This discussion was resolved by editors working together for find a common solution, and I have much respect for that. It looks as if this discussion has opened a much larger can of worms, one I'm not interested in being a party to. For those interested, or those who have further comments that are not directly related to me or my edits, please put further discussion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Madeleine McCann's right eye. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'm wondering whether your closure of the above reflected consensus, and would appreciate it if you'd take a second look. Werieth initiated the discussion, and six others commented – in order, Stefan2, Masem, SlimVirgin, Betty Logan, Stfg and Evrik. Four wanted to keep and three remove.
The image was used in this section of the article, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, where the significance of the image is discussed, supported by sources that discuss it. See the image page for more sources.
The discussion of the image in the article serves to satisfy (it seems to me) section 4.1.3, point 9 ("Images that are themselves subject of commentary"), of the non-free guideline, and whether the image might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). So from both a guideline/policy perspective, and a consensus perspective, I'm not sure your closure was correct. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Be aware that the removal was undone  by Betty Logan claiming that there was no consensus on the discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- And to add, but less an issue, that SV reverted the CSD tag given that it technically no longer applied after Betty's revision . I would assume if Betty's revision was incorrect (against closer's decision) then the SV tag removal has to be undone too. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've self-reverted on the image page while this is discussed, as I assume the tag's presence or absence makes no difference to the outcome. The question is only whether the close reflected consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I'm not disagreeing with your change, given Betty's revert. I don't believe Betty has the right to revert a decision closed in an forum like NFCR (even if non-admin closure), which needs to be highlighted, and if that reversion was wrong, ТимофейЛееСуда should be aware that the image page was also changed; but you were probably right in removing the CSD tag just in case that was an okay reversion. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments and keeping a centralized discussion here. I do have all of the relevant pages on my watchlist. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
My quick response is that I stand by my closure of consensus. Let us remember that consensus is not determined by number of votes, kilobytes of text or who responded last. Let us also remember that WP:NFCC is our only policy when discussing Non-Free files and WP:NFC is our main guideline.
To respond to all queries, I maintain that my closure was in compliance with WP:NFCR, WP:NAC and WP:CONSENSUS. Basically, non-admin closure is allowed when there is a clear consensus and no administrative tools are required to take action. As WP:NFCR is discussions purely about inclusion, no mop is needed. Discussions of deletion belong at more appropriate venues like WP:FFD. Also as an aside, we often wait many moons before any admin takes action at WP:NFCR even after repeated posts to WP:ANRFC. Oddly we have many admins participate in discussions, but few close discussions (even ones that they do not participate in). This leaves the question of clear consensus. I believe there is a clear consensus, and while that is my opinion, and you are entitled to a different opinion, it is sufficient to close the discussion.
As for the consensus, let us remember in discussions on the use of non-free files, “it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale.” In this case, two arguments were put through for removal, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#1. Remember again that all points of WP:NFCC must be met for the inclusion of non-free content. This is also the case for WP:NFCI#8. As for that point, there is not much discussion of the image itself in that section. The article generally states that an image of a close up of her iris were pasted across Europe. One does not need to see said photo to know it exists. Although many of the sources in that section of the article use the image, or discuss the iris, few actually discuss the image itself. This would allow the image to potentially pass WP:NFCI#8 but all criteria of WP:NFCC are required to be met. As this above information was not included in the discussion, I did not include in my closure. Here on my talk page was the first time that was brought up.
This leaves the two criteria that are discussed as not being met. WP:NFCC#3a is a clear cut case. There are multiple times in the discussion where it is shown that the image is a crop of another non-free file, so we are basically using two copies of a non-free file which is in direct violation of WP:NFCC#3a. As there was literally no discussion from those “voting” keep as to why this was not a violation, we have here a clear policy backed consensus of remove. Remember that “Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Policy (WP:NFCC) says this image fails, and as there is no discussion as to how it does not, the quality, policy based consensus is to remove. Now WP:NFCC#1 is a bit less cut and dry. The argument for removal said that a free image of the type of iris marking the young lady has could replace the image. A well written caption would show that this was not the girls actual eye, but rather a similar view. This situation happens across Wikipedia, and also in the mainstream news when the specific image is not readily available news outlets put a similar one in showing the image. No one is saying that the current file isn’t better, just that text and a free example image could replace it without taking away from the article. The keep discussion hinged on the idea that the family wanted the image widely distributed and that there are no legal issues with its use. Law and Wikipedia policy often differ as we all know, and usually Wikipedia is much stricter, as is the case with non-free content. The discussion does claim that the image shows something that cannot be described by text alone, and no one on either side disputes this. It can, as the discussion for removal shows, be replaced by text and an example image. Even if there were not as clear of an outcome with the discussion on WP:NFCC#1, the image still fails WP:NFCC#3a and should be removed.
Generally when I close a discussion, I try to not be as verbose as I have been in this explanation, as this is now nearly as long as the original discussion. Obviously, others feel the need for me to give more thorough explanations, and I will try my best in the future. If you disagree with the outcome of this discussion, and my closure, feel free to open a new discussion. I would advise against opening a new discussion if your sole reasoning is similar to a time when WP:DRV should not be used (see WP:DRVPURPOSE). If you disagree with my actual closure with regards to the process or whether I have made an error in my interpretation, please find an uninvolved administrator, and I will reverse my closure, or they can reopen it. I am not perfect, but I do my best to follow Wikipedia policy. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed explanation of the reasoning, Тимофей. I understand that consensus is interpreted through the lens of policy, but your reading of how the policy applies to this crop is clearly contested in the discussion, including by a very long-standing administrator, so this discussion does not belong in the category of "non-contentious or withdrawn discussions" that qualify for non-admin closure. By closing on the basis of your understanding of the policy, you have effectively overruled other editors' understanding of it. I am not certain that your reading is correct, so I've asked uninvolved administrator Diannaa to review it. My request to her is here. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi ТимофейЛееСуда, thanks for the response. Would you mind summarizing why you closed it as remove, i.e. what the key issue was for you? I found the above a bit too long to digest. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I do mind summarizing this for you. I don't know why you hid this comment up here when the discussion has already progressed. I summarized my close in the close description. That wasn't enough for you, so I gave you a more verbose version. I'm not going to write yet another explanation that takes into account all points of the discussion, including new points you attempt to push. You obviously aren't going to read my responses to your questions as they are not what you want to hear. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- First, thank you to sticking to an appropriate process when contesting a closure. Discussion is always healthy, and the alternative does nobody any justice. Just to note, over half of the discussion on crop was about a misunderstanding in response. The remaining half was on whether or not there is a policy specifically forbidding crops (which there is not). You were the one that confirmed that it was a crop of the same exact image, and that is why it fails WP:NFCC#3a. Crops of non-free files can be used, just simply not when both the crop and the main image are used. (This was all thoroughly explained by a trusted administrator in the discussion). Aside from that, I'm glad that you've chosen Diannaa, and I hope she is willing to take the time. She is one of the most trusted administrators that I interact with. She's level-headed, trustworthy and understanding. She is also one of the few administrators left working in the nasty file namespace, and one of the even fewer who does administrative tasks such as deletion. (For those that don't know, quite a few admins have left the project due to the constant fight of enforcing policy on image use). Whatever is Diannaa's decision, I will happily abide to. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- As will I. Thank you, Тимофей. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- The number of !votes is 3 for deletion and 4 to keep.
- User:SlimVirgin's main arguments are that the image has been the subject of extensive commentary and that the feature is not possible to describe in words alone. The remainder of her argument does not come into play, as the parents' wishes, the odds of Wikipedia being sued, and the desire to help resolve a cold case are not policy-based reasons for making NFC decisions.
- User:Betty Logan makes the argument that the image is the subject of sourced commentary, not replaceable by a free image, and conveys visual information about Madeleine that cannot be described by text alone.
- User:Stfg explains that the image at coloboma is nothing like McCann's eye, and therefore the image has no free substitute. He states that he doesn't believe 3a has been violated, but he doesn't adequately explain why not. Whether or not our readers will think to click on a photo to enlarge it can be resolved by suggesting they do so in the caption.
- User:Evrik says Keep, per SlimVirgin.
- User:Werieth was the nominator; he states that the image violates NFCC but he doesn't say which points.
- User:Stefan2 believes the image is replaceable with the free file from the Coloboma article.
- User:Masem points out that the image fails NFCC #3a, as it is a duplicate of a portion of the image in the info box. And he's right. This point is never adequately rebutted, and all the points of the NFCC must be met, or the image is in violation. So I agree that the close is a valid one. My suggestion is to get rid of the half of the image that projects how she might look at age nine. This would allow for a larger version (268 x 370 rather than 200 x 248) of the photo at age three, and the eye feature would be more visible. Then amend the caption to suggest that the reader click on the image to see a larger version. Another suggestion is for Тимофей to revert his close and wait for an admin closer, someone experienced in assessing consensus on contentious closes. That would not be me. There's no rush to close this, as the image has been hosted here since 2007. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- To note, I said I would be comfortable with using a atypically larger resolution of the profile pic so that the eye is clearer, since that is a detail of discussion, as to reduce the amount of non-free used. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Just noting here that I've requested an uninvolved review at WP:AN/RFC (permalink). The idea that we should remove Scotland Yard's age-progressed image from the lead to make way for a larger image of her at three where we can see the eye better – just so that we can satisfy this very strict interpretation of fair use – is to my mind an example of the tail wagging the dog.
The close-up shot of the eye needs to be in the section where the image of the eye is discussed, how ubiquitous it became and why the Portuguese police were worried about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, really, it doesn't. When we have non-free images in an infobox for identification, and in cases where the image is the subject of discussion later in the article, we don't repeat that image later to be closer to the discussion; if needed, we simply refer the reader to the top. And in this case, the discussion of the eye is only one or two page-scrolls away from the top, so it's not like a trek across the entire article. And I did say that the two-photo piece can be used in a larger resolution; I agree the age-regressed version can be kept along side the photo. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why all of this is such a big deal. It seems like everyone participating in the discussion is willing to compromise except one. We have many alternatives solutions, but none are apparently good enough for some. Also, for my first actual opinion (not an interpretation of a consensus), there are already seven "external images links" on the page with description of the image and its relevance. Why cant we just link the eye image like the rest? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, in an effort not to dig my heels in about a minor issue, I've replaced the eye for now with an external link (though whether others on that article will agree, I don't know). I do think a discussion needs to take place about extreme interpretations of the fair-use guideline, and the person-hours that are expended trying to remove completely harmless images, not to mention that it makes content creators feel that WP is not a good place to be. But thankfully that's a discussion for another day. I still wouldn't mind having an independent review of that closure, because I'm not convinced that it was a reflection of consensus, but as Diannaa says there is no rush for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's absolutely not extreme. You have two images that show the same thing (her eye mark), while one of them also shows many other things. That's duplicative, and not minimal use. Certainly having the singular-facet image next to the text would be more pleasing to look at, but NFC policy and the goals of creating free content override visual pleasantries. That's the entire point of the #3a problem. And again, we have non-free guidelines that are purpusely more restrictive than fair use so we can support the Foundation in meeting the free content mission. Did we say to strip out all the non-free from the article? No, just be more judicial about its use and recognizing that image use one might find in newspapers and other publications cannot apply to WP. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.