Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: 13:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Fasach Nua has vested an interest in having imaged deleted that are uploaded by me, for no other reason then that they are uploaded by me, and using the same boilerplate reasoning for such nominations. His last nomination called my upload "bad faith", which to me makes it clear that he has a grudge against me in particular, and the Doctor Who project as a whole.

Desired outcome

Fasach Nua is to be given a topic ban on any Doctor Who related articles and subjects, in all namespaces.

Description

This started after I made a bad call during an IfD and got into an argument on AN/I during the subsequent deletion review. After seemingly resolving the issue, I even supported Fasach Nua to help him with (re)nomination, but now he uses that knowledge to start a nominating spree, nominating any subsequest image I have uploaded, as well as other Doctor Who raleted images, in what I believe to be bad faith, as he only targets those images. Apart from some edits in Northern Ireland Footbal related article, Fasach Nua's edits in article space are virtually non-existent, and seem entirely focused on discussion about policies and procedures. He aslo habitually deletes conversations from his talk page.

Evidence of disputed behavior

These are archived discussion which summarize the conflict very well:

Addendum, 19 January:

Fasach also has the habit of marking his nominations as "Copyright violation", which is factually incorrect, inflamatory, unprofessional, in bad faith and should only be used with blatant violations, which these are not.

Addendum 2

Fasach Nua's editing pattern reveals that he is inexperienced on Wikipedia. His only topics of interest seems to be Northern Ireland fooball topics, and nominating images for deletion. His article space edits are virtually zero. His "obsession" with Doctor Who images started with the small kerfuffle in december, after which he only targets DW images for deletion. While the nominations themselves may be valid in policy, his narrow field of topics just doesn't sit right with me. Combined with his inexperience, it all shouts "single purpose account" to me.

He seems to have "studied" WP:NFCC, but doesn't understand the spirit of it; he argues with opposers up to the point of wiki-lawyering and making some weird, unrealistic, albeit original, suggestion on how an image could be replaced. All those factors combined makes his action disruptive and appear bad faith, and designed to piss off other editors (and mainly me).

I can only guees as to what his real motivations are... I cannot in good conciousness believe that his action are geared toward improving Wikipedia; Fasach Nua seems to be in it for the game. Unless he can provide some background for his motives, I am having trouble accepting his action as good faith. I don't even mind images being nominated, but Fasach Nua should first learn how to make them without being pejorative and accusative. Dropping the term "Copyright violation" would be a first step. Fasach Nua needs mentoring in this field, and he needs to broaden his horizon on Wikipedia; his obsession with Doctor Who images is simply not healthy.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

— Edokter • Talk • 15:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will ^(talk) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

StuartDD (talk · contribs) Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from other users

As noted on the talkpage certain elements of the summary, and especially the desired outcome, have been amended and those endorsing may or may not support the current version. However correct the summary I cannot endorse it since the goalposts have been significantly changed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the current version. I'll alert StuartDD to it too. Will ^(talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the ammendments. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response (to original post)

I don’t really get this! I think this is just as bogus as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach Nua disrupting IfD, previously used by Edokter. He is a good editor, but has a poor understanding of copyright law, or the aims of the Wikimedia foundation.

In a previous discussion, this user has threatened that if any Dr.Who images which failed the criteria for inclusion of non-free content were deleted, he will continue uploading images to replace them until all 60,000 frames have been exhausted shown here.

The image in the Fear Her episode was deleted, reuploaded deleteted, reuploaded, deleted, [1], then this user has uploaded another image from the same episode [2] which also failed criteria for inclusion of non-free content on wp, so I nominated it, and now it is deleted.

I removed a non-free image from an article [3] which had no FU criteria, the response this user makes is this very lazy and ill considered edit diff. I then examined the rationale, and found it to be meaningless, and thus in breach of wikipedia policy to which this user stated that he was abandoning good faith diff

Another Dr Who image which failed wp policy for inclusion of non free content was deleted Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_December_30#Image:2.0.Christmas_Invasion.jpg, again Edikter uploads another image from the same episode which I have nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_10#Image:_Doctor_Who_The_Christmas_Invasion.jpg as it too fails to meet the criteria needed for the use of non free content.

I don’t really have a problem with not making bad faith nominations at ifd, I don’t believe I have made any, the ninth doctor may have been over zealous, but given the contempt for the liability the foundation has to accept in hosting these images as was demonstrated here by some members of this wikiproject. I would find it find it hard to imagine that this problem would be properly addressed, this view was (sort of) endorsed here.

I am not realy going to pay much attention to this the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive338#Fasach Nua disrupting IfD, entered by Edokter was as much of a waste of time I am prepared to put up with, I dont think there is dispute here, most of the images happen to be on the same wiki projectEdokter is a member of, but very few were uploaded by him, and I havent seen any evidence to suggest that my nomination were of bad faith, I think Edokter thinks I have a higher opinion of him than exists in reality, I do not spend my nights plotting against him! I am not going to watch this page, if anything of note happens here, put a note on my talk page, Thanks Fasach Nua (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Some of the images nominated have already been deleted, some are probably going to be kept. Don't understand the excitement. Addhoc (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per Addhoc, although I disagree with Fasach Nua's last paragraph - this most certainly is a dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix

On the issue of tagging these images as copyright violoations, this is exactly what I feel they are, they are private property uploaded to the internet without permission of the owner, or a valid claim of fair use, if the user gives details of the copyright holder, it makes it no less of a copyright violation. I wouldnt consider a pirate DVD which includes the original cover with the copyright claim any less of a copyright violation, than a pirate DVD which the original cover had been modified. The label is there to help people sorting through the ifds to easily identify the reason for the listing, if someone could suggest a better tag, I would certinly consider it.

As for the alledged grudge against wikiproject Doctor Who, I would find it hard to see how helping out with wp:nfc compliance in this project can be seen as a grudge. I am systematicaly working within the confines of this project, to randomly remove copyright violating images here and there is useless, an initial removal is met with hostility, procedural irregularity and if deleteed is either reuploaded, or replaced with an image with an equally invalid rationale, and given wp:own it is an understandable response

This can clearly be seen with the Fear her article image

The project is now over this initial shock, the discussions have now moved from open hostility and comments like "Every Doctor Who article has a screenshot" to the project now considering wp:nfc when dealing with it's images, and I make no apology for that!

I think Edokter is suffering from too much WP:OWN and not enough WP:AGF, but I feel time will fix these, and I still don't believe I have a dispute with this user, and deep down, I dont believe this user believes that he has a dispute with me

On a realted note I will throw this thread in without comment Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive355#Fasach_Nua.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 Fasach Nua (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

See the talk page.

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 from J Greb

Looking at this as an editor that came in in the middle of the situation, there is reason for concern raised by the actions on both sides of this.

As I've commented before, there seems to be a tendency for Fasach Nua to jump the gun, relying on IfD instead of first applying image maintenance tags in cases where the dispute rests on the validity of the FUR provided. Examples of this are the Ninth Doctor.jpg and Slitheen.jpg noms.

But there is also a disturbing tendency for supporters of the images to be overly aggressive in their defense, or demand, that the images be left alone.

I can see, for the most part, good faith in edits made, including XfD noms, to improve Wikipedia based on the quality of the information edited and with regards to the policies and guidelines in place. It doesn't matter if the editor is venturing outside his/her "normal" editing area or focuses on a particular "back end" aspect, such as the images, if the editor works to fix what appears to be a problem, that's generally a good thing. It isn't a case of WP:POINT or WP:DISRUPT, it's a case of actually fixing a problem.

As a side note: Repeatedly re-uploading an image deleted by an IfD, or immediately uploading any old image to replace an IfDed one could be seen as acting in bad faith if not editing with a point. The same can be said for the removal of maintenance tags without actually addressing the problem.

As far as the other policies and guidelines that are relevant here, or should be listed as relevant:

WP:AGF - Both Fasach Nua and Edokter have made it very clear with the nom for Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg that neither is willing to extend the other that fundamental courtesy. And by comments made in some of the IfDs listed, other editors also appear unwilling to extend it as well.
WP:CIVILITY - Has taken a beating with these noms with both sides putting up comments that can read as sniping and goading.
WP:NFC - Which is a valid, fundamental guideline for the use of non-free content.

- J Greb (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Looking back at the nom, and the updates made to it by the nominator, I'm finding more things to be worried about.

As pointed out above, at some levels Fasach Nua's nomination of images and edits make sense. Images with in the articles maintained by WikiProject Doctor Who have a disturbing tendency to either lack a fair use rational entirely, or fall short of WP:NFC. The batch of image noms Edokter lists is a good example: four of them have no fair use rationale provided, and, based on how they are used, they are random screen capture used as infobox images. Violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines of non-free images, certainly. But this is where Fasach Nua pushes a bit too far, throwing the term "copyright violation" in is pejorative, especially since the images carry licensing tags acknowledging that the images are under copyright.

I'm also worried about what is looking like a personal vendetta by Edokter. As referenced above, it is generally a good thing to have an editor, from within a project or without, go through the images a project uses and point our deficiencies. It holds the editors uploading and using the images to account since these are not our images, no Wikipedia's. We do need to show care when pulling images into Wikipedia that we are not just acting in good faith, but that we are acting fairly. That means tagging images with insufficient documentation. It also means removing images that cannot meet the fair use guidelines. The fall out of that is that if an editor is going to re-upload an image, or a similar image, that has just been deleted because it fails NFC, the re-upload is going to get slammed. An editor making a habit of this is going to generate bad faith from others.

Both the accused and the accuser are dirty on this, on Civility, on Faith, and on actions that make this look like both of them have made the other a personal target.

Edokter has asked that Fasach Nua be blocked from editing a fairly large group of articles, images, categories, templates, associated talk pages, and potentially user pages. That seems to be an over reaction. Maybe Fasach Nua needs to go through another editor or admin before nominating Doctor Who material for an XfD, at least to make sure his tone and word choice are less incendiary. But if that's the case there may need to be similar sanctions on Edoctor barring him from closing such XfDs and having another admin or editor vet his uploads. And lastly, a requirement to take edit disputes to the relevant talk pages. By this I mean that if one of the two edits a Doctor Who article and the other disagrees, they do not revert it, they take it, civilly, to the talk page. Also if someone else reverts an edits made by one of the two, they take it to the talk instead or re-doing their edit.

- J Greb (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Agree that to some extent there are faults on both sides. Addhoc (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the most part, (maintenance tags isn't the full story) but a reasonable description. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Adhoc, although the presumption of WP:OWN limits the dialogue most severely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from User:Thedagomar

After briefly reviewing all parts of this RfC, I also feel that both sides are at fault. The subject of this RfC certainly does appear to be a SPA, but has valid points as regards fair use. However, the thought of him focusing on one editor's uploads is disturbing and possibly harassment. For this reason, I would support a civility probation, where continuance of his conduct will result in blocks in accordance with policy. He needs to assume good faith and give others a chance to fix their mistakes.

As regards the initiator, I see that he is not obeying copyright law. He must start tagging properly and needs to assume good faith. Otherwise, he is heading towards a community ban. I would suggest that he seek mentoring from someone experienced in copyright policy. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Ncmvocalist

Having looked at the description and response in this Rfc, I am in agreement with certain parts of the view of J Greb, but have a different view in relation to certain parts. For this reason, I will reproduce the parts I agree with, and modify parts, and add my other findings below.

Looking at this as an editor that came in in the middle of the situation, there is reason for concern raised by the actions on both sides of this.

Editors should not maliciously target certain articles and images created or uploaded by certain editors in WP:POINT. It is a sad fact that maliciously targetting the contributions of a certain editor is not constructive as it results in deterring editors from editing at Wikipedia. While it may be true that there is some good faith in the edits made, including XfD noms (to improve Wikipedia based on the quality of the information edited and with regards to the policies and guidelines in place), this is not enough, particularly when one can, and should, apply image maintenance tags in cases where the dispute rests on the validity of the FUR provided. Examples of this are the Ninth Doctor.jpg and Slitheen.jpg noms.

However, Wikipedia is not a place for supporters of the images to display a disturbing tendency of being overly aggressive in their defense, or demanding that the images be completely left alone. As long as the editor is bold in trying to fix (or fixing) what appears to be a problem, or assumes good faith by applying maintenance tags first, it doesn't matter if the editor is venturing outside his/her "normal" editing area or focuses on a particular "back end" aspect, such as the images. In such circumstances as I've described, it wouldn't be a case of WP:POINT or WP:DISRUPT as it would be a case of actually fixing a problem.

As a side note: Repeatedly re-uploading an image deleted by an IfD, or immediately uploading any old image to replace an IfDed one could be seen as acting in bad faith if not editing with a point. The same can be said for the removal of maintenance tags without actually addressing the problem.

Neither party has followed WP:AGF and both parties have made it very clear with the nom for Doctor Who The Christmas Invasion.jpg that neither is willing to extend the other that fundamental courtesy. And by comments made in some of the IfDs listed, other editors also appear unwilling to extend it as well. Both parties have also failed to observe WP:CIVILITY as both sides have put up comments that can read as sniping and goading. Both parties have failed to build WP:CONSENSUS either by discussing edit-disputes on the talk page properly.

Suggested Outcome

I am of the opinion that neither editor need be blocked at this stage, however, I suggest the following be enforced. Fasach Nua needs to modify his approach by assuming good faith, place maintenance tags where appropriate. If Fasach Nua desires to nominate material for an Xfd, then Fasach Nua needs to go through another editor or admin, at least to make sure his tone and word choice are less incendiary, and that the Xfd is appropriate for the situation. Edoctor needs to likewise go through another editor or admin to close such Xfds, or remove any maintenance tags. And finally, both editors need to be civil, assume good faith, and discuss any edits they make. Any edit disputes must be discussed on the relevant talk pages - this is not an optional guideline, but is a policy, as this is the only way to achieve consensus per WP:CONS. To meet this end, a sanction that limits edit-warring and reverting may need to be enforced too.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.