Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Broken CSD F2

Per F2, images of PNGs and GIFs that are bigger than 12.5 MP can be speedy deleted. The same as archival file formats for which we simply don't render previews (like tif at one time). This is not the intent of F2 in my opinion. F2 should target unsupported fileformats (not unsupported previews) and broken files. I propose:

"File formats that the MediaWiki software does not support, broken files that do not generate correct thumbnails, or files that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information.[6] This also includes image description pages for Commons images, but excludes working files for which the software is unable to create previews."

TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can't use them in an article, what's the point of hosting them? Gigs (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You can make derivatives of them that you CAN include inline, without losing quality. See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#XCF_filesTheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My question would be if this is the desired effect at all. The title of F2 is "corrupt and empty" files, not merely files whose format the software can't read. There will be formats (free, open, and proprietary) that MediaWiki will not read and which have valuable data. Ideally those should be converted to more usual standards but they may not be. For example - suppose we got access to a GFDL archive of CAD diagrams of historical buildings and for whatever reason consensus agreed it was salient to provide CAD rendering data on some building - that would be within scope but the data might not be readable without some proper program. I would not classify that as "corrupt or empty".
Likewise we might find some images that are best held as layered files in the saved format of some image editor, rather than as "one layer" ordinary PNG/JPG's, or we may want originals for loss-free storage and conversion (as pointed out above).
While ideally all knowledge should be readable by MediaWiki or in a FOSS software file format, I can imagine some cases where the data would be within mission and valuable but would not be one or other of these. Should such material be deleted for being in an uncommon program or non-free image format? Can we consider this aspect. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. If we are going to allow files that are validly constructed files that MediaWiki can't read, yet still have encyclopedic value, we should go ahead and allow all of them. Gigs (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
MediaWiki only allows files that it know cannot pose a security risk. To clarify... this was not always so. In the past is was possible to upload a .exe as a .png for instance. I'm guessing that is why the criterium "files that mediawiki does not support" would be relevant. But as long as a file is not a security problem and has a use in scope (not necessarily inline inclusion into articles), then yes I think they should be allowed, and definitely not fall under CSD headline that says "Corrupt or empty files". —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Try this?
Corrupt or empty image - Files that cannot be correctly opened in standard applications for that filetype, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images. Files that can be correctly opened and contain potentially valid information may be considered under Files for deletion. Files that open in uncommon applications or cannot be easily checked for validity and safety should be considered under CSD#F10.
Issues such as undesirable formats or conversion to better formats are a matter for file policy and FFD. Files with equivalent copies in better formats could be covered at F1 and F8. Note also F10 overlaps this issue as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if the "opened in standard applications" is a good criteria. A lot of standard applications choke perfectly valid files that are large or use uncommon features. That would probably exclude things like the 12MP images that were mentioned at the beginning, or things like PDFs that use the newest PDF specification features. I would rather something that expresses that it's not a valid file compared to specifications for that file type. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
How about this:
Corrupt or empty image - Files that do not follow any existing specifications or implementations for this file type or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images. Files that follow any specification or implementation or contain potentially valid information may be considered under Files for deletion. Files that follow valid but uncommon specifications or implementations or cannot be easily checked for validity and safety should be considered under CSD#F10.
Phrasing it this way takes care of Gigs' (imho valid) concerns while making it clear that simply violating specifications (as many files do) is not sufficient and does not cover such files that can be used by any existing application but avoids the "opened in standard applications" phrasing that might be misleading. Regards SoWhy 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The main concern is, how can a user tell if a file "follows specifications". They often can't. What they can tell is whether the file can be opened in appropriate software. That's the sole test we know can be applied. Perhaps "it is for the uploader to state at least one program that properly accesses the data if not a well-recognized format"? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure you grasp the spectrum of incomplete, broken, and limited implementations that are out there for media files. IE can't properly render perfectly valid PNGs with embedded gamma information, Safari 1.3.x can't render PNGs right at all... is that appropriate software? Is JPEG2000 a "well recognized format"? Like it says at the top of the page, a CSD needs to be uncontestable. There shouldn't be shades of gray. The published file specifications are the only way we can make that kind of distinction. What you are suggesting is like saying "My page works fine in IE, I don't need to validate the HTML!". Gigs (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I do. As an example there are PDFs that open in some programs not in others (perhaps less complete feature set or different branches, who knows). A user wishes to check whether the PDF file is "broken or corrupyt". The only test he can apply is that the file can be opened in a PDF program. Unless you have some way he can validate that the data meets "PDF specifications" and some user will view the file in a text editor or hex editor and manually check it complies with a speciufication ("it ought to open!"), that's the only actual test a user can apply. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we just say "corrupt" again in the body? Files that are corrupt or contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images. I mean, say what we mean, right? Gigs (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Support, per KISS. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP

I've started a section at the Village Pump at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Speedy userfication. Comments there would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the discussion is actually at WP:Village pump (policy)#Speedy userfication. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD#G7 versus CSD#A3

The other day, I came upon this edit in which the creator and only substantial contributor of content all but blanked this wikiarticle. In hindsight, I realize that I tagged the article for speedy deletion too quickly, especially in light of this policy statement:

Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice.

While that footnote is not specifically attached to CSD#G7, it is still worthwhile guidance of which one should remain cognizant.

From this incident, I have a question of general application: Suppose that sufficient time has elapsed for assessment regarding speedy criteria. Further suppose that the creator of the wikiarticle has not entirely emptied the article, yet has reduced it to only one sentence. Which criterion is more appropriate: CSD#G7 or CSD#A3? Or, is some other course of action recommended? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably neither. It seems several one-sentence articles, especially regarding places (and often some elementary school in India!!), do not fall under CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
So one sentence is sufficient to make the article a stub requiring a proper AfD debate for deletion? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It all depends on the one sentence. "Bob is a great guy" gets deleted, but "Blah is a school in some place" usually goes to AfD. — Timneu22 · talk 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If an article is a valid stub, A3 or G7 cannot be applied anymore (just like A1). As such, the question why it is a stub, is irrelevant for this decision. Regards SoWhy 21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again - we *really* need to clean up F9

This has been a pet peeve of mine for several years and with each year we get new editor and new admins who only read two sections of F9 - "Unambiguous copyright infringement" and "This does not include images used under a claim of fair use" and ignore the the rest of the tag and related policies. Part of the problem is other polices are not linked to, or mentioned and the wording used is too generic in one line and too specific in another. When citing plain English breakdowns editors and admin often say they are not in the policy, just a guideline, so they can be ignored. My main "work" here is images and I often have to explain various criteria - but the wording of this particular policy always seems to cause confusion. So I am going to try and be short - but those who know me know that is hard. Let me start off with the "background".

  • Wikimedia Foundations Licensing policy, Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) Resolution 3 (bold added for emphasis) - Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.
  • Image use Policy - Fair use - (bold added for emphasis) Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.)
  • Policy on Fair use, criteria 2 (bold added for emphasis): Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • Plain English example 1 - {{Non-free historic image}} tag (bold added for emphasis): Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not [be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)
  • Plain English example 2 (bold added for emphasis) - Unacceptable use - Images - 7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.
  • Plain English example 3 - Signpost - September 2008 - Wikipedia-wide criteria, 2. Respect for commercial opportunities (bold added for emphasis): Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image
  • Just a few related images: Image:42650801 planelong ap416.jpg, Image:Adam Air Flight 172.jpg, Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg (and its deletion discussion), Deletion Discussion - image:Dubai Millennium.jpg.

Now here is the current, full, wording of F9: Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

In relation to "This does not include images" which is followed by "This includes most images" it appears to be confusing a lot of people. But that is just the tip of the issue. If you look at the image policies we have nowhere does it say all/any "images used under a claim of fair use" cannot be considered a copyvio. They explicitly say the opposite. What needs to be made clear in the F9 criteria is that *certain* images with a FUR *can* be speedied as a copyvio. It has been discussed over and over, in terms of fair use, that photo and press agency photos can not be used *unless* they are the subject of the article. The F9 criteria tried to make it clear that the copyvio claim can be used for Corbis and Getty but in doing that two things happened: one group reads it as *only* Corbis and Getty are included, as are *only* "photo libraries", and any other not named agency is excluded *along with* any press agency - because it does not explicitly state "press agency". The other group reads it as *all* images, *including* those from Getty and Corbis, are exempt from speedy if fair use is claimed. That is incorrect, so, at the least, that section needs to be cleaned up.

I am open to suggestions but the wording really should be consistent with other image policies. I suggest something like (New wording in green):

  • Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This includes most images from press and photo agencies such as Getty Images, Associated Press (AP) and Corbis, unless the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. With the exception of press and photo agency images this does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.

Idea two would be to include more details, but than it becomes too wordy. Such as:

  • Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Images from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, using respect for commercial opportunities where the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary; photo and press agency images that are not the subject of sourced commentary are considered copyright violations and may be removed on sight. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. With the exception of press and photo agency images as discussed above this does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.

Idea three is just a simple rewrite, but it may still be too generic in the other direction as it does not mention "limited exceptions" for press and photo agency images.

  • Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This includes most images from stock photo libraries and news agencies such as Associate Press (AP), Getty Images or Corbis. This does not include other images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.


Again, other wordings can be used as long as they reflect policy and don't make it more generic. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that those are sound additions. The whole copyright and image area is one that I have generally avoided, as it is extremely complex. I that that the murkiness of the whole area is confusing to everyone involved, so any clarifications certainly help. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. There's a reason why there seems to be a permanent backlog of speedy deletion candidates in the file categories. Few people have the interest to understand the issues, and even fewer like dealing with them. I'll take a look at your suggestions now and see if I can offer any feedback. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, here's my suggestion. I like the second choice above with the fuller explanation. I'm going to attempt to reword it a bit for conciseness and organization. Here it goes:
  • Images and other media files claimed by the uploader to have a free license, but that obviously do not. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Files from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion. Files from sources besides these, if used neither under a claim of fair use nor a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, if blatant infringement, are subject to speedy deletion, or, if not blatant, should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If subject to speedy deletion, use {{db-filecopyvio}} (or, for image files, {{db-imgcopyvio}}).
--Bsherr (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added the link to the Image use policy, which I believe is overlooked for the types of images being discussed. Also I just put the new wording that you used in green so people can know what part is changed.
  • Images and other media files claimed by the uploader to have a free license, but that obviously do not. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Files from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations. Files from sources besides these, if used neither under a claim of fair use nor a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, if blatant infringement, are subject to speedy deletion, or, if not blatant, should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If subject to speedy deletion, use {{db-filecopyvio}} (or, for image files, {{db-imgcopyvio}}).
I think the last sentence in now too long. I know you combined it but I think it does need to be two separate sentences. Or may just shorten it, something like: "Other files under a claim of fair use and images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license are not to be deleted using this criteria and should be discussed at..." Yes? No? Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that separating that sentence isolates those two exceptions from "sources besides these", and makes it seem that they apply to photo and press agency files. My understanding is that's not what you intend.
Looking back now, in the second sentence, the word image should be changed to file, too. --Bsherr (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It would be nice to hear from some of the long time image/copyright regulars as well - Stifle? Skier Dude? Thingg? Lifebaka? Amalthea? Moonriddengirl? Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So how about this - if we use the exact wording from the Image use Policy - Fair use with a link to it it may also work. Also change the "image" to "file". So something like:

  • Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be files images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the file image originated should be mentioned. This includes most files from press and photo agencies unless the files itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. (Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement.) This does not include non-photo and press agency files used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include files images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.

What about that? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Silence? Anyone? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to cross-post a link to this discussion on copyright-related noticeboards and talk pages to get some people with knowledge in that area to comment on it. I fear that they probably did not see it here. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I am always hesitant to cross post because in the past every time I do something like that I get accused of canvasing. As a side note I was posting below and saw that when I9/F9 was first added it was more clear and reflected the policy better. The exact wording that is misleading now used to be: Examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. In April of 2008 the words "Examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia" were removed so the line read: Includes images that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. A few weeks later an editor changed the entire meaning to "clarify" what was meant by removing the words: "that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia." The line has stayed the same without anyone noticing it. Pretty amazing how that slipped by everyone. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To be quite blunt, Soundvision1, your proposal is too wordy. Sorry; I know you will only be unhappy with me saying so, but I'm just giving the reason that no one is respondin; perhaps you could summarize a bit better. On another note, I notice F9 states that the uploader must be claiming free use when it's not so, whereas it didn't under the original. No wonder all the templates were confused. As I have suggested before, regardless of the outcome of this conversation, we should readd the provision that non-tagged obvious copyvios, not just free-use tagged obvious copyvios, should be F9-able. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"you will only be unhappy with me saying so..."? No - As I said up above when I suggested three possible things, adding more details "becomes too wordy." The suggestion above is incorporating Bsherr's suggested wording as well. I disagree that the informaiton needs to explicitly state that "non-tagged" files are eligible because the idea is that *any* file that is an obvious copyvio can be deleted. It is the wording that added the exclusion of fair use claimed files *followed* by the wording (Now seeing that was a mistake from 2008) implies something different. There is a somewhat easy solution and that is to simply reverse the existing wording (and changing a few words to reflect you suggestion and Bsherr's) so it would read:
  • Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be files images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. This includes most files images from press and photo agencies, even if they are claimed as non-free stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. A URL or other indication of where the file image originated should be mentioned. This does not include other files images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include files images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
That is basically the same amount of words being used, but it does not link to the Image use Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I realize you would like to move it out this far, and I think you're on to something. My suggestion was more of an in-between suggestion; no need to throw out the baby with the bath water idea. In other words:
  • Current reading: only non-free photos improperly marked as free.
  • My reading: only non-free photos improperly marked as free OR without a license (this seems to be a non-controversial intermediate step)
  • Your reading: my reading, plus some fair use files.
Would you agree to this, even if your suggestion isn't taken?
As for your idea I mostly support it, but I do not like that it currently states that any press agency photos are currently CSDable. There are valid fair use criteria for press photo agencies (mainly critical commentary of that photo). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that more needs to be added in respect to "any" - what I had suggested was the the additional wording of "...may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations" or "...unless the files itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" - in both cases hyperlinks provide a link to a related policy. In the history of this criteria, at some point the word "most" was added (i.e - went from "This includes images..." to "This includes most images...") to indicate not "all", but "most" such images were not acceptable via fair use claims, and that is still basically ok, except because the "...that do not have a license compatible..." was removed and, in the context of where it is placed, the entire meaning changed. But to be clear - I am 100% in favor of clarifying that the current policies allow for files of this sort to be deleted as copvios *except* those that are of "sourced commentary" (i.e - the file itself is the subject of commentary, not the subject in the file). This goes back to what I first said - with the link to the related policies. And I am not against having "footnotes" if need be with article such as The Falling Man, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Burst of Joy and/or Faris Odeh as examples of what is considered allowable and should *not* be considered as a blatant copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see wikilinks to respect for commercial opportunities, and articles defining press and photo agencies (examples in my proposal above). I agree that the explanation may be omitted to make the guidance more concise, but we need to justify and explain the guidance through appropriate links, at least. --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I must be honest, but I personally think this is too aggressive. Why are we singling out press photos for speedy deletion when every other fair use photo has to wait the seven days? I'd personally like to see it expanded to all replaceable fair use, but that would mean editing F7. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Wikipedia policy on photo/press images has been around for a long time, so they have always been "singled out" in a sense. The Wikipedia policies that relate to copyright and image use are based on US Copyright Law. The copyright violation part I think is fairly obvious - you can't just take someones work and claim it as your own in any way, shape, or form. For Wikipedias "free" concept a "blatant" image copvio means not only claiming it as your own but also re-licensing it under some sort of "free" license. However when Fair Use enters the equation Wikipedia again turns to the US Copyright law - specifically the wording of The Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107 which deals with fair use. Of the four core issues that are defined there, the wording of the one that directly relates to the Wikipedia Speedy deletion criteria (Policy) we are currently discussing is: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." This wording translated into the Wikipedia wording which I stated at the start of this thread. That wording is explicit that "an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement" and the image "can be removed on sight." It has been established many times over that using an image taken from a photo and/or a press agency for "free" to use on Wikipedia is not showing "respect for commercial opportunities" *unless* the image "is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts." And it has also been established that Wikipedias Policy on Fair use is far more stringent than the US Copyright law is. So, yes, as far as fair use goes, outside of photo and press files, "every other fair use photo has to wait the seven days." Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still think this is too aggressive. The reason for the original delay is to give the uploader a chance to defend his choice. This would create all sorts of nightmares in disputes going to DRV. For example, a press photo uploaded of a figure with no known non-press photos, which was taken in 1990, is no longer used by the press agency, and the subject passed away in 1995. This quite likely would qualify as valid fair use. The only way I would support this proposal would be wording that allows for the deletion of said material for a) incorrectly licensed or non-licensed press uploads, or b) such uploads fall under WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable fair use). Even then I think point (b) adds a layer of complexity that may prove unpopular and be its undoing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
When *any* image is uploaded a few things might happen. 1> Most common is the uploader uses a "self" license. In many case there is a source provided so it is easy to look at the source. If the file is a photo/press agency image this would be "incorrectly licensed" and would be speedied as a blatant copyvio. Even if no source was listed, and it the source was found to be a photo/press agency, it could still be speedied as a blatant copyvio. In other words this criteria already supports "incorrectly licensed" images from a photo or press agency. 2> An image, *any* image, is uploaded without a license. The image is tagged with {{di-no license}}, *or*, if a source is given that reflects a photo or press agency image it can be speedied under this criteria. If there is no source *and* no license and it is not clear where the image came from it can be tagged with {{di-no source}} as well.
The main issue with this criteria is to clarify one thing - and that is that files from press and/or photo agencies are valid for speedy as copyvios *unless* they meet the limited criteria for their use. The example you gave still would not meet all 10 of the criteria found on the fair use policy unless the image itself was the subject of critical commentary *because* it is an image from a press or photo agency. The only way to know if an image "no longer used by the press agency" would be to check, and considering they have photos dated long before 1990 it is doubtful a current image would no longer be marketed. (The way to look at it is that if the image is useful on Wikipedia than there is a market for the image. Most all photo and press agancies now have pricing in place for web use.) In general these types of images fall under "respect for commercial opportunities", or WP:NFCC#2. For your example, if an image fails WP:NFCC#1, you wouldn't use F9 anyway - you would use F7. If it was marked a "fair use", or some like worded message, but did not have a FUR you would use F6 and if it were unused you would use F5. AN image of Selena Gomez being claimed as fair use would fail WP:NFCC#1 and most likely should be tagged as F7, but if it were a press or photo agency it should first go to F9. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this as much of a problem as people are making out? CSDs are supposed to be bright-line criteria, and considering whether a fair-use claim on a news image is made out properly is anything but bright-line.
The criterion F9 as I see it at the moment follows the following decision tree:
  1. Is the image copyrighted? If no, stop. If yes, go to 2.
  2. Is there a fair use tag? If yes, stop. If no, go to 3.
  3. Is there a free license tag? If no, delete. If yes, go to 4.
  4. Is the free license claim credible? If no, delete. If yes, keep (or optionally tag {{puf}}, {{subst:npd}}, etc.)
And the way I understand the above discussion is that people are seeking to replace step 2 by branching off to consider whether the image is from a press source/photo agency and whether using it even under fair use would be inappropriate (per NFCC#2 or what-not). That is not an appropriate matter for speedy deletion — it fails the objectivity and frequency requirements for CSDs, and arguably the uncontestability requirement as well. Ergo, it needs to go to a different venue. Possible options are {{subst:dfu|This image fails NFCC#2 as it competes with the market role for the image}}, WP:NFR, and WP:FFD.
TLDR version: The requirements for CSD:F9 are complicated enough, and further complication is not the way to improve that. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not fully correct, and *that* is why this needs to be fixed. The current "Step 2" is misworded. The way "step 2" should be worded in reverse of what it is now - that brings it back into line with policy. Again, existing policy on fair use images sates Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Note the key words: "invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement" and "removed on sight." This translated in G12 as "The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers" Along the way this was moved to I9/F9 and was "clarified" to read how it reads now and can lead some to feel it means - "Is there a fair use tag? If yes, stop" But that is not at all what it meant, or means. It means 1> Is the image copyrighted? If no, stop. If yes, go to 2. 2> Is the file from a press or photo agency? If no go to 3. If yes go to (is not clarified) 3> Is the file being used under a *valid* claim of fair use? If yes, stop. If no than see F5, F6 or F7. Notice the part that I said "is not clarified"? That is the other part of this - that wording needs to be brought back into line with policy. That is what the core of this thread is about. That could be done via some of the suggestions already made. (i.e - images of this type "must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)" and if such an image is claimed via fair use it is "an invalid claim of fair use" and therefor "constitutes copyright infringement." Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason why Stifle is right is because rules need to be simple. We don't need a CSD for every eventuality.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
But Stifle is not right in terms of what "step 2" is. The wording that was removed was done to keep it simple, but it not only became too "simple", it is being misread. I can only speak for myself with what I meant with this thread - but it *is* simple. Image policy states that "invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement" and such files can be deleted on sight. To bring it in line with practice just clarify that press and photo agency images (files) "must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)" Simple. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as simple at all; it strikes me as nuanced and requiring judgment.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
To be clear what you are saying - you are saying that the original CSD wording of: The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers was *not* simple or clear and that it was made more clear by removing most of that wording to "simply" read "This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" *and* placing it directly *after* the wording This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't say any of that. What I said was that the matter strikes me as nuanced and needs judgment.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, see what happens when you make "simple" comments like "rules need to be simple" and follow that with "It doesn't strike me as simple at all; it strikes me as nuanced and requiring judgment." So lets backtrack - "rules need to be simple" you said. So, do you think that that the original CSD wording of: The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers was *not* simple or clear and that it was made more clear by removing most of that wording to "simply" read "This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" *and* placing it directly *after* the wording This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.? Or do you feel that *both* the original wording and the current version are too complicated, thusly "nuanced and needs judgment"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The latter. In other words, I don't see a version of CSD F9 in the history that I find simple and clear enough. These are rules that are supposed to be read, understood and reliably and consistently implemented by our admin corps—a body of people who are by and large acting in good faith, but include children and self-confessed drug users among their number.

I agree with you that we need ways to remove images that violate copyright quickly—and this includes images with inaccurate fair use tags. I also think Wikipedia's (lack of) provisions relating to use of Crown Copyright need clarifying. But I don't think the CSD page is the place to come up with a detailed and coherent policy. CSD must first and foremost be simple.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So is the solution to delete entirely the reference to press and photo agencies? --Bsherr (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
How about this:
"Files uploaded with an obviously false claim to be under free license. This does not include files used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include files with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. However, merely questionable claims instead should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files."
--Bsherr (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to capture Stifle's four-step process in a CSD? I'm not sure. If we think it is, then I'd suggest something like "copyrighted, non-free files used without the file-owner's permission, unless there is a plausible claim of fair use. Where fair use is in doubt, discuss it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files."—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Before I9/F9 it was all G12, and it was sort of akin to the NFCC in that it had to meet "all" the criteria. That was, perhaps, part of the problem. For example one of the criteria for deletion was "There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving" and that was followed with a note that "this parameter does not apply to images." Overall anything, including images, that was "copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia" made a good foundation for a copyvio. In particular "stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers" did not have license compatible with Wikipedia. To compare to what Stifle said the G12 criteria consisted of "steps". Another "step" was if an image did "not assert permission or fair use, or the assertion is questionable." The last "step" for images was if it was "public domain or was released under a free license", and that section had a clarifier that "many commercial image sources sell copies of free images." In using those steps/criteria it was, in my eyes anyway, a bit more clear that an image from a press or photo agency met the copyvio criteria. Breaking it down: Any image from Getty, AP, PA, Corbis, etc, as they are all "commercial content providers", placed the image into "step 1" being images "copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia". Using Stifles "Step" scenario, if 1 = "yes" move to: Unless the press/photo agency image was used in a tranformative nature a claim of fair use made "the assertion [is] questionable." If that "step" = "yes" than move to: If the image was used under a claim of fair use and was indeed a press/photo agency photo it was not "public domain or was released under a free license". So if all three steps for images were "yes" (or "no" depending on how you want to ask the question. ie. - "is the image free or in public domain?" "no") than such images could be deleted as a copyvio. But in the process of moving separate criteria into one some things got lost in translation, and when it was combined even more the entire implication of what "commercial content providers" were and why the actually fell under this criteria was mis-quoted/mis-used/mis-understood. To answer Bsherr's quesiton about the reference to press and photo agencies being removed, I would say no because that is one of the key points in several policies and guidelines. In order to understand what is "wrong" the other policies and old wordings of this have to bee looked at. I don't think the confusion really came into play fully until the separate criteria, or "steps", were combined into one criteria appearing to most as one thought. For those who do not want to go back up to the first post in this thread to recap: In the most simple reading of the current wording many only see two things - "Unambiguous copyright infringement" and "This does not include images used under a claim of fair use." Full stop. When the press and photo agency photo use is brought into the discussion the separate comments become combined to read/mean "*Every* image claimed under fair use is exempt from this criteria." That is a real issue because that is *not* what this criteria said, or is supposed to say. That is backed up by other policies and explicit "plain English" guidelines and examples.
In simple terms a blatant copyvio is anything that is clearly not the uploaders own work. Wikimedia Commons does not have this discussion because they flat out do not accept fair use material. Because Wikipedia does it adds more grey areas, but there has always been at least one distinct exemption to this. Press and photo agency images. For what I can see and read this exemption comes directly form the US Copyright law - Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107. As it applies to fair use it must be determined the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. On Wikipedia that translates into policy wordings such as Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal, Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. and examples which explain images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy), Unacceptable use - Images - 7. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. and Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image. Because this seems to be so confused, for lack of a better term, the more it is clarified I don't know how much more "clear" the wording could be other than to play to the absolute lowest common denominator and say - "Unless press and photo agency files are the subject of commentary use of such files constitutes copyright infringement and is not allowed per policy." And in doing that have links for nearly every word that goes to either policy, guidelines or examples. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of F9

OK we have the somewhat related and somewhat separate issue above of when it's OK to use agency photos. We all seem to generally agree it's OK to add it in when fair use is not claimed; it's utterly ridiculous that we can't speedy images like File:ViViD promotion picture for major debut single.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which are sadly quite common (for those of you w/o admin access after deleted: it's a promotional pictures much in line with ones like these).

So I'm going to propose a text below to get a general poll of how we feel about changing the text. Please understand, if we add this text, it does not necessarily mean we can't expand it above to Soundvision1's ideas (we may be open to compromise). We're simply looking for the most popular text at the moment. Feel free to add your own (Soundvision1, for example, might add one which says "... by the uploader to be fair use and is not used in critical commentary"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre's text (changes in red)

F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement.

Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use with an appropriate license. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images (text removed about fair use which no longer applies) with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
Support
  1. As nominator Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are only a half-dozen of us talking here, so maybe we can dispense with the formality? To the merits, I'm wondering what "fair use with an appropriate license" means. What license is needed for fair use? Also, this doesn't address the original concern about users confusing "such as" to mean "only", nor my request that we provide wikilinks to explanations of terms such as "stock photo libraries", perhaps in lieu of examples. --Bsherr (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it doesn't address some of those issues. I'm trying to take a piecemeal approach to it; it makes things easier. I've struck the appropriate license part; I was more worried about shenanigans like tagging an image cc-by-3.0 and also including a fair use, but this seems to be unlikely. I'm going to change the text right now, and we can move on.
Ok, fair enough. --Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Soundvision1 has made it clear consensus doesn't exist, despite every editor above being for it, including himself. So no Bsherr, we will need to go through the formalities because someone can't be arsed to do it the easy way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that. I'd like to hear from Soundvision1, of course, before it's decided that a consensus exists regardless of the opposition. Good faith and all, right? --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
First: despite every editor above being for it, including himself is not even close to being based in reality. Nobody but Magog "Voted" on those edits, and certainly, based on the edits they made, not even addressing the core issue raised at this thread. Also I am slightly confused with this comment: OK we have the somewhat related and somewhat separate issue above of when it's OK to use agency photos. We all seem to generally agree it's OK to add it in 'when fair use is not claimed' That is only partially accurate, and already the foundation of this criteria, because what has been in use at Wikipedia since almost day one is the fact that a press or photo agency image (commercial content providers) is almost *never* ok to use unless it is used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts or, when an OTRS or other "with permission" scenario has been obtained (See File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg as an example) This criteria is about copyvios, not fair use - so the only reason "fair use" came into play was that *with the exception of* press and photo agency images that are not being "used in a transformative nature" other images claimed as fair use do not use this criteria. I reverted the good faith edits because there was not any consensus here to make any sort of change yet. But beyond that the thread is about copvios in relation to what policy, and examples/guidelines state in regards to press and photo agency images and, in particular, the line This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis in relation to This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license.
I know this has been long so lets go way back up - G12 > I9/F9 is about copvios. The related image copyvio sections were moved into their own section and the "step" method was combined. Lets break it back down.
  • Unambiguous copyright infringement.
  • 1. Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. - this wording seems fine. The keys words here are "obviously not the case". Some examples would be an image that has a watermark saying "Corbis" across it that is being claimed as {{PD-self}}. Another example might be an image that has a source of "http://somebands.myscape.page" and is claimed as "self" {{cc-by}}. This leads into:
  • 2. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned - this is something that is part of the image use policy as well, not only for "free" material but also for non-free material. If there is no source than copyright and licensing can not be verified. (This also relates to the {{di-no source}} tag and why it exits - it does not *exclude* an image being a possible copyvio once a valid source is listed. It is just for an image that is not "blatant", or the newer wording of "Unambiguous") So this sentence/phrase also seems to be fine. Again - if an image has a source listed that is clearly not from an acceptable source, or there is no matching license on/at the source, than it back up what the CSD is about and the material not being under a valid "free" license is obviously not the case
  • 3. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. - This is were the problems started to come into play. One has to go back to read the original wording to understand what happened. It used be: Uploader does not assert permission or fair use, or the assertion is questionable (for images: no assertion aside from tags) That was one thought - one sentence. It also *very* important to note what came before that sentence: The material was copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia (for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers). Now see next:
  • 4. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. - The main root of the issue and the reason for this thread. This is all about removal of key words and reversal of position in the current wording. In the original any material that was, first, copied from another website that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia and for images that includes include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers. And than, next, was if the Uploader does not assert permission or fair use and, a key phrase left out of the current wording, or the assertion is questionable.
  • 5. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. - this is pretty much explaining what tags to use, although this is not really even needed anymore because both of those tags simply redirect to {{Db-f9}}.
Now - lets jump back to 3 and 4 and how these two separate sections were combined. When it was first done it started out ok - I9: Suspected copyright infringement. The uploader does not assert public domain, fair use, or a free license. Examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Part of what went missing was or other commercial content providers, this I think led to some editors believing that *only* "stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" were deletable as copvios, fair use or not. Also the "or the assertion is questionable" was left out of the wording. The good thing though it still was clear that "stock photo libraries" did "not have a license compatible with Wikipedia." It was "clarified" a bit more shortly after: I9:Blatant copyright infringement. The image was copied from a website or other source that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert that it is public domain, freely licensed, fair use, or used with permission. Sources that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. This was, more or less, the same but it added the "or used with permission" wording. After that there was further refining, but nothing too major, until the overall wording was "clarified", and this is where the wording was reversed and the meaning started to change, so it read: I9:Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. Than it was further "clarified" by changing Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. to This includes images stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis.
And that is how it had stayed. For the people who were/are familiar with out polices I think it may have still made sense, but for newer users and newer admin who read this only see two lines - "Unambiguous copyright infringement" and "This does not include images used under a claim of fair use." Or: anything with a FUR is exempt. Changing "Images" to "Obviously non-free images" and removing "images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case" to read "that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use" and removing "include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it" did not address what/why this thread was started at all. The changes Magog made on their own still read as "Unambiguous copyright infringement" are only for images "not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." Or: anything with a FUR is exempt. That is not true, and that is what this thread is about - to clarify that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Soundvisions1, is Magog's edit any worse as to your concerns than what's there presently? --Bsherr (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely you've still got the same problem with the english that this criterion has had for some time "This does not include bar. This includes foo " This language would normally mean that foo is a subset of bar ("this does not include dogs, even nice dogs"). In fact what is intended is that foo is anti-bar ("this category does not include animals that are not cats. This includes dogs"). It's no wonder people stop at 'blatant copyright.' Can we lose the dedication to historic language that bedevils a great deal of wikipedia policy I wonder, without going into noddy-speak?
Media that is obviously not free, and for which the uploader is not claiming or is not able to claim fair use. Most images from stock photo libraries and commercial content providers (eg. Getty Images, Associated Press and Corbis) are not free and may not be used under wikipedia's non-free content policy except in very specific circumstances. This category does not apply to images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Where the copyvio is beyond doubt, files should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Where there is doubt as to whether there is a copyright infringement, the file should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
Note, this isn't proposed as an alternative to Magog's suggestion, just as some thoughts for clearer wording. Associated Press isn't the only reason an image could fail our NFCC - a publicity shot of Bill Gates put out by Microsoft can't be used under fair use either, and should be deleted as a copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what to say at this point. We made it clear with the text that this isn't instead of his proposal, it's in addition too. Why Soundvision1 is pulling an all or nothing, I don't know. I suggest all of you place a !vote above so we can get the consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit longer for Soundvision1's reply to my inquiry above. --Bsherr (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Bsherr. Wording as it is: This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. Wording *after* the changes made by Magog: This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. So no, it does not do anything to clarify that issue. I did a line by line break down above in hopes it would be clear. The question I ask (now) is does anyone feel Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case being reworded to read Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use makes it more clear that press/photo agency files are *not* exempt from this policy? In Magog's wording where has anything changed to reflect/clarify that This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis, being used via fair use or not, means an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and/or not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media?
Here is a slight modification of what I had suggested way up top - this utilizes suggestions from, I think, most everyone and uses some of the older wording. It also includes links articles and, most importantly, to related policy and guidelines and wording the reflects existing policies. Changes in green, and the last section removed, as {{db-filecopyvio}} and {{db-imgcopyvio}} now redirect to {{Db-f9}}. A few things to keep in mind - as the actual "name" of this criteria has gone through changes and it now stands at "Unambiguous copyright infringement" (Verses "blatant" or "suspected"), which, if that were true, nobody would ever question this criteria. So part of this is to actually make it "Unambiguous." As it is directly related to the core issue of this thread - press and photo agency images, the September 22, 2008 Dispatches, when breaking down the Non-free content criteria - Wikipedia-wide criteria, says (Bold added for emphasis) Several non-free content criteria are universally applicable in that they involve considerations not directly pertaining to an image's use or position in a particular article. These criteria are generally self-explanatory and typically not open to interpretation or subject to disagreement. The first example is "2. Respect for commercial opportunities." and it is both "simple" and "unambiguous" when it says, of a press image, Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally have no desire at all to work with you and read your proposals if you're unwilling to work with me and take intermediate steps. I made it quite clear this wasn't a final text, Soundvision, but just a step. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd know that. And if you did read what I wrote, then I'm sorry but your everything or nothing at all attitude is only going to end in nothing at all. Compromise, baby steps. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Further section break

I don't think people disagree that press agency images used here as fair use should generally be deleted. However, there appears to be substantial disagreement as to whether they should be speedily deleted. This is because it is often unclear whether the image fails NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail here. Anything that fails NFCC under any criterion ought to be deleted. The question is whether we should speedy delete if there is a claim of fair use. Is this analogous to CSD:A7, where speedy can only be used if there is no claim of significance of any kind. Should we only be speedying instances where the uploader has said that he holds the copyright but he clearly doesn't - ie the editor has made a false claim. Anything with a proper source and a FUR should go to discussion, as it may be that the FUR can be improved and the image retained. This reflects how the category is largely being used - admins are confident in deleting stuff they can see was ripped off from another site, but unconfident about speedy deleting items with a proper source and a FUR.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Stifle: I tend to disagree about the speedy part as it is explicit in the policy, and "substantial disagreement" only comes into play because of the reverse wording in use only here. Do you have a different reading of the policy this criteria is based on? For fair use images Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight The "argument" many admins use when declining press/photo deletions is anything with a FUR is exempt as a copyvio. Never was true and still is not true, but when the image use policy is cited it seems to be ignored. Is there an issue with the policy wording that is explicit that a file/image "under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement" and thusly "be removed on sight"? Key words are "copyright infringement" and "removed on sight". And look at {{db-f5}}, {{db-f6}} and {{db-f7}} - all "speedy" criteria that apply to only fair use files. Look specifically at the first line in {{db-f7}} Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag may be deleted immediately. That reads a lot closer to policy than the copyvio wording being discussed now. But Elen pointed out a fact that I will expand on - even outside of copyvios many admins are "unconfident about speedy deleting items with a proper source and a FUR" even if they are blatant in how they fail policy. Could a press/photo agency file claimed a fair use be speedily using {{db-f7}}? Sure - because, unless the image was being used in a transformative nature, it would be using a "a clearly invalid fair-use tag" and, as such, "may be deleted immediately." But long standing policy places these sorts of images into the "Copyright violation" category and as such that is where they were put when G12 happened and when that became I9.
Ultimately however, as wording in {{db-f7}} is currently closer to policy perhaps the information about press/photo agency images just be added to that? In other words: Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot or a press/photo agency file not being used in a transformative manner, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts) may be deleted immediately.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:CSD is a policy and so is WP:F; neither takes priority over the other and they should be read in conjunction.
I don't disagree that a copyright infringement should be removed on sight, but I do disagree that the judgment of whether an image, the use of which has been claimed is fair use, is a copyright infringement can be determined by <random admin> on sight to a sufficient degree of certainty that its deletion without discussion or warning is justified. That's where {{subst:2=yes}}, or similar tagging, comes in. For the vast majority of images that are suspected of being NFCC#2 violations, there is no major harm in a week's delay to confirm that the tagger's thinking is correct. For the few that matter, we still have IAR.
TLDR version: we're agreed that copyvios should be deleted, but not agreed on whether a copyvio is obvious on sight to a random sysop. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Stifle said they should be read in conjunction. - That is basically what I have been saying. However this CSD is the only one that is out of sync in regards to fair use. Should copyvios be removed on site? You seem to agree they should. What you seem to disagree with are the other policies that indicate fair use material can be looked at as a copyvio and also speedied. That was the entire point of what I said at the very start, the wording of this CSD is out of sync with other polices and plain English explanations of those polices. Using your "step" process go back to G12 and see how it worked. It was simple math. I am not against that idea but it seems that a lot of meaning is lost when trying to make it simple. Even you stated "a copyright infringement should be removed on sight" - very simple and easy to grasp. It follows the overall policy at Wikpieda for both text and files. But here is the problem that I have seen time after time - as you and others have said said - a random admin can not determine a copyvio. That is part of the concept of why this criteria went from "suspected" to "blatant" to "unambiguous". As currently laid out in regards to press/photo agency images this criteria is *not* clear at all. Once again, if an admin (or any other editor) is only familiar with *this* policy they just reach out and remove/decline a copyvio because fair use images are never copyvios. But that is wrong. It is not a true statement based on the actual policy, it is based on a misreading of one CSD criteria. If one is familiar with what came first - Image Use policy, specifically the section on fair use - it becomes a bit more clear that an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement. Using basic math 1 + 1 = 2. Or 1 (= an image tagged as fair use that is "invalid") + 1 (= an images use is "copyright infringement") = 2 (= "may be deleted immediately"). However the first issue is that in order to do that math an admin, or other editor, needs to go beyond the miswording/misunderstandings of CSD F9 and actually read/understand the image use policy on fair use and also be familiar with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - also a policy. (As you did it above it with a link to WP:F, a redirect to Wikipedia:Non-free content - a guideline, it should be made clear that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is the policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content is a "guideline" based on the policy. Yes, it contains the policy but the fact it is marked at the top as only a "guideline" it too becomes an issue because when citing Wikipedia:Non-free content, in particular Unacceptable use - Images that fail, such as A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, because what gets thrown back is "That is just a guideline, there is no policy about that") If someone reads other polices and all of the plain English explanations it is clear under what limited conditions a press/photo agency image can be used. Using the "step" process - 1> Is the e image from a commercial content provider? If yes than 2> is it claimed as fair use? If no it can be "can be removed on sight". If yes than 3> is the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts? (Is the article where the image is being used like Burst of Joy or Faris Odeh?) If no than it "can be removed on sight". Is it not that clear cut because of any of the following: lack of source information? IF so that decline the F9 and tag with either {{di-no source}} for "free" images or {{db-f7}} for non-free. Is there a source but no FUR? If the source is a commercial content provider see "3" (is the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts? (Is the article where the image is being used like Burst of Joy or Faris Odeh?) If no than it "can be removed on sight"), if not than decline the F9 and tag with {{db-f6}}. Is the image *not* from a commercial content provider but taken from, in the example given by Elen, a company such as Microsoft and is of a living person? Repeat the steps - if it is non-free but is not an image from a commercial content provider than decline the F9 and, if the image itself is *not* the subject of commentary replace it with F7 as a "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag" and it can be "deleted immediately". I mean overall these are, to me, common sense steps - but one must know where to look for answers because, I do agree, CSD wording are not meant to be explained word for word. But they do need to be clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind summarizing that for us? Stifle (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure - RTFM! Hows that? :) Want it a bit more detailed? Read Image use Policy - Fair use, Policy on Fair use, {{Non-free historic image}} and Signpost - September 2008. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Soundvisions, while I can see the need to delete images with an invalid FUR, I can't see the need to do it faster for press agency photos than anyone else. Speedy categories must be unambiguous - copyright image uploaded under a false claim is unambiguous, copyright image correctly licensed but with no FUR is unambiguous. In both cases, it being a press agency photo doesn't warrant deleting it any faster. Correctly licensed, with a FUR, but with doubts over the validity of the FUR is not an unambiguous criterion, and adding double reflex negative sentences about images from commercial sources isn't making it less ambiguous. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Read Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What's more, we're never going to come up even with a halfway solution, let alone a further solution which I might have endorsed, because Soundvision is so intent on typing his monologues that he fails to grasp a middle ground. As such, even more obvious copyvios will be forced to remain on Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets leave it where it is. I have modified the English in F9 to clarify that what we are saying is that if it is a commercial source it will not have been released, so the licensing is going to be hinky. There is no need to say anything else - F9 is now clearly for copyright images that have phony licensing or that have no FUR. F7 is for images with FUR issues, and that already says "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added." That seems perfectly adequate to me - let's not make it even more complicated by mixing the categories up.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Since everyone else is invoking IAR so am I. Using Bshers suggested wording. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Soundvisions, I have reverted you. All I did was fixed the English so it still said the same thing as before only a bit clearer. There does not seem to be any support here to attempt to make F9 about images that have a FUR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Elen I have reverted you. There was not any real disussion, thus no consensus, to make *your* changes either. On the other hand all I did was take suggestions from more than one editor and clean it up so it reflects wordings found in actual polices elsewhere.
Lets recap a bit:
1. All "I" criteria became "F" criteria. It was suggested that "image" be replaced with "file" to be consistent.
2. {{db-filecopyvio}} and {{db-imgcopyvio}} both redirect to {{Db-f9}} so that section is outdated and uneeded.
3. Image use policy on Fair use states that an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and as such can be removed on sight.. Policy on Fair use sates that Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.. In simple, plain English, the Signpost - September 2008 explains Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image. This Speedy criteria is out of sync with reality in regards to that.
Elen - your own wording from above suggested that: "Media that is obviously not free, and for which the uploader is not claiming or is not able to claim fair use. Most images from stock photo libraries and commercial content providers (eg. Getty Images, Associated Press and Corbis) are not free and may not be used under wikipedia's non-free content policy except in very specific circumstances. This category does not apply to images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Where the copyvio is beyond doubt, files should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Where there is doubt as to whether there is a copyright infringement, the file should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files."
Compare that to Bshers wording: "Images and other media files claimed by the uploader to have a free license, but that obviously do not. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. Files from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion. Files from sources besides these, if used neither under a claim of fair use nor a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, if blatant infringement, are subject to speedy deletion, or, if not blatant, should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If subject to speedy deletion, use {{db-filecopyvio}} (or, for image files, {{db-imgcopyvio}})."
Compare those to the last suggestion I made taking into account all suggestions made, with lots of links to related material and using some wording form the original version the criteria: "Files that are claimed by the uploader to be available in the public domain, under fair use, or a Wikipedia compatible free license when this is obviously not the case. A URL, or other indication, of where the file originated is always specified. Files from commercial content providers may only be used with limited exceptions, using respect for commercial opportunities, where the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary, or they may be considered copyright violations and removed on sight. Examples of commercial content providers that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock and press photo libraries such as the Associated Press, Getty Images, Corbis and Press Association. Questionable copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files."
This is the version I used and you reverted - compare to all the above: "Files claimed by the uploader to have a free license, but that obviously do not. A URL or other indication of where the image originated is to be mentioned. Files from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations. Files from sources besides these, if used neither under a claim of fair use nor a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license, if blatant infringement, are subject to speedy deletion, or, if not blatant, should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files"
One of the very first suggestions I made, the most simple, was to leave it all alone and simply place the wording back in the correct order and add a word ("other") - which would be this: "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. This does not include other images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
Without looking into the past, and ignoring all the other related image polices, guidelines and plain English explanation that "simple" change might not make any sense. I have said a few times now what you said (Speedy categories must be unambiguous) - I said to Stifle above, "As currently laid out in regards to press/photo agency images this criteria is *not* clear at all." From what I can see the overall feeling on this thread is that "This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis." needs to be clarified, (you have said that as well a few times here and in the past) so the easiest way to to look at what I said up at the top of this all. Or as I jokingly said to Stifle when asked to "summarize" RTFM. The manual/s here being Image use Policy - Fair use, Policy on Fair use, {{Non-free historic image}} and Signpost - September 2008.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
NB, fair enough to revert my change also, and take it back to the version before that. Lets clear up first whether there is an appetite for a substantial change.

Should F9 be only about images for which fair use is not claimed

At the moment, F9 only applies to images which are obviously copyright, but for which a fair use is not claimed. It mentions that images from press agencies etc will be copyright, so any claim that they have been released pd is likely to be suspect. F7 applies to images with a defective fair use claim - this would include press agency images for which use fails to meet the stringent requirements of NFCC. Is there any merit in trying to include in F9 a provision for deletion of images from press agencies for which there is a faulty FUR? or is it better to keep F9 for images without claim of fair use, and F7 for images with a faulty FUR?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep the two separate. F7 already covers press agency photographs used without meeting NFCC requirements. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I once again propose the revision I suggested on October 26 (slightly revised here): "Files with an obviously false claim to be under free license. This does not include files used under a claim of fair use, or files with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Claims that are not obviously false but are questionable should be instead discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files." --Bsherr (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's nice clear language. We do tie ourselves in knots over language quite often. Waiting to see what Stifle and Magog feel. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Soundvisions1, I'm certainly not precluding adding the commercial opportunities provisions as a bullet to F7, but I agree with Elen thus far that F7 is the better place for them. What do you think? If there is indeed a significant volume of this type of infringement (and I'll rely on your opinion since I don't spend much time tagging images), I'd support making them immediately eligible for SD using a template for that purpose. (And thank you for the compliment of using my proposed text in your bold edit.)--Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And reading your comments above, I want to emphasize that I'm not looking to change the status quo, but rather, to better organize the criteria. --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I already suggested moving the wording to {{db-f7}} because the wording is actually a lot closer to the "source" policy wording. But I want to be clear that removing it from {{db-f9}} and *not* placing it, explicitly, into {{db-f7}} would be a mistake. So in regards to Elens and Bsherr's sugestions - we can't imply, in one policy, that "files used under a claim of fair use" are fully excluded as copyvio when other polices (and the law) do not say that. The bottom line is how to make this: "This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis" accurately reflect:

1. "an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement"
2. "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media."
3. "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."
4. "Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image"

I think the earlier suggestions made by both Elen and Bsherr were on the right path - "Files from photo and press agencies may only be used with limited exceptions, following respect for commercial opportunities, if the file itself is the subject of sourced commentary; otherwise, they are subject to speedy deletion" (Bsherr) and "Most images from stock photo libraries and commercial content providers (eg. Getty Images, Associated Press and Corbis) are not free and may not be used under wikipedia's non-free content policy except in very specific circumstances." (Elen). This mirrors comments from S Marshall ("I agree with you that we need ways to remove images that violate copyright quickly—and this includes images with inaccurate fair use tags.") and ScottyBerg ("I think that those are sound additions.") Moag seemed, at first, to be in favor overall but felt it was not clear that "There are valid fair use criteria for press photo agencies (mainly critical commentary of that photo)." Stifle seems to be the only one really on the fence as far as a speedy goes saying: "I don't think people disagree that press agency images used here as fair use should generally be deleted. However, there appears to be substantial disagreement as to whether they should be speedily deleted." Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Soundvisions, can you please stop writing unnecessary walls of text. Everyone knows the policy, you don't need to keep rehashing it every.single.time you want to post a comment. No-one asked for a summary of what you think everyone else is saying. All you were asked is should the notes about commercial images and NFCC come in F9 or F7. What is your opinion - in one sentence? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Follow the existing policy that predates F9 and F9 is about copyright violations, so "flagrant copyright violation" makes it F9 Soundvisions1 (talk)
Ah! Now I understand. You need to step outside Wikipedia for a minute here. Using a press association image under a claim of fair use is NOT a 'flagrant copyright violation' EVEN IF it does not meet all the requirements of WP:NFCC. In US law, it is probably OK if it is low res and obviously linked somehow to the article. Wikipedia has much higher standards, and in most cases it is only a violation of them. Ripping off an image from someone else and licensing as if you made it, or purporting to release it under a cc-by-sa IS a flagrant copyright violation and could get the Foundation sued.
I think that probably settles it: F9 should stay as it is, and F7 should be beefed up to specifically refer to the extra stringency on commercial images. At the same time, it doesn't matter in the real world if it takes us a few days to delete commercial images that don't meet our more stringent test, because they aren't 'flagrant copyright violations'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I was edit-conflicted out, but I was going to post this below Soundvisions1's short sentence:
I for one read and appreciated your larger comment, which I think is more nuansed than your summary sentence suggests. Right now, agency photos without a fair use rationale are F9, and those with a fair use rationale are F7. I think it is unnecessary to elaborate on agency photos in F9. Copyrighted files marked as free without fair use rationale are always wrong, no elaboration needed. In F7, that's where we can discuss whether the fair use rationale is valid, and elaboration about agency photos would be helpful. My question is, should the time frame be seven days, or is immediate deletion necessary and warranted?
I think Elen's subsequent suggestion that the seven days is fine is the right approach. --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've spent 40 days and 40 nights on this, I think we're near the end. Any objection to adopting my proposed revision above for F9, and then my text (which Soundvisions1 boldly added recently), as a bullet on F7, under a seven day hold for speedy? --Bsherr (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying hard to be short -
1. I don't think anyone, at anytime, has ever felt that "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." were not deletable as copyvios. Nor do I thing that wording is misleading at all.
2. The reason I have restated policy and guidelines over and over is because of this sort of misunderstanding: Elen said "Using a press association image under a claim of fair use is NOT a 'flagrant copyright violation." I, nor the policy, never said that they were - what I said is that step one was to clarify that "use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement" and that, in turn lead to another policy that aids to establish what a "an invalid claim of fair use" was. This was the "math" explanation I used up above. Without that foundation being understood you get what Elen said, which is not what is really being said in the policies.
3. Wikipedia has commercial content being used and I showed some above. If we footnote those as examples of *accepted* "transformative nature" use I think that would make it clear if the commercial content in question was being used "under an invalid claim of fair use" or not.
4. Past arguments about this type of image use the non-policy argument that fair use material can not be considered a copyright violation. Both real world law and WIkpeida policy disagree with that - How do the changes suggested fix that misunderstanding? I don't see how removing the "exception" so it implies, once again, that all material under a claim of fair use is exempt does that.
5. I still will ask, because it has never been fully answered, why can't images be treated as text in relation to copyvios? See {{Copyviocore}} for what I mean. In essence, for text, when there is a copyvio it is either deleted on sight, removed or blanked - a fair use argument, or even permission, has little or no bearing most of the time when discovered. For images claimed as fair use there are other means of deletion - I get that - but for material that comes from commercial content providers it seems to fall into this void. Yet all paths lead back to three key things: if it is not used in a "transformative nature" it is "an invalid claim of fair use" and "constitutes copyright infringement" What criteria covers copyright infringement? F9. That is why these types of images have been there since the start. (And, again, there was no policy on fair use at the start so it makes sense now that there is one - but, again, outside of F9, not for commercial content providers.)
Those are my key issues now, and have been. I can not give a one sentence reply either way until the wording proposed is laid out, beyond what has been suggested. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong by saying that any F7-able file is also a copyright violation. Isn't it true that invalid fair use claims are copyright violations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes and no. In the context of the wording F7 does not apply to copyvios. On the other hand it *does* apply to any file the fails one, or more, of the Non-free content criteria. In that sense it would fall back to Image use policy - Fair use images and be considered a copyvio provided it was truly an "an invalid claim of fair use" thsuly "constitutes copyright infringement." That is why I said that the wording in F7 is actually more in line with policy - except it does not include the "constitutes copyright infringement" wording the policy does. To me that is because F9 explicitly deal with file copyvios. What Stifle said earlier in this thread really needs to be considered because they agree that "press agency images used here as fair use should generally be deleted" but they do not feel they should be speedied because, if I read their opinion correctly, any one admin should not make that choice on their own in regards to "transformative nature" and "Respect for commercial opportunities." If that is true than the same point/concern applies to the first speedy "step" in F7 - how can one admin determine if the file has an "invalid fair-use tag" and thus be "deleted immediately"? I truly believe there is more than enough examples to establish what would be unacceptable. That is why I do agree that, lacking in line clarification, the footnote/s are a good method. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Been having a discussion with Soundvisions on my talkpage about this. Not necessarily - US law is laxer than Wikipedia NFCC It is (particularly with commercial images) possible to fail NFCC but still be acceptable fair use in US law.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Overall yes but in regards to anything taken from a commercial content provider, no - the same rules/considerations would apply. (Copyright law: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Wikipedia policy: "Respect for commercial opportunities.") Soundvisions1 (talk)
For clarity, as I refer to it throughout, "copyright violations" means WP:Copyright violations, not a copyright violation under any particular law of any nation. We're evaluating files using WP policy, not the law. So, given that, isn't a copyrighted file with no valid fair use rationale a (WP:)copyright violation? --Bsherr (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That is fine if you read it that way because, in the case of fair use claims, Wikipedia is far more stringent and explicit than US Copyright law is. Having said that is it also important to note that, because Wikipedia is located in the U.S, it "is bound to comply with United States copyright law". As such much of Wikipedia policies and guidelines follow U.S copyright laws and Using copyrighted work from others contains wording very close to U.S. Cpyright Office - Fair Use and Image Policy - Fair use says Some usage of copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder can qualify as fair use in the United States (but not in most other jurisdictions). Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, apologies to Soundvisions for the initial crabby comment. I was temporarily editing in WWIII in my house (kids, who'd have 'em), and there was no reason to spread the hostilities here. Please accept my apology. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Tis ok. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I don't deserve it.

So F7 currently says F7. Invalid fair-use claim. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately. Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image. Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

How about if we add

  • Non free images from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty) that do not meet the very strict requirements of WP:NFCC should be speedily deleted. Commercial images must not be used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP) may not be used unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.

Would that do it Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

F9 and F7 proposals

Just for clarity I added a separate section for the two proposals - one for F9 and one for F7. I don't want to restate everything again so for those who may not know the "why" please read the thread. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

F9 - Proposed

F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement.

  • Files that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the file originated should be mentioned. This does not include most files used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include files with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia compatible free license. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
Magog feels we need two components to this, files with a hinky claim to be free, and obviously unfree files that don't have a FUR. How about
  • Files that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the file originated should be mentioned. This does not include most files used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include files with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia compatible free license.
  • Files that are correctly licensed and tagged as copyright, but for which no Fair use rationale is provided.

Does that plug your gap? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied below as well - I disagree that more wording needs to be added. Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case already implies that "images with free licenses" most likely do not include "a fair use tag." If it was not under a "free" license it would make it "non-free" and that is covered in the text that says This does not include most files used under a claim of fair use.... I will further expand by saying that, unless the image is released into PD, it is still under copyright. Just to be clear "free" =/= "no copyright." "Free" for Wikipedia means "under a Wikipedia compatible free license" And that is covered in this wording: ...files with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia compatible free license. So if a license is using {{cc-by}}, or a variation, it is still under copyright and does not need a FUR. On the other hand if it is tagged as {{cc-nc}}, or something similar, it would already be tagged upon upload with {{db-f3}}. (and if it had no license it would be tagged with {{Di-no license}}, and if it was a non-free file, and was marked as such, it is already "exempt" from F9 - but if "copyright - no fur" means "non-free - no fur" than that is what {{Di-no fair use rationale}} is for) Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Sv1, the traditional implementation of late of F9 has been that it has to assert free use. Or at least that's what User:Fastily taught me in my admin training, so it seems it's been a fairly common understanding. Thus I've clarified the wording. If we are successful in changing F7, we can add a note that F9 doesn't invalidate F7.
In any case, would anyone have a problem with me adding the following sentence onto F9?
Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{db-filecopyvio}} template (or, for image files, the {{db-imgcopyvio}} template). Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. Editors are encouraged to retag files which fit within valid fair use policy (e.g., sports team logos without a license) rather than tag for deletion.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually think that's a good idea. Retagging is relatively easy, and we should try to save content uploaded in good faith. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you give a reason or alternative suggestion? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Soundvisions, you've gone from the sublime to the ridiculous (this statement is meant to be amusing, not a dig). Oppose what? Why? Who with? And how many times? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought everyone was against me being too wordy. "Oppose" seemed to sum it up in one word. Well - lets see I have *always* been against the unwritten philosophy that, to prevent an image from being deleted, all that it needs is a non free tag and a FUR. A copyvio is a copyvio and Wikipedia should not host copyvios. Several years ago there was an orphaned logo that a user uploaded a "self". I made a nom for deletion and an admin removed the deletion tag and "fixed" it by replacing the self tag and a logo tag. The unused logo hung around for another year or so before being deleted as a unused, non free file without a FUR. Thankfully though no policy actually says to explicitly take a copyvio and "fix" it with a non-free tag and a FUR, but it is now being suggested to actually place an instruction into policy. I oppose. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

F7 proposed

(This is only an *addition* to the "steps" / bullet points, nothing is being removed)

Option - 1. include footnotes for more details such as "subject of sourced commentary" has 1 and the footnote might say "For examples of acceptable sourced commentary (transformative use) of a commercial content providers image see Burst of Joy and Faris Odeh."

Option - 2. Cut the text down and only link to related information via footnotes and not inline links. The full reading would be: "Files from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty) where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary1 are considered an invalid claim of fair use2 and failing the strict requirements of WP:NFCC3

1. Use of commercial content is to be used only when in a tranformative nature.
2. Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.
3. An example from Unacceptable use - Images says A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. See also Burst of Joy and Faris Odeh for acceptable transformative use of commercial images.

An so now we enter a new chapter in the discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't make the text too long. People don't read long texts with lots of footnotes. Wikilinks are OK. If you pick the bones of that text, it currently says "Files....are considered an invalid claim" which is caused by packing too much into one sentence. How about
    • Files from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty) must be the subject of sourced commentary in the article to which the fair use rationale relates. This is a strict requirements of WP:NFCC, and failure to comply makes the claim of fair use invalid. If a file from a commercial source fails this test, it may be deleted on sight.
That is all you need to say, and in fact I'd avoid some of what you want to say, because it doesn't say what you think it says. "Transformative" does not refer in any way to "subject of sourced commentary" either in that Signpost article or anywhere else. "Transformative" means "Transformation of "non-free" content into "free" content: " (quote from article). Examples would be producing a new drawing of a text based logo, looking at a photograph then producing an artwork that depicts the same object or event in a new way, or creating a text description to replace the image.
"Subject of sourced commentary" on the other hand means that the article must talk about the image. So you cannot illustrate an article on Weegee just by sticking in a pile of his photographs, because they are all held by a commercial source. What you can do, is add an image with commentary eg "Weegee was first on the scene at the death of Senator Foo in an automobile accident. In his picture, you can clearly see the brassiere of the showgirl on the passenger seat, something that does not appear in the official police photos (source: Scurrilous, M: The downfall of Foo)." It's a double check, to ensure that the editor has demonstrated the necessity of using that particular image in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Elen:
1. RE: I'd avoid some of what you want to say, because it doesn't say what you think it says....[SNIP]...or anywhere else. Please read {{Non-free historic image}}. The wording here is, in part, based on that simple wording - so if you disagree with it here you need to bring it up at Template talk:Non-free historic image. (Which has an *very* relative discussion from 2008 called Misleading wording on template doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #2) FWIW - my reading, in regards to the narrow scope of files being discussed, has always been that when an image is the subject of an article it has been "transformed" because the image is a subject that is notable - or you might say the image itself meets the GNG. Another way to look at this, maybe, is as an article - would an article about, say, (Not a fair use image nor one from a press or photo agency - just a random example) File:AMB00054.JPG survive in mainspace? Would the image itself be used *in* that article as the *subject* of the article and not simply to illustrate a flower? If not than there is a good chance it would fail the policies being discussed. That is why I firmly believe that saying press-photo agency/commercial content providers files "must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)" hits the nail squarely on the head.
2. I tried to shorten the text you has proposed. Too short and we run the risk of having the same issue that caused all of this.
3. I am not clear in what your reply is saying/explaing if you saw that if one follows the hyperlinks it aids to explain what is not/may not be explicitly said. When "subject of sourced commentary" is clicked it goes to a list of examples of "Non Free content - Unacceptable use". "Multimedia", for example, says "Excessive quantities" of audio clips would not be ok but a smaller amount may be if it "is accompanied by commentary in the accompanying text." A "short video excerpt" would not be allowed *unless* it had "sourced commentary in the accompanying text." And "images" has a key example for this discussion "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." So I don't disagree with what you say but it is worded as if you may think I think it means something other than what it does mean
4 If Bsherr's footnote idea is determined to be a bad idea than the hyperlinks should be included.
5. I think the wording needs to be in line with other deletion criteria - as in more of a "not" than a "how to" if that makes sense. See G12, A1, F4, F5 - they all explain what the criteria is for. I don't think I am saying this correct. There is a difference between saying Files from a commercial source must be the subject of sourced commentary in the article to which the fair use rationale relates... and Files from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty) where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary are considered an invalid claim of fair use... Did that make sense? Even the first "step"/bullet point in F7 - Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag... (Incidentally - if we are updating "images" > "file" shouldn't all "images or media" be changed to "file"?) Personally I like the shortest version: Files from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC. And because the policy states "removed on sight" I am not against adding that or "deleted on sight" to the end. It is short, explicit, and to the point. However it seriously runs the risk of not being understood by people who are not familiar with other polices and guidelines that back it up - in which case we simply add hyperlinks to everything ("invalid claim of fair use" to the signpost, "removed on sight/deleted on sight" to the image use policy) . I also think that, in your suggestion, "in the article to which the fair use rationale relates" is not needed because wording already says that (via "subject of sourced commentary" provided the hyperlink is kept in)
Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I do not and will not support any change until we can get agreement to change F9 to include any image without a fair use tag. No sense closing one hole while leaving another wide open. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
See above. Copyright, no FUR seems a good fit with Copyright, no license Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog - just to be clear in all of this - "any image without a fair use tag" is already included. "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case" implies that "images with free licenses" most likely do not include "a fair use tag." Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Then you'll have no problem with me clarifying the wording - great! I've made the update. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, do you have any objections to me altering the 'this includes...this does not include...' section, purely to clarify the sense in English as discussed earlier in this thread? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What about the F7 text (I've just added it in on the project page).Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I worry about how complicated it is; to the extent it might even require its own speedy deletion criterion (F12), because it will confuse the bejesus out of the admins. As for this whole "transformative" issue, I'm not even sure I follow it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Soundvisions, I'm not being rude here, but you are persisting in this use of the word 'transformative' without the slightest understanding of what it means. It means 'changing one thing into another thing', it does not mean 'making something the subject of sourced commentary'. <text removed> However, the rest of your comments are very sound, and I think we would be able to agree wording based on them. I would much prefer hyperlinks to footnotes, as the longer and more complex you make it, the less likely anyone is to use it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
See what you think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Elen, I'm not being rude either but but you are persisting in this use of the word 'transformative' without the slightest understanding of what it means needs to also be addressed. Did you not understand what I said? Lets try again - If you if you disagree with the wording you need to bring it up at Template talk:Non-free historic image. I just had a look there and saw nothing, so it appears you would rather make snarky comments to me here rather than address the actual wording's source. If you honestly believe what you say than clearly in your eyes Wikipedia has misused the word. And you really need to educate those morons at Standford law school who dare insinuate US Copyright laws "The purpose and character of your use" wording in regards to fair use could also be called "The Transformative Factor." And the absolute nerve they continue in plain English by asking: "Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?" And than are persisting in this use of the word 'transformative' without the slightest understanding of what it means state that fair use "Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary."Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors. Bitey? Yes. No more than you comments. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I now understand that US law has created a specific definition of transformation. However, the example it gives suggests that w-a-a-a-y more than "sourced commentary" is required to meet the transformative test, because it really is talking about changing a thing into another thing. Have you got anywhere the case that spawned the definition (because it sounds like it started life as a judge's opinion in a case).Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I know - you will hate me but the wording *is* as you just suggested: "explain that 'transformative' includes 'making a comment about'" = "images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts..." Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to the edited reply by Elen - Quickly I can only say Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. vs. Passport Video contained various summaries including More importantly for the first fair-use factor, however, is the "transformative" nature of the new work and explains/defines as "asking" whether the new work...merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message. As it would relate to the types of image being discussed that would mean what I tried to explain - Under most all circumstance one needs to pay for a license to use a file from a commercial content provider. Wikipedia only allows it when that file is the subject of an article, or the single file has been "transformed" in a sense. Stanfords plain wording is "because the work is the subject of review or commentary", Wikipedia's wording (Which I had nothing to so with FYI) is "when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts", the judges words are adds something new, with a further purpose or different character. For a perfect example of this concept in use at Wikipedia see Faris Odeh - the image being used was taken of a boy throwing stones at a tank. After the boys death that image was, itself, "transformed" without actually changing the image (Which is how you, Elen, would define it - remaking the image, or creating derivative work. to change the outward form or appearance of ) The image could not be used to simply illustrate a boy throwing rocks at a tank, or to illustrate the definition of "protest", or to illustrate a tank - but it *can* be used to illustrate how the image subsequently assumed iconic status within the Palestinian territories as symbols of resistance to the area's occupation by Israel. Does the make it more clear? Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree that the use of the image in that article is in any way transformative. It is the subject of sourced commentary, and it illustrates (to my mind) the difference between the two. What the article provides is a set of sources confirming that the picture in the article and other pictures of stone throwers (check the lede source) were widely distributed as a rallying point among Palestinians and their supporters, and that the picture generated some commentary and hand-wringing in the West. The transformation (as you correctly point out above) was the Palestinians use of the image as propaganda, and the West's use of the image as illustrative of 'how badly things have gone wrong' (or similar). One is hard pressed to describe mere cataloguing of these instances as 'transformative'. Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that Wikipedia's Original research policy precludes us ever "creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" (to quote from Stanford).
In any case, I am now of the opinion that the issue of transformation is way to complex, and too much of a judgement call, to form a speedy delete criterion. I think (as I was originally told by someone who was around when the NFCC policy was drawn up) that the purpose of the sourced commentary is primarily to show that it meets US copyright Act s107(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Particularly, the use of sourced commentary helps us to show that the non-free material is essential for Wikipedia's stated nonprofit educational purposes. Therefore, while I am happy with the text as it stands (if the image is not referred to in the article by sourced text, then it goes, because there's no way you can show it is essential), I would resist any inclusion of the concept of 'transformation' in the speedy category, as it is simply too complex, and would always require a discussion (and in my opinion would seldom be met). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1. Thinking of using a file from a commercial content provider?
2. If yes look at this. <=== use one of the examples I gave.
3. Is the photo in 1 the subject of it's own article like 2 is?
4. If no than it not only fails NFCC but the image use policy.
5. But why?
6. Wikipedia is not showing "respect for commercial opportunities" first of all. That directly mirrors U.S Copyright law.
7. It may also fail other criteria if one really needed, or felt the need to, look further - image of a living person? Placement?
8. Bottom line - 1+1 = 2 (or, per the above numbers, 3 + 4 = speedy. Or, using existing Wikipedia wording, "images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" + "Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal." = "Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight")
9. "creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" (to quote from Stanford) is exactly what Wikipedia is doing with the images found in The Falling Man, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Burst of Joy and Faris Odeh. I would say because the articles contain information *about* the images content they for sure are "creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings" for the reader. I am kind of surprised you don't see that. It seems most everyone agrees upon material such as this could only be used if it fits this: Transformative uses may include criticizing the quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses. (CAMPBELL, AKA SKYYWALKER, ET AL. V. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC 510 U.S. 569)

The wrong argument, and I have seen this argument in discussions, is that Wikipedia is non-profit/free so therefore any content, from anywhere, meets NFCC 2 because it is used "for nonprofit educational purposes." or "Wikipedia is free, there is no money to view the article/image". That is a bad argument, especially for material used from commercial content providers. Here is one lawyers plain English walk through: Copyright Law Explained. There is also a good little article from Law Library Resource Xchange - Bloggers Beware: Debunking Nine Copyright Myths of the Online World.

Here is a very good "checklist" in mostly plain English: Checklist for Fair Use.pdf Take special note of number 4. What is the EFFECT on the market or potential market if this item is used? and the "OPPOSES FAIR USE" checklist. Most all press/photo agency material fit those 7 items. In most every case Wikipedia, or the users, do *not* meet any of the "FAVORS FAIR USE" checklist in that section when it comes to content form commercial content providers.

As I said way up there somewhere we can always say the most simple, basic thing - "Unless press and photo agency files are the subject of commentary use of such files constitutes copyright infringement and is not allowed per policy." Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I like a nice checklist. I also agree that probably very little usage of commercial photography on Widipedia is valid fair use. Does {{subst:dfu}} adequately cover those issues where there is some sourced commentary but there is still doubt as to whether it is fair use (the whole commercial/iconic/transformative thing), or does it want a template specifically for commercial images? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

T3 needs amendment

A7 standards

A question has come up with regards to what qualifies as the required "credible claim of significance", specifically in the case of author Aletrishe Nietrà. There was a proposal a while ago for clarifying what actually was a claim of significance, but are there any current written or unwritten standards which reduce the arbitrariness of A7? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing official afaik but I collected a number of examples at WP:A7M which seem to reflect the standard a number of admins use for such articles. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A little levity

Here's an article that I tagged for speedy today: No one reacts like the Militray Bases(Except Wright-Paterson Air Force).I miss being able to call them.When i try to phone anyone--I Vomit.--I do not get Hospital sick,I just Vomit Once,So i know this a War Criminal attack on my life,and the Children. This is the title of the article, not the text. Enjoy. — Timneu22 · talk 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should call my band that so we can bluelink it if we ever become notable. It's either that or "Main Page". :> ~ mazca talk 18:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I am genuinely surprised no one thought about the latter until now. I mean, what great publicity would it be if all visitors to Wikipedia saw this:
This is the Main Page of the English Wikipedia. For the band, see Main Page (band).
Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth www.MainPageBand.com seems to be available! — Timneu22 · talk 23:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Gaah, WP:BEANS! :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As long as we've got a humor section going, today I came across Once you jump a fence, an ocean is no problem" (with the end quotations). It's apparently a saying at a high school somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Existing criteria

Is there a criteria for deletion which would cover an article being biased or non objective as a reason for being suitible for speedy deletion? And If not maybe that's not a bad idea to have one because especially if for instance you have an editor trying to prevent sources or text being added if it conflicts with their ideals for the page and they refuse to discuss it properly. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No way no day. The criteria are deliberately narrow in their scope. What you are proposing would be wildly open to interpretation and is not a valid reason to delete anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CSD#G11 addresses this: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Fences&Windows 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Only for pages that violate WP:ADVERT, though. --Bsherr (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 20th, with 12049 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes?" What the hell are you smoking, dude? No wonder that page is nominated for deletion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody please help

Somebody please delete this page immediately. I added it, then realized there was another Dan Callahan. Thinking that people might get confused, I blanked the page. I`m new to Wikipedia, so I do not know how to delete pages. The page is called Dan Callahan. MetaCow (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to post here. If you created a page by mistake, just add {{db-author}} to it. Another admin seems to have taken care of it now. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"survived a prior deletion discussion" RfC

I've moved this to User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC so we can have both a collaboration page and a talk page. This will be returned to this page once we're finished. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More levity

Sorry, this was just too funny; "Soldiers of Revenge is a next-generation boy band from the USA. They are currently searching for a powerful lead vocalist who can sing, scream, rap, and play a simple bass guitar (it's not hard). The are also searching for a secondary lead guitarist/rhythm guitarist and a DJ/keyboardist. They are currently in the making of a self-titled album, to be released sometime around 2016." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Classic garage stuff there. Well done! — Timneu22 · talk 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I can trump that. This was deleted last year: "The Sound Of Perseverance is an uncreated Progressive Metal band from Monroe, Louisiana. They hope to find members and write songs in the future, but the actual formation of the band could be unsuccessful.(the name may change in time as well.)" JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Lol! Really one of the few times I've actually larft out loud while working on WP :) Thanks for that John.--Kudpung (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And that's why it's used in WP:GARAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice: deletion summary conversation

I've opened a discussion about deletion summaries at the deletion policy talk page. All interested people are invited to weigh in there. Please, let's not fracture the conversation by doing it both places. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is G5 a "must"?

This is not in response to any incident in particular, but I would like some thoughts on when to apply G5 (creation by a banned/block user in violation of his/her ban). In my opinion, if a sock of a banned user is making solid articles, there's no reason to destroy perfectly valid content (not a copyvio, etc.) for the sake of following CSD "rules". The content would have been licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and thus acceptable if it were to have been written by ... any other other person. I think the point of G5 is to let admins easily get rid of new crap introduced by banned users, and I know that this has been discussed before, but I'd like to introduce some clarification into the CSD policy for G5. Now, some might argue that "banned means we don't want you here anymore", but there are cases such as a sock puppet creating pages when the main account is blocked, and then the main account is unblocked later—should the page be deleted still? etc. I'd like to hear if any such clarification is desired by the community, and how to word it, so comments are, as always, requested :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well my opinion is that it is not compulsory at all. If any other editor at all wants to keep the article then they can reject the speedy delete, or the admin can decline to delete it if they think it is a benefit to the encyclopedia. Our point here is to make an encyclopedia, and not to inflict maximum punishment on socks or troublesome users. Speedy delete is for non controversial deleting so if G5 is controversial for an article, it should not be applied. The focus should be on the ban and to stop the behaviour or clean up the mess related to the negative aspects that led to the ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, but I'm trying to figure out how best to clarify this in the policy (if even necessary), as I have seen (not recently) people claim that we can't allow banned users to edit no matter how good their edits are. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be me, and I stick by it. I discuss further below, but in short, everything created by blocked and banned editors needs to be deleted without regard for quality.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My feeling has always been the criteria is meant to be used when a banned/blocked user is recreating a deleted article in a manner that defeats the ban/block. (i.e - a sockpuppet account or an I.P) I never really thought in violation of their ban or block meant anything else. However the deeper issue might be how does one know the article is being (re)created by a banned/blocked user? If that is the underlying issue that maybe it does need clarification, although I agree with what Graeme said above: Speedy delete is for non controversial deleting so if G5 is controversial for an article, it should not be applied. For one extreme example take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 31 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Guitaro99. G5 clearly did not apply for over a year, but once the depth of it was uncovered and actions taken, G5 clearly applied, and I don't think the criteria would need any sort of further clarification if it happened again. As I said, an extreme example, but by the time that had all played out "perfectly valid content" was not really an issue, it was more of the "context" of who was behind it. Also G5 isn't, at the moment, specific to recreations, it is the more general "creations". In that sense G5 might not be the only criteria that could be used, however I feel the context is the "banned or blocked user(s)" wording. Are G1, G2, G3 and/or G4 more of an issue if it is also a G5? If context is the material was created "by (a) banned or blocked user(s)", than yes. Similarly, for example, A1, A7 and A9 are all subject to an admins reading of the articles presentation but a G5 on the same article would place it into another light all together. And for the wider question: I don't believe it isn't that "we can't allow banned users to edit", but, rather, what the user was banned for and, if banned, they should not be editing. In that context "we can't allow banned users to edit", or more correct - while banned a user cannot edit. (And if a user is not currently under a ban there would be no need to invoke G5 as they would not be "in violation of their ban or block.") Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a broader view of the criterion than Soundvisions does: I see it as a way of enforcing the ban/block and getting rid of anything written by a banned/blocked user. I would be open to deleting a page tagged for G5, no matter how original it was, if the creator were proven to be a banned/blocked user. However, I agree with the original poster and everyone else on one thing: it's not compulsory. How will deleting those solid articles and destroying perfectly valid content really improve the encyclopedia? While all pages created by banned or blocked users are subject to this criterion, I'd apply WP:IAR and decline speedies for solid articles with no problems other than G5 eligibility. Of course, the creating account should be blocked as soon as possible if it's not already been done, but that doesn't mean that the contributions must be excised 100%. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something in what you said but you seem to have a more narrow view than I do. While I feel that if someone is blocked and/or banned they should not be able to edit anything while they are blocked/banned you seem to be saying you would invoke WP:IAR and decline a G5 for "solid articles with no problems other than G5 eligibility." The core polices that G5 are based on explicitly say the opposite: Wikipedia:Banning policy (The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good - Bans apply to all editing, good or bad) and Wikipedia:Blocking policy (Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question. Bans which revoke editing privileges to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not "partial" — may be backed up by a block, which is usually set to apply for the period which the ban itself applies. - Blocking policy - Enforcing Bans). I don't see that G5 is meant to amend them in any way, only aid in enforcing them at an article level. However if it turns out the overall consensus is a block or ban should only apply to poorly written articles than clearly this criteria needs to be clarified (and the core policies will need to be reworded as well) because as currently written the words "in violation of their ban or block" imply that any user who is banned or blocked can not edit - period. Doing so it would place them in a clear violation of the guiding policies, no matter how "solid" or "valid" the article might be. (And before somebody brings it up - yes there is a clear difference between a topic/subject ban and an overall Wikipedia ban but one would hope the admin will look at the content *and* the context before enforcing or declining a G5 to make sure it is used in the correct context of the users block/ban.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on the reason for the block/ban. There are people who can be very uncivil but write darned good stuff or do good housekeeping. On the other hand there are those who have been blocked for repeated DE, vandalism, CCI, and socking. There's no excuse for systematic socking and CCI of the kind that is used to fake consensus or FA or DYK. We have a couple of major issues at the moment, for example, where one sockmistress really thought we hadn't noticed all her 11 accounts, and had written dozens of articles and made hundreds of edits, every one a blatant plagiarism, and blithely continued. And see also Singing daisies where incredibly, the sockmaster has been allowed to roam free! The best thing to do there, IMHO, is to delete the lot, and anything else s/he writes from those IPs in future. Stuff from known socks is always suspect. The time spent trying to unravel all that would be better spent on going forwards, making new content in new(er) articles, and policing the new crap that comes in every five seconds. Just my two cents :) --Kudpung (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely everything created by a blocked or banned user should be deleted. The purpose is to make it fruitless for the editor to continue editing, and make him eventually leave. The level to which people tolerate socking frustrates me ... if all of us would be diligent in undoing and removing the edits made by socks, the problem would be greatly reduced. It's the fact that a sock's edits have a chance of sticking that encourages people to sock around blocks in the first place. Examining the edits, as Fetchcommms and Nyttend suggest, is extremely counterproductive: it encourages the socks to stay. I think of G5 as absolutely mandatory: if it was created as a result of block evasion, it has to go, even if the block evader managed to produce an FA quality article all on his own.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that there is no way for a persons viewing an edit history of an article to know if an account is a sockpuppet, no matter how blatant, if they haven't been following sockpuppet conversations. Perhaps there is a way to automatically note an account as sockpuppets in edit histories so reverting all their edits is even possible. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, our goal is to create a good encyclopedia, no to punish people. If a guy was banned for spamming, delete their spam, but never a good article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • G5 is a way to bypass WP:AGF when dealing with a banned user, given that the ban violation has to be regarded by itself as an act of bad faith. However, any contribution that is unquestionably constructive is to be kept. There's no point in deleting a contribution just to see someone else reinsert it shortly thereafter. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • (ec)Although CorenBot does a good job, nothing beats gnoming around a lot and opening a tin of worms by coincidence from recognising editors' styles. The problem right now is what to do with the thousands of edits and the perpetrators where it is being discussed that WP:COPYVIO's If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. is not being implemented harshly enough.Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • 100% disagree, Blanchardb. Everything created by banned or blocked users should be deleted, no matter how constructive. The point is to drive the banned user away, and that is important. It's critical. The reason we are awash in socks is because of admins that try to treat them like editors. Don't do that. Delete, revert, block. Religiously and thoroughly. Eventually they will go away, even if it takes time and effort. If people won't process a G5, they should ignore it, not undo it and subvert the process by enabling socks.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Interesting point, but if their work is non-copyvio, etc. and has been released under the cc-by-sa 3.0, why shouldn't we use it? (Even if another user posts it, as in the Ottava Rima text donation controversy a few months back?) If a banned user posted some original text on a blog, maybe, under the cc-by-sa 3.0, and someone saw it and added it into the article, but didn't know that the blogger was a banned user, would we delete it, even if it had been in the article for a year, or would compromise the article's quality, or something similar? I agree that we should not tolerate socking, but what if a user had been banned for something totally unrelated to their article writing? If a user who wrote 10 FAs was indef'd for making racist attacks, for example, but they then submitted text through another user that later became an FA, would we still delete it even though their block was not related to the writing at all? I agree that in cases like users who violate copyright often, we'll need to assume much of their writing is not OK and can be removed, but what about other cases? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
          • We shouldn't use it because we want the editor to go away. That's the purpose of banning. We want them gone. Not kind of gone, or approximately gone, but gone. Using any of their material for any purpose encourages them to evade blocks again and contribute again. If you think an editor should have been topic banned instead of banned, that's fine: take it to Arbcom or ANI and make your case. But if they are contributing in violation of that ban, the contribution needs to be eradicated.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Fetchcomms, it should be noted that porting text to this project from anywhere else requires that strict rules of attribution be followed; in at least one case that I am aware of, the text of a banned user that was imported was deleted because it was not properly attributed. More particularly, we need to avoid the concept that if a certain edit is made, and it's the same edit that was made at some point by a banned user, then that edit needs to be reverted and the account must be the banned user returned; that happens remarkably often. On the other hand, there are certain banned users whose edits may look fine, but because of the reasons for that particular ban, all of the account's edits should be reverted (and in some cases deleted, even if they appear to be fine). There's no single answer. Risker (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
There's certainly an argument for saying that you shouldn't delete things if there is a reasonable doubt that it is actually the banned user making the contribution. That doesn't justify keeping it when there isn't reasonable doubt. If the edit is actually valuable, a legitimate editor will eventually make a similar edit.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And that's precisely why all constructive contributions must be kept, regardless of where they came from. Take a look at Pastor Theo (talk · contribs), who managed to become an admin before it was discovered that he was a sockpuppet of the banned Ecoleetage (talk · contribs). Are you going to unblock every vandal that Pastor Theo has blocked?
IMO socks of banned users can be dealt with the way you propose by looking only at their less solid contributions, that is, the ones where we can't tell right away whether or not they're constructive. Don't forget that a ban violation is quite sufficient to ovelook WP:AGF, but that does not mean all contributions are to be, in and of themselves, regarded as made in bad faith. G5 gives us the tools to deal with such contributions, but just because a rule exists doesn't mean it must be invoked in every single situation where it can apply. Common sense must prevail over rules. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It is common sense to revert all contributions of banned socks, regardless of merit. It defies common sense not to. If you allow the banned editor to contribute, you encourage them to stay. Please do not encourage socking by retaining contributions by banned editors, and, most especially, don't remove G5 tags. If you personally wish to abstain from processing a G5 because you believe the contribution had value, fine. Don't remove the tag and interfere with the deletion process, though.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kww is correct in that It defies common sense not to (enforce G5). I wanted to also jump in down here because I think some key items I brought up in my response to Nyttend above are being overlooked down here. The idea with the thread was Fetchcomms wondered if G5 should be enforced for the sake of following CSD "rules" but I believe it goes beyond only *this* CSD policy/criteria - it is rooted in both the Wikipedia:Banning policy and the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. To possibly feel that a block or ban should only apply to poorly written articles and WP:IAR should be invoked for others (i.e - "perfectly valid content", "solid articles with no problems", "any contribution that is unquestionably constructive", "delete their spam, but never a good article", et alii) goes against the base polices, in particular sections of them, including, Blocking policy - Enforcing Bans and Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. They are fairly explicit and give a rather strong indication, without explicitly saying so, that WP:IAR should not be invoked. I don't see that G5 is meant to amend these policies in any way, only aid in enforcing them at an article level. In other words we can't have a root policy that indicates a zero tolerance for evasive editing and an enforcement criteria that implies, or explicitly states, some variation of "Only enforce if the article is poorly authored." While it is the G5 deletion criteria being discussed here, if any sort of "exemption" to the overall policy happens it should be changed at the source/s first and than G5 can reflect that change. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Comment on the contributor, not the content" - is that how it goes now? Removing sound material based on who contributed it is vandalism, nothing more, nothing less. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
With banned and blocked editors, it has always gone that way. The vast majority of my edits are removing edits and articles by block evaders. I don't appreciate being called a vandal.—Kww(talk) 14:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate people removing sound content - especially if (by their own admission) they do little else. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should determine a more effective way to deal with socks, then. I personally would prefer it if the source of all edits was readily apparent, including the IP address of all editors. I would also like to be able to protect articles against IP ranges to make using socks to edit articles more difficult. Until then, we are stuck with cleaning up socks after the fact. If you want to refuse to clean, fine. Don't insult those of us that take up the task.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Removal of sound content, simply because of who contributed it, is vandalism. Deal with disruptive behaviour by all means - but the addition of sound content is not disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop referring to my edits as vandalism. It is not appreciated. The encyclopedia is improved by discouraging socking. That benefit outweighs any trivial improvement caused by an individual edit by an individual sock.—Kww(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I made a general point, which I do not withdraw. That you chose to personalise it is your problem. If you don't like different opinions about the value of particular types of edit, then you are on the wrong website. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"I don't appreciate people removing sound content - especially if (by their own admission) they do little else" is hard to interpret as not being personally directed.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Which was a response to your own statement about your edits, in which you interpreted my general statement as being directed at you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's important to remember the distinction between "edits made by banned users must be reverted" and "you must revert the edits of banned users". Every member of this project is a volunteer, and no one has any right to insist that anyone actively do anything. No one can force an editor to mark a G5 article for CSD, and no one can force the first admin to review it to delete it. The social question of how rigidly the policy should be applied is actually somewhat apart from the policy itself, and there isn't really any way of (or benefit from) altering that. Changing the policy only shifts the midpoint of the spectrum; reducing the spread between those who enforce it rigidly and those who are more flexible, is only achievable through individual persuasion. Happymelon 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Just as an FYI - Discussion that relates to this. A user was blocked "for a period of 31 hours for edit-warring, disruptive editing" and than continued to do it after the block expired. They received a "last warning" over one year ago but, according to the discussion, they continued to make edits that "appear to have fallen under the radar -- reverted, yes, but not reported." The question would be, based on earlier comments, at what point does lifting a ban/block become irrelevant when the editor continues to make the same form of edits? In this case how broad, or how narrow, could G5 be used? This appears to have been a block based on repeated edits to one article, but once the block expired they have continued to make the same type of edits to the same article. Is it possible to only use G5 on one article, or one subject, for a current, or previous, blocked user who was not blocked for a wider reason? If so maybe *that* is what needs to be clarified. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That wouldn't meet a reasonable definition of being in defiance of a block or ban, as she was neither blocked nor banned when the edits were made.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course once a block or ban is lifted G5 would not directly apply, but certainly doing the same thing as they were blocked for could fall under something like G1, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12. FOr repeat offenders a further ban/block would have to be done outside of the "speedy" deletions policy. But that wasn't the root of what I was asking. As currently applied G5 only applies to users who are editing in violation of their block/ban. But the question was raised about what to do if/when those blocks/bans are lifted. (As in does one revert all the "acceptable" edits/article that were made in violation of the block/ban? If so than wouldn't the reverse of that also be true?) And, while a block/ban is active, if it was a topic/subject ban/block there is an underlying thought that implies work *only on that subject" could not be done. Again, currently G5 is specific, but also broad. A block/ban = no editing, no article creation, no file uploads, if *any* of that is done it could be subject to G5 deletion. But blocks and bans are done for more narrow reasons. That being the case, which is why I mentioned the issue above, and it seemed outside of that one topic/article the bulk of that users edits were fine I still wonder, based on the comments in this thread, if there any need for clarification of "topic" or "subject" bans/blocks vs a wider block/ban? While I disagree that a broad exemption should exist for "valid material" (or any like wording) I can find a middle ground that would clarify *if* a block/ban based on a single topic/issue should/could be G5 enforced *for* that single topic/issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think clarification is required: if an editor is topic banned, edits on other topics aren't in violation of that ban, and G5 wouldn't apply to them. There's no such thing as a "topic block": if we could get software to do that, life would get simpler.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, well there you just brought part of my point. You said there is no such thing as a "topic block" but it is very common to see blocks due to a topic/subject specific reason. The one I mentioned stated: You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit-warring, disruptive editing at Amanda de Cadenet and related articles. By policy definition, I agree, the reach of a block is much wider than the topic ("A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page.") and I think/thought how the "clarification" comes in is due to the fact users can be blocked because of something specific, such as a specific article, as well as be blocked for something wider, such as overall vandalism. My only thought is that comments such as "deleting good content is effectively vandalism" might be softer if it was in a context of "topic" vs "site wide." I think, as currently written, it follows the guiding policies and, by default, needs to be "religiously followed." Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that G5 should not be religiously followed. As DuncanHill explains, deleting good content is effectively vandalism. Because bans are so useless, any banned user who wants to edit will edit regardless, and reverting/deleting their work is not only ineffective and pointless, it also is shooting ourselves in the foot generally. Clearly if a user was banned for pushing an agenda on a particular topic or whatever, reverting/deleting would be appropriate. But otherwise, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On a similar note, I think the whole banning thing is utterly pointless, when blocks suffice generally. As I mentioned, it's not actually possible to stop someone editing if they really tried hard enough. AD 20:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true, you can't stop a banned editor from editing if he really wants to but the banning system does sort of work because for us to know if a new editor is a reincarnation of a banned editor, you first have to have duck. That is, he needs to do what got him banned before or else nobody will suspect he's a sock and ask for an SPI/checkuser. Therefore, banning does help prevent bad actions (or makes it easy to revert them). If a banned user creates a new account and does things completely unrelated to what he did before, let's call this "don't quack don't tell", short of checkusering all new accounts and recent IP edits, we'd never know it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, DuncanHill hasn't explained anything: he simply made an assertion. If the removal of the content is done to discourage block evasion, it isn't being done with an intent of damaging the encyclopedia, which is the definition of vandalism. It is possible to effectively prevent a banned or blocked editor from editing if people reliably revert and delete the blocked editor's additions. The only reason we have a problem with it is people that feel an obligation to evaluate the edits and preserve them. That attitude causes far more harm than the preservation of a banned editor's edits does good. The incremental good that any individual banned editor does is trivial when viewed from the perspective of a 3.5M article encyclopedia: the difference between a 3,499,999 article encyclopedia and a 3,500,000 article encyclopedia isn't worth discussing. The damage done by allowing blocks and bans to be meaningless is substantial, and needs to be avoided at all costs.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It may be done unintentionally, but it is done all the same. Removal of good content is always inappropriate. Actually, it's not possible to prevent someone contributing - they are easily able to create a new account or move to a new IP, and we are none the wiser. It's all very well playing whack-a-mole with an account you know is a banned user, but when you don't know (which is most of the time) there's no way to stop them. Hence why banning is unenforcable.
You may like to feel or believe blocks and bans actually make a difference, but to someone determined enough, they are but a minor hurdle. It is impossible, save for hardblocking every IP in existence, to stop someone editing. AD 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Removal of content created by a banned or blocked user is never inappropriate. When reverting, I scan to make sure that I haven't inadvertently reinserted vandalism. When it comes to an article created by a banned or blocked user, I delete it whenever the contribution hasn't been substantially edited by other editors. G5 is nothing but enforcement of our blocking policy, and that policy shouldn't be undermined by individual admins deciding that a particular blocked or banned editor should be allowed to contribute. For blocks and bans to make a difference, all admins needs to diligently enforce them. The only reason they become trivial is through lack of diligence. Softening G5 would both work against policy and provide admins with an excuse to not enforce policy.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kww, do you revert spelling corrections or removal of BLP offensive material if the editor is banned? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I scan for BLP problems when looking for vandalism. I wouldn't bother to pick through a large edit to retain spelling corrections, but wouldn't normally revert an edit that consisted only of spelling corrections. Neither of those issues has much to to with G5: the absence of an article can't cause a BLP problem or a spelling problem.—Kww(talk) 02:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's banning policy states that any edits made in violation of a ban may be reverted. By banning an editor, the community has decided that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason.

Getting banned isn't something that just happens, you've got to earn it. I don't even look at what I'm deleting or reverting if a banned user did it. As the policy says, no further reason is needed. If you want to change the criterion, you're going to need to change the banning policy first as that is the underlying principle the criterion is based on. Therefore this discussion is essentially moot until such time as WP:BAN is altered. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing by banned users may sometimes take complicated forms. To use a fictional example, User:X is banned for constantly promoting the Kingdom of Freedonia. An editor unaware of that might think that a slew of articles on minor Freedonian figures is a good thing, not realizing that there was already a discussion on that very issue. Also, as other have already said here, banned editors should be discouraged in every way from returning here. They are no long welcome, even if they come bearing gifts. As to the point of this thread, no admin must do anything. But they should be encouraged to revert or delete edits by banned users wherever they're identified.   Will Beback  talk  09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When an editor is banned, we can (and many of us do) revert their changes without actually having to look at them. This gives the most effective ratio of discouraging them to continue socking (as their edits don't stick anyway), without losing too much time reverting (you don't have to check: when they are the last contributor, just click rollback, no matter what they did to an article). That some people call the implementation of such basic ban policies "vandalism" is their problem, not ours. Weakening G5 will only encourage the creation of more socks. Fram (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how, Fram. I'd guess as soon as they were caught (which they would know because someone was reverting their edits), they would create a new account. If no one touched their edits, they would continue editing with a singular account. It's not anyone's fault that it's impossible to enforce bans appropriately, it's simply Wikipedia's open nature. Assume I was banned: you could block my account, hard block my IP range and continue to watch areas I edited for reincarnations of me. But what if I moved house, or to a new ISP? What if I used an internet cafe? There would be no way to stop me, and you wouldn't even be able to prove it was me. The banning policy, while good intentioned, is completely useless unless you know the editor is banned already. Hence why G5 is pointless - yes, their edits may be reverted if they are caught, but that's only if they are caught. A lot of the time they aren't - someone mentioned Pastor Theo, who was a banned user and managed to become an admin. That shows how brilliantly enforced bans are: walking right back in with a new account and becoming part of the "management". The whole thing is a joke, if you ask me. AD 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you were banned, how many times would somebody have to delete your work before you would get discouraged from returning? At first, perhaps, you'd take it as a challenge. But if you put hundreds of hours into creating articles that are then indiscriminately dismantled with little to no labor by others, I wonder if you will eventually give up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea, but as I explained, a lot of the time the banned user isn't even caught so makes the whole ban pointless anyway. AD 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I mostly work copyright, so the blocked contributors I'm G5ing are usually serial copyright infringers, but I also believe that WP:CSD#G5 is an important part of making bans and indef blocks stick and discouraging sock puppetry. If they wish to return to contributing, they must negotiate an unblock or the lifting of their ban through proper procedures, not try to slip in through the side door undetected. Sometimes good content may be lost, but it is lost for constructive reasons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be good use of G5, MRG. Thing is though, imo G5 doesn't make blocks and bans stick. In fact, I believe it does the opposite, and encourages banned users to create a new account that has not been discovered, so they can continue editing under the radar without the fear of an admin deleting everything they do. The fact we even have a "side door" for such editors to slip through goes to show how useless blocks and bans are. The very idea we even have sockpuppets shows the wiki system is weak and banned users make us a laughing stock. AD 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The answer to that, I think, is to improve our means of detecting and addressing socks, not giving up on stopping them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless we start going with real names, and a strict "one person, one account" policy, we're not going to get much better. At the moment, we generally rely on a few things: similar usernames, similar editing pattern and similar IPs. Checkusers are only run for suspicious looking accounts. Basically, we rely on the banned user slipping up, which doesn't always happen. I do want to point out that while I do think G5 doesn't really do much to stop banned users, and often removes good content for the sake of "showing them the door", I do understand its purpose and agree that it would work for some users, and is entirely appropriate for banned users with history of copyvios - we just can't take the risk. AD 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with MRG's comments. Basically, G5 means that the presumption is that all contributions of a banned editor may be deleted without further regard. That minimizes the drama (the ultimate goal of some banned editors) and the disruption to the project. It's not about punishment. It's about doing what's necessary to get problem editors to go away.   Will Beback  talk  12:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant that it does not always work. The unhinged whackos who have their own subpages at WP:LTA aren't stopped by it, but they are the minority. For most users seeing anything they do get reverted or deleted does discourage them. For the few lunatics who do things like creating an account with the specific intent of having it detected and linked to their original account pretty much nothing works, but the more we deny recognition and simply revert block and ignore them the less fun it is for them. With those nuts it has always been a question of who will get tired of it first. Of course since we have new vandal fighters and admins all the time it's likely they will, it just takes a lot longer than with "normal" banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates That Have No Links

I recently came upon a template which has only has redirects in it. This is because, over time, every article that was in the template was deleted, leaving only redirects. I had a quick look for Speedy Deletion of Templates to see if it was covered but I didn't see anything.

Surely this should be a speedy deletion case? Or if I just happened to miss it, could someone point me to where it is, kthanx? For the record, the template in question I saw was Template:Order of the Stick. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You should take it to TfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, TFD is the best place for that. Although in general, such templates might fit under G8, for example if all links in it lead to articles deleted by discussion. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that such a template should probably be deleted, but it is far too rare of an occurrence to merit it's own criterion. It's possible you could roll your own using {{db-reason}}, but TFD can handle it just as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
G8 seems best, but G6 could work, too, if it's totally unused. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of {{hang on}}

I've noticed common abuse of the {{hang on}} template. I'll tag an article for speedy deletion, then the user adds {{hang on}} but then either does nothing, or carries on adding rubbish. The template is to give time so the article creator can make his/her case on the talk page; but they very rarely do. They ignore the talk page, they ignore their own talk page, and they just carry on. They abuse the template to buy more time. It seems that admins allow this to happen because a CSD'd article with {{hang on}} very rarely gets deleted that day; even when the article's talk page is still a red link. What can we do to stop this abuse? Fly by Night (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I give hang on no special weight. If it's wrong and isn't going to be fixable, if the hangon rationale is inappropriate, or if it's not been fixed in an hour or two, it generally gets deleted anyways. But I'm not terribly active in speedy deletion handling recently. Do you find that this "abuse" actually results in harmful articles staying around long-term when they otherwise would or should not? Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In most cases this happens when the article is created by a newbie editor who really doesn't understand that they've done something wrong. "Hangon" sometimes means "hangon while I try to get up to speed on wikipedia policy from a standing start". I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for admins to be a bit less aggressive about deleting those pages, provided the article isn't significantly harmful. I mean, I get as annoyed as anyone about the flood of articles about "upcoming" bands, but letting the article be for a little while longer doesn't do any real damage to the project, and it might be just a little bit less bitey for new editors. I don't really think it's fair to describe this as "abuse" - it's generally just a new editor who doesn't understand what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thparkth (talkcontribs) 02:23, 5 December 2010
For new editors, it's sometimes harder to figure out how to use talk pages then it is to edit articles (liquid threads might help here) so I can see giving them some slack. For users who have been around for a while and have talk pages full of warnings for constant recreations of speedy deleted articles, inappropriate uploads of non-free images, and zero edits to any talk spaces, there is no excuse. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point there. I hadn't thought of it like that. Fly by Night (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I didn't sign my comment. Deeply embarassing ;). Thparkth (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You timed it, so I think you used five tildes instead of four. You might say that you over-signed it :-) Fly by Night (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it makes a difference. What I object to is when the creator removes the CSD template. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I correct that removing the CSD template is always caught by a bot or edit filter? If so, it can simply be reverted on the ground the user did not read or understand--I see no reason for this being considered a major problem. Obviously, if it is is repeated it becomes serious, but the effect will be to focus attention on the deletion of the article in question. (Ditto with abusing hangon--there are a few a day where the hangon request is patently ridiculous, and for me it simply leads to greater certainty in making the deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the creator removing a CSD tag or a bot tag for a copyvio (from CorenSearchBot or VWBot) trips a filter; it'll show up with Tag: Speedy deletion template removed or Tag:Copyvio template removed. Usually editors figure out not to remove the tag after one or two warnings, but if it's obvious they won't stop doing it I report it to AIV. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request clarification of F7

Non-free images or media from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.

From the above sentence it seems to me that the only time a non-free image is allowed, ever, is if the article discusses that particular image itself, not the event, not the organization if the image is a logo. The only non-free images that are not subject to immediate deletion are those where the one specific file being used is the actual subject of the article or section. That seems kind of beyond the ten criteria for use as outlined in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Colincbn (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The particularly restrictive version of the rule you cite above goes specifically for commercial news agency sources – i.e. sources where we know the copyright holders make a systematic business of licensing re-publication in media, including websites like ours, for money. If such a company possesses a valuable image that uniquely shows an important event X, and they want to make money by selling licenses to people who want to report on event X on their websites, showing what event X looked like, and we use the image for pretty much the same purpose (showing what event X looked like), we are directly infringing on its market role. In such cases, the only way of justifying "fair use" is if we have a bullet-proof case of "transformative use", i.e. we are using the image in a radically, qualitatively different way from what others are doing – typically that means we are citing it in order to talk about it, rather than just showing it in order to illustrate the event. With images that come from other sources with less of an immediate commercial interest, we can afford to handle this slightly less restrictively. Fut.Perf. 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, part of my interpretation comes from the fact that it does not say a commercial news source under f7. It says a commercial source. I think you will agree that the wording should be changed if that is in fact the intent. Colincbn (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise I see your point of course. Colincbn (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, now that you mention the distinction, some of those companies (e.g. Corbis, Getty etc.) also deal with historic images that are not directly related to current news reporting, so leaving it at the more general "commercial" is probably better. The main criterion is that they systematically deal with image licensing as their source of business revenue. Fut.Perf. 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, good point. But I still think that needs to be reflected in the wording as "commercial" means just about anywhere. Colincbn (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The wording came from long existing wording. "Commercial content provider" appeared to be a somewhat happy medium. For reference, the original CSD policy wording used this: for images, examples of websites that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock photo libraries, such as Getty Images or Corbis, or other commercial content providers. Only a small part of that wording carried over when specific image (now "file) criteria were created (This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis.) so it ended up taken out of context quite a bit. Part of the issue had been that, because it said only "stock photo libraries", specifically saying "news agencies" as a reason would cause people to argue that such material was not covered by a policy. And when one tried to discuss a more detailed reason, because explicit examples "as Getty Images or Corbis" are used, it led to "discussions" that *all* other commercial content was fine. On the other end of this, and the "guiding" policy for this, the fair use policy was adopted using wording based on U.S copyright law, so it was a bit wider (still is) that "Respect for commercial opportunities" must be met. Which is most always applied to content from *any* commercial content provider - A.P, Getty, Corbis, E.P.A, P.A, et al. My suggestion for wording here had been to say "files from press and photo agencies" or even expand on the original wording saying "Examples of commercial content providers that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia include stock and press photo libraries such as the Associated Press, Getty Images, Corbis and Press Association" but a editor felt it was too wordy so it became "from a commercial source (eg Associated Press, Getty)" by default.
The two best "non-policy" explanations of policy I feel are found in:
1. Signpost - September 2008 - Wikipedia-wide criteria, 2. Respect for commercial opportunities: Example that fails: An image of a current event authored by a press agency. Certain press agencies market photographs to media companies to facilitate illustration of relevant commentary. Hosting the image on Wikipedia would impair the market role (derivation of revenue), as publications (such as Wikipedia) would normally need to pay for the opportunity to utilize the image
2. The {{Non-free historic image}} tag says, in part: Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)
Of course those also specifically say "press agencies" and do not mention "photo agencies." I, personally, feel "Commercial content provider" is better as it is true that "commercial source" is almost any source. I think there have been three basic/core opinions on this always - very explicit, general explicit, vague explicit. The "very" could be too wordy and there is the idea that "Everyone knows what it means without being so explicit." The "general" is sort of what it is now with the idea being "Everyone knows that it means press *and* photo agency material". The "vague" is how many editors feel all policy should be at Wikipedia. Most of the time the "general" wins out. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange article

hello,

I recently found this, but I couldn't find any criteria here, that could fit. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a hoax and there are some sources backing up the text of the article. I would question the overall subject/article title however. None of the speedy criteria would fit this article however. If you feel the article itself should be questioned you could send it to AFD, if you feel the articles title (Egyptian shark attacks conspiracy theory) is misleading you might bring it up on the talk page and suggest a move to a more appropriate named article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd tag it as an attack page, per CSD G10. The article does include references, but they seem to be totally out of context. If a G10 fails then hit it with an AfD and it'll be gone within the week. Fly by Night (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If you have to scrape around for a speedy criterion, then it's probably a bad idea to use speedy. We do have prod and Afd! DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree w g10. — Timneu22 · talk 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
How in world is this an article that "disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"??? Or are Fly by Night and Timneu22 being silly? I don't feel this article, that is mostly about sharks attacking, is really there to "disparage or threaten" anymore than Suicide attack is/does. I do admit the title comes off as somewhat misleading but I honsetly had no idea there was ever any "conspiracy theory" about such things until I checked the sources, one of which is a Newsweek article that is subtitled Shark attacks in Egypt prompt charges of outsider sabotage of tourism., and contains this: In an interview with a TV talk show Monday, the governor of South Sinai, Mohammad Abdul Fadhil Shousha, came up with this gem: “What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark in the sea to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question. But it needs time to confirm.” I would agree with the idea that, according to the same Newsweek article, The problem is that those oddball theories are actually masking the seriousness of the issue. Yes the article might come off as a potential G3 if one doesn't look at the valid sources, but G10? Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Slight extension to G8 or F5

I think we should expand the scope of CSD G8 (pages dependant on deleted pages—redirects, talk pages etc) and/or F5 (unused non-free media) to cover fair use images (such as logos and album covers) whose only use was in a deleted article. I often delete such images citing F5 with a note in the deletion log to say that it was only used in a deleted article, and, since they're only going to be deleted anyway after they've been orphaned for a certain number of days, I think it might be an idea to codify it in the policy. Not a new criterion as such, just slightly expanding the scope of existing criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I already delete non-free media when I delete the only article using them, e.g. with PROD. I've been doing this for months, and have yet to hear anyone complain about it. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, but it's not universal practice (like deleting the talk page and like deleting redirects should be), hence my suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We should update the deleting instructions to make it clear then. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DeathBot

I'd like to see a bot created that doesn't just tag pages for deletion, but it actually deletes them. There would be certain triggers (and an area where users can agree on these triggers) that, when met, would cause the bot to delete a page. I'm calling this DeathBot for now. I'd start with a single trigger and build from there. These triggers would be unambiguous and likely to delete vandalism pages without affecting good-faith edits. For example, a user with fewer than 10 edits creates a page with any number of trigger words: faggot, penis, penus, ass, etc. The bot would just delete this, notify a log somewhere, and send a message to the user. There's about a 0.0003% chance that an article like this actually contains content worth keeping.

Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't! Enough drama already without letting bots loose on speedies. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a valid reason, other than "please don't"? — Timneu22 · talk 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The bot could be relegated to just tagging articles for speedy deletion in the testing phase. I'm sure human admins delete more articles on accident than a bot ever would. Marcus Qwertyus 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No Death.bot plz aside from the rather bitey name, mistakes at speedy deletion are already a problem without exacerbating them with a bot like this. Also Wikipedia is not censored, last time I looked we had hundreds of articles that legitimately contained the word faggot. If we decided not to cover Punk, Grunge, Rap and Grindcore music we could unleash a bot like this to delete their albums, but why pick on those genres? ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you actually believe that a user with one edit that contains the word "faggot" is a non-vandalism edit? — Timneu22 · talk 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Your initial proposal was for editors with less than ten edits not just one. However there are 462 articles currently containing the word faggot the vast majority legitimately. I've just looked through a handful of them and some of those were created or had the word faggot used among the early edits of those editors. So yes there will be occasions when a the word faggot is used correctly in an editors early edits, and even when it is used for an unimportant garage band that merits an A7 deletion it would be bitey to do so by bot and as an attack page. If you want to improve the speedy deletion process please remember there are two key questions you need to be able to answer, How does this proposal reduce the number of incorrect tags and deletions? and How does this proposal make the speedy deletion process less bitey to newbies? My view is that your suggestion fails both tests. Also I'm not convinced that you could do this with an error rate of 3 in a million. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If we limited to the first edit, or a new page created within 5 minutes of the account creation, 3 in a million wrongs does seem accurate to me. — Timneu22 · talk 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I doesn't to me. You'd be surprised how many deathmetal and other modern music ensembles think that the path to music fame starts with a song title that will outrage the Daily Mail and get them banned by the BBC. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Well that's A7-garage and we're still coming out ahead. I'm really here just suggesting that some vandalism could be handled immediately and completely, and accurately. — Timneu22 · talk 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a G10 and an A7 candidate. Treating authors of A7 articles the same way as authors of attack pages is newby biting not deletionism. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aren't admin bots on Wp:PEREN? Tagging for human review is fine by me; executing the deletion without human input is not. If we want to start an admin bot, why don't we give cluebot (which has an established history) block abilities first? False positives, you say? What makes you think this would be any more accurate? Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    No, see Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Bots_with_administrative_rights. There are a few admin bots. In fact we do have at least one which deletes pages under CSD (but only in very clear cases: User:7SeriesBOT). That said, this proposal (DeathBot) does not strike me as sensible, considering the potential false positive rate, and also I doubt it would actually delete many pages. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there was a general consensus that if a bot should be allowed to delete pages, then only when there is virtually no chance of false positives. The proposal above does not fit in that consensus. Also, it's imho a solution in search of a problem. Speedy deletion works fine at the moment, the days with more than 500 requests are long gone. So why complicate it? Regards SoWhy 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a "chance of false positives" with this proposal? — Timneu22 · talk 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As said above, there are legitimate situations in which articles contain such words and there is no reason to assume that new accounts will never create such articles. Also, there is no problem for this proposal to solve. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 13:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It would just be helpful to have certain articles get deleted. That's all I was offering. I'm a deletionist, you're not. There's a clear difference in our thinking. I just want crap to disappear immediately, but you tolerate it. — Timneu22 · talk 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't about the articles that merit speedy deletion as they already go quickly. This is about creating a bot that will automate it and as a byproduct also delete a few random articles that don't meet the deletion criteria and insult a bunch of goodfaith newbies by calling their non-notable article an attack page. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Holy shit. It's only about creating a bot that would delete an article by a one-edit user when the article contains various keywords. Nevermind. Trying to help, getting shot down, as usual, by the non-deletionists. — Timneu22 · talk 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No one is arguing that anything but the vast majority of the articles that this proposal would delete are inappropriate, nor that the inappropriate ones should be kept. We're just talking about ensuring that false positives from new editors do not receive BITEy treatment. I'm all for deleting the vandalism... just not for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's NO justification for trying to cast this disagreement a deletionist/inclusionist matter. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that we have a system of edit filters that flags many such inappropriate articles for attention--which they quickly get. I've certainly noticed a remarkably lower frequency of such stuff than 2 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Timneu, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V. It looked like a good idea when the RFBA was submitted, but once the people who work on speedies were notified of this project, all hell broke loose, and the idea was eventually abandoned. The three-day test run that has been granted was aborted in a matter of minutes, and the bot has never edited again. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Many anonymous editors edit only once, and many editors create an account just to make a single edit (at least initially) to an article of direct and personal interest to them. Such an edit could easily contain an "attack term", either because it uses it in a different sense, or because it uses it in a quotation (e.g. "Faggots are also known as "ducks" in the Midlands, Yorkshire and Lancashire, often as "savoury ducks", from faggot (food)). The potential for false positives, however few of them there may be in practice, is alarming and is why human review in this area continues to enjoy wide support. Dcoetzee 02:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't speedy deletion speedy?

I've been tagging some articles for the last couple of days and I've noticed that speedy deletion is anything but speedy. I tagged a four word article last night, and it wasn't deleted until this morning. It must have been 12 hours after it'd been tagged, and there was no {{hang on}}. Why is this? Is there a massive back log? (I know it's speedy compared to WP:AfD and WP:PROD, but the articles I tag for CSD are usually no-brainers; just silly wastes of server space.) Fly by Night (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For example, take this article. Some boy's just added himself. I tagged it with CSD A7 three hours ago. He's used {{hang on}} saying that he's adding more references. But A7 is nothing to do with verifiability; it's about notability. He can add as many references as he wants about the videos he's put on YouTube, about when his grandfather died or about which high school he went to. That doesn't change eligibility for A7. Fly by Night (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line is that it gets deleted when a patrolling admin has time to get over there to look. Generally there is no urgency, so sitting in the queue is not a problem. Also you can consider speedy deletion is simply a quick alternative to WP:AFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but that doesn't really answer my question. I already said that "I know it's speedy compared to WP:AfD and WP:PROD." Fly by Night (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
As you're aware, the term "speedy" is only in comparison to other routes that require more community discussion. There's a valid reason it's not called "instant deletion" or "immediate deletion".
Because the admins who perform deletions are volunteers, deletions are performed when the admins have time to address deletions - and those admins have other activities both on and off Wikipedia. As Vegaswikian mentioned, there's generally no urgency. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Speed does in fact refer to process speed vs. clock speed, but I agree that speedies should generally be handled more quickly than what you describe. Don't take it personally if non-notable people get articles for a few extra hours--make sure the tag sticks, and it will be handled eventually. To fix the speed at which they're handled, recruit clueful and polite people to run for adminship or admins to help process speedy deletion... Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Having seen a few RfA's, I wouldn't have to so much as recruit them, as pressgang them :-) Fly by Night (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a fact Jack :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the article in question, warned the contributor about autobiographies, warned him that he must change his username, and nominated another article created by him for AFD. Sorry if I wasn't fast enough for you, some of us prefer to do things thoroughly rather than quickly. When my admin paycheck gets here faster I'll work faster. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Touché Fly by Night (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that there is a rough triage taking place, and that the worst articles (sheer nonsense and attack pages, for example) get deleted first, while others may take a little longer. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That's true. Attack pages are usually gone within five minutes. Fly by Night (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Attack pages light up on the admin dashboard or whatever the hell it's called (an admin would probably know better than I), so they generally get noticed more quickly. It's important to be sure that a page is actually an attack page, but if it is you should definitely use G10 because it will get the article deleted much faster than using another tag, and with attack pages it can be urgent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"Speedy" deletion is technically a misnomer. Some of the file criteria, for example, require many days to result in deletion. What it actually is is lightweight deletion, deletion without oversight. But yes, we should clean out the CSD categories more often. Dcoetzee 02:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial undiscussed moves

Over at WP:RM, it's common to see the following sequence of events:

  1. User A decides to rename an article - and does so without consensus (usually with no discussion at all)
  2. User B objects to this, and submits a move request at RM to put it back
  3. User B has to defend his position and convince an admin of its merits

What should happen is this

  1. User A does his undiscussed controversial page move
  2. User B objects to this, and speedies it (G6, perhaps)
  3. Admin C agrees, and restores the article

Now, if User A really thinks he's in the right, he'll have to go to WP:RM and seek consensus for the move, which is what he should have done in the first place. The onus needs to be on User A, not User B. The current system rewards those who don't seek consensus.

I've been thinking about this for some time, and decided to make a request after it happened lately at Yahweh. --JaGatalk 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In actual practice, I've never had any trouble getting such moves reversed by way of the "Uncontroversial requests" section at WP:RM. However, this is directly at odds with the stated scope of the section ("if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial", and the original mover surely could reasonably disagree with an attempt to reverse their move), so there's at least room for clarification here. Gavia immer (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is being discussed at this page and not WT:RM. This is not a speedy issue. The only speedy that might be involved is deletion of the redirect with no major page history (if there is a non-trivial page history a history swap is performed instead). In any event, when I rewrote and organized Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions I addressed the issue you are here about. The language I added is here. Since then the language has been watered down. The current version:

"However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name."

If you think this issue should be made more explicit in the closing instructions, reverted to my prior version, something else, please do suggest language (but not here).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
When someone is looking for a way to get a controversial move undone, they certainly aren't going to look in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions; they want to open a discussion, not close one. They're going to check options such as:
  1. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Criteria
  2. Wikipedia:Move#Undoing a move
  3. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests, which isn't worded to allow this kind of thing, although it is apparently tolerated.
Or at least, that's where I looked. And considering how frequently "undo a controversial no-consensus move" requests pop up on RM, I'd say most people aren't looking beyond this.
The reason I started the discussion here is I've had many ill-advised moves (usually someone moving an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to create a WP:TWODABS situation) undone by placing a {{G6}} speedy on it. Technically speaking, G6. Technical deletions. is open for interpretation on whether it covers this scenario or not. Since the requests I've made in this form have always been accepted, I'm asking to make the phrasing less ambiguous. --JaGatalk 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not a speedy issue, unless you intend to request that we actually add language to G6 explicitly stating that it is uncontroversial to use db-move under G6 to make such requests (I don't think that has any legs since it would not be uncontroversial to undo any of the many proper moves from long existing titles that are done via G6 requests every day), and I doubt anyone would be looking to the speedy criteria when they face this issue. I think you misunderstood my post. I talked about the closing instructions as having material related to this later, but I linked at the beginning WT:RM—that's the shortcut to the talk page of Wikipedia:Requested moves; that is the tailored forum to discuss this, whatever part of the requested moves process you think we should reform to address the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) My intention is to get an existing speedy delete reason documented. Maybe it isn't even necessary.

  • User A moves a page without discussion/consensus
  • User B disagrees with this move
  • According to RM, If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial.
  • Since User B disagrees with the page move, the RM rule is definitely fulfilled, so User A definitely should have filed a RM request

This is uncontroversial. When the speedy tag is placed, the RM rule is fulfilled, by definition. Admin C undoes the move, and the move request can be filed properly. This isn't something new - admins have always accepted speedy requests I have made with the reason "restore undiscussed controversial move" or similar - I just want to get the wording clarified. --JaGatalk 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What if an article meets two criteria?

Let's say I think an article should be tagged with {{db-spam}} and {{db-company}}; what should I do? Should I use both tags, or should I mention it on the article's talk page? Do admin's always read the talk page before the accept or reject a WP:CSD? Fly by Night (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd say tag with whatever appears appropriate - and if two tags both seem appropriate, then I do not see why you shouldn't use both. Some admins read the talk page, some don't even read past the tag, it's a bit of a lottery which sort you get. DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The template {{db-multiple}} exists precisely for that kind of situation, but its use is not required, nor is it absolutely necessary to tag an article for all applicable criteria. My order of priority is G10-G12-A7-G11-others.
    More often than not, when G11 applies, A7 does too. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That's perfect. {{db-multiple}} is exactly what I was looking for. I might think that an article should be deleted under two criteria, when in reality it just misses one of them. I tag for the missed criterion and the speedy gets rejected. Thanks a lot for that. Fly by Night (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately db-multiple adds a poor deletion reason when deleting. as it summarises with the codes rather than text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb is to use the tag for the most "objective" criterion you can think of, which makes it less likely to be contested later. In particular, copyvios should always be tagged as such, since otherwise the article might be restored at undeletion requests without any knowledge of the copyvio. Dcoetzee 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If an article qualifies for both G11 and G12 as a copy/paste from a company website it is important to mention both reasons, not only the G12. People who make these articles usually work for the company and can license the promotional text via OTRS, only to have it deleted under G11 anyway. Yoenit (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Inability of admins to recognize patent nonsense

There seems to be a clear inability for admins to understand patent nonsense. As described: Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history.

The following is GIBBERISH WITH NO MEANINGFUL CONTENT, yet an admin refused patent nonsense???

Seriously, this text, Portrayal of the biography of a Saint is a formidable venture. I shudder to embark upon such an arduous task, particularly when it relates to a Saint of the zenith order viz. His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj. I perfectly realize that I am unequal to the task, being bound by my innate limitations. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some force from within, that I should make a humble contribution for the enrichment of joy of myriads of disciples and devotees of Guru Maharaj who yearn to hear more and more about Him. is NONSENSE and it's insulting to the community when an admin cannot see this. — Timneu22 · talk 12:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh boyoboyoboy! Where to begin. The cultural ignorance? The inability to use Google? The abuse of other editors? The refusal to accept the definition in the CSD category? Try looking at [1] will you please. The subject of this article is a Hindu Holy Man. What you are calling 'patent nonsense' is transcribed Gudjerati. The style of the article is completely unsuited to Wikipedia, true, but it's not anywhere near nonsense, and I cannot emphasise enough how insulting it is for you in your ignorance to describe it as such, without the slightest effort to research further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but this doesn't seem like gibberish to me either. In my opinion gibberish would be text like "JKLJKLJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJLKJ" or "peculiar somebody forever respond internal adjust Newton Tuesday green oscillate", an example provided by a recent spam I received. The text you quoted is certainly a little difficult to read, and not remotely in an encyclopedic style, but it is not gibberish - every part of it means something. Thparkth (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Cultural ignorance my ass. Inability to use Google my ass. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some force from within, that I should make a humble contribution for the enrichment of joy of myriads of disciples and devotees of Guru Maharaj who yearn to hear more and more about Him. This is nonsense, non-encyclopedic, and a huge pile of shit. The article is not at all readable, frankly because it's not an article by any sense of any standard or guideline we have. We need a "pile of shit" CSD reason, apparently. — Timneu22 · talk 12:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No we don't. We do not expect new users to know all of our standards or to be perfect native speakers and thus there will always be new articles that do not conform to those standards or be in broken English. Unfortunately for you, the problem is not those articles but your attitude towards them. As Elen of the Roads says above, the article might be hard to read but it is readable and one can understand what it is about. G1 on the other hand requires something to be non-understandable by any standard, as Thparkth. What you want is a WP:NOT-criterion (G1 isn't) and you will find the archives full of discussions and rejections of such a criterion. I think your approach to speedy deletion is a bit extreme compared to community consensus and of course writing ALL IN UPPERCASE does not help your case as well (see capital letter#Usage and all caps#Computing). Regards SoWhy 12:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please withdraw your 'pile of shit' comment before I feel compelled to block you for what could quite readily be viewed as racist remarks. If you were not quite so ignorant in this area, you would understand that this is considered the appropriate style of addressing holy men. We go through wording issues of this kind in articles on Islam, I'm sure we go through them on articles about sikhism. Persuading the enthusiastic devotee to rework his article into encyclopaedic language, so there is an entry (assuming this particular subject meets our notability standards) would be a better use of your time than abusing him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing racist here, and you know it. I'm talking about nonsense articles. I had an earlier discussion on my talk page where at least another editor agreed with me. The following was not considered patent nonsense: I caught one of the Rolling Stones' first gigs in Richmond. Hey, when are we gonna get that hotel gig again? Our guitar player had another gig so we had to get a sub.Timneu22 · talk 13:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And for the record, SoWhy, G1's definition includes Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text with no meaningful content, which is what both of my examples cite. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That text may be unencyclopedic and very POV but it isn't 100% incoherent and it does contain meaningful content. Not helpful content but meaningful content. ThemFromSpace 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The rolling stones example is meaningful? I'm not being facetious at all here... I really see no meaning to this. — Timneu22 · talk 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If that was the entire content of the article, I suspect it could be tagged under A1, "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that actually wasn't the entire content of the article. It was a dicdef for "Gig", followed by an unencyclopedic comment. Clearly inappropriate for tagging, he should have just removed the editorializing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But it doesn't excuse Timneu for describing the article that spawned this thread as gibberish and a pile of shit, as it is neither. I have asked him to withdraw those comments as offensive, but so far he has declined to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(My .02 worth) Tim -- you and I have been through this before on your talk page. Your definition of "nonsense" appears to be "anything that I don't like or understand". Wikipedia's definition is somewhat stricter, however, as "text that has no meaning". The fact that the text is not encyclopedic does not make it nonsense. It may well qualify for deletion under many other criteria, but not under the WP:CSD#A1. WP:NONSENSE is very clear on what things should not be confused with nonsense. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That's WP:CSD#G1, actually -- A1 is "insufficient context", as I noted above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry, my bad. Of course, I meant G1. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously WP:NONSENSE is not clearly being enforced, or I wouldn't be here. Definition #2 of NONSENSE is: Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text. See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — Timneu22 · talk 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, but I don't think "nonsense" applies to an article like that, as it is customarily employed in speedy deletions. To me, nonsense is an article consisting entirely of "dah dah goo goo." What may be needed is another definition, but there has always been resistance to expanding the CSD categories. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your example ("colorless green ideas sleep furiously") is a collection if English words that do not convey any meaning. That is nonsense. The text you originally quoted ("Portrayal of the biography of a Saint is a formidable venture...") is not nonsense. Any speaker of the English language should reasonably be able to understand the meaning of that sentence. It is not encyclopedic, but it is not nonsense. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia, but it's not nonsense, any more than if someone started inserting chunks of the Bible or Qu'ran into article space. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, but putting aside the general point of whether it is nonsense or not, the basic issue is valid, I think. When there is an article like this that is patently unsuitable, what do we do with it? The article definitely should be speedied, but there needs to be a category fashioned in such situations. Perhaps "personal essays and reflections clearly not suitable for Wikipedia"? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
JamesBWatson speedied this one as promotional, which I have no objection to. He also explained to the author that religious promotion is still promotion, and not acceptable, which I also have no objection to. My primary objection is to Timneu using such offensive terms towards a standard style of writing in Hindi. The author thought we ought to have an article about this (in his view) amazing person. That it doesn't meet our standards is not an excuse for the kind of abusive terminology above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Scotty says, OK, but I don't think "nonsense" applies to an article like that, as it is customarily employed in speedy deletions. So we have WP:NONSENSE but that doesn't apply to speedy? This is a problem, and we need clarification. And Elen, your "abusive" and "racist" comments are simply off base. If the same words had been in an "article" about an athlete, a building, or a comic book, I'd still say it is a pile of shit. Furthermore, if this article had not been deemed promotional, it would still be utterly unencyclopedic, and we have no valid CSD reason to eliminate it. A shame. — Timneu22 · talk 16:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is a shame. What I've found is that administrators take a narrow view of the "nonsense" CSD criteria, and my feeling is that there's no point trying to claw through that concrete wall with my fingernails. I think what's needed is a new criteria so that fewer truly objectionable articles fall through the cracks. Yes, an article like that can go to PROD, but then the article creator can remove the notice, so you go to AfD, and there it can languish for weeks. I agree with you that we need to act with greater speed to remove the really bad articles, as they don't do anyone any good, including the article creators. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I've suggested a speedy userfication before. That's a step. But I'd like to address this one point here so maybe we can tidy up the {{db-nonsense}} wording. My question for anyone who is listening: do all WP:NONSENSE rules apply to {{db-nonsense}}? If not, we need to tidy up the wording so I'll know what the actual rules are. — Timneu22 · talk 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that WP:NONSENSE is broader than the db-nonsense, which seems just to apply to total gibberish (baby talk, for instance) and not the kind of writing that we're talking about here. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well if other editors agree, I think we should make this clearer on WP:CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 17:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Scotty -- you seem to be under the same misconception that Tim is. WP:NONSENSE talks about material that makes no sense (i.e. is either a random string of characters that do not form words or a random string of words that do not make sense as sentences). Neither of these cases apply to text that makes sense and is understandable, but is not encyclopedic. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I do not believe the text is understandable, which is why I nominated the article in the first place. — Timneu22 · talk 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
What part don't you understand? I'll be glad to parse it for you, as I have done in the past. You seem to have a fairly strong grasp of English, so I am quite confused at your lack of understanding. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to tone this down a little, please. Wikidan, I think the second criteria in WP:NONSENSE might apply to this kind of article, but I don't see the CSD criteria applying to it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if my tone seems a bit harsh. I've been through this quagmire before. As for the applicability of WP:NONSENSE to WP:CSD#G1, I think the fact that the defintion of Patent nonsense at G1 links directly to WP:NONSENSE is a pretty clear indication that the two are directly linked. However, the criteria of WP:NONSENSE clearly states an article must be incomprehensible to be considered nonsense. Not poor writing. Not completely non-encyclopedic. But incomprehensible by a reasonable speaker of English. I think the preponderance of opinions in this discussion (aside from Tim and Scotty) agree that the article in question is completely comprehensible, and thus not nonsense. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I was pretty clear that I would not have nominated this for deletion under the "nonsense" category, as it is narrowly construed. However, yes, I think this discussion has flayed out in several unnecessary directions. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Timneu, you are in a hole. Stop digging. It was an offensive term and an unacceptable way to categorise this content, and if you persist you may not enjoy the consequences.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Elen, I'm not in a hole. You're the only one accusing me of being a racist, which is a joke. I have done nothing in any conversation except to discuss the utter ridiculosity of the words in the article(s) in question. — Timneu22 · talk 17:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Timneu, give it up already - you're far more likely to get blocked for this kind of stubbornness and ranting than for the original comment. The article is not nonsense (I understand it perfectly, and could probably even rewrite it into a decent article if I thought the sage was sufficiently notable), and you ought to have the good common sense not to use strong language like that on religious topics (because people get very touchy in religious arenas). the problem is a non-problem; go have a cup of tea and turn to other things. --Ludwigs2 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It was such nonsense I didn't even know it was a religious topic. Sorry if I'm not as bright as you. — Timneu22 · talk 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The first words of the article are "Portayal of the biography of a saint..." and you don't know it's a religious topic? I really don't know how to answer that! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because we all know that the word "saint" has no secular meaning whatsoever in English. To call him "racist" over this is seriously grasping at straws. I happen to think that Timneu22 here was correct, and I think that if he wasn't, G1 needs to be changed to reflect what it actually means. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I skimmed through the whole article and hadn't a clue what the user was trying to convey. It was nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 18:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Blade, can you seriously tell me that on reading the text of the article (that has been preserved here) that a) you can't understand it or b) you can't tell that it is written about a topic considered holy and sacred to the writer? That is the real question here -- is this article nonsense or is it just unencyclopedic? Questions of racism apply to Tim's description of the writing, but the question of the expansion of "nonsense" to incoporate merely poor articles is a separate question and the one at hand in this discussion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PS -- as much as I'd love to continue with this discussion, real life calls. I'll check in when I can to see how it's coming. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to expand db-nonsense to poor articles. I'm here because I thought WP:NONSENSE applied to {{db-nonsense}}, and it seems to be inconsistently applied by admins. If it's not the case that WP:NONSENSE#2 applies, this is the forum for such clarification. The rest of this conversation is just out of control. — Timneu22 · talk 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(ecx2)I have to say, I had a rather hard time making any sense of it, and I've studied East Asian history now for several years (which, incidentally, is why I made my first comment; a Hindu saint isn't a religious figure in the same sense as a Christian saint. Our article on it covers it fairly well.). I think that the text above falls under text that's written after a style, but is confused to the point that no one can reasonably make sense of it beyond strings of individual sentences. Even if each sentence is (somewhat) comprehensible, the article as a whole makes no sense when put together. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"No reasonable person" is a pretty narrow criterion, you realize? Not "No reasonable monolingual American", "no reasonable person". Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that wasn't directed at me specifically (I actually have a decent command of Japanese, for the record), I said above that I found that almost impossible to make any sense of it, and I'm going to grad school next September to study East Asian history. I'm used to reading really bad translations of texts, and that one made even less sense than most. I'm sure my British friend, who studies many of the same things, would say the exact same thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You're correct, it was not directed at anyone particularly, it was a general comment. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I think Blade has a point. I had difficulty understanding it. But I think that for the purposes of our discussion, the point is whether there is need for a CSD category on personal reflections and essays that cannot be edited into encyclopedic articles. What if I wrote an essay on "My ideas for resolving the war in Iraq." It wouldn't be nonsense, but it wouldn't fall into any of the CSD categories. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
CSD is intentionally narrow; there are plenty of things that absolutely do not belong in Wikipedia that should NOT be subject to speedy deletion, because drafting a criterion which wouldn't be misapplied in error to content which SHOULD be kept in the encyclopedia is nearly impossible. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is a rule that would be narrowly drawn, to essays that can't be edited into Wiki articles. It's hard to envision legitimate articles being swept into that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As interpreted by hundreds of administrators, implementation is often far from the ideal. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh. not everything has to be speedily deleted, you know. in the future, tag stuff like this for regular deletion as a personal essay or as non-notable. don't try to stretch speedy deletion into new dimensions. Problem solved. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If there were a lot of us doing NPP, that would be workable; however, given how few people seem to regularly do NPP, we'd all have to keep track of thousands of pages, which to put it mildly is onerous. We have to work very quickly on NPP, and there are recurring themes that seem to get by on technicalities and do nothing but make everyone's job harder. There seem to be a lot more admins deleting things than there are people tagging them, so it's a huge burden on us. It's a completely thankless job (I've been left a couple of gems on my talkpage), it can be very difficult, and G1 in particular is extremely annoying because none of us actually patrolling the new pages knows what admins are looking for; requests for clarification rarely produce anything besides people who don't actually do NPP saying, "read WP:NONSENSE, read WP:NONSENSE, it's all there". If it was, Timneu22 wouldn't be here as exasperated as he (rightfully) is right now. He's got a draft of an A11 in his userspace; you might actually find that it'd be very useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
If you were able to look at OTRS right now, there are a number of emails--perhaps half a dozen at the moment--which amount to "I'd donate, but every time I try to add/change/improve something, my contributions are reverted/deleted". New Page Patrolling is not just an opportunity to stomp out WP:NOT material. It's also an opportunity to fundamentally alienate a new editor. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not as if the only thing I ever do is tag pages for deletion; if I find something that's interesting, I'll stop and work on it, and I maybe tag 1/4 of the articles I patrol. I turned Chihiro Iwasaki from an article written almost entirely in Engrish to a decent article, and added in a little information of my own. But there are certain things that just don't belong in an encyclopedia; people get alienated by that, there's no way around it. There's just nothing else you can possibly do with some of the stuff people put here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
@Timneu22: As others have explained, the "patent nonsense" criterion is not just for content that seems strange to you. A good rule of thumb is, if you can imagine reading it in a published book, then it is not patent nonsense, even if it is otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. due to being highly POV). CSD is narrowly specified to prevent abuse - a rule allowing the deletion of "highly POV" content or "content not written in the style of an encyclopedia article" would necessarily lead to cases of abuse, or cases where content that could be cleaned up is instead deleted. Dcoetzee 19:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@Blade - I don't see that it matters if you tag it for speedy (and it gets deleted in moments) or if you tag it for normal (in which case the page sits around for a week so that people can talk about it). it's no extra effort for the NPP, it just lacks that immediate gratification. To my mind, the intent of G1 seems obvious - if there's no way that anyone could look at it and pretend that there's anything like actual 'meaningful information' on the page, it's patent nonsense. a page full of random words contains no meaningful information; someone's personal diary contains no meaningful information, at least with respect to an encyclopedia; a page filled with dirty limericks contains no information, unless it's aiming to be an article about dirty limericks. In this case, even if you don't understand what's being said, you can clearly see that it's an attempt at writing a biography of someone who is regarded as important by some people somewhere. That is something that could quite possibly be meaningful information, so it's no longer a candidate for speedy delete as nonsense.
That being said, I like Timneu22's idea of speedy userification for articles like this - that way it's out of mainspace but still present for consideration. has this been brought up at Pump (policy) for consideration? --Ludwigs2 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Very recently, actually; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_81#Speedy userfication. I had meant to sum up the arguments for and against it, but it got archived before I had a chance. Seemed like it was really on the fence, and needed a few more voices. As to your other point; the problem with PRODs is that if no one (i.e. the person doing the PRODding) monitors them, the PROD tags get removed, nothing happens and we have a huge dud sitting around. If you look through the contributions for someone who does a lot of CSD tagging, it's often a gigantic wall of notifications, and it can be very difficult to keep track of everything even with a watchlist. I personally like the idea of Timneu22's A11, and I think it wouldn't be abused the way many admins seem to think it would; unfortunately, many more pessimistic people seem to think otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't find this A11 thing you're referring to - can you point more clearly? --Ludwigs2 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Took a little digging, but I found it Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive_38#Proposal for CSDs: essay and_how-to. I wish I had been around for that conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh. I was involved in that discussion and I had absolutely no recollection of it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on people, I've begged -- simply begged -- to get a question answered: does {{db-nonsense}} include WP:NONSENSE#2? That's my question, period. Commments like As others have explained, the "patent nonsense" criterion is not just for content that seems strange to you are just borderline attacks. I'm here trying to clarify a policy so that NPPs like Blade and me can understand what the policy actually is. I'm here asking this question, and everyone else would rather talk around it or make baseless accusations. Please answer the question. — Timneu22 · talk 00:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. I personally think that it should, for various reasons I gave above. However, if there really is such strong consensus against that, we need to know because this is getting to be way too confusing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the template deletion template would cover WP:NONSENSE#2 criteria. The example you gave, and for which you have been castigated, does not fall under that section. I hope this clarifies matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
CSD is supposed to be for articles that unambiguously meet some defined rule. Since Blade - another NPPer - and I find that this article is patent nonsense, but others do not, it seems that perhaps WP:NONSENSE#2 should not apply. I really don't care either way, I'd just like to know. If we cannot agree on what WP:NONSENSE#2 means in the context of speedy pages, it's not unambiguous. — Timneu22 · talk 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 ::<facepalm>Yes, of course the CSD category includes Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text. Everyone agrees that it does. The problem you are having is that this does not mean "...that <insert name of NPPer here> can make neither head nor tail of..." leading always to the possibility that some other reasonable person can make sense of it, as seems to happen with a lot of the stuff that Tim tags. Also it does not mean "Content that it would be utterly silly to put in an encyclopaedia" which is how some of you NPPers seem to want to interpret it. I understand your frustration, but really, rubbish isn't a significant danger to the 'pedia. BLPs and copyvios are the danger. The article on the sage would never have been seen by anyone but a devotee, who would probably have been delighted by it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
That you, and another editor, find it nonsense does not make it WP:NONSENSE#2. You are wrong, and it has been pointed out why you are wrong; To put it as politely as possible; your apparent limited experience of the nature of world culture and its many expressions is not the basis by which WP:NONSENSE#2 is determined. "Patent nonsense" is random words or letters, with no internal logical expression, or so hopelessly expressed as to defeat comprehension. That is not the case of the example you gave. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
FACEPALM INDEED! "Patent nonsense" is random words or letters, with no internal logical expression, or so hopelessly expressed as to defeat comprehension. ... that's not what definition #2 says! And, it is nonsense, as Blade explained so well above. Whatever. Done with this. If I see something I think is nonsense under #2, I'll post it. If I'm wrong, whatever. No one here has explained how the article is coherent, but Blade has explained how it isn't. Done with this. Good day. — Timneu22 · talk 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we aren't the only two who thought that way (MastCell, for one, did too); I think we can agree to disagree, and we'll move forward with that in mind. And lest it be lost in the reams of text above, I am familiar with the subject matter that purported to cover (I'm studying it in order to eventually have a career), and I've stated my rationale above. I probably would have tagged that A7 anyways, as it fit that as well, but in any case it's deleted now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that's fair. It is likely to happen that some people have a different threshold of acceptability or whatever on this criterion. Spam (which was what it eventually went as) would have been perfectly acceptable, A7 possibly not, as the writer asserted that he was a very famous sage. Railing at the admins, as Tim has a habit of doing, really doesn't help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
My comment was not meant as a personal attack. I'm just trying to explain the intended interpretation of the policy, and I did not mean to imply that you necessarily define "patent nonsense" in the manner that I described. I've encountered many other users (and admins) who have misused the "patent nonsense" CSD to delete things that were merely confusing, or not written in an encyclopedic style, or were possible hoaxes. These things are not listed at CSD for good reason, and it would be exposing the project to potential abuse to extend its interpretation to encompass these things. That's not to say they shouldn't be deleted sometimes - just not all the time. Dcoetzee 02:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks like patent nonsense to me. It's gibberish. Perhaps that was not the author's intent, but it is the reality. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't gibberish, which is something that sounds like speech, but carries no actual meaning. Baby babble is gibberish. This isn't anything like gibberish.
It could be easily copyedited: Dump the entire first paragraph, which is just groveling, along the lines of what you expect in The Internet Oracle. Omit needless words from the second paragraph and add a few wikilinks and a little encyclopedic distance, so it reads something like,

"His Holiness Sri Sri Sri According to Hindu beliefs, Sadguru Samartha Narayana Maharaj is the personification of “Sadguru Tathwa” as defined in Guru Geetha by Maheswara. He is verily considered to be the incarnation of Sri Kalyana Swamy Maharaj, the most beloved disciple of Sri Sri Sri Sadguru Samartha Ramadasa Swamy, the founder of ‘Samartha Sampradaya’. Great men acclaim Believers say that Sri Samartha Ramadasa as is an apostle sent on earth to bring about renaissance of ‘Sanathana Dharma’, the Eternal Law of Hinduism. which was on the wane, through the regal medium of Sri Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj. Sri Ramadasa Swamy is said to be the Hindu god Lord Hanuman Himself. Maruthi descended in Kaliyuga in that personality to and will rejuvenate the humanity's spiritual perspective of life in the humanity at large.

There: perfectly readable, even though I have very little idea who the characters in this paragraph are supposed to be. But the fact is, if I can make sense out of it, it's not gibberish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
And even if it was copyedited, it would still be a blatant spam piece, so it needed to be deleted anyways. Besides, I doubt it actually met notability guidelines; Hindu saints aren't nearly the same as Christian saints. I'd have tagged it G1 myself, but others seem to disagree with me; that's how it works. I gave my rationale above; it's still there amongst the reams of text, if you have the patience to find it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to see the policy, guideline or essay that confirms that Hindu saints are not nearly the same, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, as those of the Anglian or Roman Catholic churches. In fact, I wouldn't mind being pointed to a reliable, third party, neutral source that notes that... I am aware of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, though - and consider that this entire matter is an example of it. The example passage is as patent nonsense as is "Esua sold his birthright for a mess of potage" - context is everything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Entirely so - I could quote parts of the Authorised version that would sound as wierd, if it wasn't that people were used to hearing it preached from pulpits. And I don't understand this 'saint' thing at all - 'saint' is a poor translation for the concept of a holy man or sage in the Hindu religion, but I cannot see that is any argument that they are somehow 'less notable'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Or, in a non secular example, the preamble to every Act of Parliament of Great Britain for the last century or so; "Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— etc. " The point is, being unfamiliar with a style does mean it is patent nonsense - just degrees of difficulty in comprehension. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I stand somewhat corrected; I guess there was a discussion at the Village Pump about this very topic (Hindu saints and notability) in September; however, it's sort of a reverse systemic bias. Those more familiar with Indian history and culture realize that "saint" is a very crude translation and that most are fairly minor, but the consensus was that it passes A7 (wouldn't have saved this particular one, though). So on that point, it seems I was mistaken. But to give you an idea, it's like the fact that there are something like 330 million manifestations of Brahman- not every single one of them is notable, and in fact most are just local or regional; however, there are several hundred among those 330 million. Same basic principle applies here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Addendum; just because it passes A7 does not mean it would necessarily survive AfD; the discussion never said anything about that.
  • I didn't read this whole thread, which has grown very long and seems to have quite a bit of personal rancor, but I have been accused of this (earlier today actually) so I feel compelled to respond. It's not that admins are unable to recognize nonsense, it's that the criterion is deliberately narrowly defined in order to preserve the assumption of good faith on the part of the person creating the article. If we can tell what they are trying to say, that is enough to avoid speedy deletion. If it is completely incoherent, to the point where no reasonable person could truthfully claim to even know what the subject of the article is supposed to be, then we speedy delete it. If you don't like that, see about getting the criterion itself changed, but don't blame the admins for being unwilling to make out-of-process deletions. Bending and stretching the CSD on our own whims is what gets admins in trouble, the community has made it clear to us that they don't want us doing it, so we don't. Don't shoot the messenger. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)