- File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This was erroneously closed as delete despite the fact that there were at least 7 and perhaps 8 votes to keep, and every single keep vote addressed the contextual significance of the educational value of the image. There were two votes plus the nominator that disagreed. In addition the closing administrator opined in the discussion, and was involved. The closing administrator discounted all the keep votes, and endorsed all the delete votes, which can only be explained because of an appearance of bias. I asked the adminstrator to reverse but they refused. See, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Deletion review - Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin's response: About my "involvement": I did not vote in this FFD, but merely offered a procedural comment in answer to a question by one of the participants, regarding the applicability of a certain argument. I do not believe this precludes my making this closure. About the merits of the case: FFDs in NFC cases are closed on strength of policy-based arguments, not strength of numbers. Of the "keep" votes, the following had to be discounted as inherently invalid:
- Alanscottwalker: merely asserted contextual significance, in a generic, unspecific way, copying the generic wording of the NFCC, without giving any explanation of why and how. Invalid.
- DARIO SEVERI: an incomprehensible argument based on politics rather than NFC policy, insinuating that those favouring deletion were motivated by Taliban ideology. Obviously invalid.
- 75.60.19.202: argued on the basis of the obvious non sequitur that the image is "notable" because "the event is notable". Self-evidently contrary to policy.
- Hot Stop: merely cited the existence of a for-Wikipedia-only permission, which was irrelevant to the nomination. Didn't address the NFCC#8 concern.
- PhnomPencil: made a political argument, boiling down to the statement that he likes the political symbolism one can derive from the image, but didn't explain why a mere explanation of the event in words would not have been equally informative. Thus also missed the point about the NFCC nomination.
- JCAla: argument seems to boil down to a combination of those of PhnomPencil and the 75.50 IP; same objections.
- Cavarrone: a mere "as per Jimbo" vote with no further argument (except for the "permission" argument, about which see above). As for Jimbo's position cited, Jimbo himself had in fact not participated in the debate, but had commented in an off-FFD venue, but his opinion was had been quoted here. It, too, is unfortunately based on politics rather than policy: Jimbo seemed to be saying that we should use a non-free item because he likes the symbolic POV message he thought it promoted. In an incomprehensible leap of logical contortion, he also went on to say that doing so would mean promoting "NPOV". (Because, apparently, "NPOV" is short for "the POV I like", in this case, "promoting peace"). Jimbo's statement was so alarmingly out of touch both with actual NPOV policy and with NFC policy that I would have been forced to discount it even if he had proposed it as an actual !vote in this process.
Against these invalid "keep" statements, the three policy-conformant "delete" statements won the day.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- -Future perfect was involved and offered an opinion that the Afgahn Wiki claim that it was educationally useful did not address the issue, which of course was the issue in contention.
- -Alanscottwalker endorsed the other opinions that it was educationally significant to the topic.
- -Dario Severi opined that it was educationally significant to the topic of the peace process.
- -75.60.19.202 argued for the notable significance of the image to the topic.
- -PhonmPencil opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
- -JCAla opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
- -Cavarrone opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
- -Jimbo Wales opined that it was educationally significant to the topic.
- -HotSpot: voted keep and discussed the copyright.
- Stand against that the three who merely opined that it was not significant.
- All of the Keep votes, address the core of NFCC#8, perhaps not in how Future Perfect wanted them to but his bias cannot be used to color it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly do you find an opinion of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in the discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Huh? I never made any comment relating to "the Afgahn Wiki claim that it was educationally useful". Actually, nobody made any such claim. What "Afghan Wiki"? What are you talking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- JCAla said to you that the uploader proposed it for educational use on Afghan related articles, and you said that does not address educational purpose of NFCC#8, thus you opined on its educational value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was not what that exchange was about. You are misreading it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence. 22:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Alanscottwalker (talk)
- Overturn to keep. The policy issue of contextual significance, WP:NFCC#8, is a matter of editorial opinion, not something to be decided by administrator fiat. Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote. Sandstein 05:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck finding an admin at FFD who agrees. I lost all remaining faith in the process after the third "discussion" for the same image closed by supervote against consensus after being overturned here twice. Might as well just make NFCC speedy criteria at this point. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't a matter of "disagreeing" with this or that argument for contextual significance, it was a matter of no such arguments being offered. Yes, contextual significance is a matter of editorial opinion, but as such, it is subject to rational, policy-based argument. Votes that don't address the issue, or votes that are obviously just politically motivated "ILIKEIT" statements, do not count, and it is the closing administrator's responsibility to discount them, just like in every other !vote-based decision process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly breaking wikipedia policy disregards the obvious consensus reached on that page and he gives an non-existent reason for his closure. The nominator nominated the image citing WP:NFCC#8. Future Perfect at Sunrise, while being involved in the discussion, claims "Most keep arguments have clearly failed to address the NFC issue at the core of this nomination". That shows an utter disregard on his side for the actual arguments made by so many editors in the discussion. Most keep arguments did address the NFC issue very clearly:
- Jimbo Wales wrote: "it strikes me that the photo easily meets WP:NFCC#8. The factors you mention, particularly that "There exists no other image of the two leaders displaying that same gesture of peace." It is my view that NPOV promotes peace more than anything else. So while I think that Wikipedia should promote peace, what I mean by that is that we should promote NPOV thinking, i.e. calm, rational, thoughtful, fact-seeking as our primary mission. In a case like this, we should realize the educational value and learning impact of actually seeing the two leaders shaking hands - it brings home the reality of the peace process."
- Cavarrone explicitly agreed with above statement on NFC of Jimbo Wales and added that besides that the use of the image was allowed by the copyright holder itself.
- 75.60.19.202 said image was "clearly notable" [meaning that it meets NFCC#8].
- PhnomPencil said, "It's strikingly significant. ... The image has significantly increased my understanding of the topic." [clearly addressing NFCC#8 here]
- Alanscottwalker explicitly stated: "Meets NFCC#8. The picture adds substantively to the topic, and it would be detrimental, to such to delete."
- I wrote explicitly: "So in that sense the image does satisfy and meet WP:NFCC#8. It should therefore be kept for its value in that regard."
- DarioSeveri also commented on the significance of the image.
- HotSpot also emphasized that the use of the image was allowed by the copyright holder.
Meanwhile, one of the three editors favouring delete (one being the closing administrator) just stated (against obvious consensus) the image was not notable. Stefan (above) - also against obvious consensus - said as the image was not critically discussed it did not meet NFCC#8 which was rebutted by Jimbo Wales, Cavarrone, Alanscottwalker, Phnom Pencil and me. As Sandstein wrote above and I couldn't agree more: "The policy issue of contextual significance, WP:NFCC#8, is a matter of editorial opinion, not something to be decided by administrator fiat. Clearly there was a consensus that this image, in this article, was contextually significant. The closing admin must abide by that determination, even if they disagree with it, and may not impose their own opinion by supervote." JCAla (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: What follows is not directly related to the procedural justification of my closure (which I continue to uphold as valid), but some further thoughts about the merits of the case that could and probably should have been brought forward in the discussion and may serve as food for thought for commenters here. This is something I only realised after I made the closure. The uploader has created the impression that the image in question is a symbolically significant depiction of an historically important "moment of peace", and several outside voters (including Jimbo) seem to have been naively swayed by this. The NFC nomination hinged on the (correct) assertion that the visual presence of the illustration wasn't necessary to make the historical significance of the situation understood, but seemed to accept it as a given that the situation as such really was as important as the uploader claimed. But was it really? This, too, should be put under scrutiny according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. This is a photograph of two warlords engaged in civil war, shaking hands as a sign of a temporary war alliance against a common enemy. Calling this a symbol of "peace" is, to say the least, naive. The uploader is a thoroughly tendentious editor with a long block log for POV editing, whose prime goal on this project has always been to turn the biography of one of these warlords into a hagiography. He has spammed this image across as many as six articles (each with the same, generic, FUR) out of an evident POV-driven agenda of presenting the actions of this warlord as those of a national hero. In reality, none of the six articles had any reliable sourcing substantiating the view that the situation shown here had anything like the pivotal historical significance the uploader wishes us to believe. Its insertion and the way it is used to suggest such a pivotal significance is thus little more than tendentious WP:OR. Obviously, an OR agenda can never serve as a valid justification of a purpose of use under WP:NFCC#8. – As I said, this is not an additional justification for my closure (which continues to be valid on its own merits), but my reason for saying that if the closure should be overturned, I will immediately re-nominate the image on additional grounds. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly illustrates his personal involvement in the political issue as it is a highly politicized - far from neutral - assessment. And as Alanscottwalker said above: "I don't think your incivility evidences your administrative competence." Besides that you don't know anything about how my log came about and you are making personal attacks against me and my editing, you just denied the capability of independent judgement to Jimbo Wales, Alanscottwalker, PhnomPencil and all the others and accused them of naivete. JCAla (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, may it be possible that you edited on the German wikipedia under the name Sommerkom? JCAla (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I guess this kind of sock paranoia is par for the course in Afghanistan-related editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say anything of socks? Did you or did you not edit under the name of Sommerkom? Speaking of sock paranoia, see below. JCAla (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Delete was proper action. 2 afghan warlords [1] shaking paws not signifacant cause ther r 100s or 1,000s other afghan "warlords". notice artacle sates massoud "He was labeled as a 'butcher' by the Pashtuns". if we keeps one then for same reasons we forced to keep all other afghan warlords. This foto was probly used in wiki by someone with special agenda to provoke followers of other afghan warlords, and whats important about one ethnic pakhtun (pathan) and and one ethnic tajik shaking hand, ha? Did they sign a tajik-pashtun treaty that day or was it just for cup of tea? these two only represented small groups, tajiks of Panjshir province and pakhtuns from nangarhar province. In afghanistan pakhtuns and tajeeks always work together,,, isn't president (Karzai) pakhtun and the vice president (Fahim) tajik? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Obviously invalid vote with no basis in policy. Please don't engage in debates of this style (and, people, please also don't respond to such posts and engage such editors in debate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- i must have college degree before edit wiki or ANYONE can edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afzalkhan123 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little note on the rawa source the sock presented above: Kabul Press: "Based on the evidence, in addition to misuse of the financial aids that they receive in the name of Afghan Women, this group (rawa) functions as the left hand of Taliban ..." JCAla (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Afzalkhan123 has been blocked as an apparent sockpuppet, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Overturn to keep, largely per Sandstein. NFCC8 is not a licence to supervote.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. I'm dubious about keeping this image, and would vote to delete it absent specific sourced commentary regarding the significance of the event depicted. The closer was certainly correct in discounting the many keep !votes which did not address the main deletion rationale. But I don't see a convincing argument advanced in the FFD discussion to rebut Jimbo's analysis, leaving a discussion which did not reach sufficient consensus. I therefore believe discussion should have been extended, with a specific call for sourcing for the claims regarding the significance of the event depicted, which as things now stand is supporting mainly be user opinion/OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The picture adds substantially to the understanding of at least some of the articles where it was used, though I think the use in the Afghanistan article was excessive. Relationships between people can be described in words, but can be much better understood through pictures. When the relationship is of historical significance (and I think this relationship is) and there is an available photo, it should be used, even if non-free. The relative meaningless of words is indicated by some of the defense of the picture, & the admins comment on what the picture indicates. There is some obvious disagreement. But the picture provides the best evidence itself, as a picture with the figures identified. As appropriate to Wikipedia people can then make their own judgments about the meaning. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep and blame this behaviour. Fut.Perf. is invited, in cases like this, to simply express his vote in the discussion and to leave the task of closing the discussion to a more neutral user, avoiding "supervotes", that (as Sandstein and S Marshall pointed out) are not legitimated by NFCC#8. Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Arguments that disregard or misunderstand the non-free content policy should be given zero weight when the NFCC are the primary issue in an FFD. Thus this was a reasonable closure of the FFD in question. CIreland (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus (not keep). After disregarding some of the "keep" !votes based on "inherited notability", "the copyright holder doesn't mind", and "WP:JIMBOSEZ", we are left with a close one that could have gone either way. (note that Jimbo didn't actually !vote in the FFD). Unlike the other points in WP:NFCC, 8 is more subjective and reasonable people can disagree on whether or not an image "significantly increases understanding" and some of the "keep" !voters made credible arguments that it did. There were also credible arguments that it didn't so IMHO "no consensus" would have been the right call. Fut.Perf, you really should have !voted in the FFD, not closed it. You had already participated in it with a neutral comment so it's obvious you were watching it. Despite the numbers, I have already demonstrated that it was closer then it looked so your !vote might have led to a more DRV resistant "delete" close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep Mostly because, well, that was the consensus. But also an admin who commented on a deletion discussion (especially with something that could be considered an opinion) shouldn't be closing the discussion. If the admin issue were the only issue, I'd urge a relist/reclose (it was fairly minor, but it's not only important to _be_ fair, it's important to appear fair). But given this was clearly not a consensus-based outcome... Hobit (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to expand. Meeting NFCC#8 is, largely, a matter of opinion. As there was no consensus that it didn't meet NFCC#8 we can't delete (and yes, consensus on a topic like this is something of an actual vote as long as people make rational arguments--there is no good way to weigh the !votes without the closer supervoting). In fact, consensus was the other way (though not that far from NC). Hobit (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus, or alternatively relist. There's enough crappy keeps that a NC is justifiable, but I'm afraid that a delete close in this case really does strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish". T. Canens (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
