|
Please restore selected images deleted by User:Schuminweb listed in WP:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17:
- every file where Nominator has ignored where the scene depicted or the contents of the scene have been critically discussed. Just search for "ignored".
- The deleting editor also ignored the discussion of the scene in the prose, by multiple sources.
- Deleting editor deleted first, then, later closed with "saying this once" closure explanation.
- Deleting editor alleged I attacked another editor, and used that as a reason to ignore critical discussion in prose. My attack was on the attack on policy language.
- Are 272 improper nominations which include misrepresentations of policy to be simply approved now?
- "Decorative" cannot be a valid formal deletion reason, as it is not stated in NFCC policy, period. No way around it.
- Nominator's phrases "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated in policy, and are invalid as deletion reasons, because they add subjective limits not stated in policy.
- Am I the only one insisting that policy be quoted properly, and not exaggerated?
--Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added this deleted episode to the list below. Hope you don't mind. --Lexein (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you raised this matter with the admin in question before raising the DRV? Looking at their page I see a few WTFs in deletions for the 17th and Schumin is a reliable admin - is it possible that a deletion script has got out of hand here? You are also required to notify users if you bring their actions to DRV - perhaps you can do that now? Usually we give admins a chance to fix their own mistakes before hauling them up to the public pillory for their misdeeds to be publiclly discussed for seven days. Just sayin' Spartaz Humbug! 12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Way ahead of you - look at User_talk:SchuminWeb#Policy_WP:NFCC. The admin may be reliable, but here, he supervoted, and ignored the fact of valid critical discussion of images in the articles, at least the 4 listed below, because he didn't like my attack on the nominating language. I quote: "For the second "keep" !vote, [me] that was an attack on the nominator, but did not address the specifics of the image in question, and has thus been disregarded" - this is obviously false, since I literally did address the fact that there was critical discussion in each of the four articles DRV'd here. --Lexein (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly your concept of discussion differs from mine since your comment was a diatribe against the nomination and fall far short of what I could consider a reasonable exchange of views held in a collegiate manner. I'm glad you remembered to notify Schumin after my reminder above so I think you were at best only partly ahead of me. Additionally, what I'm lacking here is a sense of why these images pass NFCC #8 which states in its entirety: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This clearly means that the image has to add significant understanding to the text and that it would not be possible to have that understanding without the image. Effectively this does mean that decorative non-free images cannot be hosted on Wikipedia and that the emphasis placed by the nominator which you so clearly disagree with is a valid interpretation of this policy and does, in fact, reflect time honoured application of the NFCC as enshrined by successive DRVs over the years. The other issue to take account is that the NFCC is mandated by the foundation and has legal implications if not followed. On that basis, given the flawed basis of your nomination here and your incorrect application of policy, I endose all closes subject to better demonstration that NFCC#8 has been met. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Spartaz: You ignore the facts, and so you force me to restate them again: Nominator ignored where the scene depicted or the contents of the scene have been critically discussed.
- Further, you've betrayed an all-too-common zealot's linguistic error: thumbing-the-scale. You state: "This clearly means that the image has to add significant understanding to the text and that it would not be possible to have that understanding without the image." The bolded clause (yours) bluntly does not follow from the first. Your interpretation of policy is blatantly wrong, and baldly disrespects the language of the policy as written. Really really think about the text, and your (bolded) words. Compare. Contrast.
If you haven't gotten it yet, here it is: the "opposite" of "add significant understanding"(policy) is not "not possible without" (yours), it is "reduce understanding" or "detrimental to understanding"(policy), as you previously quoted from the policy. The policy is less restrictive than you (or Koavf) want it to be, and indeed misrepresent it to be. In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtin, lying to yourself, or us, about policy does not improve your case one bit.
- Shrines are for religions and zealots: not for Wikipedia editors on the job. --Lexein (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nasty diatribe. Perhaps when you learn to hold a different position to someone else without feeling the need to vilify that other user for the offence of seeing the world differently we can have a discussion... ... but clearly not today. Since you are being such an arse, my quote for you is Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. More fool me for forgetting that one. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please learn the definitions of 'nasty', 'diatribe' and 'argue'. I've demolished your thumb-on-scale distortions by asserting the fundamental correctness of policy, using the basic English definitions of words. I called out your distortions for what they are. I rejected your injection of religious notions into the discussion outright. And I kept it funny. The bare naked truth which seems to have offended you the most is this: The policy is less restrictive than you (or Koavf) want it to be, and indeed misrepresent it to be. If you truly wanted to discuss, you would have surely discussed that rather than resort to actual nasty ad hominem name calling. But instead of bravely persisting, you took the, let's just say non-brave way out. Not excellent. --Lexein (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It surprises me that SchuminWeb is treating NFCC#8 as if it's an objective criterion. If it was objective—if there was a simple yes/no test—then his deletions would be appropriate. But actually, the question of whether an image "enhances the reader's understanding" is subjective. It's a matter of opinion. Doesn't SchuminWeb's closure elevate his own opinion above that of others? Although I'm open to further discussion on this I'm very much leaning towards "overturn" on the basis that opinions don't carry any extra weight merely because they're held by sysops.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. The assumption with a non-free image is that it should not be hosted unless someone can show that that is does add to understanding and we cannot convey the same meaning with text. If that argument is not been conclusively been made - and the argument that the image has been critically discussed doesn't meet that test than any closing admin is acting according to the Foundation's clear mandate when deleting said image. Spartaz Humbug! 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "assumption" is yours, based on a deliberate misreading of the policy as a whole. Stop presenting your (and Koavf's) abusively selective reading as the totality of the policy. Sorry you don't like the whole policy as written, but we have to live with it as written, free of any agenda, inclusionist, deletionist or supervoter, Spartaz. --Lexein (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spartaz: if you see it that way, then the ambiguity is over whether we can show that it does add to understanding--how do we determine it: I say it adds to my understanding, you say it does not add to yours, n and that does not produce a helpful answer. I am not very graphic oriented in my imagination, and cannot realize scenes or places or people on the basis of words, unless good images are present--I am otherwise unable to construct my own. A more graphics-able person can find words do very nicely to leade his imagination to construct a picture. I then find images o fan imageable thing a necessity, though you may not. Which of us corresponds to "necessary for understanding". I think we try to produce an encyclopedia accessible to to those of different abilities. From this, we want images wheneever they would be informative, rather than just decorative or redundant, buecaue some reasers will need them. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG if you are not a visual thinker do you actually need an image to understand the concepts being explained in the text? I am a very visual thinker and its interesting that I take a harder line on this than you do. I do agree that there is space for a spectrum of opinion of how to apply NFCC#8 but I don't think I should make any apology for basing my views on the principle of a free encyclopedia that minimises the use of non-free media as much as we actually need to and its well known that our overall approach is significantly more restrictive than allowed by US law. I probably would be ameanable to reviewing my position following a rational discussion based on a correct interpretation of policy that isn't spraying vitriol bad faith and character assassinations liberally over those the nominator agrees with but, unfortunately, that isn't the discussion we are having here. The nomination mistates the policy and fails to show how the inclusion of the images in necessary to extend the users' understanding of the topic. Why should I vote to overturn on that basis? Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I'm the only one here who has insisted that policy be quoted, and never misrepresented. So on what basis are you asserting that I "misstate the policy"? That's just wholesale unfair. Only the literal text of NFCC matters, as I've repeatedly said, with emphasis on plain English definitions of words, and not hyperbole or exaggeration. Nothing else matters in this discussion. Nothing. So what, specifically, are you trying to say? --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartaz, I'm concerned that your attitude to this appears to make NFCC#8 meaningless and redundant. If we applied your rule can you give us an example of something that would pass NFCC#8 but fail other inclusion criteria? I would also remark that this is not de.wiki and our policy is to use non-free content where we can and where it would enhance our encyclopaedia. It seems to me that with any visual medium such as a TV show, an image of the show would almost by definition enhance the reader's understanding.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes no sense at all. How does a screen grab decorating every simpsons episode add any value to the article. Its not like anyone reading the article needs to know what the characters look like is it so I really fail to see what encyclopedic value they add except decoration. and My position is based on NFCC#8 and reflects a credible thread of community thought that is consistant with our project scope and the founding ethos of this project. I would agree that de is maybe a little too extreme but I don't agree that expecting the project to concentrate on free content and only use un-free content when there is a clear encyclopedic benefit from it is inconsistant with the NFCC and the foundations resolution on the use of images. I get it that there is another thread of community thought that rejects this position but it doesn't make my position inherantly wrong or inconsistant with NFCC#8. No does it make my worthy of abuse from those that disagree Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that you think the images are decorative. I see that SchuminWeb thinks so too. I get that, and I think your opinion is perfectly valid and arguable. When you describe what you're saying as "a credible thread of community thought", that description is accurate. The important thing is that it's a credible thread of community thought. Not the only credible thread of community thought. And certainly not the One True Way that trumps what everyone who participated in the debate was saying. We're back to what I said right at the start, which is that this is a matter of opinion and opinions don't carry any extra weight just because they're held by sysops.
Of course, none of this means that you or SchuminWeb deserve to be taking any abuse. I think you're wrong, but it's possible to say so without getting personal about it.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as nominator Lexein, you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader of all non-free content and that discussions and RfCs are not votes. If two users agree on a talk page to violate (e.g.) NPOV and one user objects, that consensus between the two is irrelevant as a much larger and more substantial consensus already exists in favor of NPOV on all article content. In this case, there are also legal implications to the NFCC policy. Irrespective of how many users !vote to keep, if something violates fair use, it must be deleted and by the admission of at least one of the editors involved in !voting, some of the images are definitely not fair use, but you voted in favor of keeping them on some altogether small and trivial technicality. Also, it seems like you are confused about a scene being mentioned in the text of the article and whether or not that constitutes the grounds for criticism to upload someone else's copyrighted work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closes - For a given image to meet wp:NFCC #8, those arguing keep at FfD need to (i) identify coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the file/image and (ii) show how that identified source coverage supports the argument that the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Wikipedia articles are to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. If there is no survey of the relevant literature that shows the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, then the image's presence in the article merely would be there based only on a Wikipedia's belief in the importance of the image to the topic rather than being supported by a reliable source's belief in the importance of the image to the topic. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of Wikipedians. WP:V could not be any clearer on this point and is a main feature that separates Wikipedia from the rest of the internet. If there is a reliable source that discusses a deleted image, please open a new DRV for that image. Otherwise, the only outcome to the present request is to endorse the closes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since nobody is demonstrating (by their written words) that they've actually read the articles, I'll just suggest again that people actually read the articles and the sources cited in the articles listed below, and state how the prose and quoted and cited sources do not support, in the extensive discussion in reviews of the scenes depicted in the images, increased understanding of the scene availed by the inclusion of the images. What's evident here is repeated arms-folded I won't consider the whole policy, just my preferred fragments or words, which breaks faith with the community and the WMF. I'm the only one advocating the policy as it is literally written. --Lexein (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFCC #8 does not address the understanding of the article, it addresses the understanding of the topic of the article. No one needs to read the article to determine whether the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. You need only look at what the reliable sources write about the image to make that determination. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "For a given image to meet wp:NFCC #8, those arguing keep at FfD need to..." - the way to argue about meeting NFCC#8 is by providing a valid rationale at the "purpose" field in the file image. The mass nomination -without- individual rationales for why NFCC was not met, those were weak reasons for deletion, and deleting all them without those specific rationales was improper, as 1) each file had a claim for fair use and 2) each file was not individually discussed with specific claims about its merit. Diego (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Uzma Gamal:
- NFCC#8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I'll be referring to one example from here on: "Andy's Play", and I can't believe I have to work this example. The topic is "Andy's Play". Playing along with your artificial restriction (without reading the article, but assuming someone reads the article title and the image caption), inclusion of the image clarifies that the play is a production featured in universe of the show The Office, in an episode entitled "Andy's Play", on stage, with a set and props, featuring Andy; the image of the scene also shows Andy and two other actors in period costume, and anachronistically, Andy apparently answering his phone. The image enhances the understanding of the topic, Andy's Play, precisely per NFCC#8.
- You say, "you need only look at what the reliable sources write about the image to make that determination". This is incorrect, and is an incorrect interpretation of policy, which is not vague on the matter. Policy consistently uses the word topic. What RS write about the content or subject of the image is what is at issue: the topic. We at least need to agree about that. And guess what? The reliable sources linked in the article do discuss the topic, and the scene, and the acting. Here, the image adds significant understanding of the the topic, "Andy's Play".
- The notion of without reading the article is absurd: NFCC#8 does not state or imply "without reading the article", or "separate from the article on the topic". NFCC#8 does not state, "the image must stand alone to illustrate the entire topic", it says, "significantly increase understanding of the topic". But guess what? The image, standalone, does demonstrably significantly increase understanding of the topic, "Andy's Play."
- The definition of the word "significantly" includes "noticeable" and "detectable" (science), and when used as hyperbole, more than that. Wikipedia policy is not based on hyperbole; we use plain English. Further, NFCC#8 explicitly states these words: contextual significance, and used, which means we're talking about the image in context of the topic, and in context as used in a Wikipedia article, since that's where it's going, and nowhere else. So there's no such thing as without reading the article. But if you insist, okay, read the sources on the topic.
- The image is significant in the context of all of these things: the play, the scene, the incident on stage, the episode, the writing (which created the scene), the acting (which executing the writing), the reviews, and so, the article. Context exists, and usage exists, in policy and in articles, and cannot be willfully ignored. The meaning of "significant" cannot be willfully amplified by hyperbole. Policy carefully avoids using vague value estimations, only presence or absence of a "significant increase of understanding". It is, clearly, present.
- Editors might want to believe that policy requires that sources discuss the image itself, the framegrab, as opposed to its topic, but it doesn't. Some sources do discuss the images themselves in other articles, in other contexts, for other purposes (photography, perhaps), but that is not what is required in policy text, as written. It's about the topic of this article, here before us.
- --Lexein (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I don't know what more you could want from me here, but the simple fact that you reference Andy holding a phone and that other sources also reference Andy holding the phone does not justify a screengrab of him holding the phone. How is this image going to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Are you arguing that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What in the hell was the point of me wasting my time arguing against the deletion of these images if some random admin is just going to come through and ignore all of the debate and delete the images without even giving a rationale? Stuff like this really makes me hate wikipedia. -- Scorpion0422 14:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images deleted were pretty much just decorative. I'll admit that. But some I felt really did assist in critical commentary. In particular, File:Cecil and Bob.png. In fact, the nominator didn't even respond to my comment (he responded to every other one), which I interpret as his admission that I am right. [2] -- Scorpion0422 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to add disputed episodes to the list below - then the image may be restored for discussion. So I added it, in case. --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. NFCC#8 strictly prohibits "decorative" - as a decorative can be removed and not affect understanding of the article, it fails NFCC#8, so claiming the argument "it's decorative" isn't a valid rational is not correct, as it most certainly is. Television screenshots have no immediate allowance for use (as listed at WP:NFCI) and thus require that they clearly meet NFCC. This generally means that the scene that the screenshot shows has been discussed by secondary/third-party sources in depth in a critical manner, and be necessary for the reader to understand what is going on - thus inclusion helps comprehension, and omission would harm it. Just because the text of the WP article discusses the scene doesn't mean that meets the NFCC requirement. Schuminsweb's closures as delete seem spot on here. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "decorative" is never mentioned in NFCC. It's a made-up rationale, and should never ever be used again. It's pure poison, and is only used to inflame arguments, never to discuss, explain, or reach consensus. I'm not the only one who thinks this: see WP:DECORATIVE in WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
- You stated yourself that it's required that "the scene that the screenshot shows has been discussed by secondary/third-party sources in depth in a critical manner, and be necessary for the reader to understand what is going on - thus inclusion helps comprehension". Well, such scenes have indeed been discussed by RS, just so, as quoted and cited in the articles, and still the images improve the understanding of the image scenes further. I never claimed that "text of the WP article [which] discusses the scene" was sufficient. I have always asserted that independent critical reviews discussed the scenes, as quoted and cited in the articles.
- I do wish people would just reread NFCC, go to bed, dream about it, and wake up realizing the essential truth: NFCC's extremely careful, literate, language is more permissive than editors are willing to admit, when exaggerations of its literal text are set aside. --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (inserted AAFFD above. --Lexein (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absolutely not as permissive as you think. We are purposely stricter than fair use law to encourage free content development. "Decorative" uses immediately falls out of this as unacceptable, and while it is not a word codified into NFCC, it immediately falls out from NFCC#8. Remember there are two parts to NFCC#8 - inclusion to improve understand (which can nearly always argued to be a truism for any image) , and that omission is harmful which is where many images will fail NFCC#8. Take the case of the image of File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg (which I did look back with admin status to check what it was, namely the band Simpsons-ifed) and the use on the page Co-Dependent's Day, and just being mentioned in the plot is nowhere close to sufficient rationale to use the comic image of the band. A free image of the band, (which we have), sure. Similarly, the use of File:Cecil and Bob.png in Brother from Another Series is one where it is showing a comic-ified David Hyde Pierce in conjunction where the concept of the character is mentioned (better than just the plot), but we have a free image of Pierce that could be used as well, so there's no reason for the non-free here. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Decorative: that's an argument to avoid in image deletion discussions. WP:DECORATIVE. Did you think I was making this up? Or that I was the only one? Reconsider.
- Ok, that's your analysis of use of File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg in Co-Dependent's Day, which was already (below) admitted to being a weak candidate, but its use in Brave Combo - does that get a pass or not? There can be literally no comprehension of the band's animated appearance without the image, and there are sources discussing it in Brave Combo, and the history of the development of that appearance (just added to Co-Dependent's Day).
- File:Cecil and Bob.png in Brother from Another Series - without the non-free, there can be literally no comprehension at all of Pierce's animated appearance without the image. So the increase of understanding of the topic, Cecil/appearance/relation to Bob, is infinite: anything / zero = infinity. But I exaggerate.
- There are plenty of others below worthy of individual analysis, rather than a blanket "all deletions fine by me". I sorta wish individual analyses actually were moved down there, to be honest. --Lexein (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, I wonder if you aren't overstating the case here a bit. We like to encourage free images; but that's Wikimedia Commons' mission, not ours. Our mission is to write an encyclopaedia. If it improves readers' understanding to use non-free content then we should be willing to use non-free content. Whether or not a particular image enhances readers' understanding is a question to be decided by collegial discussion and consensus between editors, not by one sysop deciding that he knows better.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the m:mission that guides all projects hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." The Resolution on non-free media that applies to all WMF projects restates the same. And arguably, these were deleted after discussion: the nominator's rationale and a few keep statements with the admin going after a policy-based consensus decision. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's really painful torture of language: there's No. Such. Thing. as a "policy-based consensus decision" where there is no consensus because there's no discussion (no constructive response to keeps), or there is discussion and deletion occurs even over 4 keeps and Koavf's reconsideration of meeting NFCC on File:Bart to the Future.png in WP:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. Man, that was just embarrassing. It makes Wikipedia look bad. It breaks faith with the community. It renders all this jabber about consensus to be a lie. If you want to call it a policy-based overriding of discussion and consensus, that might fly. When pigs do. --Lexein (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Policies are themselves decided by consensus. If two users decide that a single page will break NPOV and one user objects on the talk page, that consensus is irrelevant as the community at large already has a very strong consensus in favor of NPOV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lexein, would you please stop inserting angry and hostile rebuttals into the discussion outside chronological order?
Masem says: "...arguably, these were deleted after discussion". In fact, to be complete, they were deleted after a discussion that led to a unanimous consensus (excluding the nominator). The closer chose to disregard the consensus. Our purpose, here at DRV, is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and I put it to you that it hasn't been. I mean, if it's okay for the closer to disregard everything that anyone says during the debate, then we might as well dispense with formal seven-day discussions completely and replace them with a sysop's suggestion box. Essentially the argument is that SchuminWeb has no authority to overrule a unanimous discussion.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When one cites policy (in proper context), they are bringing in past consensus discussions into the current discussion. So no, these weren't 2 "keeps" vs the 1 nom "delete", these were 2 "keeps" vs 1+(Some very large number) "deletes". That's why admins are told to look at the rationales for the !votes, to judge based on those, and not on sheer number. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for that the closing admin didn't follow reasons that are encoded in policy ("decorative" is certainly not), and thus he was not using previous consensus discussions. Diego (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for S Marshall What about the hypothetical that I give elsewhere on this page: two users make a consensus to forget NPOV for one article... Does this consensus somehow override the project-wide consensus to adhere to NPOV on all content? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit of a straw man, as no one in these discussions said "let's ignore NFCC", but rather "NFCC is satisfied." So the question is instead this: Were the discussion commenters so far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretation and application of NFCC that the closer could just ignore them? It's not sufficient that the nominator or the closing admin might interpret it differently. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Process question: It is not clear to me what this section is about. Is it a deletion review for all images on that FFD day? Or is it only a header for the DRV's listed below? If this section is meant to constitute a DRV process of its own, please list the specific images it applies to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking this question. There are two main parts, which I had hoped I had made clear above:
- Improper deletion nominations: Strikethrough or delete the portions of text in all 272 noms which improperly represent policy. Sanction nominator for misrepresenting policy. Or revert nominations which so misrepresent policy. There are four discrete parts which I feel do not belong in the noms:
- "Decorative" (per WP:AAFFD),
- Nominator's three phrases "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated in policy, and are invalid as deletion reasons, because they add subjective limits not stated in policy. They raise the bar far beyond the language of NFCC policy.
- Review of selected images (listed below) which deserve such review, since they had at least some discussion by critics, and/or offered arguable improvement of understanding of the topic. Proposal of appropriate NFUR text supporting the claims of improvement of understanding of the topic.
- --Lexein (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all deleted images listed on November 17th per the description above. I was very concerned when I originally saw the very large list of images that Koavf - who tends to do things in big chunks without much thought given to each specific item - had nominated, and I think the best way to proceed is to overturn them all and start from scratch. Enjoin Koavf from re-nominating, and SchuminWeb from deleting, and allow other editors to nominate if they feel it necessary, but not all at the same time, or in batches, so that we end up here again. This will allow editors time for true consideration, and undo the effect of the misunderstanding of the meaning of NFCC #8 that is quite obvious here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you can show that SchuminWeb was closing each blindly, due process was followed on each nomination - it wasn't one mass nomination, and they all had the 7 day period for comments. Getting only 3-4 editors to response is very common for image deletion when it comes to NFC, so that's not unusual either. In otherwords, there's no process issues here to make the overturn appropriate, barring SchuminWeb simply checkboxing all images as delete without any careful consideration of the consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go Masem, an example of SchuminWeb closing the nominations blindly: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. See also my comments here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_25#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. While I agree with him on most of his deletions, he clearly didn't spend enough time looking through all the nominations before he deleted all the images in one go. Theleftorium (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing there that implies SchuminWeb blindly closed discussion. Assuming good faith, looking at the image and its use in the article and the text given that is meant to support it, I can certainly see the logic in closing as "delete" because it's not too hard to imagine "older" versions of the Simpsons characters, particularly with the text given for Bart (overweight, pigtail, etc.) - in other words, there is a likelihood of NFCC#8 failure here. Mind you, I also see the arguments to keep the image, but those weren't presented in the discussion, instead arguing "decorative is not a rationale to delete" (which is very much false). Again, there was no problem with the process that requires re-evaluation of all images, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they were closed blindly. Individual images can be rechallenged, but not the mass lot, unless more evidence can be shown that SchuminWEb was acting in bad faith and without careful review. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer's mens rea isn't relevant. Either the close reflected the discussions in light of policy or it didn't, and if it didn't it doesn't matter whether he closed them blindly or conscientiously labored for hours over each one before making the wrong judgment. The discussions speak for themselves, and we should be more concerned with respecting demonstrated consensus than following "due process". postdlf (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is the closer's intention that are important because we are dealing with the most subjective part of NFC policy, NFCC#8, whether the image is critical to understanding of the article or not. Once that question is brought up, there's no policy-based distinctions that can be used, only at that point the judgement of the closure based on the strength of the arguments of whether NFCC#8 is satisfied or not. Now, if we assume good faith that Schuminweb spent time to consider the images in context, the arguments give (both the nom and the addition !votes) and understanding of what NFCC#8, then the close is in-process, leaving the question of whether Schuminweb interpretation of the policy NFCC#8 was correct. If he blindly went through, that's a different story, but the evidence is just not there for that. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I must address the misquote in situ: nowhere does NFCC#anywhere state critical to understanding of the article, nor does it mean that. The phrase is literally: significantly increase understanding of the topic ("critical" is not mentioned). See WP:NFCC#8. If you disagree with my every DRV nomination, would you at least agree that policy must be quoted, not misquoted or exaggerated in any way in these discussions? Of course opinion is fine, but it shouldn't be presented as if it were policy, right? --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That rather turns on its head the role admins are supposed to play in XFDs. My experience is more with AFD (both as a closer and a participant) rather than FFD, but what you're describing sounds to me like a super!vote, not a read of consensus in the discussion. And if NFCC#8 is "the most subjective part," than that is all the more reason why an admin should not override the consensus in the discussion and not act upon his own opinion of what the outcome should be. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, the nomination counts as a !vote as well, so while most of these images appear to be universally "keep" !votes, that nomination may be the sole "delete" one. But of course, xFDs aren't numbers-games; it is about the strength of arguments, and when the nom provides a policy argument and the others don't provide policy reasons, it's a bit difficult for the admin to back the non-policy side. (My mind is going blank but there was a recent xFD were it was like 20 "keeps" to 4 "deletes" and the admin closed in favor of the deletes because they offered policy reasons while the keeps were less compelling). Now, that said: of the images that have been called out in this discussion, the only one where I see a compelling counterargument for keeping is Bart of the Future. I'm not saying SchuminWeb is in the wrong here - as I would agree the image is unnecessary, but here could be a case where we have a lack of proper process. It is true the point of contention of this image is NFCC#8 which is subjective. Since the arguments were made that it met NFC policy, perhaps the right thing would have closed the discussion at FFD and then open up discussion at NFCR (nonfree content review) where specifically the merits of meeting NFCC#8 would be discussed outside of the deletion process. The problem is that FFD is not set up to handle that type of situation; I think , ideally, we'd rather have people who contest an image over NFCC#8 to take that to NFCR first than to FFD which is more hostile. But that's not how this is set up, so perhaps that needs changing.
- Does this affect the bulk of the images that were deleted? No, I don't believe so, and selective challenges as being done below make sense. But this does point to the issue that FFD is not the proper starting point for images that an editor believes fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't agree that it's acceptable to bundle the deletions together, but then to insist on individual, separate undeletion discussions. That's not FairProcess.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how much weight could be given to mass boilerplate nominations that do not specifically comment on the image, the article, or their relationship to each other, let alone accomplish anything to rebut the NFURs. Mere conclusory "fails policy X" statements are instead of little or no value in deletion discussions. Seems to me there are some fundamental problems with FFD if that is the norm. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In most of these cases there were no NFURs to rebut in the first place. The alleged "rationales" were no rationales; they were even more boilerplate than the nomination statements. And that really is contrary to policy – such pseudo-rationales are ipso facto invalid. How much individual FFD discussion can you demand from nominators if the uploaders don't do their homework to begin with? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point about the generic nature of some of the NFURs, but none of that is reflected in the actual deletion discussions, and that a NFUR is currently inadequate does not mean it cannot be fixed to be up to code. Many of the images were also uploaded four, five, even six years ago, and the NFC policies and expectations have changed significantly over time. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that the "NFC policies and expectations have changed significantly" during the last five or six years is an often-repeated myth; it is simply untrue. The demand that non-free images must have individual, clear and concrete explanations has been in the policy for 8 years and has never changed. These images were always contrary to policy, no matter when they were uploaded. It's not that the policy has changed; it's that certain corners of the project (e.g. TV series wikiprojects) have acted irresponsibly and systematically ignored the policy for years, filling the project with such quantities of bad non-free images that policy enforcers could never manage to tackle them. Now these uploaders are acting surprised on seeing that their years-long failure to abide by policy comes and bites them in the butt at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response As Future... pointed out, the burden is on the uploader to justify the non-free media. If the criteria change, then it's still incumbent upon someone to justify that media according to the new standards and all non-free media have to be assumed as invalid until proven otherwise. If hundreds (thousands) of images are uploaded with rationales like "it identifies this film/television show" and simply displays something that it as some point mentioned in the text, those are all invalid as such. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that I've failed to grasp how this discussion justifies deletion against consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question is more "how this discussion justifies deletion against majority", because consensus is a very different beast, and we don't use voting to determine who "wins" an xFD. Even if it was 100 keep !votes to the one original nomination to delete, if the nomination has the stronger policy based argument, the consensus is to close in favor of policy, against those 100 !votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said "deletion without consensus". Deletion at any XfD discussion requires a supporting consensus, and with all due respect for the many ingenious arguments you have supplied and your creditable tenacity in debate, there quite blatantly is no consensus to support the deletions that have been performed.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Any number of users can have a consensus to agree to anything, but that doesn't override policies, guidelines, or even legal requirements. Long-standing, well-entrenched, and critical policies are consensus that apply to large swaths of content on Wikipedia and even though a given image on this deletion page has two !votes for keep and two !votes for delete, which would be a lack of consensus either way, if policy favors one line of argumentation, then the consensus of said policy counts in favor of that side in the discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I answered this in Process question(live link) above. --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I have been a bit busy with other things lately and didn't pay close attention to the deletion discussions when they were running, so I don't know what the images look like. Would it be OK to restore the images temporarily during this discussion so that it can be more easily assessed whether the images meet WP:NFCC#8 or not and whether the closures were in accordance with policy? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, the image is shown in the reviews 4 5 6 quoted and cited in Andy's Play, and as I mentioned in the suggested NFUR above. --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot comment on these particular images, but I've had issues with ShuminWeb's deletion compaigns before. For example, he got File:PRR B6 7928.jpg deleted by removing it from PRR B6 on the pretext that, since the article claims that there is a survivor of this locomotive class, it is possible to get a non-free image. Well, the article claim is uncited and therefore he doesn't know that it's true, but in any case the fact that this locomotive might exist doesn't mean it can be photographed in any usable manner. There were a bunch of articles which stealthily lost their images through this method. He also tried to get essentially every Denver Public Library image deleted in one mass deletion, which was thwarted when his theory their copyright assertion was rejected; however he did manage to get most Otto Perry images deleted through a variety of avenues. On the latter I started an attempt to respond but gave up because it was far more work to check out and apply a rationale to each image than it was for him to simply delete the image from each article; I couldn't keep up with him. I can appreciate the desire to limit fair-use, but the crusading quality of his campaigns is at best questionable. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This thread is not a free-for-all for venting old grudges over any and all past image deletions by this admin. If you want to challenge the deletion of File:PRR B6 7928.jpg, please open a DRV for that one. (By the way, off-topic, but that deletion was perfectly adequate, both in process and substance – there is nothing "stealthy" about removing replaceable images from articles first and tagging them subsequently, and there actually is a surviving machine in the museum mentioned in the article [3][4], as you could easily have found out.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the generic issue, NFCC#8, is, as S Marshall and DGG have stated, a matter of informed opinion. It isn't something that one user (or admin) should be putting their judgement as more proper. The right thing to do is !vote rather than close if you feel the consensus to date is incorrect. Any close based purely on NFCC#8 that goes against clear consensus in the discussion should be overturned. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, this is an overturn all !vote. And I agree Tim that it looks like the closer may not have looked closely at these, which gives an additional reason to overturn. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all and start from scratch. Boilerplate nominations and boilerplate keeps cannot produce discussions from which any real consensus can be reliably determined, especially when, given the closure of the FfD for File:Bart to the Future.png, it is doubtful whether the closer actually carefully examined each image. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While both the nominations and the !keeps were boilerplate, the nominations (unlike the keeps) were in fact substantial and did address relevant, factual issues about the images in question. The problem is not that we get many boilerplate nominations; the problem is that we get too many bad uploads with boilerplated rationales. We have a backlog of thousands and thousands of bad TV episode images of this kind. If people keep uploading these in batches, never bothering about individual rationales, how if not through batch nominations are we ever going to tackle them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Similarly to what Future Perfect wrote above, the burden of proof is on the uploader. Non-free media are assumed not fair use until proven otherwise, so if a huge string of sloppy FURs are made, then they can be summarily deleted with just as little care. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... but if files are summarily deleted with little care, then it's DRV's job to overturn the deletion. Our main purpose here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. I do have some sympathy with the point you're making—there's an asymmetry in that material can be uploaded more easily than it can be deleted, and that's not fair—but I also feel that the file upload process isn't within our purview. Maybe an RFC about this asymmetry is the answer?—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "burden of proof is on the uploader" slogan simply doesn't have any meaning once the file's upload is a certain distance in the past. Some of these images were uploaded in 2006. There is probably no one left around to "enforce" NFCC against (not that "enforcement" should have any place in our vocabulary as volunteer editors here). As the files are in use in articles, they are the project's responsibility, meaning all of us as collaborative editors. NFC policy does not trump other policies or pillars, and consensus is still necessary to determine its application. Many of the comments in support of these deletions seem to treat FFD as an empty formality and consider admins free to ignore a discussion's complete lack of substance, but as no speedy deletion criteria applies, then the deletions must be rooted in a consensus found in the FFD discussions themselves. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn All - apparently there are significant concerns about many of these. Let us just start over and if (when) some or all are re-nominated, the nominator can be careful of wording and selectivity. The closing admin can be careful to copy and paste from policy instead of any paraphrase. It's unfortunate and more work, but then we can know that the community has dealt precisely with this issue. --Nouniquenames 00:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all someone has overstepped their boundaries here, whether some of the deletions were proper is immaterial as it's apparent not all of them were. The broad brushstrokes used to take out a more refined questions is incorrect and they can be re-nominated but for now this is an out-of-process deletion that needs to be re-done as the decision is manifestly incorrect. –– Lid(Talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn all it is high time there was a review of the free fanatics and their deletion of "fair use" images. having lost the policy discussion, they now mendaciously tilt the "burden of proof" on uploader when frequently the uploader from 5 years ago is long gone. and we have cases where public domain images are wrongly licensed "fair use", when fixing the license would avoid all the useless drama. we need a new standard of conduct: fix the license first, then delete. more insidious than the mass deletions or mendacity, which at least is forthright, is the stealth ip deletion from infoboxes, with automatic bot image deletion, for example [5]; there are many many more. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 04:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Your perspective is well-taken, I suppose but largely irrelevant here: this discussion isn't about fair use at large or the William Scott article or public domain images (why would they be uploaded here anyway...?), but these particular deletions for this discussion. As Future Perfect pointed out above, this isn't a forum for anyone with an axe to grind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the perspective informs the vote. i kinda like this admin, he's polite at meet-ups, does good work, so why this acting out, mass deletions? this episode is part of a systemic problem; if you don't solve it, we will be here over and over. once upon a time, all images were here, before the great migration. i don't really have an ax, just looking for answers, occam's razor. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 15:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are spewing accusations of "mendacity", together with absurd conspiracy claims like that this trivial piece of IP vandalism was a stealthy bot attack by an image "fanatic", and you have the nerve to claim you have no axe to grind? Get a grip on reality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all. This kind of mass nominations with the same exact boilerplate are really bad process. Let's do it again, this time with proper discussion individualized for each image under FfD. Diego (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all and list that actually don't qualify for deletion separately for a new discussion. Mass closures or deletions are very often questioned unless the issue truly is identical, as it might have been If they were multiple images but of the same event. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The purpose of deletion review is to determine whether were any problems with the process itself and whether the closing administrator acted reasonably. Batch or bulk nominations are not uncommon nor do they offend policy; it's not an argument to say that too many images were listed for deletion. The central issue is whether SchuminWeb interpreted NFCC correctly, particularly criteria #8. I've argued with Ben in the past about this very issue and it's thorny. However, the arguments raised in the individual discussions don't grapple with the issue. NFCC #8 doesn't use the word "decorative," but it does clearly prohibit using unfree content for purely illustrative purposes. Bart to the Future, down the page, is a good example of unfree content which meets NFCC #8. To take one example, File:Homer Strangling Bart.jpg listed as its rationale "To illustrate to the synopsis of the episode." It's a reasonable application of WP:NFCC that said rationale failed #8. Mere illustration is not contextually significant. No one in that discussion explained how the image was contextually significant. It's worth taking to heart that this project exists to create and distribute free content, and that the inclusion of unfree content is ultimately inimical to that goal. Wikipedia's fair use policies represent a pragmatic compromise; and the burden has always been on the uploader to explain why the use of a given image is valid. In none of these discussions did participants do so. There's a temptation here to mass overturn because it looks like a massacre. I think that would be unfortunate because instead of engaging with the very real problem that their images go against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies. I doubt very much if this decision is overturned whether any of the problems with these images will be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Way off, and hollowly unconvincing. Do not invoke "letter and spirit" without being very inclusive of all letter and spirit. Do not base your endorsement of all deletions on discussing only one which is not even contested below. SchuminWeb acted on an exaggeration of the word "significant" used in NFCC#8 in order to rationalize deletion; this was as improper as Koavf's nomination based on the same exaggeration. Spartaz even echoed Koavf's exaggeration ("critically important"), and refused to even discuss that fact, yet went so far as to accuse me of misstatement without a shred of example or evidence. There's nothing "unfortunate" about ripping up and rerouting bad road. Mass deletion over and against discussion, without discussion, based on a clear, persistent, pernicious, widespread misrepresentation of policy is just plain bad road. Keep in mind that no non-admin editors can now see the oh-so-precious deleted image rationales now, to even discuss them. Very convenient, and smug, and beyond good faith repair (and, I notice, my proffered improved rationale (offered twice) has still been unanswered). Please don't employ rhetoric about "letter and spirit", while that is going on. Side note: it is a foolish practice, IMHO, to delete the image article along with the image. This constitutes arms-folded "I've done it, now don't question me" smugness at its worst, and makes this deletion review discussion ridiculously one-sided, admins vs. registered editors. --Lexein (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'scuse me but who elected you Godking? You don't get to tell other users on what basis they can frame their arguments and its for the closing admin not you to determine which arguments reflect policy best. Your contributions to this debate are stellerly sub-optimal and the sad thing is that even if you did realise that you wouldn't care. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And there it is again. I can argue the points I want, even to dispute another editor's framing, as long as I don't lie, exaggerate, or make ad hominem attacks, and I don't think I have: that is, neither you nor anyone else has shown any such error on my part. You, and others, however, continue to disrespect the actual language of the policy with thumb-on-scale by asserting that "critically important" is the same as "significantly increases understanding", and use that to rationalize sub-optimal nominations, and a sub-optimal close. There's your "sub-optimal", properly applied. That you don't like my arguments is obvious; that you cannot factually refute them is not my problem. --Lexein (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17#File:Cecil_and_Bob.png){kind=link}
