Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 10 August 2006

Comment on Sam Blanning Response

Comment on Sam Blanning Response: To state the following ...I don't think that Kelly Martin is actually suggesting that a policy was formed at Wikifest... correctly would be to say "Kelly Martin said discussion occured at Wikifest on this matter and she has therefore generated a policy based on that discussion." per this (which is cited above). --MECU≈talk 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I understand happened, and I tried to make it clear that I understood that - perhaps my wording wasn't 100%. My central point stands - whether the policy was decided at some con in America or whether discussion took place there which led Kelly to make a policy, everyone who didn't go to the con is completely in the dark, and that group of "everyone who didn't go to the con" consists disproportionately of a) non-Americans and, perhaps, b) those who are not as involved as others in Misplaced Pages but will still feel like they should have an input. Certainly I had no idea that if I wanted to discuss fair images policy regarding sports team logos, I should have gotten time off work so I could buy an expensive plane ticket to Florida or wherever. --Sam Blanning 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this in the correct place. I didn't mean to imply in any manner that your entire (or any other section) of your response wasn't valid, I just thought the way you stated that line was slightly different than the case as presented, thus, my attempt to state more matter-of-factly how it was made. I think the rest of your statement was spot-on and agree wholeheartedly, but cannot sign since I signed above. --MECU≈talk 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty certain you're welcome to sign as many outside views you like (though I would say that now :-)) --Sam Blanning 00:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that users are requested to edit no more than one view, but that they are welcome to sign as many views as they find agreement with. That is part of the consensus building process - to see what statements by other users you can support, even if they differ slightly from the way you would have put things. Johntex\ 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Having everything done in the open is a very egalitarian and idealistic view, but in the real world, it doesn't particularly work, and some things are necessarily done without the participation of everyone. Life isn't fair; if you can't make it to meeting (or you can't make it to the voting booth), you can be expected to be left out of some things. --Cyde Weys 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To fail to make it to the voting booth on voting day is a choice: You made other priorities higher than your desire to vote. My failure to attend Wikicon was also my choice. However, the difference is that it was not announced that a vote on this matter would be taking place at Wikicon in advance. Thus, is it my failure to vote on this matter, since I didn't know the vote was going to take place? I doubt it: I was excluded from being able to vote. I would be fine with this should it be known that I am at least represented (in theory at least) at the vote. Hence, your example that not everything can include everyone is perfectly valid. The US Congress operates on this policy, but at least I get to help pick who attends this meeting. Even still, the most important (arguable though) decision to be made in the US -- The election of the President -- attempts to include everyone who is valid (felons and minors excluded). We have the capability to include all those that are interested here on wiki, and why not take advantage of such? We shouldn't leave anyone out if we can at least offer them the chance to vote. (I'm speaking of general items. Some items shouldn't be allowed in this manner, like legal needs and operating the foundation: but even still, canidates are taken for the board...) --MECU≈talk 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting can only take place at voting booths (ignoring postal votes and other innovations for the sake of the analogy). However, Misplaced Pages policy can be made in many places, and the best place to make Misplaced Pages policy is still, uh, Misplaced Pages. Incidentally, when I last voted the voting booth was on campus and I went in my lunch break. It was not thousands of miles away across a bloody great ocean and I didn't have to get time off work in order to make my puny voice heard. --Sam Blanning 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for a policy that policy has to be discussed in plain view of Wikipedians, except when it comes down from WP:OFFICE. rootology (T) 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny so many people signed on to Sam's response. You all seem to be in the dark on the fact that it's been fairly officially decreed and backed up by consensus that for pragmatic reasons discussions of policy outside the wiki are quite valid and appropriate and that such discussion does not need to be reduplicated on wiki to be valid. Go look for Jimbo's comments on the issue, he stated them quite clearly and attempts to require all policy discussion on wiki were soundly defeated. I happen to think it's better if off wiki discussion is at least summarized on wiki to facilitate on wiki collaboration and consensus gathering, but I'm fully aware that on this point I'm strongly in the minority, and the powers that be do not agree with me. To the specific topic of this RfC people need to read the points brought up by InkSplotch at the bottom of the page and the Signpost's coverage of Jimbo's comments on fair use. Kelly did the right thing. - Taxman 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to discuss Misplaced Pages policy anywhere in the world. But the discussions that matter most should take place on Misplaced Pages, allowing all Wikipedians to participate. And almost all the time that's how it does work. Haukur 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of people are upset at her unilateral "I say what is policy" assertation, and the implication that people beyond her would have no input or room for discussion in the apppropriate venue--the policy page/policy talk page--on what was being reinterpreted. rootology (T) 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinions are not policy unless Jimbo says they are. Which he may do, but doesn't always. And Kelly Martin's interpretation of Jimbo's opinions comes even less close to being policy, or at least not the moment she types it. --Sam Blanning 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Endorse. (Oh, this is the talk page? I thought that sentence was part of Sam's statement. It certainly should be. Or get cast in bronze or something. OK, let me talk then.) In this case, I think KM was actually right in her interpretation of the Fair Use policy, but she should said that was what she was doing, not "Star Chamber has decided". KM has experience, respect, all that ... but not WP:OFFICE. This was not an emergency calling for drastic action. AnonEMouse 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gender

Incidentally (completely irrelevant to the above), I can't imagine how Johntex's reference to Kelly as a 'he' can be interpreted as rudeness. Kelly is both a girl's and boy's name and she doesn't seem to state her gender on her userpage. I made the same mistake (now corrected). Just occasionally, an extra userbox can be useful... --Sam Blanning 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I corrected my (s)he above since I now know. I think it is more proof of how willing Kelly is to "fly off the handle". --MECU≈talk 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• When I read that line in the RFC, I went to User:Kelly Martin and was unable to determine gender. If it is not on the user page, which seems to be the obvious spot, any assumption made by the reader should not be seen as a possible slight/attack/endorsement/support. And if one takes offense, one should be more clear. Incidentally, my brother, mentioned in my original comment/rant, has an equally mistaken name, so, based on my personal experience, I drew the same conclusion that Kelly would be a Mister, and now stand corrected. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't to my recollection met or interacted with Kelly Martin before. I did not know her gender, so I went to her user page and I still could not tell. Therefore, I tried to word the RfC to avoid all pronouns and that is why I kept repeated Kelly this, Kelly that. Unfortunately, I allowed an incorrect pronoun to slip through. No offense was intended and I have apologized to Kelly on her Talk page. Johntex\ 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has been subject to some pretty bad trolling in the past, part of which involves denying that she is a woman. It's right nasty and it's understandable that she gets upset. Of course none of you meant anything like that. Haukur 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... though of course that says more about the chauvanism (sp?) of the troll than anything else. I fixed the Mr./Mrs. thing on Attic Owl's comment too, assuming his good faith (even if it was rather angry good faith). --SB_Johnny | 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Which, upon reading the topic below, wasn't a valid assumption, but it's always better to assume it anyway). --SB_Johnny | 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment in my response was intended merely to set the matter straight, not to accuse anyone of anything. It pains me that y'all are not even willing to accept my statement on its face, and instead must read some sinister meaning into the plain language of my words. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kelly, but you said "I will charitably assume that Johntex is merely ignorant of my gender, rather that trying to be rude in some way" (emphasis mine). If it takes "charity" to assume something, it indicates that it would be easier to assume the alternative, which in this case, as you laid out, is that Johntex was being rude. I have no idea whether what the Wikitruth trolls say has anything to do with this and don't care, but you sign under a gender-neutral name and make no indication of which is the right gender on your userpage, and as 80% of Wikipedians are male, it does not require "charity" to assume that Johntex made a mistake when he assumed you were part of the 80%. --Sam Blanning 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. If someone is "charitable" in not believing something, that means that it would, at the very least, not be unreasonable to believe it. I cannot think that there is the faintest possibility that Johntex was trying to be rude in some way, so there was no need to introduce that possibility into the discussion. From what I can see, this is quite a civil RfC, and was prepared thoughtfully, even though I disagree with the certifier. I can accept that Kelly did not mean to imply that it would be reasonable to believe that Johntex was being rude (note that I don't say "I will charitably assume that she didn't mean to imply . . ." !), but I think it was badly worded. It's quite likely that the Response was written hastily, as there was not a lot of notice that this RfC was going to happen. Perhaps, Kelly, you might be willing to strike through the second sentence of your response. I could endorse all the rest of it. And I'm sorry to hear about the trolling. AnnH ♫ 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed g2s's endorsement

ed g2s (talk · contribs) endorsed Kelly Martin's summary thusly: "'I am aware that many editors hold my opinions in high esteem, and I try to refrain from making such declarations when I am not certain that the declaration is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages' basically says it all." It is indeed a telling statement. Unfortunately, it fails to address what ought to occur if others disagree that the declaration is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Personally, it'd just be nice if Kelly Martin just recognized that her statement on the Logos talk page appeared to be unilateral and intimidating, and that it could have been phrased better. Powers 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating. I make no apology for either. When people foolishly insist on their right to do things that are clearly against policy, and don't stop when asked nicely, the next step is to ask them less than nicely. The NEXT step will be blocks. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't particularly intimidating since you're just saying it's policy and threatening people with blocks which will probably be reverted since you will seem to do them to whoever disagrees with you. Attic Owl 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"It was unilateral, and it was intended to be intimidating"... good grief. I've worked for bosses like that, and found that (1) I didn't like it and (2) they're usually wrong (the more unilateral and intimidating, the more wrong, as a rule) and (3) the department was performing well below capacity. Man, people come here to get away from bosses like that, don't you get it? Herostratus 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can fire Kelly, Hero? Attic Owl 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You have the right to leave and the right to fork, of course. Feel free to craft your own wiki with galleries of unfree images. Mackensen

(talk) 11:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins can be de-sysopped for abuse of power, if sufficient evidence were brought to ArbCom. Just saying. The only "permanent" spot on WP is Jimbo's. rootology (T) 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the resources to make a wiki of this size, including copyrighted images or not, so please don't present that Hobson's choice as a real one. Attic Owl 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And be sued into oblivion ... people don't realize that there's lots of fair use stuff we only get away with by virtue of being Misplaced Pages. If you just ran any old private site with a fair use gallery of images you would probably run into legal trouble very quickly. --Cyde Weys 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a legal problem, why doesn't Misplaced Pages rely on say, lawyers, instead of shemales from Chicago using intimidation tactics? Attic Owl 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, name-calling does not help anyone. While I vehemently disagree with Kelly's actions in this case, calling her names is highly uncalled for, rude and inappropriate. -- Masonpatriot 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not ture. Adminship can be revoked. Johntex\ 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Cyde Weys 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

INTERNETS. --Sam Blanning 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You think intimidation is a valid tactic? And unilateral actions? Powers 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Diff

Here

In regards to the WP:CIVIL charge. She/He is a candidate for an office, questions to candidates are non incivil, acting in such a way towards those merely asking a question is incivil. Attic Owl 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Tony Sidaway's endorsement

• Comment on this quote: "Kelly is to be commended on coming up with a good, solid policy. It would take a few sticks of dynamite to shift it." made by Tony Sidaway.

• If this was a policy, I would support Kelly's very strong position, even though I disagree with it. However, it is not policy, and the manner in which she has asserted a single editor's ability to formulate policy and the very possessive control she has taken on this issue is part of the many reasons this has moved to an RfC. — MrDolomite | Talk 02:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't it though? As I understand she basicaly clearified / interpreted a few points from existing policy. Namely that a) Galleries of fair use images are not allowed, b) Fair use images are not to be used purely for decoration and c) repeated re-insertion of copyrighted material removed in acordance with policy is a blockable offence. So she is basicaly declearing how she intend to interpret and enforce these existing policies (defining team logos used in an article that list the results of some league or competition as a gallery/decorative use) rather than inventing some brand new concept like some people here seem to acuse her off. Though granted she chould have explained this better and in a less confrontational way... --Sherool (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Misplaced Pages policy. That may not have been clear before Kelly said it, but it's obvious now. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, its your interpreation of policy. Johntex\ 14:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If so then it should be discussed and approved by concensus on the policy page or directly by Jimbo or Brad. A handful of admins do not get to decide to simply implement wholesale new takes on policy unilaterally. rootology (T) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have a consensus for the copyright policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the use of shortcuts as links within documents

Shortcuts are really designed to save typing when you need to consult a document. If you can remember the shortcut it saves you a bit of time. Please don't use them on the wiki to refer to a policy. If you mean Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, then say it, don't come out with some gobbledygook such as WP:AGF. It's looks ugly and it's utterly incomprehensible to anybody not in the know about that particular shortcut. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the short-cuts to be prettier than big long links. You are weclome to reformat them if you wish. Most people know what the abbreviations mean very well. The fact that Kelly does not know what WP:DR means or that it is policy are particularly telling in regards to how she can be so misguided in her attempts to make policy. It is particularly troubling that someone who wants to have a seat on the board is apparantly ignorant of the dispute resolution process, and of the need for openness and community involvement in crafting policy. Johntex\ 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on User:Philwelch's view

"Policy discussions happen off-wiki for a reason: wikis are awful for facilitating discussion". Never heard that. They're certainly tolerable, and they happen on-wiki for an even better reason - Misplaced Pages is on-wiki. Anything off-wiki is not. If you're a Wikipedian, you go to en dot wikipedia dot org. You may, if you a) hear about them b) can be bothered and c) can stand the pointless WikiDrama that makes up 99% of the content subscribe to mailing lists and IRC channels, but they are secondary to the wiki, and cons somewhere in America shouldn't even appear on the map.

And as for Mackensen's endorsement: "The lack of commentary on the rightness of the policy in question by the other responders is telling. I fear that they'd support a bad policy produced by "good" (in their view) processes". Yeah, why not. People on the Internet always seem to know my thoughts better than me. Myself I was initially thinking "This is a good policy implemented in the most cackhanded way imaginable, and Kelly should be castigated for obscuring the good of such a policy", but the Internets hath spoken. --Sam Blanning 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, within the first fifteen minutes of a meeting with Jimbo at Wikimania we had come to an agreement whereas weeks of online arguing had previously proven futile. You could ask Raul654 about his opinion on this on issue. --Cyde Weys 13:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Sam. As Kelly says, she simply thought it appropriate to make a declaration of my intent to enforce what amounts to existing policy by creating a new, specific policy: that galleries of unlicensed team logos are not acceptable on league or conference article pages, and to put everyone involved on warning that reverting any edit removing such galleries is a blockable offense. This policy actually flows from generally accepted policy prohibiting galleries of unlicensed media of any sort, and from generally accepted policy permitting the aggressive blocking of people who wilfully violate copyright policies.

In short, the opposition to Kelly's actions and statements flows from ignorance of existing policy, the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the place of discussion in the formulation of Misplaced Pages policy, and the evident misconception that the wiki is some kind of bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If there was one thing that could have been done differently is that we all get some heads-up about a discussion like this so we could, at least, make our thoughts or feelings known before this meatspace pannel took place. I could not go to Wikimania itself, but I would have loved to put in my two cents or more about an issue as important as this. User:Zscout370 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It would not surprise me in the least if the group of Wikipedians that looks upon Jimbo as not just as Chairman of the Board of Trustees but as "God-King", and cannot distinguish between what Jimbo believes and what Jimbo makes into Misplaced Pages policy, was disproportionately present at Wikiwhatsit. Of course such a group would be more likely to come to what they saw as a conclusion. That doesn't mean that if you go back to the wiki and tell pretty much everyone from Europe, Africa and Asia "Hey y'all, we done just figured it out! Prepare for shock and awe blocking if you don't do this!", they're going to react with "All praise be to The God-King and His Heavenly Choir!" --Sam Blanning 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, it is not ignorance of but a disagreement on the interpretation of policy that sparked the debate. That has been made clear multiple places in this discussion and in the others that have been linked. Please do not imply that we are ignorant simply because we disagree. z4ns4tsu\ 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I call it ignorance. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I comment here?

I'm confused... I thought I had commented here earlier this morning, but it doesn't show up either on the page or in the history. Did something strange happen?

(Note: it's entirely possible -- even likely -- that I forgot to save the page after reading the preview, but thought I'd ask). --SB_Johnny | 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no deleted revisions, so unless you said something so terrible it was oversighted, I think you just didn't actually click save page. --Cyde Weys 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. It was 4:30AM, and I was as yet not sufficiently caffeinated. Was just wondering if the page had been massively vandalized, requiring an edit-history cleanup or something of that nature. SB_Johnny | 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on something Cyde said

Cyde Weys, in endorsing Philwelch: "In this case I do believe that the people arguing for fair use galleries are here for the wrong reasons, or at least, aren't here for the right reason, that of creating a freely redistributable 💕." I strongly object to this characterization of my purpose on Misplaced Pages. I don't feel I've exhausted my right to have good faith assumed. The facts, as I see them, are thus:

1. We have non-free images on Misplaced Pages, such as logos of companies, sports teams, and other organizations.
2. We use these images because such logos are essential to identifying and describing the organizations. They convey important information about the brand image and promote recognition of the organizations when encountered in other media.
3. These non-free images need to be kept to a minimum because we are trying to create a freely redistributable, 💕.
4. There is a dispute over what constitutes "minimum". We certainly could go through and remove all non-free images from every article. However, it's (apparently) been determined by consensus that doing so would do too much harm to the encyclopedia, by inhibiting its value to users. The dispute is -- how much use is too much, and how little is too little?

I am disturbed that so many supporters of Kelly's actions seem to honestly believe that the detractors are so because we want gratuitous, widespread use of non-free images. Not a single one, that I've seen, has taken the time to recognize that reasonable people can disagree regarding how much use is acceptable. We've already established that some use is acceptable; now we're just haggling over the details (shades of Winston Churchill  ;) ).

And of course, there is the issue of how Kelly's decision was presented; I still am amazed how few people recognize that it could have been done more tactfully, and with better explanation. Even Kelly has admitted that intimidation was her intent. How intimidation became an acceptable administrative tactic on Misplaced Pages boggles the mind. Powers 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with Powers here. I posted this on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Cardsplayer4life_by_Kelly_Martin, but I think it's relevant here as well. Though I may disagree with the outcome of the "policy" dicussion, the hostile way which Kelly Martin chose to deal with this does not assist reasonable editors and admins that just want to work to clarify the issue and, in the end, make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia. The bottom line is that Kelly had other options, and she chose the one that blocked a dedicated editor (User:Cardsplayer4life), aggitated those that disagreed with her interpretation of policy, and opened this entire issue up to outside scrutiny. To say that this was the only reasonable way to achieve her policy goals is patently untrue and a bad faith argument. In the end, you reap what you sew. -- Masonpatriot 15:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the use of intimidation (and especially the intent to intemidate) are definitate problems with Kelly's approach to the issue. I also feel that you have hit at the true heart of the root problem. The two sides of this issue seem to be taking an "all or nothing" approach to the issue while the history of fair use is filled with examples degree not fact. It is not so much whether or not protected material was used but the motivation behind its use and the extent to which it was used that are the important facts. I will admit that having twelve to sixteen logos for other teams on a single season's page may seem excessive, but no middle ground has been suggested that could alleviate the disagreement. While I am not confident in the success of such a sugestion, I am going to go place one on the mediation page now. z4ns4tsu\ 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't solve everything with a compromise. Sometimes one side is just right and the other is just wrong. There is no middle ground here involving fair use galleries; it's not as if, oh, twelve to sixteen is bad, but eight is okay. Just don't do it! --Cyde Weys 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "just right and...just wrong" in issues concerning law and policy. That is why the adversarial judicial system exists and is used in most Free countries in the world. The attempt to reach a compromise is never wasted if taken on in good faith and with the goal of resolving dispute. As for the existance of middle ground, I guess I will just have to prove its existance to you. Give me a little bit and I'll post up a link to the case law governing fair use. z4ns4tsu\ 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few bits of law involved, but it's primarily a moral issue. Also, while it's good to discuss things and work towards comprimise where appropriate, this is one case where the issue has been discussed ad nauseum. --Interiot 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as "just right and...just wrong" in issues concerning law and policy." What a load of cobblers. "Right" doesn't get the Foundation sued and Misplaced Pages taken down and wiped; "Wrong" might well do. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-set of tabs Morals can not be involved in a discussion of policy because moral systems are neither universal nor enforacble on the general public. I agree with you that the issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but no one from either side has attempted to resolve the issue. We have simply had rhetoric spouted and reitterated from both sides that has done nothing to reach agreement or resolution. The problem comes from different interpretations of an aparently poorly written policy. Such interpretations can only be merged by the introduction of a compromise. If you don't think the compromise will work, say so here, that is the proper place. z4ns4tsu\ 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Policies based on morals are often enforced on non-public property. I can't go on a World of Warcraft server and start swearing, not because the law says that swearing is illegal, but because World of Warcraft has said that they wish to promote a family atmosphere. Here, Jimbo has said that he wishes to promote free-content, and many experienced editors agree with that, for a variety of reasons. There are lots of game servers that allow swearing, and there are lots of community-content sites that allow non-free images. Maybe you'd prefer to use one of those.

My understanding of policy is that it only appears vague because apparently it hasn't been stated forcefully enough that this project intends to be commited to free content (although I thought it's been stated really pretty forcefully). I don't think there's room to compromise all the way to the uses being suggested in the Mediation Cabal. This issue has been discussed in many different places, there's no central place to discuss it. The only point is to try to explain why the goals of Misplaced Pages are the way they are, in hopes that editors will better understand the reasons for those goals.

Anyway, I'm going to go bang my head on a wall now... --Interiot 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's like everything I said just got sucked into a vacuum and never read. In brief: Misplaced Pages happens to allow non-free images. The question is not one of "Hey, let's find as many non-free images as we can and plaster them all over Misplaced Pages so it looks keweler!" vs. "We are restricted to using free images in every and all cases, even where there is no free equivalent." The question is "Here are some constructive, encyclopedic ways we can use non-free images that greatly enhance the encyclopedia" vs. "Here are some other constructive, encyclopedic ways we can use non-free images that greatly enhance the encyclopedia." Reasonable people can disagree on which precise uses should be tolerated on Misplaced Pages and which should be excised. Powers 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't emphasize how important the free content movement is to Misplaced Pages. It was one of the central points of Jimbo's speech at Wikimania and a lot of other free content people were around - Brewster Kahle, Lawrence Lessig, etc., and they gave the plenaries. Hell, even Richard Stallman made an appearance (though he wasn't a speaker). Some of the points that people are trying to argue in this fair use galleries thing fundamentally go against the goals of the project. --Cyde Weys 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo wants to outlaw fair use, he should come out and do it. Until/unless he does, our policy is that we permit fair use. The logo discussion is a perfectly valid discussion about guidelines for how and when we make use of fair use in this sort of case. Johntex\ 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the current policy is that we permit fair use when necessary and when no free alternatives exist. In the case of image galleries it simply isn't necessary. Jimbo also went on record at Wikimania saying that when free images exist, even when they are of lower quality than fair use images, we should favor the free. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First, there are no free alternatives to logos. Second, an opinion Jimbo gives at a conference is not a policy. I say again, if he wants to come and say "___ is policy" he can do so. Otherwise, he is stating an opinion. We can/should listen to and consider his opinion, but if we should make up our own minds. Johntex\ 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (that "some ... points ... go against the goals of the project"). But what about the remainder? Also, I'm not sure if your comment, Cyde, was in response to mine or not. Powers 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Inksplotch's statement

Inksplotch quotes Jimbo, but I don't think the third quotation applies. Jimbo seems to be specifically speaking of cases where there are free equivalents possible (not even available, just possible). This is obviously not the case when it comes to logos. Powers 16:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a free equivalent possible in this instance: not using the logos. Since they aren't actually adding anything to the article other than decoration, the alternative, not having them in there at all, is better, because it doesn't need a flimsy fair use claim and the article remains much more freely distributable. --Cyde Weys 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument could be made about every image we have. If Jimbo or the board wants to step in and say we can't have any fair use images, they may do so. Until/unless they do, Jimbo is stating his personal opinion, which he admits to be at one extreme end of the opinion spectrum. Hi opinion is not policy. Johntex\ 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what he meant, Cyde, if you'd actually read the quotation. He was referring to restricting use of non-free images as an incentive toward the creation of free ones as alternatives. How does not using an image that can never have a free image made as an alternative serve to promote that goal? And Johntex has a point as well -- the argument "it's better to have no image at all" fails to address why we have any fair use images at all. Powers 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are discrediting yourself by failing to see any distinction whatsoever between valid fair use images (say, Raising the flag on Iwo Jima) and galleries of sports team logos. It's not black or white; your straw man is that we can either have fair use images or not, and if we can have them then we can have all of them. That is ludicrously, ridiculously untrue, reflects poorly on this discussion, and is a logical fallacy to boot. --Cyde Weys 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not my straw man. That's the straw man that certain people have raised in support of Kelly Martin so that they can burn it down as evidence she was right. It is a false dichotomy, which is a fallacy, but it's not one I'm using. The Iwo Jima image has obvious historical use, and isn't at issue here. What I don't understand (this is actually covered in my new section below) is why, for example, a fair use image on Rochester Red Wings is allowed, but the exact same fair use image can't be used next to the "Rochester Red Wings" entry on the International League article. It's the exact same image, and it's used for the exact same purpose, as far as I can tell. Powers 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the article that led to this discussion, it wasn't an image "next to" an entry for a team. It was a giant two-inch-wide logo standing in a nice gallery of other two-inch-wide logos without any other information other than the name of the team. In the case where there is a table of teams in a league or conference or locality, with a variety of information, I think there may be a valid fair use argument for displaying a small (quarter-inch high or so) copy of the logo for identification purposes. But the gallery usage is not that; it's clearly decorative and adds no encyclopedic value. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, Kelly. So part of the issue is the size, and part of the issue is the location of the images relative to other team information (in other words, the inclusion of other identifying information along with the logos). There may be a couple of other parts, but those seem to be the big two. So, can you see why this seems to be just a matter of degree, and why, while the lack of an exception for fair use galleries seems obvious to you, why it might not be obvious to everyone? (Just as an example, on Atlantic Hockey, I had always interpreted the logos as identifying rather than decorative, assuming that the gallery was just a different display method chosen for whatever reason. Each logo was labelled with the college name, and they were displayed in the same order as the other two lists on the page, making correspondence among them simple. A switch to putting them into one of the tables seems trivial to me, beyond perhaps the size issue, and that's why your declaration has confused me so. Does that make sense?) Powers 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating that the alternative to a logo is the team name is not correct. For instance, saying "Colorado Buffaloes" cannot possible replace the use of a logo. Using words to replace a logo would have to be something of the sorts: The logo of the Colorado Buffaloes is a buffalo in profile shown in solid black from the side on a white background with the letters C and U interlocking with the U crossing the C which is higher and to the left which are gold in color. You cannot summarilly describe everything there is about the Colorado Buffaloes without using the logo that is used to symbolize them. I doubt anyone would dispute this (but if you do, please speak up) and this is why fair use images must be allowed on Misplaced Pages. I could describe a hexagon, but showing it to you would have much greater meaning and purpose. MECU≈talk 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And the above argument is why we allow the use of the Colorado University logo on the article about Colorado University. It, however, is not a valid argument for the use of the Colorado University logo on any other article on Misplaced Pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious flaw in that logic is that articles spill over into multiple pages. The Colorado Buffaloes are discussed in considerable detail at Colorado Buffaloes, 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team, University of Colorado, perhaps other pages as well... The logo may deserve to be on all those pages. It's use is no less proper just because we have divided our articles into bite-sized chunks. Johntex\ 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How many instances of an unlicensed image do you think "deserve" to be on Misplaced Pages. Surely one is probably too many. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to know

OK, I hate all the nitty gritty of dissecting everyone's statements and having statements dissected in return. I've done too much of that already. Leaving the civility issue and the policy enforcement issue aside for the moment, here's what I'd like to know: What, precisely, is the significant difference between an image inlined on a page normally and an image contained within a <gallery /> tag that makes the former an accpetable exception to the fair use guidelines and the latter unfailingly and unarguably not? I personally recognize that either may or may not be an acceptable exception, depending on the myraid other factors found at our fair use criteria -- but apparently there's something about the <gallery /> tag that automatically overrides all of the possible exception cases. What is that something? Powers 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The something is the fair use provision that the image itself must be discussed critically. It can't simply be used as decoration, which is basically what a gallery does. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the gallery tag as such, but rather any collection of unfree images without any kind of acompanying commentary that is the problem (a classical example beeing a "gallery of screnshots" section in a video game article). Wether or not the gallery tag was used is irrelevant. --Sherool (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be lovely, except that's not what Kelly Martin decreed in her new policy. Powers 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Always? A gallery is always decoration? Or just 99% of the time? Powers 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking...

Since this involves a block applied by Kelly and other threats thereof, shouldn't it be listed under the "Use of administrator privileges" section of the master RFC page, instead of the "General user conduct" section? -Hit bull, win steak 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfC does not concern Kelly's recent block of Cardsplayer4life, which followed the actions described in this RfC.

3:47, 9 August 2006 Kelly Martin blocked Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Intentional insertion of prohibited unlicensed media gallery.)

22:27, 8 August 2006 Johntex (New RfC)

Upon examining the case I'm at a loss to see what area of conduct it does concern, since the main complaint seems to be merely that Kelly holds, and has expressed, an opinion that differs from that of the complainants. --Tony Sidaway 21:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen people calling for desysopping over less. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Beggin yer pardon, but I believe the complaint also involves Kelly's threat of blocking for taking action against her opinion, and the aggresive way in which it her threat was announced. You can disagree that it was a threat, or that it was overly agressive, but you can't disagree that it's part of the complaint. =) Powers 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't RfC an administrator for threatening to block. That's what administrators are supposed to do. It's our job. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah me, my legs are old and tired, and I walk with a zimmerframe, and I remember when you could buy a tin of cat food for a few shillings, and I also remember when adminship was a mop and not a flaming sword. --Sam Blanning 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

From Misplaced Pages:Vandalism Copyrighted material vandalism

Knowingly using copyrighted material on Misplaced Pages in ways which violate Misplaced Pages's copyright policies is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Misplaced Pages policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.

The outside view by Herostratus ignores the fact that this has been going on for weeks. Jkelly 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it does. To quote:

Blocks and block warnings should not be used in these circumstances until the editor has been individually engaged and, at the very least, informed of the circumstances.

There's grounds for disagreement with Herostratus's view, certainly: the question of whether or not edit summaries qualify an adequate attempt to "communicate to the user," for instance. Also relevant, I should think, is that while the overall discussion may have been going on for weeks, User:Cardsplayer4life has a grand total of one edit to the article in question in the past three years, so it seems fair to assume that he was not a party to the problems prior to that fact. I don't think it's entirely fair to assume that he was willfully engaging in vandalism. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Herostratus' view devoted to that particular case? I was under the impression it was a reaction to a warning from Kelly Martin that blocks could ensue from reverting unfree gallery removal. There is certainly room for people to reasonably disagree on whether Cardsplayer4life was sufficiently warned or not. Jkelly 22:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)