Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#File deletions by Jonteemil ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

See discussion. The deletion requests generally didn't receive the attention they needed. Note: mass restoring files is easier with Restore-a-lot. Load it on Wikipedia by copying the section from User:Alexis Jazz/common.js to your common.js.

The above list was made by User:Mdaniels5757. Pinging @ Govvy, GiantSnowman, Ymblanter, Black Kite, Jonteemil. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 00:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Davey2010, Mazca, Awesome Aasim, SixFourThree, Marchjuly Pinging @ Fastily, Swarm, Masem — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 00:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore all: this "mass nominating files per WP:NFCC8" completely misses the point of NFCC8. You cannot just look at an image for one second and decide "oh, this fails NFCC8". (This is what has happened.) NFCC8 is supposed to prevent copyrighted television screenshots from, let's say a game, being uploaded just to show Kevin Durant making a slam-dunk, as such an image does not enhance a reader's understanding of "Kevin Durant" or an NBA basketball game. (Even if such an image was used in an appropriate article, it would still fail WP:NFCC1.) None of these images fail NFCC IMHO. They were just mass nominations for the purpose of getting rid of as much copyrighted content as possible, which is disruptive. I am assuming good intentions here, but there really is a question of WP:MEATBOT as many of the nominations use the same NFD reason. A a s i m 03:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)@ Awesome Aasim: WP:NFCC#8 doesn’t just only apply to non-free screenshots; it applies to all types of non-free content as well, particularly former/historical/alternative non-free logos per WP:NFC#cite_note-4. A former logo simply having a non-free use rationale doesn’t automatically mean the use in question is WP:NFCCP compliant per WP:JUSTONE. In addition, some of the files listed above actually did receive !vote(s) in favor of deletion; so, at least one other editor thought the file’s deletion was warranted and I’m not sure that mass restoring all of the files would be appropriate. At least one of the files ( File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg) ended up being deleted that I saw after it was restored by Black Kite (by mistake) was correctly nominated and deleted in the first place in my opinion. Moreover, while I agree with you about WP:MEATBOT and that nominating all of the files all at once (or at least on the same day) was unwise, quite a few of the files that were nominated actually had the problems described by Jonteemil or had other NFCCP issues and thus were correctly nominated in my opinion. I do think there were some mistakes made such as nominating PD-licensed files or files which most likely are PD that could’ve been avoided if Jonteemil had followed a more careful approach as was suggested to him at WT:FFD#Mass FFD nom a month before all these files were nominated. However, if any files are restored, the relevant FFD discussion should be re-opened and resisted so that the actual non-free use can be assessed. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all with the understanding that there should be a proper review if any of these could possibly be given better NFCC rationales, or could be possibly below the threshold of originality, or the like, as cautioned to the user of what should have been done before these were mass nominated and when the user brought these up. They were warned specifically against mass nomination of this type. -- Masem ( t) 04:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict)@ Masem: Since you’re an admin, perhaps you can look at the deleted files and see which ones actually might be good candidates for relicensing as {{ PD-logo}} or {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I see no reason why you couldn’t simply REFUND them and relicense those files yourself since they were most likely WP:SOFTDELETEd and wouldn’t have been subject to the NFCCP to begin with. Anyone who disagrees with the relicensing could start a new FFD about the file as a WP:PUF file. As for the tweaking of rationales, all the tweaking in the world of a rationale will make no difference if the actual way the file is being used doesn’t meet the NFCCP. A file’s non-free use rationale(s) should reflect how the file is actually being used for sure, but if a use is non-compliant to begin with then a valid rational cannot really be written. So, once again, any files which are restored to allow their rationales to be cleaned up should also have their respective FFDs reopened and relisted so that they can be further discussed. — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all - improperly nominated/deleted, needs full discussion. Giant Snowman 06:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Since you’re an admin and can see the actual files, perhaps you can pick out specific ones which you feel should be restored. As I posted above, Jonteemil did make some mistakes, but some of the files nominated actually had NFCCP issues and seem to have been correctly nominated. Simply restoring all of the files just because they were all “mass nominated” seems just as bad as mass nominating them might’ve been in the first place. Moreover, as an admin you could restore any file which might fall under SOFTDELETE and relist the FFD so that it can be further discussed, can’t you? — Marchjuly ( talk) 06:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all if all FFDs are reopened, then delete/keep depending on the outcome of the respective discussions. If the FFDs are not intended to be reopened then keep all being deleted. Jonteemil ( talk) 08:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all Although there are a couple I felt might have been right to delete, it's better to er on the side of caution. There are a lot of comments above mine which I total agree with and hopefully Jonteemil will learn from this. Govvy ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The last file in the list, File:Nef-interview-vibe-compressed.jpg, is the only one that wasn't deleted in reference to the August 14 FFDs (though it was listed there). The stated reason for deletion, F4, is maybe a stretch, since it was tagged as not having a license tag and the uploader had attempted to tag it as {{WP:TAGS/PD}} (sic) and Jonteemil removed that. It would've been a wholly correct F4 speedy if it had been tagged as not having a source, though. In any case, it's a copyvio from https://static.vibe.com/files/2016/01/nef-interview-vibe-compressed.jpg and must not be restored with the other images here. (I also see now that this had been mentioned at the FFD, including by the uploader.) — Cryptic 11:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all due to procedural errors -- proper notifications were not given, and WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD apparently did not receive proper consideration. In addition the mass nomination tended to overwhelm FFD, so that proper consideration was probably not given to files that should not have been deleted. Allow renomination, one at a time, and not too many on the same day either, (perhaps not more than 10?) to find those that should in fact be deleted. Do not auto-nominate -- a human should applt ATD before writing a proper nom ststement in each case. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • All that FFD requires is that the uploader of the file be notified of any discussion; notifying WikiProjects and using {{ ffdc}} are suggested, but they're not required. So, I'm not sure it's fair to say that proper notifications were not given as long as Jonteemil notified the files' uploaders. Now one of the problems with only notifying the uploader is that the person who uploaded the file is not always the same person who added the file to an article; moreover, some files were uploaded so long ago that the uploader is no longer active. Even so, I don't think someone can be faulted for doing only what was required.
    Uploaders of non-free files often don't bother with the file talk page; so, there's usually no WikiProject banner added. Some WikiProjects are set up to receive automatic notifications of pages nominated or tagged for deletion/discussion that fall under their purview, but this won't work for file's without talk pages. There's also no WP:DELSORT process for files discussed at FFD. These are all things which can be discussed at WT:FFD (perhaps something automatic can be set up like User:Community Tech bot that adds notifications for Commons files nominated to Wikipedia article talk pages), but again I don't think Jonteemil should be blamed for doing just what's required. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WP:BEFORE redirects to a section of WP:AFD; these were FFDs so those instructions do not apply. I do not see any of the ATDs as applicable here. Nor were any required notifications not given. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore Jonteemil's nominations only - there are a few procedural deletions and a couple of clear copyvios where the deletions should be upheld. At any rate, I agree with DES above - only a few renominations per day should be allowed. Jonteemil severely overwhelmed FFD, and this should not be allowed to happen again. We could also use some closes on the outstanding noms with clear consensus to keep. schetm ( talk) 16:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore all but last, per WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• I would keep deleted. There is a very decent chance the images fail NFCC, mainly for the same reason, which is that they are old or alternative logos of organizations, clubs, or businesses which are used in the article for decoration. They do not significantly add to readers' understanding of the articles, and their removal was not detrimental to that understanding. Removal of large numbers of items of inappropriate content for the same reason should not be delayed or frustrated by having to laboriously hand-type bespoke nomination statements. Remember that there is a presumption against non-free content on Wikipedia and the onus falls on those seeking to include or retain it to justify the inclusion. Conversely, bearing in mind the volume may have frustrated editors' bona-fide attempts to contest some of the deletions, I would convert the deletions to soft-deletions and anyone who wishes to have one restored to seek to justify including it can do so. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Any that had only a single support for deletion would count as a soft delete, like a PROD, and could be restored by a simple request at WP:REFUND or by any admin. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - As I said at ANI, multiple times, I literally reviewed the deleted files and they overwhelmingly appeared to be appropriate copyright violation deletions. The main issue appears to be that of alternate/historical logos that need a specific fair use rationale, rather than a generic boilerplate logo rationale. They fail copyright policy. They can be fixed. And yet users want to argue ad infinitum about procedural errors or two or three examples of images that should not have been deleted. One volunteer could have entirely fixed this issue by now, but instead we're still going through every argument in the book to try to blanket overturn-these straightforward deletions and sweep the copyright violations under the rug. No one could refute this at ANI so now we're trying another venue, but even still no one's volunteering to review and fix the copyright issues, which seem to be valid in almost all of the images in question. But, oh, we don't like mass deletions. Who wouldn't want these images? Let's just ignore the policy, because we don't feel like putting in the work here. Not impressed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Restore All, if these images are so clearly copyright violations then they'll be deleted again. At the moment, there was a clear violation of procedure when all of these were deleted with no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's not correct at all to say there was a clear violation of procedure when all of these were deleted with no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop.no opportunity for a proper discussion or a consensus to develop. The files were nominated for discussion at FFD and the discussion remained open for at least a week. The uploaders' of the files all were notified as per FFD requirements. If files ended up deleted, it was because the administrator who reviewed the FFDs felt that a consensus was established to do so. As it states at the very top of the FFD main page, Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised, and in some cases at least one other editor actually WP:!VOTEd that the file should be deleted. So, not following proper procedure is not the issue here, and there's no minimum number of editors which need to comment in an FFD discussion for a consensus to be established. Now, if there's a particular file that you feel needs to be reconsidered, then perhaps if it can be restored if you can clarify why it should be in terms of relevant policy. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted per Swarm. Copyvio should not be restored unless there's a compelling argument that it's not copyvio. ( t · c) buidhe 02:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted I completely fail to see the argument for restoring these. There was no procedural error, the files were listed for 7 days at FfD, and the uploaders were notified by FastilyBot. Several editors looked at some of the nominations and !voted keep on them, and some of those were closed as keep. No rule I can find says editors are not allowed to nominate lots of pages for deletion quickly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply