Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG

Explicit's experience
Hello, I've been asked comment on this RFC regarding Sfan00 IMG's file tagging. Hopefully I'm posting this in the right place, I don't think I've ever commented on a user RFC before. Anywho... Generally, Sfan00 IMG's taggings are fine, but after using WikiStalk for a better insight, I found hundreds of files Sfan00 IMG and I have edited, and at least half deal with taggings—the rest are just files we happen to edit that deal with Non-free reduce and the like. I'll highlight a few that stick out to me. With File:Yamada-png.png, Sfan00 IMG tagged the file not, but with di-no source; the tag was removed by another admin the first time, while I removed it the second time. The image itself is nothing more than Japanese text, which can not be copyrightable to begin with. With File:Yahoo Y.svg, this was tagged for the same reason. The file name makes it a bit obvious where to look for the source and couldn't have taken that much effort to find. In fact,. There are several of these PD-text instances which were tagged for lacking a source. File:Vons.svg was under a non-free license for some reason and Sfan00 tagged it for lacking a fair use rationale; naturally, I tagged it as PD-text afterward. File:Virgil Miller Newton.jpg was tagged for lacking a source despite the PD-self claim, high resolution and metadata—that's really quite a stretch for requesting a source which would require a WP:PUF nomination if there were reason or evidence that the uploader may not be the copyright holder of the image. File:Triangle-grey.svg, being a simple gray triangle, was tagged for lacking a source. File:22chamber-g-popup.jpg was tagged for lacking a FUR, but an shows that it was a coding error, not that FUR wasn't actually in place. I also remember Sfan00 tagging images with di-no fair use rationale that I declined because the FUR what in sentence form rather than a list format or using a template. I can't specifically find the file(s), though. One final thing that popped into my head (before I go to sleep), Sfan often mis-tags files as orphaned when they aren't licensed to begin with—not even a FUR or anything—which I delete under F4 rather than how it was tagged for F6. Several more files fit at least one of the aforementioned descriptions, but I didn't want to get too repetitive or overdo the file linking, so I just gave examples of different circumstances. There's definitely carelessness in his taggings and non-existent attempts to fix minor issues like coding errors or some other trivial issue. — ξ xplicit  10:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for your help here, Explicit, and I suggest you may wish to copy your statement into the Requests for comment/Sfan00 IMG section as === Outside view by Explicit === (similar to Future Perfect's view), since others may wish to endorse your view, and I feel it helps to bring balance to the RfCU. This is meant to be a constructive process and perhaps it can help Sfan00 to improve his tagging – which is the principal outcome I'm interested in. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One note about File:22chamber-g-popup.jpg: of course I don't know what SF's thought process was in this case, but the way I see it, the problem was not so much that the FUR wasn't technically formatted correctly, but that the FUR wasn't a FUR. And still isn't. Because it blatantly fails to do what a FUR would need to do: explain why the image is needed. That's the meaning of the word "rationale", after all. A random string of words will not constitute a rationale if it doesn't contain a rationale, no matter how correctly you paste it into a template that calls it such. The file is quite obviously replaceable (with text, a table, or a self-made free graphic chart). Now tagged as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Outside view by Fut.Perf.

 * "If an editor regularly undertakes this task, it is unfortunate but probably unavoidable that he will occasionally make rash or otherwise less-than-perfectly considered decisions."
 * This is agreed, although there is also nothing compelling an editor to make a decision, or to make a snap decision immediately, if they are unsure. This is not a recent issue - complaints about Sfan's tagging go back a long way, and I would have hoped to see some behavioural change by now. Today's changes are indeed a welcome sign in that direction.


 * ""deletion happens automatically after 7 days" is just wrong."
 * The warning message for CSD states, "the image will be deleted after Sunday, 31 October 2010." (my emphasis). The term "automatic" here is not intended to imply a hands-free 'bot action, but rather an assumption that all CSD images past that date are for deletion, i.e. a presumption of deletion, which is in contrast to the other routes of PUF and FfD, where the presumption is that further examination by previously uninvolved editors is required. Whatever we term these, there is a behavioural difference between CSD and PUF/FfD.


 * "I would still consider this as within the bounds of a reasonable and acceptable error rate."
 * I do not consider the concept of "error rate" to be appropriate, or compatible with the foundations of our policy of WP:AGF. We should instead expect editors to operate on a principle of "best effort" (and indeed WP:COMPETENCE), the corrolary of which is that we are forgiving to sincere mistakes, even when they exceed this "error rate". My concern is less about the numbers game here, more about Sfan's balance between volume and ability, and particularly over a clear willingness to plough right through WP:COMPETENCE when it hits one of the stickier patches of copyright issues. As has been said already, the problem is huge. Even if Sfan wants to achieve their "quota" for the day, the clearly defined low-hanging fruit can be addressed first, without needing to judge the unclear copyright issues.


 * "Normally, the bot/twinkle system ought to make sure that notifications will appear also on the article pages relevant to each image,"
 * There seems to be a lack of this happening, not just from this account.


 * File:Ggenov.jpg
 * This was one of a series of autobigraphical portraits of Russian actors, and autobiographies of demonstrably notable, but obscure, subjects is one of the simplest cases for any FUR. Georgiy Zhzhonov is indeed more complex than that, as it has this fair-use image of the actor in his prime during the 1960s, also a modern free image of the elderly man, receiving an award. This would indeed be a problem for images of most engineers or mathematicians, but an actor trades on their looks and a contemporary photo of them, as they were when acting in their prime is an answer to our question "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" when the only free image is instead of the elderly man. Now raised at Non-free_content_review Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just about your final point: I acknowledge this is a plausible stand that somebody might take. In my view, it's sorta borderline-ish. But my point was: it's not trivial. It's not something that you could just expect anybody to come up with, or expect everybody to agree with. Filing this rationale is not just paperwork. So you can't really demand of anybody else they should file it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather the reason why I did this one myself. I had hoped, given the encouragement to do so on their talk page, that they might take the hint and take a go at the other, simpler, ones themself. However there was no take up. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a sample of his edits from December (i.e. those pages that have presumably finished their review process). First thing I noticed was there was in fact quite a substantial number where he did provide rationales himself – evidently the ones where he found the situation obvious enough to do so. Second thing I noticed was I couldn't find any significant proportion of obvious errors (i.e. files where deletion was declined because his tagging was unjustified). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd need to look a LOT further back than just December, as I don't recall doing as much image tagging in that month..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comments to the If the deleting admin check the file before deletion then I agree. But if the admin just deletes everything in the category then I do not agree. To me it looks like the files are batch deleted but if the admin checks all the files before starting the deletion script it is ok. --MGA73 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ""deletion happens automatically after 7 days" is just wrong."
 * Obviously I can't speak for how other admins do it. It's been a while since the last time I've worked the queues myself, but when I did it, I certainly checked individual cases. Since we've heard several reports of admins declining his tags occasionally, such checks can't be so rare. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked around. The files are being checked before deletion. First check check check check... Then using a script to delete all the files being checked. So even if some files are tagged by a mistake they will not be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to outside view by Black Kite
A classic case of "wrong end of the stick". I'm not complaining about NFCC enforcement. I'm complaining about multiple cases of sending public domain images to speedy deletion, where a little more care could have avoided that. So ask yourself, who is trying to make Wikipedia a "Free Encyclopedia" and who is making that difficult? --RexxS (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we have a policy of "No Impersonal Attacks" (we certainly have WP:AOBF)? Black Kite's complaints are a thinly-veiled attack on some un-named editors, an attack we certainly wouldn't permit if it had names attached. If you have a problem with this nomination, with me, or with any other editors, then please come out and say so clearly. This sort of anonymous belly-aching is not helpful to the project. Even if you "sanitise" it by not naming names, it's still an attack on others. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I permitted to partly concur with the proponent of this RFC/U on this?
 * It's reasonable to make generalised comments relating to the issues raised in an RFC, but I'm not sure that a claim about a perceived clique of problem contributors is justified, emotive claims are how long term arguments start, and I doubt that was the intended purpose of this RFC.


 * I am also slightly disappointed at the way my bringing this RFC/U to the attention of admins ( at WP:ANI), and the subsequent call for participation was responded to. If there were concerns about the intent of the RFC/U, then there is a reason talk pages (like this) exist.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're all missing the point slightly; I'm pointing out how editors who do the utterly thankless task of NFCC are dragged off to ANI and now RFCU on the flimsiest of pretexts. If Sfan had been making large amounts of major errors, and there was evidence of previous issues, then fine; but I cannot see any way that this particular issue could not have been thrashed out on Sfan's talkpage.  Incidentally, the editors I referred to in my posting do not include anyone who has posted in this RfCU; as I said, they know who they are. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the claim being made is that the proponent of the RFC/U feels they had tried to do that (in regard to the talk page issue) and had apparently not obtained what they felt was a reasonable response. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the talk page? Have you looked at the eight archives of the talk page, all full of a range of different editors raising the same issue? This issue has been raised through talk: as much as was practical. The real reason I raised it here was because it felt that talk: was going nowhere, when complaints were being dismissed repeatedly with comments like "I call them as I see them". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, eight talkpage archives, much of which is editors complaining about things that Sfan has done correctly. But apart from that, consider the quantity of talkpage content against the sheer volume of edits made. I simply don't believe that error rate is high enough to justify an RFCU, as Fut.Perf. points out above. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The fact people are complaining about a person is not proof that they are doing something wrong. A lot of otherwise good editors have limited respect for the NFCC, and take out their dislike for it on anyone who's trying to enforce it... J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Limited respect" ? You mean like taking items that are up for discussion at NFCC review, then tagging them for speedy deletion anyway because a single personal opinion outweighs any community debate? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very obviously, this (or do you not even bother to read comments after you've graced a review with your presence?). Now opinions at WP:Non-free_content_review seem to be two to one against it being justified as non-free, which is fine because that's what the board exists for. However that collegiate review clearly isn't good enough for you, you had to push it to CSD instead, while the review is still open. Your opinion trumps any discussion by others. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The mere fact you've opened a discussion does not mean that you can do what you like with the image in the mean time... I didn't remove it from the article, which, as I said at the review, is what I would have done had I come across the image in another way... This is not about "OMG MY OPINION TRUMPS YOURS", this is about us having policies. Discussion is nice, but when we have images that clearly do not meet our policies, discussion has a rather limited value... J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course — so why are you acting in the opposite way? One of our strong policies is that we act by consensus, so whilst I still consider that contemporary actor portraits are justifiable, I'm happy to respect that if the overall view is against them, then they should go. You though are too impatient to impatient to let the community decide, so you pre-empt it with a CSD. It's not an issue about images, it's about a lack of respect for community practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Community practice is that images that do not meet the NFCC are nominated for deletion. We do not need a discussion every time one is uploaded- that's why we have the speedy deletion templates. As I have said, you can't just open a discussion and then expect the image being discussed to be immune from any kind of action until such time that you decide the discussion is closed... J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no justification to deleting an image in the middle of a proper NFCC review, when that image is not involved in BLP etc., has been on-line for years already, and when the only question at issue is the same issue under debate at NFCC review. Under your process as enacted, all images submitted to NFCC review should be speedied immediately. You are subverting the entire function of NFCC review.
 * There is no specific issue to this one image anyway - it's a broader issue about the value of contemporary actor images and the interpretation of "fair use" in that contextt. It potentially applies to a whole range of images, this is just one instance of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole problem here is that sometimes it's not good enough for an editor to merely act "correctly", they must also act correctly, appropriately and usefully. This is not the opposite of correctness, but it is a subset of the possible correct actions. This is also the reason why situations like this need human editors and are beyond simple 'bot tagging. Nearly all of the problematic taggings at issue here could have been done by a simple 'bot instead, but we don't run such a simplistic 'bot, because we recognise that it would have too much collateral effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominating content which does not meet our policies for deletion is neither "appropriate" nor "useful"? Riggght. We have run such simple bots (and, as has been said, rationales are required to be bot readable in this way) but they get shut down because of too many people moaning about policies being enforced. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not useful to enforce policy by deletion alone, when we can enforce that same policy by repair instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can, sometimes. Not always. It is the responsibility of those wishing to include the non-free content to make sure that the rationale is valid, and the NFCC are quite clear on that. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with a large number of the images affected here is that they were correctly uploaded in 2005, to the standards of that time. The standards have since changed. As it is a straightforward task (too much for a 'bot, but not usually requiring subjective decision making) to upgrade their metadata, this is what we should be doing — and not simply deleting them, even though deletion is counted as a "correct" action according to policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example of an image which was uploaded to 2005 standards, but merely required "simple updating" for it to be compliant to today's standards? Further, if your entire argument is "what he's doing is fine by policy, but I don't like it", then I think you have pretty weak grounds for a RfC... J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to dispel the myth that "the standards have changed" since 2005. In fact, they haven't, in any significant way, they are only being more consistently enforced. Here is the relevant policy page as it was in January 2005. It already demands individual fair use rationales (plus, of course, sources and everything) for every non-free file. If people weren't following the rules back then, perhaps they could more easily get away with it than they can now, but they still were just as much at fault. Any file that was correctly described back then according to those rules would still pass all tests today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty much where I was going by calling Andy on that point. Andy, I really don't think the facts support your view of this situation. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a file that was uploaded by Geogre in October 2005: File:Hutchenson-witch.jpg. It's an image of a page from a 1718 book and uncopyrightable. Five years later, it's tagged for speedy deletion because it has no copyright notice. So, yes, standards have changed, and you need to understand that problem. Such files should be fixed, not deleted. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That file was not uploaded properly under 2005 standards- it could equally have been tagged for deletion then. Copyright notices were required in 2005. J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was uploaded properly under 2005 standards, as clearly shown by the practice at the time. There are many similar files, and there was not then – nor is there now – a requirement for any particular format of copyright notice. The fact that the file was clearly PD was apparent at the time, and is now. Anyone suggesting in 2005 that the file should be deleted because it didn't have a particular tag would have been laughed off the project. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already stated that I consider this particular case of tagging a mistake. The case where an image is effectively its own source declaration (because it contains the bibliographic information of its own publication history) is not really explicitly covered by our rules, so it's reasonable to use some common sense in dealing with it. Except that JM is right, even under the standars of the day the uploader ought to have added a note about it being PD-old, which he forgot to do. But it's got nothing to do with the standards regarding fair use rationales that I was talking about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Machine readable copyright tags were certainly a requirement then. This is not a case of a shifting goal post, this is an example of an image which has languished for a long time not meeting policy- exactly the kind of thing that needs more eyes. Yes, it was sloppy to tag it for deletion rather than fix it- I'd imagine everyone would agree with that- but by no means was this file alright as it was. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you can see what my concern is then. Geogre was almost certainly not the only uploader who was remiss in not adding notices (under what I still contend was a more relaxed regime). I positively encourage removal of non-free images that don't meet our NFCC policy, and I don't want to discourage editors like Sfan from playing a useful part in such thankless work. Nevertheless, I also don't want to see the PD baby thrown out with the non-free bathwater, and perhaps guidance from experienced editors as yourselves could help Sfan to take sufficient care with his tagging that it alleviates my concerns. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple that have already been raised here and on the talk:


 * File:Harry Ricardo.jpg
 * File:Group Captain Percy Charles Pickard.jpg
 * Both are of plainly notable subjects and were as appropriate for fair-use as anything might be.

To make it even clearer, in 2005 we're talking about version of the image, which would have been using this version of the relevant template. A prose rationale was provided in 2005, containing the same information as we would demand today, however it was not formatted using Non-free use rationale as we would expect today, that template not being created until a year later. It was tagged for speedy deletion here with di-no fair use rationale. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim that Template:Non-free fair use in is how we used to do rationales is absolutely wrong. That template was never used or intended as a rationale for usage. In fact, even the version of the template you note explicitly states "To the person adding the tag: Please provide a detailed rationale explaining why this use qualifies as fair use." Also, looking at WP:NFCC from 28 December 2005, the last bullet point makes it quite clear: For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.. So, even back then, a specific rationale was required. Frankly, you're wrong Andy. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please make a more careful reading of both this and also my comment above. I do not claim that "Template:Non-free fair use in is how we used to do rationales" . We used to use this template to indicate that it was a fair-use image and that a separate rationale would be required. However we did not have a template to format such rationales at that time (or at least, we didn't have the as-yet uncreated Non-free use rationale). There was such a rationale provided for the image, but it was provided as unformatted prose below the message box (How else would it be formatted at this time? That's why the template was created). Frankly you're not paying attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. Please see WP:NFCC from 28 December 2005, the last bullet point. Do you see where it says "as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page"? Ok, now look at the version of that page as of that date. It's obvious that the rationale even for that era was woefully inadequate. But it gets better. Have a look at that era's version of WP:NFC, and note it says "a rationale must be established for that specific use (in other words every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page". In other words, it's blatantly obvious that even for that era the rationale was woefully inadequate, and could easily be construed as just being entirely absent. The file was marked for deletion properly. Whether it was done in 2005 or now is irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you arguing that the image should be deleted? No? At least, I hope not. There is no reason why this image should be deleted, now or then. It is "evident" (with all the vagueness that implies) to a human editor that the image is appropriate and meets NFCC. Agreed, it is not "obvious" that it is so, which is why we should fix it by adding the appropriate templates. Yet, even in its state as of 2005, trying to delete it remains an unhelpful action that is not justified by either its condition (viz a viz NFCC) or the state of its descriptive metadata. The rationale might be "woefully inadequate" but there was (despite your earlier "Frankly you're wrong" claim above) a rationale present and far from it "being entirely absent" as you now claim. "Absent" doesn't mean, "not up to standard", it means "not present". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If no use of an image meets the NFCC, it needs to be deleted or fixed. This means that, if it can not be or is not fixed, it should be deleted. This is not controversial. Arguing about whether there is no rationale at all or a substandard attempt at a rationale is not particularly useful. J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, a straw man argument. "Not controversial" (for once) does mean that no-one was disagreeing with that point anyway, not that your position is irrefutably correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is responsible for fixing it?
breaking out for a particular point So are you arguing that the image should be deleted? No? At least, I hope not. There is no reason why this image should be deleted, now or then. It is "evident" (with all the vagueness that implies) to a human editor that the image is appropriate and meets NFCC. Agreed, it is not "obvious" that it is so, which is why we should fix it by adding the appropriate templates. Yet, even in its state as of 2005, trying to delete it remains an unhelpful action that is not justified by either its condition (viz a viz NFCC) or the state of its descriptive metadata. The rationale might be "woefully inadequate" but there was (despite your earlier "Frankly you're wrong" claim above) a rationale present and far from it "being entirely absent" as you now claim. "Absent" doesn't mean, "not up to standard", it means "not present". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Interjection: which specific image are you currently talking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the image was properly tagged. Tagging it doesn't mean it gets deleted. Tagging it means the uploader is notified. Tagging it means that a deletable image notification is added to the caption where the image is used. That's how we do things. Adding templates does not fix a fair use problem. The notion that fair use can be done with templates applies only to a tight range of image types (like; album covers, company logos). That doesn't apply here. Fair use is not an automatic entitlement. My concern about you being 'wrong' is that you seem to not understand that the status quo at the time the image was uploaded was a bar considerably higher than was achieved at the time. Further, just because you think the image is valuable doesn't make it so for all people. To me, knowing what Percy Charles Pickard looks like doesn't help me to understand the article any better. It just adds an image :: to the article, and nothing more; a non-free image no less.
 * Now, forgive me if I'm reading too far into what you are saying. But, it appears that you are saying that Sfan00 should not have tagged the image for deletion. Yes? If that's true, then are you suggesting he either (a) should have left the image alone, (b) should have fixed the problem himself, or (c) some other solution? If (a), note that the image sat for years with a woefully inadequate rationale. Sfan00 marks it, and within 4 DAYS the problem is corrected. Seems to me the system worked as designed. If you're asserting (b), if a person uploading an image is not willing to comply with our policies, even those extant at the time the image was uploaded, asking other editors to fix the problem is shifting the responsibility onto the shoulders of people who don't know anything about the intent of the uploader, why they wanted that image instead of another, why this non-free image instead of free alternatives that might be available, etc. All effort that is considerably harder for an otherwise uninterested party than the person who uploaded the image, or the people who edit the article. So if (b), you're asking Sfan to do work he can't reasonably be expected to do.
 * If (c), I'm all ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still (and always have been, raised on the initial RfC) two questions here: should the fix have been to tag for deletion rather than something more positive, such as reformatting a FUR, and also whether CSD was appropriate, or should it have been a more reviewed process such as PUF / FfD.
 * "Tagging it doesn't mean it gets deleted." isn't a broad enough result to be acceptable. Of course some don't get deleted, but others do. There was a series of Russian actor photos, all with the same minor issue (less controversial than Ggenov), many have now gone. Take a look at User_talk:Ghirlandajo. These images could have, and should have, had their FURs reformatted to meet our policies, rather than just being deleted. Overall, the encyclopedia became worse and less informative as a result. That is not what we should be here for.
 * "Tagging it means the uploader is notified." Not enough. Many of these uploaders have been inactive for some years (and for 2005 uploads, that's many of their uploaders). Inactivity of their original uploader is not a reason for deletion to become any more favoured as an outcome.
 * "Tagging it means that a deletable image notification is added to the caption where the image is used." No. That is not (in practice) how things get done. Maybe it should be, maybe we should make it a requirement or an automatic part of the tagging process, but it is not reliable at present to claim that images don't get deleted without this also being flagged in the articles using them. See here and also another of these images, just last week File:Krychenykh.jpg.
 * The simple practice is that images tagged CSD can often (I would claim mostly), be deleted without any further notification or review by other humans. This is worse than the FfD situation, where we do have some likelihood of review. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "To me, knowing what Percy Charles Pickard looks like doesn't help me to understand the article any better. " If you're claiming that biographical articles aren't a justifiable reason for NFCC, then I think that is a bigger issue than an RfC. I also think you're completely against consensus there, over a vast number of articles and subjects. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft is not (I believe) denying that that usage of the image potentially passes NFCC#8. The fact that someone is not willing to make a claim does not mean they will fight anyone else who does make such a claim. I don't think we've got any milk, but I'd believe my housemate if one of them told me we had. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (b), although I'm not requiring Sfan to do this.
 * There is an issue where "90% of Wikipedia is crap". Talk to anyone doing NPP and they'll claim it's 99% instead. There is a lot of utter garbage out there, and few would defend it (Although there are those who certainly would. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Airgun.jpg makes for rather grim reading.). If anyone, like Sfan, feels charitably inclined to do a stint driving the garbage truck, then we can of course only be grateful. Yet there's a difference between driving it along picking up just the black bin liners and the wheelie bins clearly distinctive as rubbish, or lifting garden gnomes out of people's front gardens just because they're near the kerb, and kerbs are where you leave the rubbish.
 * High-volume tagging like this (and I never believed it was a 'bot, but it certainly was robotnik) is incompatible with awkward questions about copyright or FUR. If someone wishes to drive that fast, they should stick to the clear and easy targets, we've certainly got enough of them. If there's the slightest chance that something has encyclopedic value, or that it has an unclear FUR that could be sorted out with more care, then it should be left to one side. It certainly shouldn't be speedied - FfD if it must. We might even want to use tagging (we do enough of this and it's easy) to produce a workflow of "Stuff that might be FURable and has value worth keeping, but it's not described up to standard". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're trying to say, but this all strays dangerously close to "I KNOW it doesn't meet the policies, but just leave it alone". It's better for the odd salvagable image to be deleted along the way if we can clean out the backlogs and, with it, change the culture towards non-free content. If we can get to a situation where people don't just throw up and image, copy-paste something from somewhere and think "oh, that'll do" then we will have achieved something brilliant. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is just "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own". Particularly your view that anything at NFC review should be speedied, because if it wasn't speediable according to policy, it wouldn't be there anyway. I am also getting very tired of your continual insinuation that I am looking to keep images that don't meet our requirements. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a perspective issue here. Imagine somebody comes along and dumps several thousand articles of clothing into your room (in this analogy, that's our improperly tagged/used/licensed non-free content). You come back to your room and see this enormous pile of clothes. You know there's quite a number of good articles of clothing. But, sifting through the pile you also see an awful lot of worn out, badly stained, unusable clothing. Sifting through all of this would take forever. Sure, there's obvious cases, and you don't toss those back out the door. But, the majority of it has to go back out the door to the person(s) interested in using the clothing. That's the problem. There's an absolutely enormous amount of non-free content that is used improperly, tagged improperly, poorly sourced, etc. Throwing all of this junk at the project then expecting others to fix the egregious problems for them is wrong. There are very explicit instructions located at Upload. If uploaders can't be bothered to follow those instructions, requiring others to do it for them is unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So I pick up a piece and sniff it. If it's nasty, in the bin. If I might want to wear it, then it goes into a different pile and later on I put that lot through the washing machine. Washing it takes longer than throwing it, but at least it leaves me something to wear afterwards. Nobody 'snuck into' my house with these clothes, I invited them to, because it's the only clothing this poor little house elf can get.
 * "If uploaders can't be bothered to follow those instructions..." is a problem on two grounds: firstly WP:IMPERFECT. We don't expect everything to be right first time, otherwise we wouldn't be fixing typos either. Secondly we have improved our practice on FURed uploads and we're tighter than we were five years ago. We might impose post facto cleanup on such images, but we shouldn't do it through speedy deletion. We're not even doing that on older unreferenced BLPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out to you several times now that our standards five years ago were not very much different than now. I don't see the point in my restating it again. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "standards"? Our policies haven't changed, but our recommended procedures have (they now use templates that just didn't exist back then) and the practice actually carried out for the bulk of FUR images uploaded five years ago is hugely different. Saying that, "There has been no change; if we wouldn't accept that same block of wikitext as valid on a new upload today, then send it to CSD" is just a shorthand for "Delete the majority of 2005's uploads". Why would you want to do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * {{{ec}} But I see the correct analogy as numerous diamonds in a large pile of manure. Most folks would take the time to accurately sort the gems from the dross because of their value. That illustrates the fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine. You ascribe much less value to the small number of great pictures that are lacking full information – and let's be clear: neither you nor I are saying the number of such great images is large – and are content to lose them in order to get rid of the crap. It's worth being clear about another thing as well: I want to see all the copyvios and images that break NFCC deleted just as much as you do, but I'm not prepared to do that at any cost. In my very humble opinion, it's worth clearing out at a slower rate if it means we don't lose good PD images whose only flaw is a defect in their sourcing or licensing. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you're presuming that everyone can discern diamonds in the pile of manure with ease. That's not the case. Essentially, this boils down to "Leave my manure alone. It looks like diamonds to me!" And it's not an "at any cost" equation. Nobody's been saying that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Subjectivist Running Dog! The perfect Wikipedian is someone who knows the WP:POLICY status of everything, and the value of nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Hutchenson-witch.jpg|thumb|Tagged for deletion

Note the date: MDCCXXII]] Oh yes, I agree that some people can't discern diamonds in the pile of manure with ease. But in that case they shouldn't really be doing that job, should they? That would be a question of WP:COMPETENCE. Fortunately, this isn't the case here, and I think that Sfan00 is already demonstrating far more versatility in his current editing than he was when this RfC opened. So the straw man you're constructing is that I'm trying to stop the manure from being touched. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and it's a pity that you can't see that. What I have consistently asked for is more care when shovelling the shit, in case you throw out a jewel by accident. No matter how you try to wriggle, there's no getting away from the fact that images like the one on the right is a gem that should never have been tagged for deletion. And contrary to your hyperbole, I've never suggested that the solution is to stop tagging; the solution is to tag more carefully – but from your commentary, I don't perceive that you would agree to that, would you? --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to skip the obvious hatred expressed above, and focus on the image posted at right. To you, it's obvious it is PD by way of age. To others, it might not be. There's plenty of texts created in the modern era that are intended to look old. There's plenty of things people create as forgeries of antiques. Regardless, this RfC is done. Nothing productive is coming from it. Nobody is agreeing with the two original parties to bringing the RfC. Yet, Sfan was magnanimous enough to remove Twinkle. It's time to drop it, and move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies for the confusion I caused you. I'm sorry if my pointing out your straw man arguments is perceived by you as 'hatred'. It really isn't. I don't know you. I have no feelings other than disappointment that you would attempt to ascribe an inaccurate position to me, so that you could argue against that position. Nevertheless, I'm grateful that you've now addressed one of my complaints directly. Please find some evidence to support your assertion that other editors don't find the PD obvious. Are you saying that you don't think it's PD? All I'm asking for is a bit of common sense here. If we are to assume bad faith of the uploader, or assume that forgers claim copyright on their work, then we might as well chuck PD-old out of the window, because every file tagged with that is susceptible to the argument that you've just advanced. For the record, I'd be quite happy with Sfan using Twinkle, as long as he uses it with due care. From his contributions, he has now broadened his repertoire of edits and is showing consideration of other possibilities in tagging. I'm content to move on, so please feel free to have the last word: --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You ask me to accept your apologies but then accuse me of making straw man arguments? I stopped right there. Thank you, good bye. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to separate out a particular point; should the fix have been to tag for deletion rather than something more positive: This presumes that tagging for deletion is always negative. This is patently false. In many, many cases deletion is a net improvement to the project. That's why we have all sorts of deletion mechanisms both speedy and otherwise across this project. A great deal of inappropriate, unusable, copyright violating, and otherwise bad content is hurled at this project literally every day. Deletion is every bit as important a process in that as creation. You can't have one without the other. This is a long standing debate on Wikipedia. See Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. So please. respect that there are other views and that while deletion might be entirely unpalatable to you, it is not a foregone conclusion that for everyone else deletion is bad too. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a logical fallacy to infer "deletion is always negative" from my statement "rather than something more positive" because you've discarded the scope qualifier, in that I'm only talking about images that are valid for NFCC. Please stop (JMilburn too) trying to imply that I'm seeking to keep unacceptable images.
 * Deletionism vs. Inclusionism is just not at issue here. It's about careless deletion of useful content because the checking is inadequate and the reaction hasty, not any judgement over the item's worth. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletionism vs. Inclusionism is at the very heart of this issue. Look at it from another viewpoint. I could just as well say "It's about careless uploading of content". There's two sides of the coin here. Further, Sfan has tagged images. He's not deleting them. An administrator is. I don't see you jumping all over administrators who have deleted images you think he tagged inappropriately. Surely actually deleting supposedly improperly tagged things is worse than the tagging themselves? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins don't review images for speedy deletion to any level where we can rely on this as a second pair of eyes (of course some do, but not many). I'm much less concerned about tagging files for FfD than I was about those tagged CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So a presumption of incompetence for administrators reviewing as to whether a file should be deleted gets a pass, but Sfan's supposed incompetence in tagging files doesn't. Hmm. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The basis of CSD is that it's only for use with clear cases for deletion, cases that do not require manual review as they self-evidently demonstrate an irrepairable situation. The problem here is to apply CSD to cases that are mostly unclear.
 * This need for evident clarity is one of the reasons why we shift from unstructured prose as a copyright statement or rationale to tags and templates expressing properties from a vocabulary. The latter case is (in principle) machine-provable for its status against policy, prose isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to outside view by Hammersoft
My complaint is that Sfan00 sometimes edits too rapidly to be able to exercise due diligence when nominating for speedy-deletion. That is a violation of WP:CSD which is Policy: I have provided evidence of where Sfan00 failed to look for an easily-found source and missed the obvious PD nature of an image. Other evidence shows him missing a typo in a licence. I believe Sfan00 does a lot of good work, but mars it by these lapses of attention (which have the potential to be very costly in terms of good images lost), and I believe the cause is editing too rapidly. I'd like to help him find a middle-ground where he can be productive without making the mistakes that I've observed, and I find it very disappointing that you've chosen to avoid the issues I raised. You could also be helping Sfan00 to improve his editing, but it appears you prefer to validate his mistakes and level inaccurate criticism against me. Is that really helpful for an RfC? --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion"
 * "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ..., or handled in some other way"
 * Is this RfC helpful generally? J Milburn (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the intention on my part. Can you say the same of your participation? --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say that I hope some good comes of this RfC, and I feel my participation has been helpful. J Milburn (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant links
As a general observation, advice for both editors like Sfan00 IMG who devote some of their time to patrolling for problematic non-free content, and editors whose content is challenged by reviewers, can be found in the Principles contained in Requests for arbitration/Abu badali and Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. I hope that Sfan00 IMG and anyone else involved here can live up to the standards of conduct urged in these principles. If Sfan00 IMG can do so, then his work in this area will benefit the encyclopedia and the community. If Sfan00 IMG has trouble doing so&mdash;for reasons that may be as innocent as repeated, inadvertent inattention to detail; bad faith is not presumed&mdash;then it might turn out that his volunteer time and dedication to the project could be better aimed in another direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the only person who's coming out of this RfC at all well is Sfan. His past haste in tagging images was seen as a problem by a number of editors, he has agreed to change how he works so as to work more slowly, but more carefully. That is the best result anyone could have wanted, and he should be thanked for that. All the rest is peripheral self-sustaining wikibollocks for its own sake. We should now close this RfC, as its continued existence can only be unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to close?
One of the two editors that initially brought this RfC has indicated it should be closed now. Nobody but the two original filers has endorsed their summary. The four outside views that have been submitted voice general disagreement with the basis of the RfC, and all of those outside views have at least three endorsers. Further, Sfan00 IMG has removed twinkle. The RfC has been open now for two weeks. It seems unlikely that any significant direction change is going to happen, and the discussion here on this talk page is spinning off into tangentials. I think it's time we close this RfC and move on.
 * Support as above. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It doesn't seem this RfC/U will be useful. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 17:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support closure. Although the RfC was only listed yesterday, I can't see any likelihood that this RfC can be resolved, and should be closed on that basis. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. There's little to be gained here. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Per J Milburn, there is little to gain here. No one initially agreed with the people who filed the RFC, and indeed, one of the filers agreed with an outside view :)  That says to me it's time to move on. So let's do that.  Barking  Fish  21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, user made some mistakes. But files is only deleted if an admin agrees that file should be deleted. Also user agreed to be more carefull in future so I do not think we can get more out of this RfC. --MGA73 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)