Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28#Climategate scandal

:{{DRV links|Bill Church (Tang Soo Do)|xfd_page=|article=}}

Bit of a strange situation. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=334206431&oldid=334182823 left a message about it] for Jayjg, the closing admin, but he hasn't gotten back to me, so DRV seemed the next best step. Basically, the AfD discussion was not fully closed. The AfD involved two articles: a type of martial art called Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, and the inventor of said martial art, Bill Church (Tang Soo Do). Both were nominated for AfD and discussed together in the one discussion. As the closing admin, Jayjg properly stated that the consensus was for delete, but only deleted Tang Soo Do Kyohoe, leaving Bill Church (Tang Soo Do) without any determination. Essentially, one of four things should happen with the latter article: 1) keep (although this shouldn't happen as there is definitely no consensus for that), 2) delete, 3) re-listed for further discussion (or, alternatively, re-nominated in its own AfD), or 4) closed with no consensus (again, I think the !votes were definitely towards delete, so I don't believe this is a real option either). Singularity42 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Tagged with {{tl|db-afd}} Triplestop x3 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Climategate scandal|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal|article=}}

There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jhe_iv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal

The nominator of this review has acceded to an agreement between the original creator and the sysop who closed the deletion discussion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28/Climategate scandal#Closure). The author will work on it in his userspace at User:Wikidemon/Climategate_scandal, and thanks all for the positive feedback on this subject.

:{{DRV links|File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 19|article=2008 Weng'an riot}}

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)

• 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).
• 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)

::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—[http://www.flickr.com/photos/32687447@N07/3639380714/ 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)

:::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)

**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)

:::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)

• Overturn to keep Two keep comments out of two, and a delete outcome? Really? Come on. --Cyclopia^talk 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• :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)
• ::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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

::::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)

:::::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)

• Endorse deletion. We should not link to a source that is obviously violating copyright. Chick Bowen 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Could you expand on that? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

::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)

:::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)

::::"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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:{{DRV links|File:Zhou Shuguang(Zola) and Li Shufen's family.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 19|article=2008 Weng'an riot}}

Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) was the first Chinese citizen reporter who showed support for Li Shufen's family when all the main stream Chinese media refused to take up the story. Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) used his mobile phone and internet cafe to file his report, and has since became famous among Chinese netizens. Arilang ^talk 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, I'm not seeing anything in the debate that suggests WP:NFCC are satisfied in this case—one comment saying that it was irreplaceable (NFCC#1) and another saying that the subject is important. Neither says anything about the other NFCC—NFCC#8 in particular. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

:*Comment There was no "clear consensus to keep." Consensus may have existed if the "keep" voters had rebutted the nominator's concerns, but they failed to even address them. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as inevitable, but there's no consensus either way in the debate. The two "keep" voters' arguments did not address the nominator's concern, which was that the image did not meet WP:NFCC#8. Seresin should have argued for deletion in the debate, which would have allowed another admin to close and prevented this DRV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:PresidentRamonMagsaysay.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_26#File:PresidentRamonMagsaysay.jpg|article=}}

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but it seems it might be appropriate so I'll ask here. I've skipped the step of informing the admin who deleted the file because it's more of a policy question and perhaps due to a technicality in this particular case deletion could be justified although I'm unsure because the page has already been deleted. I suspect, however, this topic will come up over and over again in the future, so I'd like to request guidance on proper procedure when it does so that a more permanent solution may be developed.

The picture is of the 7th President of the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay. He died in 1957. According to Philippine law, as described in the license template {{tl|PD-Philippines}}, pictures after 50 years enter the public domain. Because of this I'm uncertain why the picture of President Magsaysay was deleted. It is now 2009, 52 years after his death. One rationale I can see is that Wikipedia states that it has a benchmark of 80 years to conform with U.S. law. If this is the reason for deletion then the {{tl|PD-Philippines}} template is useless and is misleading to anyone using it. A side issue this raises is of systemic bias since then it would increase the likelihood that pictures from the United States government or foreign governments will be relied upon. It would seem as if a Philippine government picture of a Philippine president even if conforming with Philippine law is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. I must also note the Philippine government is not particularly diligent in labeling pictures so the 50 year limitation is pretty important in keeping things simple. Anyway, I guess my question is this: If someone wished to upload a picture of a long since deceased president of the Philippines what rationales are acceptable? Must one rely upon non-free rationales? Lambanog 2 edits. (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't really DRV fare, but you're essentially correct that all images must first and foremost be acceptable under US copyright law. The various country-specific templates are only there to give information on potential ramifications to using images elsewhere. In this case, a fair use tag for uses in the US, plus a Philippine public domain tag would indicate that the image is not PD in the United States, but it is in the Philippines, and people in that country can freely use it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

:So many such country tags are purely for information purposes and on their own do not contain any information that might prevent the deletion of a picture? That should be made far clearer. The image uploading process is messy for anyone not willing to spend considerable time trying to sort through the pages dealing with the restrictions. I get the feeling those patrolling images would do themselves a favor by reorganizing the information pages. The page that says a rationale must be provided with an information template for example is not as obvious as it should be. Thank you for the response. Lambanog (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

::So is this resolved? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Leave it up for a while longer. No solution has been proposed. A solution is in the interest of all parties. One can only wonder how much time has been wasted by such photos being uploaded then deleted then uploaded then deleted with people going around in circles because the fundamental issue has not been adequately addressed. Lambanog (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:Proposed resolution: If the image was used in an article and a plausible fair-use claim can be made, restore it and tag it properly. If it can be used in an article in a fair-use way, and someone wants to do so, restore it or allow it to be re-uploaded, but make sure it is tagged properly. Otherwise, treat it as an orphan fair-use image and let it stay deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F6. If the image is re-uploaded with a fair-use claim in addition to the Philippines PD tag, I don't think there would be any reason to delete (assuming it isn't orphaned). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse and strongly recommend against uploading here. This is not PD in the US. It will be better to upload this on Commons and take a chance with the URAA. The correct tags on Commons would be {{tl|PD-Philippines}} and {{tl|Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)