Commons talk:Deletion policy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg This talk page is for discussing changes or improvements to the English original version of Commons:Deletion policy. For help with using or understanding the policy, see Help:Contents, Commons:Help desk, and Commons:Village Pump.


Personality rights[edit]

The policy needs to lay out in clear terms what is supposed to happen when deletion of media that depicts a living person is sought by an author/uploader/subject/subject's representative, i.e., that they needn't generate further embarrassment at DR in order to resolve feelings of distress. See here for an example of why this codification is necessary and see here for a parallel discussion.   — C M B J   01:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's another discussion on this subject at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#What_to_do, although it wasn't prompted by any particular incident. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

MUST change to accommodate Creative Commons’ trademarks, which are licensed subject to the Trademark Policy![edit]

Non-free licenses and fair use

We need to add "and CC". Without a change like this, we'll need to delete a slew of unfree files like CC some rights reserved new 2.svg. Much of Category:Creative_Commons_icons needs to be fixed, moved or deleted. Some qualify for {{PD-Textlogo}}, but the ones with a varied background don't. See here. Creative Commons’ trademarks, are licensed subject to their Trademark Policy. --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So, first of all, who agrees we ought to add "and CC"?

Support! --Elvey (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, first of all, let's discuss the issues before indulging in a vote-fest. If some of these files are nonfree, why are we hosting them? Wouldn't they then violate the WMF's licensing policy, which also says it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies"? Also, which ones are actually non-free? --Avenue (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy deletions[edit]

I propose amending the policy to cover accidental and/or unintentional uploads. This is a common practice and we may as well add it into the deletion policy itself. Key thing is that it shouldn't grant uploaders the right to revoke their license over drama, anger, etc.

There is a competing Commons:Courtesy deletions which I do not agree with as it is trying to mix Commons:Personality rights, ethics, morality and other similar concepts together in my opinion.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoing changes made by uploaders of deleted images[edit]

Recently, User:Bava Alcide57 uploaded File:Metz infobox collage.jpg, which was later found to be breaking French non-FoP copyright law and was therefore removed per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Bava Alcide57. However, in the meantime, the uploader has forced his image into infoboxes on several Wikipedias (at least cs:Mety), which, consequently, lost infobox imagery alltogether after CommonsDelinker removed the deleted picture. This has also had a clearly bad effect on that article (and possibly similar articles at other Wikipedias, which are now very difficult to even identify, once the infringing image has been removed). One would wish that the delinker also reverts the uploader's image replacement, in order to leave the article with the previous image that the article featured before it was replaced by the eager uploader's rejected work. While there is lack of care for this, Wikipedians might need to be tracking every single change made by CommonsDelinker, because otherwise this leads to a progressive decrease of quality of the encyclopedia (as compared to increase when better picture is provided, or stable state when original image is reverted upon deletion of a newly proposed one). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Such changes are unfortunate, but difficult to do anything about systematically. The bot cannot know when the now deleted image was inserted and whether it then replaced another image, without complicated analysis of the article history. In most cases this is better done manually by those caring about the articles in question. As they see the bot comment, they can search for replacements and possibly, depending on edit comments, note the earlier image replacement (or even remember it). --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I can understand that figuring out the perfect solution might be tricky when other edits have been done to the article in the meantime. However, in such active wikis, it's also more probable that caring contributors will be able to fix the issues manually, as you write. It's those many less active wikis and those many less popular articles that I especially care for, and there all I had to do was a simple revert (actually not that simple for me, because as a non-admin I could not revert several edits - the original uploader's and the bot's - at once). I think that, in such cases, it is technically possible for the bot to spot the difference and revert to the original image name (although possibly not the description etc., if that was changed at the same time by the uploader as well). It would only mean looking at the last edit (such as [1]) to see whether that was the one which introduced the name of the image being-removed, and if so, taking note of the name that was in that place before the edit. Before using that name, the bot could yet verify whether there is indeed a picture of that name in existence, which would also prevent it from mistaking some article text for an image in case of an imperfect diff. If MediaWiki's software is capable of calculating such diffs, the bot must be capable too. Is there a place where I could suggest this as an improvement for the bot? Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Using the Discussion link in the CommonsDelinker edit comment I found it recommended using User talk:Siebrand for suggestions. I think something along those lines could be done (you can undo multiple edits yourself, by viewing an older version, clicking edit and saving it). It is probably worthwhile only if the scenario is common. Any more complicated cases will need more accesses, parsing and special casing, e.g. a change in caption or running text referring the image should be restored if the image is, while unrelated text changes should not. Thus every change accompanying the image change or done later should be identified or the image not restored. --LPfi (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the right place. I have just posted a suggestion at User talk:Siebrand#CommonsDelinker should restore previous images when applicable. Please note that while I know I can undo multiple edits at once (that's what I did with most of those affected articles), that means that I need to go without that nice edit summary explaning of what has been removed and whose version has been restored. And it adds extra pain to dig out the original revision's id myself and to need to write the summary in English (I would prefer the automatic one which is in the language of the wiki, but obviously I do not speak all those languages). Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Siebrand runs SieBot, not CommonsDelinker. It is a shared page for requests, but two bots service the requests, so he will not be able to assist. Their is not perfect solution, and all sites need to watch the operations of CDL as it is a somewhat bot tool that is operated by people making judgment calls. The author of CDL have mostly moved on, and we are somewhat dealing with a legacy issue, and it really is in need of new owners, especially those willing to take CDL to the next generation  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of the deletion policy with regard to file mismatch deletions[edit]

Due to there being variation in how administrators are handling files that are marked as {{duplicate}} and whether files of different formats are considered exactly the same or not, I have started a conversation at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Variation among admins in application of duplicate policy with relation to different file types. For those who have some of the history, or those who have a strong opinion, please share it at the link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeal[edit]

Given the current consensus at COM:AN that one should first talk to the closing administrator, I propose that the text describing the appeal (you might want to discuss with the closing administrator) is replaced with the more strict version at Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal: "If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion). Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so." --Eleassar (t/p) 08:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes; make it bold. JKadavoor Jee 08:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is fine to go straight to Undeletion requests and there are scenarios (such as when I am handling OTRS requests) that this may be a more mellow path to follow. I believe Eleassar's issues stem from re-raising DRs shortly after an associated bundle DR was closed, which is a different issue, and probably best improved by considering Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. -- (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • May be better to separate DR and UDR? Here the issue is with repeated DR. UDR is a bit different, in my opinion. JKadavoor Jee 11:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    They already are separated. Changing this policy to make it a requirement that contributors have to correspond with a deleting admin before going to an Undeletion Request is turning politeness into bureaucracy (most people will interpret "should" as a behavioural requirement which is in practice equivalent to "must"). This is an unqualified requirement making it a can of worms—what about OTRS requests relating to a file deleted a year ago, what about when the admin appears inactive, what about situations of defamation or where the deletion may have related to a previous OTRS request or an matter for oversight? UDRs should never be rejected because the correspondent had not taken this step.
    Again, the source of this proposed change was opening a DR after a bundled DR had chosen to keep one of the files bundled rather than delete it. The question of whether you should open specific DRs after a bundled DR failed to get the a result you approve of is quite different from this policy. If there is a proposal here it should be for a clarification to the mass DR guidelines. -- (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    The word "should" and all the texts quoted by Eleassar is already there. The only thing missing is "If the admin declines to reverse the decision, or ignore your request (consciously or due to inactivity), you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion)." to handle the exceptions you raised. People ran for another DR or UDR will only helps to increase the workload of admins. The more problematic, and the current issue is the repeated auto delivered DR message on the user's talk page that has a bad look like a police warrant. Whenever one delivered on my talk page, I immediately archive it to my DR archive page. Yes; I've a dedicated page for that, even if not much fell on my page so far. :) JKadavoor Jee 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No, perhaps we are looking at different sentences for this proposal. I was looking at "To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. If you believe the deletion was done in error, appealing deleted images can be done at Commons:Undeletion requests." The operative words there are "might" and "can"; there is no "should". -- (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow; OK. I followed the link above and reached the DR page; sorry. So the contradiction in Commons:Deletion_requests#Appeal and Commons:Deletion_policy#Appeal should be removed. Either "might" or "should"; don't use different words in different places. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct, as this document is the community agreed policy, whilst the other is just a helpful document, the policy takes precedent in any dispute or as a steer for administrative actions. Thanks -- (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Which means that I have every right to decide whether I want to notify the closing administrator or not and blocking me for not having notified them would be abuse of the administrator's privileges and setting oneself above the community agreed rules. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. Where you see you can repeatedly making DRs until getting your desired result? Read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use 4 and recollect whether your behavior is comfortable to others. Try to discuss someone you can trust. Did at least one person support you on that AN discussion? Remember, admin has no special privileges; they just execute community consensus. This discussion reminds me that you still try to follow mechanical rules, neglecting the importance of all other aspects, including the feelings of your fellow members as in the previous X-ray issue, etc. (I prefer an EOD in this matter; leaving it to others.) JKadavoor Jee 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that having one's images nominated or renominated for a deletion review is not comfortable. However, I don't think it is 'harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism'. I'm not repeatedly making DRs until getting the desired result: in many cases I'm completely ok if the case is closed as kept. This one or this one though were not concluded in good faith and it was completely correct to renominate them; there are others like these. They make me think that admins just executing community consensus is a far-fetched statement. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that a DR should be reopened only if there is a new fact, or a new argument which were not put in the closed DR. Otherwise, it becomes a blank check for trolling. Yann (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a saying: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious." That anyone needs written laws to guide him how to behave on the project is disappointing. That they think that without such laws he can do what they like is troubling. I'm not keen to make policy based on one user who just doesn't get it. Is this a general problem? I disagree with Yann that DR should be like re-opening a criminal case and require new evidence. Admins are human and most DR do not have extensive discussion or large consensus expressed. Discussion with someone (the closing admin, another admin, etc) seems wise before reopening. Probably makes sense for the nominator of the first DR to be prevented from re-opening the case -- if it really is a problem then someone else can handle it. Colin (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Yann. --레비Revi 04:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the specific change proposed. I generally agree with Fae and Colin. Over-regulating this area would be counterproductive. There are other options for remedying a poor DR result, and there can be good reasons not to publicly consult the closing admin. Prohibiting reopening DRs in the absence of new facts or arguments seems too restrictive, although I agree that consulting an admin or another knowledgeable editor first would probably be wise in that case. I like Colin's idea of prohibiting the original nominator from reopening a DR, though (and I would extend this to later reopeners, i.e. each reopener would be prohibited from reopening it more than once.) It seems like that could minimise abuse without being too heavyhanded. I also agree that some more guidelines on unbundling mass DRs could be useful. --Avenue (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)