-
File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
article|
XfD|
restore)
quote:Reason=As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer.
Arilang
talk 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore and Relist, at the risk of sounding unpopular, the image had a fair use rationale, and nobody argued for
keep delete other than the nominator. Closing as "Delete" under those circumstances without a further rationale is bizarre.
Lankiveil (
speak to me) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
reply
- Awaiting comment from the closer before registering my !vote. My preliminary view at the moment is that the comment quoted above seems to be arguing that the use satisfies
WP:NFCC#8; since that's the FfD nominator's only point here, I'm uncertain how one can gauge a consensus from this debate.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- My comment, as requested. Two arguments that this image satisfies NFCC were put forth: 1/ that it conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and 2/ that it proves that what is said in the sentence is true. The former is deficient, as the image adds nothing to understanding that words would not, as the subject is not striking and easily understood with words: students tipped over a vehicle. Lack of a FU image must be significantly detrimental to understanding; none of those supporting keep provided any actual evidence that understanding of the riots would be significantly hampered by loss of this image. The second argument, that it "proves what is said in the sentence is true" is a nonstarter, as we use
reliable sources for that, not ambiguous images. Badagnani's argument was summarily ignored as baseless.
- As a minor note not touched on in the FFD, it is probably deletable because of invalid source information, since the source provided—
this flicker page—releases it under CC-BY-SA, while other images in that stream also marked as CC are probably not owned by the user, since they are screenshots from
My Chief and My Regiment, a Chinese television show. So the flickr user probably does not own the image in the first place, therefore the source information is invalid, which makes it deletable anyway. The image also contains the text "www.
boxun.com", which further clouds source information. ÷
seresin 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I request that the closing administrator bear a few things in mind when closing this DRV. First, that consensus is not determined by numbers; neither here nor in an FfD. Consensus comes from policy-based, effective and relevant arguments. Arguments which have no bearing when determining consensus include ones which to do not address the issue at hand (like Badagnani's in the FfD, as all ten NFCC must be met, not only one), or ones which do not address substantive issues of closure (like Colonel Warden's here, as the timestamps on the closure and deletion give no indication as to how much time was spent reading the debate, if that even mattered). Given that consensus does not derive from numbers, comments like Cyclopia's are meaningless, as a consensus to delete can exist if only the nominator supports deletion. As consensus requires policy-based, effective and relevant arguments, if none were provided (as I contend here) then there is a consensus to delete (remember that the nominator's arguments are not excluded from interpretation of the debate). The closer should examine the arguments presented in the FfD and consider whether they actually explain why this image is necessary to understand the article in question (NFCC 8), or whether text is sufficient to explain to the reader what the image conveys: people overturned a vehicle. If you find Jimmy Fleischer's argument more convincing than Ricky81682's, and more convincing than my discussion about it above, then I suppose closing this as faulting my closure is forthcoming. I do, though, wish to draw your attention to my note above about source information, and consider that in the effective result of your closure here, irrespective of your finding about my closure. ÷
seresin 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
**Overturn and relist per my comment above. There is a fairly strong argument that the photo meets
WP:NFCC#8, which has not been rebutted.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC) changed to endorse; see below.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure about the NFCC#8 claim—I still think there is no consensus either way, and if anything, the keep seems to be more well-argued. Nonetheless, you are correct about the source information issue. On that ground and that ground alone, and since we are not
a bureaucracy, endorse deletion, but not the rationale.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn to keep Two keep comments out of two, and a delete outcome? Really? Come on. --
Cyclopia
talk 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Relist, I didn't see the image, I might say keep or I might say delete once I see it. Clearly there is no consensus to delete. If this qualifies for speedy deletion then re-close as a speedy delete, citing the reason.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail) 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse The image was nominated for deletion for failing
WP:NFCC#8. One of the keep comments was basically
WP:ILIKEIT ("Strong keep this irreplaceable image") and the other was not focused on this image ("As other pictures in the article...much better than words..."). Since neither keep was a direct comment on the merits of this picture, I support the closer giving them less weight.
Celestra (
talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Had Jimmy Fleischer left off his introductory phrase and said simply "This picture conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can ...." would your endorsement stand as strongly? The fact that he thinks the other pictures in the article also convey the situation much better than words should not prejudice this image one way or the other.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, because the introductory phrase merely highlights the fact that the keep argument does not argue the merits of this photo. A persuasive argument would have explained how this photo "significantly increase readers' understanding" of students overturning cars. That is the standard, not "much better than words".
Celestra (
talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse what is the point of restoring an image that can never be used because it fails nfcc#8, and therefore can be speedy deleted under CSD:F5 anyway. Talk about process wonkery!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.143.126.27 (
talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Restore and relist - Images simply cannot be deleted at a whim, against clear consensus to keep. Violating our project's consensus-based norms is simply wrong and we cannot ever allow, condone, or encourage such behavior, as some above commenters seem to be doing.
Badagnani (
talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn, relist if so desired. This clearly should not have been closed as "delete," as only the nominator supported deletion and his arguments were not especially strong. Some of the "keep" arguments weren't especially strong either, but Jimmy Fleischer made a strong case for why the image met
WP:NFCC#8. This close was improper.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn The timestamps on this and other contemporaneous closures by the same admin indicate that the discussion was not properly read.
Colonel Warden (
talk) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn A) The only consensus that existed was to keep. B) If you are going to close contrary to the !vote consensus you should _really_ have a closing statement
and C) per Colonel Warden for now. I'm unclear on how the closer could have evaluated so many of these so quickly while reading the details of each. Is there a batch process or some such where you can queue up these deletions and then delete them all in one go?
Hobit (
talk) 20:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The close itself was done by a bot a couple hours after the image has been deleted. I don't know what the closer did, but it would make sense to read through the page, click the "delete" link on the ones you want to delete, then actually delete them all when you are done reading.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. The deletion timestamps are pretty close together, but not as close as the bot made it seem.
Hobit (
talk) 03:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- A closing process that lets one close and delete without providing a rationale is defective. Some of the addons/bots can operate so as to not effectively give the opportunity, but should not be used that way.
DGG (
talk ) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- So, the question is, what is going to be done about this (it was done no fewer than four times, for four different images), and, specifically, what are you going to do about it? If there is no censure or ramifications for the admin who abused his/her powers, such abuse will go on and on. There must be an end to this, and I'm looking forward to the response of what you personally are going to do to see that it does not happen again, specifically in the case of the admin who did it in this case.
Badagnani (
talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. We should not link to a source that is obviously violating copyright.
Chick Bowen 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Could you expand on that? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Hobit (
talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- I suspect that the issue was that the original image had "www.boxun.com" in large red letters across the bottom. Our version was uploaded here from Flickr.
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- On Flickr it is listed with a license that is unlikely to be accurate, thus it is a copyright violation there. Whether boxun.com actually owns it is a different question. Having looked into it a little bit more, it seems likely that neither site owns it, in which case, in my view, we shouldn't include either URL.
Chick Bowen 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn and relist. Procedurally defective - the closing admin deleted the image despite an apparent policy-based consensus to keep. Absent any explanation the only thing to assume is that the admin placed his/her personal interpretation of policy over the consensus. I have no opinion on the underlying question of whether the non-free use rationale is strong enough to support the use in that article, although I do note that there were arguments in the delete discussion that it does. Like most listed images this one did not generate enough discussion to really have a meaningful result, although some of the comments here could perhaps be taken into account and/or those commenting here would take the time to weigh in if it is relisted. Looking through the admin's other recent activity I see quite a number of problematic deletes, some (as in a picture of a defunct rock band) that pretty clearly go against the guideline, which specifically mentions defunct groups. The level of opposition and concern here should be a sign to the admin to start leaving rationales for any decision likely to be disputed, and try not to go so far out on a limb that so many of the deletions are overturned. Sourcing is a side issue here. If someone wants to nominate it on that basis then it should run through the proper course on that, which would give people time to track down the source, presumably via boxun.com -
Wikidemon (
talk) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. In response to the above, I cannot say that sourcing is a side issue; it is the central issue. Many of the points made about process are entirely appropriate, and I understand the relist type arguments. In fact, this may be considered as favoring relist if it will help obtain consensus. My strongest feeling, however, after looking at the image (with "www.boxum.com" in large red letters), is that we only can say this isn't a probable copyright violation with a wink and a nod. I'm just don't favor being willfully oblivious when the non-free rationale is so tenuous.
Xymmax
So let it be written
So let it be done 02:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- My point is that sourcing is not relevant to this DR because it was not considered in the deletion discussion. If an article is inappropriately deleted for one reason, I don't think it's a good argument to say that the deletion should stand because there is another undiscussed reason why it could have been deleted. We should try to find a good source. But note, the real issue is that we don't know the source - the fact that it was copied from a copyvio page doesn't affect our NFC analysis or our right to use it. The fact that we don't know the source, though, makes it harder to be sure about some of the points. For example, if it is a news service photo then I think the general agreement is that we can't use it even if it satisfies all the other criteria, because we're interfering with their business of taking photos to illustrate historic events. If it does get relisted, I think we should make a point of discussing the sourcing problem, and if that doesn't get resolved while the listing is open then the image has to be deleted after all. I hope that makes sense. -
Wikidemon (
talk) 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Whether it makes sense to undelete something if process has not been followed but it is likely to be eventually deleted anyway has been much debated and is as yet unresolved. But that argument doesn't apply to copyright issues: we are obligated by WMF policy to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. In this case, clearly an image uploaded with a valid source would not be a G4, but I don't see how an admin in good conscience can undelete this image given the problems with both the markings on the image and the listed source on the image description page.
Chick Bowen 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- "Likely to be deleted anyway" doesn't really work because that's what deletion discussions are for, there isn't a foregone conclusion unless you're suggesting this is an
WP:IAR scenario. Sourcing isn't a copyright problem though - whether the flickr user stole the image isn't relevant to whether our use is or is not a copyright violation. Anyway, like I said, if the image source isn't complete someone ought to make an attempt to find the actual source, right? Would relisting the article mean we have to undelete it in the meanwhile? I don't see why that's really necessary. The deletion discussion links to the flickr page so anyone participating int he discussion can find it. Then it would stay deleted if there's a consensus that it doesn't meet the 10 criteria OR if nobody comes up with a source by then. -
Wikidemon (
talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, the discussion can be continued at FFD, including further attempts to track down the provenance of this image or to find another one that will serve the same function, without undeleting it. Similarly, much unnecessary drama could be avoided if consensus were gathered at
Talk:2008 Weng'an riot before an image were uploaded, with the understanding that, when it comes to non-free images, the burden lies on establishing their necessity rather than the other way around. I certainly don't think an "endorse" outcome here would mean the end of the conversation.
Chick Bowen 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Good, thanks. Sure, if we delete the image they can always re-add this or another image if they come up with a source and a better rationale, and agree on it over there. So no harm done. -
Wikidemon (
talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
|