcount is going to be driven out sooner or later. Take a break Fut perf and do something where your excellent qualities as an admin will be recognised and appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Endorse sans the Free Encyclopedia lamentation. Patrolling images doesn't always require falling onto your own sword. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Fut Perf is enforcing policy, as an admin should. Some civility concerns are valid, but most of the evidence presented above is not evidence of incivility but persistence. Fut Perf should work to explain himself more clearly and calmly, especially to new users (this results in more compliance and an understanding of what this project is about). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. I have noticed more and more that when editors don't like or don't understand the policy, it's not the rules they go after, but the person who enforces them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside View by Spartaz

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Black Kite 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Agreed - there isn't a pattern being of his deletions being overturned, which there would be if there was a problem. Also, if this Request for Comment is about image deletions, why is the evidence section padded out with article content discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Well said. Fut.Perf has been generally a good admin to the mentioned sensitive articles. I don't think WP:BITE is the case in Liancourt Rocks and Macedonia. The former article has a long history for every disruptions, and was once totally unreadable with broken English. This diff[60] does not show any evidence of incivility to the new user. I'm often attacked by some editors for my English whenever they lose their position, well his comment is not the level to be accused for, given that so many fake "newbies" keep emerging on the article. Although he may cause discord regarding image policies, to me, Fut.Pert is trying to stick to the policies.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Well said. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.