Talk:2007 Asturian regional election

Ovidio Sánchez photo
User Impru20 does not want me to include of Ovidio Sánchez in the article, citing WP:MUG. I'm sorry, but how is a photo of Mr. Sánchez in profile being "used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light"? You might not like the image, and certainly there are better (non-free) images of him on the Internet, but this does not give you the power to unilaterally remove it. I've included the same image in the corresponding eswiki articles and have faced no issues. WPancake (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ovidio Sánchez is hardly recognizable in that photo, and yes, he is pictured in a vastly negative light. Thus, WP:MUG applies. You said that "it is surely better than just leaving it blank", but when the pic does actually nothing to help identify the person, and instead shows him or her in a disparaging light, it is actually worse to have it than just leaving it blank.
 * Also, you mention WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I would like to point out to you that this essay applies in all variants. So, just because you like the photo or wish to use it does not mean the picture should be used. If there is no other free images for him, then we should leave it blank rather than using a pic which shows him negatively. Just because it is the only free one you have found does not mean it is a good pic to use.  Impru20 talk 19:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I still have not been explained how the image violates WP:MUG in any way. It seems to be entirely your personal perception that it somehow depicts Ovidio Sánchez in a negative or disparaging manner. He's merely in profile. It would be violating WP:MUG if I uploaded a picture of him wearing a clown nose or something equally silly. The picture I'm using is neither a mugshot nor was the person depicted unaware of being photographed (it's extracted from a picture of a party act where he's reunited with striking workers). Should we trash the picture in Bob Taft then, since he is in profile? How about the one on Fernando Álvarez de Miranda? Are they being depicted in an extremely negative light too? Give me a break. The moment a better, free picture of Ovidio Sánchez appears on the Internet I'll be more than happy to replace it, but as it stands, the one we currently have violates no wiki guidelines, which are the bottom line that every Wikipedia decision should follow. "This image makes the article look bad" and "I don't like how this image looks" are not valid arguments.
 * I will not respond to the comment below as it is little but ad hominem irrelevant to the discussion. WPancake (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out to you that your latest reverts are a clear example of gaming the system. Firstly, because your own behaviour has already went against WP:BRD, and secondly, because you are deliberately using WP:3RR in bad faith to try to impose your edits, knowing that I can't revert you again because that would mean a violation of 3RR.  Impru20 talk 19:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that WP:MUG does not require that for a pic to be unsuitable you have to show him weaking a clown nose. MUG is very clear when it says situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. From the photo itself it is clearly evident that Sánchez was not aware of being photographed at the time (that "he was reunited with striking workers" does not mean he was being aware that he was being photographed at that specific situation), and the photo itself is taken from an angle where 1) He is clearly presented in a disparaging light, because this angle makes his nose look obviously awkward, and 2) We do not get to even see his face, just part of it, thus it being hard to recognize him (thus questioning the actual usefulness of the pic). So yes, it clearly goes against MUG. And you have yet to explain why such a photo is useful. So far you have limited to explain that we should use it because it is the only one you have found in the Internet which has a free license, but this is not supported by any Wikipedia policy (i.e. we are not required to use a degrading photo just because better ones cannot be found).

The pics of Bob Taft and Fernando Álvarez de Miranda do not show them in a disparaging light, and the differences with this one of Ovidio Sánchez are obvious (mainly, the photo angle). "This image makes the article look bad" and "I don't like how this image looks" are not valid arguments. Cool, because I have not used them.

I will not respond to the comment below as it is little but ad hominem irrelevant to the discussion. Ad hominem? You have went against the WP:BRD and have used the policy on 3RR to impose your edits and place me in a clear disadvantageous situation. Misusing Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position is an action that games the system. And "The moment a better, free picture of Ovidio Sánchez appears on the Internet I'll be more than happy to replace it" is not a valid argument to skip the consensus-building process as you have done. If you do not like that others point this to you, what you should do is to avoid such behaviour rather than telling them that their remarks are "irrelevant".  Impru20 talk 20:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "The picture makes his nose look awkward" is, again, nothing but a personal appreciation on your part. It is also taken in almost exactly the same angle as Miranda's and Taft's, more than enough of his face is visible from him to be recognizable, it's not like it's a picture taken from the back. I don't know if Sánchez was aware of being photographed or not because I wasn't there in 2011 to ask him, but if you're going to a party act where cameras are present, and photos of which are later on uploaded to a blog affiliated with your party, it's probably safe to assume that you knew pictures of you could be taken. You still haven't given a single valid argument, all of it is still WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If a recognizable depiction of a person is available on the Internet (and it is recognizable, you can see more than enough of his face to see who he is), then yes, it stands to reason that it should be included, even if it is imperfect. Funny you're using the Wikipedia policy argument because so far the only way you've managed to support your arguments is by heavily distorting a single WP policy based on personal opinion. You're not an authority on what does or doesn't constitute an awkward photo. Or on this article, for that matter. WPancake (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You yourself have acknowledged that the picture is not a good-looking one, that it is "imperfect" and that a better one should be preferred, so that the pic does indeed portray Ovidio Sánchez in a negative way seems entirely out of question. Should this pic be good enough, another one should not be preferred, available or not. You argue against what you dub as "my personal appreciations", but your whole intervention here centers in your own personal appreciation that we should use this pic because no other one is available, even when you acknowledge this one is bad. But that is what WP:MUG is for: the use of pics has some limits when they portray people, namely that these picturizations do not present these people in a negative or degrading light.
 * It is also taken in almost exactly the same angle as Miranda's and Taft's. This is obviously false. Sánchez's photo is taken from right below his face, whereas for Miranda's and Taft's pics they are taken from the side. The angles are obviously different.
 * "if you're going to a party act where cameras are present, and photos of which are later on uploaded to a blog affiliated with your party, it's probably safe to assume that you knew pictures of you could be taken". This is your personal assumption (as you yourself acknowledge), which obviously contrasts with actual evidence. Firstly, even if he knew such pics of him could be taken in such an event (a claim which you would need to prove beyond your own personal beliefs), such an assumption does not conflict with the fact that a particular photo of him taken in such an event may have caught him unprepared. Secondly, the photo's angle and his own expression shows he was not aware that this particular photo was being taken from him. It is hardly frequent for politicians to have pictures taken from right below their faces, and it so unfrequent to find similar such pics being in use in Wikipedia.
 * it is recognizable, you can see more than enough of his face to see who he is. This is him. This, on the other hand, does not appear even close to that. He is not recognizable there.
 * You're not an authority on what does or doesn't constitute an awkward photo. Or on this article, for that matter. You are not an authority on what does or doesn't constitute an usable photo. Or on Ovidio Sánchez's picturization, for that matter.  Impru20 talk 20:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of the strangest, most pointless arguments I've had on the Internet. I'm not saying the picture is bad, I'm saying it could strive to be better, which is true for many other, adequate pictures on this wiki. By this point we are analyzing the exact angle the photo was taken at and Ovidio Sánchez's state of mind at a particular event he attended in 2011 in order to prove whether it should be included on the article or not. If there's anything this conversation proves is that the picture does not directly conflict with the basics outlined in WP:MUG, or else we wouldn't be having this argument. If you honestly still believe it might fail WP:MUG for other, more debatable reasons, what you should probably do is go to the administrators about it. If they agree that it indeed does fail, I will shut my trap and remove it. This is all I ask of you. I'm finished with this conversation. WPancake (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Limit yourself to comment on content and not on the contributor. Now, it is very clear that you have literally said that "The moment a better, free picture of Ovidio Sánchez appears on the Internet I'll be more than happy to replace it", you have also made it clear that the current pic is flawed and that you use it just because you cannot find another one. That said, I have already explained you what the specific flaws are, and so far you have not refuted them, other than pointing out ad hominem arguments.
 * what you should probably do is go to the administrators about it. Administrators do not deal with dispute resolutions. Anyway, since the issue seems locked here, I've filled the proper request at WP:DRN. See you there.  Impru20 talk 21:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the moderators' stances at Dispute resolution noticeboard, with the discussion probably going to be closed, it looks like the use of this image is indeed discouraged due to it being taken from such a strange angle. As a result, looking both at the unanimous response from both moderators and also the hint that should further input be sought from the broader community the outcome would be the same anyway (this is, to remove the pic from the infobox), I have removed the image from the infobox in the three Asturian election articles in which it was in use. Note that I have done this to solve this quickly as it seems the outcome could be obvious anyway if we engaged in other content dispute resolution procedures (and so as to avoid further effort and time waste on a seemingly clear issue). Nonetheless, if you still disagree we could try either WP:3O or WP:RFC.  Impru20 talk 09:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)