Meta talk:Requests for comment/Update of Meta:Deletion policy/Draft-stage discussion

• Update deletion reasons
• Add revision deletion
• Images; complicated task:
  • free images should be moved to commons
  • copyright infringements and fair use must go
  • special clause for GFDL presumed since they can't be moved to commons?
• Investigate if the statement "Meta-Wiki does not back up deleted revisions" is still true...

One comment

• I'd probably have one policy for non-free files: "Unfree files. This includes unambiguous copyright infringements as well as 'fair use' files or files disallowing commercial use or reuse".
• Not sure if all free images can be moved to Commons; certain logos for example may be OK as too simple in the United States but would be copyrighted in their origin countries and thus not suitable for Commons.
• Regarding backing up deleted revisions, is any of the pages [here] still available through Special:Undelete?
• I see that the Revision deletion policy appears to be highly similar to enWikipedia's one. Is this copied from there?

Some food for consideration.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Some replies:

• RevDel: as noted on the history, I imported and adapted some pieces of text to enwiki to here.
• There was a time Meta did not backed up deleted revisions, but that does not seem to be the case now. I could check however few pages you've linked and I can see the deleted content. However old deleted files were not backed-up.

Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 19:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Spam

@MarcoAurelio: I propose adding the following reason to User:MarcoAurelio/Policies/DelPol#General:

• Advertising or other spam.

Syum90 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Done, sightly reworded. —MarcoAurelio 12:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

More follow up

Did a bit more review, with the following:

• "Special provisions for images" to me looks more like an upload policy than a deletion policy. I'd rather put that on Meta:Uploaders and/or Meta:Administrators or its own page. The part about not Commons-suited files and local high risk ones IMO belongs under I4.
  •  Removed —MarcoAurelio 15:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unless there have been repeated incidents of improper use of log redaction, I'd not give it its own section but simply reuse the "Revision Deletion" section. Policy pages generally work better the shorter they are (easier to memorize and people will actually read them then).
  • Done —MarcoAurelio 15:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed both. —MarcoAurelio 15:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Image speedy deletion criteria

Some comments on how to improve the proposed speedy deletion criteria for images:

Criterion #1 reads "Unfree files: files that are obviously copyright infringements, or are licensed under any non-free license, or that don't allow commercial use or reuse." The criterion doesn't specify what makes a licence non-free, and if it is not obvious that a licence is unfree, then a proper deletion discussion is better than speedy deletion. Copyright violations are already covered by one of the general criteria, so it doesn't need to be listed separately here. Our current WM:DP policy says "Noncommercial or by-permission-only images." If we adjust this into "Noncommercial, nonderivative or by-permission-only images," then the criterion will be more clear and probably cover everything which is unambiguously unfree.

Criterion #2 reads "Fair use images." Useful addition: it is currently not clear whether fair use images fall under the copyright violation criterion or not.

Criterion #3 reads "Files unsourced and/or unlicensed for more than one week after the uploader was notified." This seems to contradict the {{GFDL-presumed}} proposal further down: files with that copyright tag typically lack a source. It also seems that MediaWiki:Uploadtext doesn't contain any statement saying that files are licensed automatically, so these files are effectively unlicensed even if the uploader is the copyright holder. A file doesn't become licensed unless the uploader says so. Also, some of the files, such as File:160pixjv.jpg, are photos of the uploader and thus unlikely "own work by the uploader". I'd suggest keeping criterion #3 as it is but dropping the {{GFDL-presumed}} template.

Criterion #4 reads "File is available on Wikimedia Commons or was transferred from Meta-Wiki to Wikimedia Commons." On English Wikipedia, Commons dupes may only be speedily deleted as Commons dupes if the file is likely to be acceptable on Commons, while other images have to go through other deletion processes on Wikipedia. Not sure if we want to import that procedure. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• The case study of why "non-free" cannot be deleted under "copyright violation" are images licensed for use on Meta only. Not a copyright violation because they are a valid license, but not free under a conventional understanding of free. I'd merge #1 and #2 under "Noncommercial, nonderivative, by-permission-only or fair use images" but I think I've said so already. Regarding #4, I am not convinced copying the procedure over is justified in sense of preventing excessive bureaucracy, although checking before is good.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Stefan2 Follow up on the "non-free" issue, there does not appear to be any definition of freeness here: Free content redirects to an enwiki page that does not appear to precisely state what we consider free content (rather it covers the encyclopedia topic), Non-free content just states what projects have a non-free content policy and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy merely refers to this external URL. Mayhaps we should expand Free content to contain an explanation of what it is on Wikimedia? (Also, note to self: MediaWiki:Uploadtext misuses the word "copyrighted" and needs to be edited so that it refers to "non-free").Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Hello all. Feel free to modify the text of the proposal if you like too. That it is on my userspace should be no barrier. If there's consensus for the changes then go for them. Any improvement will be welcome. Thanks for your interest. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh, thanks. I've implemented the merger of all non-free file speedy deletion reasons, anyway.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Freedomdefined:Definition essentially states that files must be free in all countries worldwide, but many projects don't follow that definition in all aspects. Maybe it's easier for us to simply decide that we use the same definition as Commons? Or would we want a different definition, for example by requiring that files must be free in all countries where Meta frequently is accessed? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
          • I'd go with the easy rule of commons: free in the country of origin and in the US. —MarcoAurelio 22:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ready to go?

Hello. Before sending this for wider community review, do we have any objections on this? Any unresolved issues that might need clarification? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I compared the proposed file criteria with c:COM:CSD. Commons has lots of different criteria for copyright violations. I'm not sure that we need as many criteria for this. However, I note that Commons has one important criterion (no evidence of permission) which is not present in your proposal. It should maybe be included. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Something like "No evidence of freeness", maybe? (With "insufficient" evidence cases being directed at regular Meta:Requests for deletion). That's my preference for simplicity speaking, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Stefan2: Will [1] satisfy that? —MarcoAurelio 22:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)