- File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
There were two keeps. However, the administrator deleted it without proper rationale. Attempts to contact the administrator were unsuccessful because he retired. Also, the administrator was subject to Arbitration until motion is suspended. If temporarily undeleted, then we must know whether the image can increase readers' understanding of the episode in question. By the way, it was reviewed one month ago, but it was mass deletion review. This deletion is a test to find out whether we can go one at a time or make one review on two or three files.
As for the file itself, I bet it worked in Production section of "Burns' Heir". I mean, why using a free photo of Richard Simmons? Robot and human being are different from each other. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. When every voter on an XFD says to keep, there are only two possible closes: Keep, or No Consensus if the XFD didn't get enough input. There's no possible way that the consensus of voters on this XFD was to delete. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I share Nyttend's view that the XfD did not result in a consensus to delete. I note that at least one other image in the same group (File:Cecil and Bob.png) was deleted at the same time after a very similar discussion and was restored at lower resolution after a Deletion review discussion. --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, no way was there a consensus to delete here. In situations where the application of the policy is disputed, the closing admin should not cast a super-vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I think the FfD discussion is sufficient to judge what to do here, without needed a termpundelete DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Maybe you can see the NFUR & image, but I can't. It's disappointing to see a suggestion that prior discussion without quoting of, or access to, the object of that discussion (NFUR or image) constitutes enough information to decide anything. --Lexein (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I agree with Nyttend's "no consensus" analysis. Let's look at the NFUR, the image, the article, and judge with the blinders off, with notification of image and article editors, and time enough for improvement (article:critical discussion of the image or subject, NFUR:rationale language). Re WP:ATADR, this is not "another chance" - the mass deletion notifications were inadequate, nominations were changed after a delay, noms were exaggerations of policy & included WP:AAFFD, noms did not specify all the NFCC #s not met, the closure was premature, done without discussion, and run away from; then, it was heavily disputed with some multiple overturns already. --Lexein (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. First, that SchuminWeb is "suspended" is irrelevant. He's refusing to answer a potential case against him having to do with his interactions with others; it has no bearing here. We should keep in mind thatt here was an original nominator, who argued that the image (with others) failed NFCC #8 (requiring contextual significance). When a deletion is processed without comment, which is quite common in FFD, AFD, and pretty much everywhere else, it's assumed that the deleting administrator accepted the nominating rationale and saw no need to go further. The debate was closed after a week had passed, which is what policy requires. The two other participating editors adopted a strained literal reading of the policy and did not explain in any fashion why this image was necessary and how it was significant. The burden of proof is on the uploader of a fair-use file; not the reverse. Now, let's talk about the rationale: "This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the scene portrayed." That's a terrible rationale. Of course it illustrates. That's what images do. If that's enough than any fair use image could be included, and we wouldn't bother with #8 because anything could satisfy it. That won't wash. The text in Burns' Heir does of course discuss the robotic Richard Simmons; it's probably the most noteworthy deleted scene in Simpson's history and one of the funnier segments ever aired. Is the image necessary to understand it? Maybe. Did anyone make the case that it was, when writing the rationale or during the debate? No. It is absolutely permissible for an administrator to ignore arguments not grounded in policy. It's done all the time. It's the reason bots don't close discussions. It's the reason vote-stacking is a recurring nuisance rather than a clear and present danger. Consensus must be grounded in policy; in those rare cases when we ignore all rules it must be for a better reason than using fair use images as illustrations. Mackensen (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every person who voted "keep" had no time to type many arguments. Actually, they copied and pasted everything. There weren't further discussions because not everyone is aware of deletion nomination of images. As for the image itself, why would an image of a robot be replaceable by text and a free image of Richard Simmons? Is the text not adequate enough to justify a fair use of the robot image? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were seven days. Plenty of time. You're proving my point--the closing administrator was right to discount copy/paste !votes that weren't apposite. You're ignoring the inappropriate rationale, and the text of NFCC #8. If just text were enough than surely almost every fair use image would be justified by it. This is a free-content project. Fair use is allowed, but heavily restricted. Surely a reading as permissive as that is inaccurate. NFCC #8 says "significant." I don't think that would apply here, but this is deletion review, not AFD round #2. No one advanced that argument. The two the commented rejected NFCC #8 as the basis for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy/paste votes aside, per one discussion, if deleted material is not to be seen, then new evidence may be permitted, unlike recent procedure WP:move review. And let's not discuss many policies at this moment yet. To test yourself out, I reluctantly added a free image of REAL Richard Simmons, so you can figure out whether "robot" should or should not be illustrated physically. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what Simmons looks like, though if I didn't it might help. Awareness of Simmons' public persona would be more useful, and a still image doesn't convey that. Anyway, you're still missing the point. Of course it's better to have an image of the scene. However, "better" isn't enough with unfree media. Is it significant? Does the text comment on the image itself, as opposed to the concept? These arguments should have been raised in the original discussion, and I don't see how a low-traffic discussion at a low-traffic process not involving deletion has any bearing here. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides that it may look like AFD Round #2, why else would new arguments be omitted here? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the purpose of DRV is to evaluate whether the deletion discussion in question produced a valid outcome given the information presented. This is why you occasionally see DRVs which produce the result "endorsed, but allow re-creation"; the debate was valid, but new information discovered afterwards changes the equation. The only important question is whether NFCC was evaluated correctly based on arguments presented and the state of the file and article at the time. If someone wants to re-upload the image, improve the article, and write an actual fair-use rationale then that would be an appropriate action, but it wouldn't have any bearing here. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn 1 nom, 2 keeps, admin closes as delete == supervote. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite being a popular term of abuse supervotes are neither illegitimate nor against policy. You need to provide a better explanation that grapples with the policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The premise of the delete argument was rejected per policy by two to one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of badgering, could you explain how? I've argued in detail above how I think this wasn't the case, and it would be helpful for the closing administrator to see your argument. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Closure was fine the first time. Even if the result was "no consensus", that would result in deletion: this is FFD, not AFD, and FFD defaults to deletion, not retention. Further, none of the keep votes even approached rebutting the nomination statement that the image failed WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist None of the keep votes addressed the NFCC3#8 concern. In fact, they appear not to understand the written policy at all. Relist to give further time for constructive keep or delete comments. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great - another one who wants abusive misrepresentations of policy language to stand unchallenged, and WP:AAFFD to be ignored. Your care for the NFCC policy language as written is noted. It's okay, take your potshots, I'll defend the meanings of words. By the way, with a really crappy nomination, you expect perfect replies from responders? Did you even look at the edit history? Please do. What kind of further deletion gaming do you want? Not notifying uploaders? My mistake was trying to get the nomination to be rewritten with fidelity to the policy language, then to address each policy point correctly brought up; wasted effort, even now, I suppose. --Lexein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. The keep arguments at the discussion were entirely off. A non-free image being "decorative" is a valid reason for deletion; this type of use is exactly why WP:NFCC exists to begin with. Lexein's argument that the nominator "falsifie[d] policy: 'not critical for understanding', 'greatly enhance' and 'greatly decrease' are not stated in policy" was entirely wrong, WP:NFCC#8 addresses this entirely. Still, SchuminWeb's deletions had begun to turn problematic, and a fresh discussion seems merited here. — ξxplicit 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Nope. That the policy doesn't say what you want it to say, that much is clear, but deliberate exaggerations, presented as policy, are inexcusable. My statement that the nominator "falsifie[d] policy[by exaggeration]: 'not critical for understanding', 'greatly enhance' and 'greatly decrease' are not stated in policy" - is entirely, dead on, right. NFCC#8 doesn't say or mean "critical" or "greatly" anything. Read it again. Are you saying that "significant" means "greatly" or "critical"?
- 2. I detest flawed nominations - they are a horrible waste of time, as you are now experiencing. I think flawed nominations should be reverted, or the clock started over after any major edit to the nomination (which happened here, with no clock restart).
- 3. The discussion ended quite effing abruptly, so of course Relist is fine with me. --Lexein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate your condescending tone of asking me to re-read the policy. I've worked with files everyday for a very extended period amount of time, I think I would know this policy through and through. Anyway, directly from WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This one sentence refutes your claim that Justin falsified policy by exaggeration, as it specifically does knock your "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance", and "greatly decrease" claims down entirely. — ξxplicit 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you should appreciate being corrected when you are wrong, and you are wrong here. And you should be glad I asked you to read it again. Getting away with doing it wrong for years doesn't make it right. I cannot tell by what circuitous hidden logic you are arriving at an equivalence between "significant" or "critical" and "greatly", but it is not visible to the rest of us. If you are deliberately refusing to reveal your logic, then you are acting quite badly here; if you claim that there is no such logical transformation required, then you are acting worse. I'm tired of this, but not tired enough to cease calling out anyone who manipulates and falsifies policy language. It was a weak, non-specific nomination, a delayed edit without improvement, with language distorting policy, and it merited swift cleanup or reversion by an activist admin who strongly prefers clean, uncomplicated, uncontroversial nominations, as do I. Unless you think the nomination, and its delayed edit, were above reproach. It doesn't bother you that the policy says one thing, and people are acting as if it says something else? It bothers me greatly. --Lexein (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, let me get this straight... "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "not critical for understanding", "significantly increase" and "greatly enhance", and "detrimental to that understanding" and "greatly decrease" are not different ways of saying the exact same thing? That's like arguing that "yes" and "yeah" don't have the same meaning. If I've been doing it wrong for several years, surely I would have been considered a controversial admin a long time ago. Fact is, of my three and a half years of being an admin, most of my deletions hardly ever get sent to DRV, and the ones that have, to my memory, have never been overturned. That's how wrong I've applied this policy, apparently. So, if you're going to accuse me of manipulating and falsifying policy for years, you better bring up some solid evidence, because you're quickly approaching WP:NPA territory.
- I also find it extremely ironic that you argue against a "weak, non-specific nomination", and did nothing but provide a weak, non-specific keep rationale for most, if not all, of those images. Let me point out WP:NFCCE: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". You failed to do so. — ξxplicit 03:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OMFG they are not different ways of saying the same thing. Even if they were equivalent (and they are absolutely not), there would be no reason to say "the same thing" twice; this is my point - the nominator deliberately exaggerated the language, pushing it beyond its intent as stated in the policy. Your "yes" and "yeah" analogy does not apply. Accuse? Plainly state, more like. There is such a thing as willing agreement, and if you truly believe in the equivalence of the above contested phrases, then you have in fact been willing to agree to an exaggeration of the explicit policy language, to effect deletion of images, in at least a few cases. I think the majority of images you've deleted probably did merit deletion: I'm arguing the case for the edge cases, where the meanings of words matter. This might be as many as 3%, maybe less. That was my point at the recent 272 nomination bloodbath: 6 or 7 should not have been deleted based on the criteria they were nominated for (perhaps another criteria, perhaps not).
- As for your irony, well, I was certainly distracted with what I am still certain were inexcusable flaws in the nominations and was waiting for discussion, which didn't happen. I expected a response, at least for those images (6) at which I pointed out that the nominator ignored critical discussion of the image or its content. More the fool I, I guess. Now I know that that's the strategy: nominate, maybe modify one atrocious error in the nom, don't restart the clock, leave it contaminated with exaggeration, don't discuss, then Profit! That's the exact example I'm going to follow, and I'll cite this as successful prelude. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also inaccurate to refer to the discussing ending "abruptly." Near as I can tell the FFD ran the full week. That's all that's required. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given that the language of the nomination changed midstream, I think the clock should have restarted, but as I've stated, I was (vainly) expecting discussion on point, which never happened. At this particular image, I was faulting the nom for its language, and now I don't remember the image, and of course can't see the NFUR. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an aside, I'd like to point out that there is some faulty math going on here: two keep !votes versus two delete !votes (myself as nom and SchuminWeb as closer) hardly constitutes a consensus to keep. Also, if there are infinite crappy reasons to keep ("I like it!" "It's cool!") then that trumps a single policy-based argument for delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'No consensus' defaults to 'no consensus,' not 'delete.' I get that default-to-delete applies where nobody has responded, or where there is no parity on !votes, but defaulting 'no consensus' to delete? That's nonsense. Better to either close 'no consensus', or just keep open for more discussion. Who does that hurt? By the way, it's galling that you continue to misrepresent: here, you misrepresent the opposing !votes given. Keep it up - it serves you poorly. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Both keeps effectively address that the NFCC#8 concerns are poppycock, which they are. Burn's heir is far harder to understand to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter without the image. WilyD 10:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The nominator said that the image did not enhance readers' understanding, but did not explain why they believe that. The keep voters correctly note that simply stating something is purely decorative does not make it so. There was clearly no consensus to delete based on that discussion so the closure was incorrect. The nominator should be free to renominate provided they explicitly note why they believe the image can be adequately replaced by text and/or a free image. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he didn't. Thryduulf, he said that "[it] is not critical for understanding." That's not the same thing, and that quotes directly from the policy. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not until late in the discussion did the nominator actually refer to the policy, and at no time did they explain their view. The unexplained assertion was rejected by those commenting. The effect is exactly the same - the nominator said "this doesn't meet the NFCC criteria." with nothing to say why they felt it wasn't critical for understanding. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep patient supervote. The nominator did not found consensus on his point of view. Cavarrone (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The closer appears to have utilized a supervote, interpreting consensus incorrectly. Gobōnobō + c 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd like to remind everyone decrying an alleged "supervote" that WP:SUPERVOTE is an essay, not a policy (unlike WP:NFCC), and that said essay notes that it may be appropriate for administrators to ignore views not grounded in policy. Granted, both the original debate and this DRV are remarkably free of references to policy. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, except when it's the Simpsons and we really want our screencaps. I'm left wondering what exactly people think NFCC #8 is for, because after this review it's a dead letter. Nothing will ever be deleted again. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC #8 is not dead letter but is still, as it has always been, based on a subjective valuatation and it requires consensus by the community. Otherwise you can propose that NFCC #8 becomes a criterium for speedy deletion, so we can solve a lot of controversities that raise at regular intervals about deletions under this criterium. You can consider an image unnecessary and someone else could consider fundamental to the topic, it happens every day, and here clearly the nominator's point of view that the image was unsignificant and just decorative was rejected by community. Yes, the keep voters were probably vague in their rationale, but not less than the nominator's rationale; and the lack of a closing rationale, as well as the refusal of dialogue/justification by the closer, go towards an obvious overturn.Cavarrone (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition Even if WP:SUPERVOTE was a policy, it includes "One exception would be in FfD debates where our non free content policy is an issue as this is one of the few policies meant to be enforced 'prescriptively' ". In other words, WP:SUPERVOTE doesn't apply to this discussion at all.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true, but whether an image is critical for the understanding of an article is a subjective criterion. The nominator asserted (belatedly) that it wasn't, but this view was rejected by those commenting. The only possible correct course of actions were (1) to close as keep, (2) to relist for more discussion, (3) adding a reocmmendation to keep (acting as a normal editor), or (4) close as delete citing evidence that it failed an objective criterion. None of these actions took place, so the close was incorrect whether it was a supervote or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion wasn't belated. "Decorative" may be denigrated as a reason based on the perception of it being "fightin' words", but its meaning is clear, and clearly excludes material covered by NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever term was used is beside the point that simply stating something is decorative or whatever doesn't make it so. The nominator's implied statement that it failed NFCC#8 was rejected by those commenting. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Objective deletion criterion sound fascinating and would make administrator's jobs easier. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing. Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking at the NFCC criteria 4, 7, 9, 10a and 10b are always objective, 1 and 10c can be in some circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and those are almost always at issue during a speedy deletion. I should have been more precise. Actual discussions tend to require interpreting subject criteria. Almost any image can meet the criteria you enumerated which is why they tend to not be at issue. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've missed the point. If an image fails one of those objective criteria then it is correct to delete an image in the face of consensus to keep it (but only if this is noted by the closer and/or deleting admin). If an image meets all the objective criteria it must be judged on the subjective criteria. It is never acceptable to delete an image for failing subjective criteria without consensus that it does actually fail them. In this case everyone implicitly agreed that the image met every other criterion, because only criteria 8 was mentioned in the discussion. There was no consensus that the image failed NFCC #8 (even if we assume the deleting admin believed it did, and as they left no comments and refuse to discuss their actions we cannot be sure, then we're at 2+2 with no arguments advanced in favour of deletion (cf my comments below)), so deletion was contrary to policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About the supervote, I think nobody here named it in reference to the relevant essay. The term is long established and it was born long before the related essay (that was created, indeed, as a consequence of the use of the term). If I say that something is ugly, it does not automatically mean I'm referring to WP:UGLY. Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would make those comments all the more irrelevant. If they don't mean the essay, then what? I've been closing debates since 2004. Administrators have always had to apply their judgement. Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They mean the concept, not the essay, plain and simple. And sure, the administrators should apply their judgement, not close discussions as they want ignoring both the discussion and the policy. If you are a so experienced administrator you know that the application of NFCC #8 is often controversial as it is based on a subjective evaluation and it requires that the community agrees with the deletion's proposer about the lack of significance of a specific image (and the thing does not always happen). Shuminweb not just ignored these points but also failed to provide a rationale for his close, and this is the stronger evidence of a supervote. Cavarrone (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not pulling rank, incidentally; my point is simply that this is nothing new (thanks for assuming I was, though). Administrators aren't required to provide a rationale when closing and often don't. When they don't, we assume that they agreed with the arguments put forth during the discussion, depending on how they closed the debate. SchuminWeb's failure to provide a rationale is beside the point since it's obvious what it was and there's no disagreement here. All that matters is wether it was reasonable to say that the image failed NFCC #8, and wether good arguments were advanced for or against that stance. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No arguments were advanced that it failed NFCC #8. The nominator implied that it did, but without explanation this is not an argument merely an unsupported assertion (AKA "I don't like it"); the keep voters obviously didn't advance an argument that it failed any of the criteria; and the closing admin deleted without comment (AKA "I don't like it either"). In these circumstances is not reasonable to say that the image failed NFCC #8. An admin is not required to provide a rationale if it is obvious, but in this case it was not - the nominator gave no reason and both commenters advocated keeping the image. Further, an admin is required to explain their actions and to provide a closing rationale when asked in good faith to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, There is a wikipedia article for every singe 20 minute simpsons epsisode. Not sure why these UFC fights do not have one as they are much more significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.173.34 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree. Fortunately the article was not deleted; we're talking about a screen cap. Do you have any views on the retention of the image? Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The close did not reflect the discussion. Not even a supervote as the closer didn't even give a rationale, just plain wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - The keep iVotes were very weak in that they lacked any analysis as to why this image met WP:NFCC. The delete iVote nom was stronger than the keep iVotes because the delete iVote nom used some of the wording from WP:NFCC as conclusions. However, the delete iVote nom was weak as well in that the delete iVote nom failed to use the actual wording from WP:NFCC and failed to apply the article language, the image, and the available reliable sources discussing the image together in the context of the actual wording from WP:NFCC to draw the posted conclusions. Arguments that are based on opinion rather than fact are frequently discounted. Neither side mustered an argument of sufficient strength for the closer to determine that a rough consensus has been reached one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It is possible Schuminweb speedy deleted the file using the WP:NFCC#8 criterion of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria on account of "A file in use in an article ... that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted". If so, it should have been stated in the closing rationale that he, as an administrator, was over-ruling contrary opinions. However, the BOT generated close says "The result of the discussion was: Delete". It is suggested above (by Kww) that at FFD the result of a no consensus discussion is to delete. I know stuff like that happens but so far as I can see it is merely a wrong application of policy. WP:FFD says "Files ... are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised" and WP:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions says "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default" and "There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a file, it can simply be deleted". Is there a policy statement or consensus agreement somewhere that says "no consensus" at FFD should lead to 'delete'"? BTW, so far as I am aware there are very many files that have been improperly deleted over many months. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- relist There's enough bad faith here for everyone. I'm hard pressed to believe that the nominator actually looked at all these articles; it looks to me as though a file was scraped of all the screenshots in Simpsons articles and then dropped into Twinkle, just as the same admin did with 160 Twilight Zone screen shots on November 19. He didn't look at the several hundred articles he nominated over three days, just as hardly anyone else did either (I did look at a few of the TZ images, and not finding any that I thought could be justified, didn't go through the other 140 or so.) OTOH the boilerplate 'keep' votes dropped on these discussions don't have anything to do with looking at the images or their use in the articles either. I personally looked at the next bulk nomination of Simpsons images, but these were mostly gone by the time I decided to routinely review FfD. I'm willing to reexamine these, knowing that most of them will get deleted. But these mass noms need to stop, because they preclude actual review. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
