Wikipedia:AN/I

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:AN/I is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Purge the cache to refresh this page

General help
Report abuse
Request assistance
Noticeboards
Shortcuts:
WP:AN/I
WP:ANI
WP:AIN

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so). Please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.

This noticeboard is a busy and vital part of Wikipedia's administration. Complaints that are not serious and substantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.
Are you in the right place? Using this page
  • Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page.
  • Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.
  • When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/{{Name of ANI Topic}}. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}).
  • Lengthy posts may be placed within a toggling collapse box. Use {{subst:Collapse top}} at the top and {{subst:Collapse bottom}} at the bottom.
  • Threads will be archived automatically after a period of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion.
What these pages are not

This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Contents



User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • That is your interpretation of policy. It is not shared by others and discussion is in progress about this. You didn't "advise" you plainly !voted delete. You were a participant; then you used admin tools as an involved editor. Ty 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. S.D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One White cat 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:


Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isn't up for a vote

The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One White cat 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, as a number of people have pointed out. Black Kite 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. S.D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Drawing and quartering would not be a good idea, because then there would be *four* of him. As with the brainless starfish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree four of me would be unbearable. I would be forever getting into edit conflicts with myself over which of me would get to press the delete button first. Please don't quarter me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).

Action to be taken on Consensus violations

We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, WP:NFCC#2 specifically addresses this issue. It's policy, all right. Kelly hi! 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said, WP:NFCC does not mention press agencies. If you think it does, then please quote that mention. Ty 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
  • Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • !vote ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)
Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
  • Support (not sure this is a poll, but I agree with those saying "support") - the issues with this admin as discussed here and on AN (which Bzuk mentions) did not specifically follow on from one another, but they do appear to be different examples of some of the same issues. You can read my concerns in more detail in this section at AN. Pfainuk talk 16:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Support, I have also expressed my concerns in some detail at this section at AN. Justin talk 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting discussion here regarding this. --John (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm coming here from that interesting discussion. I don't think the "involved" clause is what we are looking for here. If FPS is deleting images under CSD that don't meet those criteria, then that is a problem. If he is doing so as an application of the WP:SNOW clause, that also may be an error but it is less grievous. This is a much thornier problem than we seem to be treating it as. As I see it, very few actions can be justified post hoc as proper on the basis of some contingent outcome. By this I mean that if FPS deleted an image that "shouldn't have been deleted", then there was an error on his part. However, if it turns out that his deletion was "legitimate" (read: endorsed by DRV's, which almost all have been), then there was no error. That is a problem, because we can't base our valuation on his actions as "correct" on the basis of their outcome. But we also don't have much of a leg to stand on if his actions weren't wrong. In other words, if those images didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept as FU images, then all the talking in the world won't change things. As was said above, NFCC/COPY aren't up for a vote. We have those policies in place because the foundation tells us to. So how do we deal with this? DRV's support the outcome, which (presumably) means the deletion was proper. But it is inappropriate to justify curtailing of discussion based on eventual outcome. My suggestion is that the community admonish FPS to not be a jerk about things but that we hold off on what is looking to be a snowy endorsement of a community reprimand for violating WP:CONSENSUS. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, actually, NFCC is always up for a vote. The foundation requires that each project establish it's own criteria for fair use, but it doesn't dictate the content of those policies. Please stop spreading the meme that somehow parts NFCC are not up for debate. As with all things on this project, consensus changes, especially when it comes to portions that are being misapplied. --Dragon695 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The exact wording may be up for debate, but the spirit isn't. No valid wording (no matter how many support!'s you can count) would allow the use of those images Fut.Perfs deleted. This is the eternal skirmish of an unpopular policy. People like images, you know, and they get angry when we say "you shouldn't have been copying images from Associated Press". People don't read the upload page warnings. And there's this common misconception that for every image you'll find on google, there's an hypothetical non-free-content-rationale that would allow it to be used. --Damiens.rf 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I enthusiastically support everything Damiens said here. All too often at IFD we run into a large number of people who aren't discussing an image based on policy, but how much they like the image. Take this discussion, for instance, where a number of people commented on the need to retain the image based solely on how much they liked looking at Paris Hilton's face, completely disregarding the policy at the NFCC. While I think all administrators should wait until a deletion discussion is over (if one is started) and that they should probably refrain from deleting images for discussions they participated in (though I don't know that this ever happened), I find no fault in any actions that Future Perfect has taken. He, like Betacommand before, has been willing to make tough calls on images which, when analyzed strictly from a policy standpoint, are almost always upheld. This also tends to make him a magnet for criticism when the primary grievance appears to be the policy with which his actions are executed. I think the distinction there is important for the purposes of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The extent to which we use fair use, both in letter and in spirit is determined by the community. The foundation mandated we have an EDP, but the community decides how liberal we are. Note that the Wikinews community even allows Grant of License images under their EDP, which is basically cc-by-nd. So yes, if the community decides that we should start allowing cc-by-nd, then we are free to do so. It is not our mission to produce and house redistributable media, that is commons' mission. We are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia that is as free as possible. While free is always preferred and a reasonable effort to obtain free should always be expended, we can and we should consider fair use if it enhaces the quality of the article. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong speech, but empty arguments. What you says goes directly against WP:5P. --Damiens.rf 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Does it? In what way? --John (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is free content", I presume. A decent amount of people strongly dislike using fair use images at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is immediately followed by "...that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly." (my emphasis) This project still allows fair use of images. If people don't like that, they should either find another project to volunteer for, or work in the proper ways to change our mission. To say this is against WP:5P shows ignorance of WP:5P. --John (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I agree. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Further, in order to accuse FPS of taking an image to DRV in order specifically to shift the burden of proof over deletion, we need to prove as much. It is a pretty bold accusation. Far more likely to me is that FPS is speedying images that he feels fall under the CSD while there disagreement over that very fact exists. Protonk (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    It's rather irrelevant whether he's doing so intentionally, as the practical result is that this is what's happening. In an IfD, the burden is on the nominator to provide a strong-enough argument that consensus will support the deletion of the image. Once the image is deleted, though, at DRV the burden shifts to the supporters of keeping the image to show that the deletion was improper or incorrect. By closing IfDs as "deletes" against the consensus of the debate, FPS's action helps to ensure that the image will stay deleted, as he argues that NFCC policy (his interpretation, of course) trumps the debate's consensus, thus playing the "policy card". Whether he behavior is intentional or not is irrelevant, it still ends up with usable images being deleted because while they withstood the lighter burden of IfD, the supporters can't muster the strength to overcome at DRV in the face of what seems like legitimate policy concerns. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support action on him: the NFCC is fine; disregarding consensus is not. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support FPS (and others) seem to have the notion that their understanding of NFCC policy is policy, and they behave accordingly. FPS has ignored consensus numerous times in deleting images, and has done so with, at times, uncivil and authoritarian language. He has threatened blockage for one-time restorations of images that were incorrectly removed from articles, as being "edit-warring", and has generally used his administrative powers to further his personal (and extreme) conception of what image policy should be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support something I do think that the way he goes about things is in need of some correction. Just because he gets calls right, or even if he got all calls right, does not excuse him from being civil or from other policies. To what extent correction is required is probably better decided in an environment other than ANI (Perhaps a RFC?). Narson (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of all these vague "Support ... erm ...something" comments, would it not be better to take this to an RfC? Something like this can't really be decided at AN/I. Black Kite 09:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am confused about what "support" means above. I also have a huge problem with FPAS's conduct in deletion of images under his own interpretation of policy, as well as his entirely uncivil manner if communication, treating image uploaders as convicted criminals. In addition to mass deleting images, he openly trolls through individual user's upload logs, and deletes many images by the same user, and leaves bad faith edit summaries that provoke argument. I asked him to stop this conduct, but he just gave me a shitty reply, so I gave up on him and predicted that a wider discussion would inevitably occur if he persisted in Burger-Kinging his way around with the tools and treating people that way. Obviously I was right. IMNSHO FPAS should refrain from (or be prevented from) deleting images for 6 months so he can be able to see that the project can still exist without his aggressive and unilateral behavior. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope

For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Here are diffs of warnings: [6] [7] [8] [9] Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking that, judging from the tone of the reverts, as well as the snippy on Jayjg's page, that this dispute is far from over. and in fact will prolly lead to a block. While a calm voice does help, when one is reverted, the time for discussion is then not after an ANI thread is begun. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"Prolly" a block, you say? Edison2 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Prolly = probably. And yes, while the well of Good Faith does spring Eternal, some of that headwater peters out when some folk abuse it too much. I am guestimating that the user has a tiny bit of good faith left, and it won't help them the next time they go flippant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my perspective of this dispute and point out that I'd been acting in good faith. From my perspective, you have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book, he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives then he says I can't judge his motives. This didn't appear to me to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). I didn't think it was OR either because it does not really require any interpretation at all. There didn't seem to me to be any real BLP issue, either. Cornwell's words seem to be plainly and unequivocally a recantation or retraction with regard to Pius' motive - I can't imagine that Cornwell, himself, would even object to calling it recantation or retraction. The edits merely called his statement what it is. And to show how reasonable that characterization is and the fact that I was acting in good faith, you can see that at least two books have made this same characterization (using the word recant or retract): Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope p. 138. Also, his words were characterized the same way numerous other publications: the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosop