Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab → Shatt al-Arab —(Discuss)— Thus moving the article on this Iranian and Iraqi river from a double "Persian/Arabic" title to the Arabic-language name alone, to reflect common English usage, in accordance to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions. — See some examples of usage in the article's talk page.
I take the unusual step of listing this move request here (in addition to the normal listing at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves) in an attempt to get as many experienced editors involved as possible, in the hope of avoiding the problems of the previous move request (which took place 30 March to 6 April 2007).
I believe the issue to be a simple, straight-forward case of reflecting the common English usage clearly exemplified by the examples of usage. I encourage (ok, beg :-) everyone to take at least a quick look at the issue.
You're cross-posting this same partisan message on multiple talk pages "begging" other Wikipedians to support your position in a dispute. If you're simply looking for neutral feedback, you should be stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about, and not try to sway people's opinion by a partisan message advocating your position. --Mardavich05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I only informed about the move request in three different forums:
Those three forums are "neutral", and my intention in posting there was just trying to get other neutral editors involved in the discussion. I hope that a wider participation will allow us to archieve a clear consensus one way or the other.
In my message I made my position on the issue very clear, but I only begged people to "take a look at the issue", not to share my opinion or to support my view on it.
Of course, if the administrators decide here that those messages constitute canvassing, I will reduce them to a simpler announcement. - Best regards, Ev13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Once more, I encourage everyone to take a look at this move request and give his/her opinion on the issue. - Ev02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ev is being very disruptive by constantly filling the discussion page with his pervasive and often annoying commentary, and he feels the need to respond to every little comment that anyone makes that doesn't conform to his POV, and his POV is very obvious here. I suggest to admins to tell this guy to tone it down and stop disrupting the discussion and allow people to comment without this one person constantly intruding and disrupting the flow of discussion. Ev is very, very motivated, and he should probably step away from the discussion since he has already made more than enough commentary. Its enough already. His behaviour is totally disruptive. Khorshid23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Khorshid, it sounds like you've made your mind up about Ev, especially by the "annoying" comment. Doesn't sound much like you have a neutral POV either. ⇒SWATJester06:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Banned User Gibraltarian
Permanently blocked user Gibraltarian has for the second time removed the WikiProject Spain template from the Gibraltar talk page, despite the majority view on the talk page that it should stay. The talk page of the IP from which he has been known to operate (User talk:212.120.230.72) says that "If you are responding to vandalism from this IP and the IP is hitting these articles, their talk pages, or any protection or arbitration related articles (such as requests for protection and requests for arbitration), please block the IP for a short period or ask an administrator to do so." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately he's using a dynamic proxy. I don't recommend blocking it for that length of time - it's the only ISP in Gibraltar (AFAIK), and blocking it causes significant collateral damage. Could you please change the block to 3 hours (long enough to discourage him without to unduly harming others). -- ChrisO13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - see . Nonetheless, I simply recommend applying WP:RBI to him every time he surfaces. (BTW, his IP ranges are 212.120.224.0/19 and 195.244.192.0/19; he more often operates out of the former, but both ranges contain some isolated legimate edits). TML23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
While I have no intention of going anywhere near the bureaucratic tarpit that is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, the case involving Betacommand which is currently underway has relevance to some of my own actions while I was an administrator – specifically, my use of an unapproved, automated bot to perform thousands of controversial, out of process deletions at high speed without approval (example, full list runs to around 20,000 items). The Arbitration Committee's decision (not yet final, but already an unopposed majority) to revoke Betacommand's administrative status is mostly irrelevant as I voluntarily resigned adminship in January; however, the part that states that a user desysopped in this way must go through RfA to regain adminship is relevant, as it is generally understood that administrators who resigned voluntarily are able to request immediate re-adminship at any time.
Putting this through ArbCom would be a waste of time and effort for everyone, however it seems very likely that if that did happen, it would be decided that I must reapply for adminship through RfA if I wanted it – especially taking other issues into account; my misleading use of another account wouldn't exactly help (my insistence that it was not a sockpuppet might even have been against policy, I'm not sure), nor would my 3-hour block for disruption. In order to avoid any possible dispute in the future, I think it's best if I voluntarily give up my right to request re-instatement of adminship without RfA. In practise, all this involves is adding a little "1" next to my name on Misplaced Pages:Former administrators, so I have done this. This message is intended only to let people know that this has happened and explain the reason for it; if there is some rule which prevents me from making the change I made, then by all means do whatever else is required – Gurch15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As part of that general understanding, there is a requirement of uncontroversial circumstances. Given subsequent developments, I would doubt that this is satisfied anyway, so there's not really anything to give up. --bainer (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I figured the bureaucreats or stewards or whoever you have to ask would decide for themselves if that was the case anyway, but as that decision would presumably only come to be if I actually asked (which I don't intend to do), and the Arbitration Committee seem to be the only people who can formally specify a user must re-request adminship through RfA (or at least the only ones who have made such a specification in the past), I'd clarify the situation myself so that nobody in the future decides to try and make a dispute out of it. If the bureaucrats/stewards have in fact already made up their mind on the matter, then that's fine too. (I assume by "subsequent developments" you're referring to Betacommand's RfAr... unless there's something I've missed?) Thanks – Gurch18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
One can only assume that the original rules of not needing Rfa was based upon the user acting in a way be-fitting and admin, even when they weren't officially one. It would be quite obviously rediculous to de-admin your self, run a muck, then get it back.--Dacium23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We have a young Misplaced Pages contributer named User:Shark kid, who has been adding a lot of material to many military articles. He seems to mean well, but he has no idea what is appropriate and what is not. I have been deleting his worst edits, but recently Wandalstouring raised the possibility that Shark kid is really undertaking a new and very troublesome form of vandalism. Here is what Wandalstouring wrote:
"Quite a lot of editors have expressed their concerns over his edits. Doing so many questionable edits (often rather obvious) on such a broad field within such a short time seems rather strange to me and is quite an unusual behaviour for a new editor. I suspect it is a new style of vandalism. The idea behind it is to add a personal expression that can easily be identified as different from the background text. The great thing in vandalism is how long does my expression survive in a highly frequented spot. The problem was that RCpatrol, and other IP editors do a rather effective cleanup, ... and creating a login that soon gets blocked is too much work. The question for a vandal was now: How can I keep my expression much longer online? Well, one solution would be writing stuff that almost makes sense in an encyclopedia... Let's hope I'm wrong because otherwise this is the beginning of a new level of attacks which are dangerous for this encyclopedia..."
Frankly, I don't have the expertise to tell whether Shark kid is just an overenthusiastic high-school-age military buff, or a new kind of vandal. It was suggested that I raise the problem here, for admins to consider —Aetheling05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still combing through Shark Kid's edits, but so far I'm not convinced this is a case of vandalism. That said, Shark Kid is violating WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, for which I've reverted his edits. Other editors can also revert Shark Kid's edits if he doesn't learn to follow WP guidelines and policies regarding these points. However, let's assume good faith and help this new editor learn how to make quality edits. Of course, if strong evidence of vandalism emerges, then that's another story. Best, --Alabamaboy19:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems to have something of a whopping great big ugly dirty backlog. Is something broken, or have all the checkusers gone on holiday? Do we need more? Cheers, Moreschi06:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It ebbs and flows. It's distinctly cheerless work. We've got enough people; it's just sometimes none of us wants to wade in the crap pit. I just cleaned out a mess of 'em, but I'd rather be dancing. --jpgordon16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFCU was created specifically so the checkers wouldn't be bothered with silly requests. Some checkers go through it anyway out of the goodness of their hearts. A backlog there is probably not any sort of actual problem - David Gerard16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Permanent banning of specific text from article?
As a student at Geneva College, I monitor its page frequently. Many times over the last few months, "Travis York" has been added to the notable alumni; he's the administrator for my dorm, but definitely isn't notable. His name has been added by different people (I know from talking with them), and by several different IP addresses. Today, when reverting it, I put on something saying "don't add Travis!" Is there anything that can be done to prevent this, say a tag that can be placed on talk pages saying "don't add non-notable people"? Thanks! Nyttend13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You're certainly welcome to leave the hidden message, and to put a message on the talk page. However, we have such messages on pages like March 20, and people persist in adding themselves or their girlfriends or their grandmothers. Monitoring and quick removal is probably the best way to go. Joyous! | Talk13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was asking for anything other than the simple hidden message; I guess I'll just have to keep monitoring it :-) Nyttend21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
User Subpage
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I would like admin feedback on a subpage I created, in the wake of the CINEGroup kafuffle, especially if the admin has prior knowledge of the issue. Thanks.
I'm not an admin and I don't know the story. The page looks harmless. I don't see why you care so much about this, but I also don't see the harm in it. YechielMan07:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, first, thank you for the comment. I really don't care that much about the man himself. I just believe his actions are a blight on Misplaced Pages. I also wanted to show common patterns running through these aliases (I don't call them socks because quite a few are anon IPs.) Some of the info comes from another user,who had formulated a whole article in a sandbox entry, that was blanked by one of CINEGroup's aliases. He obviously believes Wikipedians are morons and will continue the behavior I've lined out regardless. I offer this as somewhat of a guideline to his behavior, for my self and others to mark the similarities when he returns.
Anon 88.110.129.24 has made disruptive edits to the FA Quatermass and the Pit by sectioning the lead section which is meant to act as a summary of the article. All the info he is sectioning is actually already in the body of the article. He also keeps reverting others edits to stop this, and taunts them with a reminder of the 3RR rule. LuciferMorgan18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Light current's edits have long since fallen off the recent changes and out of checkuser. But using a bit of black magic, I was able to dig up some of LC's IPs, and confirm that they match the anon. Raul65418:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This is anon 88.109.16.63 this time and is the same person. Since Raul654's done a good job thus far handling the situation, if it keeps happening maybe it'd be worth requesting his help. LuciferMorgan13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Count Hindu (talk·contribs), was created afterward. This nonsense brings up the question of if there is sock-puppetry going on, due to the timing patterns and similar nature of the vandalism. I could do an investigation, but I have neither the energy or time. My main concern is Reapersss x, which I feel mocks my user-name, and I feel should be blocked for that, the unconstructive edit, and possible sock-puppetry amongst the chaos on the TVDSB articles in early December 2006. Thank you. -- Reaper X23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to do checkusers? Seriously this seems to happen all the time and it always seems to be that a user gets banned, but no one ever checkusers even if there are other obvious accounts?--Dacium23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser data is preserved for a limited time. Only Speakingthetruth has edited recently enough for data to still be in the logs. Thatcher13100:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't learned about checkusers until now, but I will remember that for the future, maybe request checkuser data on Speakingthetruth. Nonetheless, we are straying from my main question: Would it be appropriate to block Reapersss x? -- Reaper X01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's not blatant enough to block without discussion, but I think you should take it to WP:RFCN or whatever replaces that page after it gets off MfD. CMummert · talk20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
216.186.65.143 (talk·contribs), who seems to be the same as Omniposcent (talk·contribs), has been posting urls at Talk:Afrocentrism that point to webspages with personal attacks on an editor he disagrees with. I considered this a serious personal attack and blocked him for one week. He has now come back as 128.95.102.79 (talk·contribs) and continues to post urls, this time to this page, which contains a rant against wikipedia. I'm for indef blocking the IPs (both belong to educational institutions). What do you reckon? --Ezeu00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say a block, probably a few weeks at least, is warranted for the second, but I don't think indefinitely blocking is good idea. Why? Because, assuming the person posting from the educational institutions is a student, as opposed to a teacher/administrator, they aren't going to be there for more than a couple more years. I'd only increase the block on the first one, meanwhile, if it starts editing again. Picaroon(Talk)00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead on the article about Daniel Dennett labels him as an "atheist advocate." Besides being poorly sourced (the user wanting to keep claim says that a essay lauding atheism is enough to call him an advocate), it has a pejorative ring to it (cf. the phrase "homosexual advocate" used by social conservative critics). Furthermore, this sort of written work by Dennett is a minuscule fraction of what he does: we might as well also call him a newspaper columnist because he's had one published. Simões (/contribs) 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the comment. Unless a credible source can be given stating that he is a "atheist advocate," that term shouldn't be used. I also find it telling that no where else in the article is this subject taken up. --Alabamaboy00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff replaced it with a reworded version. Incidentally, I don't know what "atheist advocate" means, exactly (doesn't make much grammatical sense), but I've met Dan (and drunk the very good cider wine he makes) and he sure as hell advocates atheism. He would be amused that there's any controversy about this here, I suspect. Chick Bowen04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the negative penalty is way too harsh. Also something needs to be done with the incentive. Some sort of Featured admin for the week, maybe? I also feel some wikiproject would be better to implement this rather than an make it official. --soum(0_o)06:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I think it would be best if any comments were left on its talk page, not here. You can be bold and change it yourself, or see what others think first. It's a work in progress. :-) Grandmasterka06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting more support than I thought it would. As such, I'm encouraging others to BE BOLD and help contribute to the list with your own items and ideas, because I don't touch all the admin-related areas. Grandmasterka20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I moved Union Flag to Union Jack this evening, while working on the WP:RM backlog. There has been concern voiced at the talk page that my closing the discussion as a move was inappropriate, since 40% of commenters opposed the move. I am posting here to request that others have a look at Talk:Union Jack#Requested move and let me know whether I made a bad call. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this was correct. The pedant in me says union flag, but the common name is undoubtedly union jack. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Roobit using his talk page as an anti-Baltics soapbox
Please take an immediate look at this: the user is establishing an Anti-Baltic 'committe' in Misplaced Pages and uses the site as a tool for his ugly anti-Estonia propaganda. An admin - User:Coelacan - merely asked Roobit to stop, but that was all. Please intervene, delete the revision of talk page and block user Roobit for unabashed hate speech and hate propaganda. 193.40.5.24510:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The case WAS already reported but Coelacan claimed there was no problem. Note that the soapbox of Roobit contains such phrases as “Ethnonazi state of Estonia glorifies SS legionnaires”, “United States of America (...) continue to ignore resurgent official Nazi malfeasance in Estonia” etc.! How long can such blatant abuse of Misplaced Pages - SLANDER - continue? Roobit has done it numerous times before, see e.g. How long will this shameful propaganda be allowed to continue? How many 'last warnings' is he going to be offered? 193.40.5.24511:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite the obvious overreaction of 193.40.5.245, he is basically right. Roobit is using Misplaced Pages to promote lies, hatred and neo-nazi views. The quotes (and more now - he added enclosures) can now be found from his user page. I sincerely hope that administrators won't allow Misplaced Pages to become a gathering place for neo-nazis and tool to promote their views. Apparently Coelacan is not critical of those views, so I ask another administrator (or more then one) to get involved. DLX16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This user created four bogus articles on animated films/TV programmes, Fearllax The Cat (film), The Floordoor, The TimerStoppers and Cosgrove Top Hospital. I've CSD'd the lot. They (presumably) also inserted links for them into two other articles using two separate IP addresses 59.101.60.25 , and 220.233.237.60 . Must be worth keeping an eye on - sneaky because as they're based on existing films, they'll usually get past new page patrol. Note: the lyrics for the "Cosgrove Top Hospital" song are slightly surreal.
I have to say I am most unimpressed with the {{blatantvandal}} tag, which in its current state looks like this:
" Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you."
When I placed this tag on an offender's talk page (the Offender in question having been already slapped with a "test4", I expected the tone of the message to be far more serious, for instance:
"This user appears only to be performing bad edits, purely out of malice. It is therefore requested that an administrator block them at once, for at least 1 week."
well, something like that anyway. My point is that the current message is too weak. A template calling itself "Blatant Vandal" shouldn't be the sort of template where the good faith of the user is still to be assumed, ie one that welcomes them and kindly requests them to edit sensibly. What would be the point of sending such a message to a "Blatant Vandal"?
Incidentally, are there any warning templates I can use which send out a more harsh message than "test4" does, without actually informing the user that he/she has been blocked?--131.111.202.1712:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need for a more harsh message than test4. If they have continued to vandalize after test4, report them on WP:AIV. The blatant vandal template is just a way to kind of skip over test1 and test2 if the users edits have been unusually obvious vandalism. --OnoremDil12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
{{blatantvandal}} is basically the same thing as {{uw-vandalism4im}}. It's for someone whose intent to vandalize is so obvious that good faith need not be assumed. It's not intended for use after a test4/vandalism4. If someone vandalizes after those, go to WP:AIV. Seraphimblade13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I used to work on the basis that {{bv}} is about a level-3 warning, adapted to be givable immediately in cases of obvious vandalism, and {{test4im}} is about a level-4 warning, when the vandalism's both obvious and more serious than usual. --ais523 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way I use it too, ie. not to be preceeded by, but to be followed by test4, where vandalism is obvious and extreme, and where there are no prior warnings. --Ezeu13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This tag should be used for someone whose intent is clear but has only had one or two edits. Someone who, for example, replaces the entire page of Albert Einstein with "einstein is gay and wikipedia sucks lulz" is quite obviously not trying to test his or her abilities to edit. However, since it's their first edit, blatantvandal is best to make it clear that those kinds of edits are not appreciated and to give them a chance to stop, while making it clear that if they continue, they can be blocked without further warning. At least, that's how I see it. JuJube00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. If an editor's first couple of edits are vandalism, and I'm in a good mood, I might slap this on their talk page. On the other hand, if I don't notice it until they have a half dozen or so, I'll just block them as a vandalism-only account. --jpgordon00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Warning templates aren't supposed to be "harsh," I'd say -- they're intended to fill in the gap between our general desire to assume good faith and our need to block people too intent or ignorant to stop disrupting the project. When somebody does something disruptive, we can warn them; if they do the same thing again, repeatedly, after some number of warnings, we can pretty safely assume they're not here to be helpful. That's the idea, as I take it. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks that's pretty much all I wanted to know. It's just that I'd come across quite a few vandals who'd already receive a couple of test4's, and I expected the bv tag to do more than it actually did. I'll take up your suggestion of AIV or test4im when I next come across such users.--131.111.202.1710:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked Lovelight until if/when arbitration occurs. The user (on the user talk page) shows interest in having ArbCom look at the case so we will continue with the dispute resolution process. If the committee rejects the case, then I will reblock as a ban. Teke02:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Log in issue.
For some reason, I am unable to log on to be account here. When inputting my username and password it informs me that my password is incorrect even though I am inputting the correct password and have not changed it recently. When I click on the button to request a new password it informs me that there is no password on record, though I thought that was required for an account. The account is User:Niroht. I do recognize, however, that due to security issues I may have to start a new account, which I am willing to do if it is necessary, though I would like to avoid it. --149.152.63.10721:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The password policy has recently been changed. If your password is the same as your username, you will have to request a new password. Naconkantari22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this on the BLP noticeboard, but I think this might require more immediate action. The entire article is unsourced, making multiple accusations of crimes, for a person who is, at best, only marginally notable. Corvus cornix22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The AIV helperbots already note if a sensitive address is reported to AIV, but I don't see what it'd hurt to have the IP's talk page tagged too. Seraphimblade00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd only really be concerned about duplicate labels (bot labelling of pages already labelled as being sensitive IP addresses). Marking the talk pages might be wise -- would keep more editors aware of what's going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We finally have a conclusion to the Essjay situation
The Essjay situation resulted in Jimbo calling for a credential policy which resulted in this straw poll which resulted in the community rejecting every policy proposal except "This is a proposal to ask the Foundation to make it a formal policy that checkusers' identities are known to the OFFICE. It is said that they are but it is not formal policy." titled "meta:Talk:CheckUser policy#Real name policy". Which up to now has only resulted in the change of Jimbo's proposal into an essay. We now we have an actual policy change in that its contents match the policy approved by the community. Kat Walsh announced May 1 that the board approved a Resolution:Access to nonpublic data on April 11 that requires "all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in." People with existing access have 60 days to get their ID data to the foundation. WAS 4.25001:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's terrible. It could increase systemic bias — according to UNICEF, one third of all births in the world are not registered. That's one third of the world's population that has no ID. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? A third of the world's population means over 2 billion chances to overcome the odds. Such people are already underrepresented without discriminating against the few who manage to become Wikipedians. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of those don't have regular access to the Internet, much less holding trusted positions in Misplaced Pages. I am quite sure that alternate forms of ID will be found and accepted should such a far fetched hypothetical case arise. --AnonEMouse17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how that is a conclusion to the "Essjay controversy", but it is news warranting note on this noticeboard. --Iamunknown02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, it doesn't have much to do with Essjay at all. This has been under discussion since the last steward elections at least. In fact, the decision to head in this direction is what prevented Essjay from running in the last steward elections... I understand that pissed him off greatly :). --Gmaxwell03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Brad Patrick, former Wikimedia Foundation lawyer and interim executive director, says in the foundation mailing list thread WMF resolution on access to non-public data passedThe point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay. - WAS 4.25022:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The images in this fair-use image gallery are continually re-added by anons and other editors who seem not to appreciate our fair-use policy which explicitly prohibits decorative uses such as this one. Can anyone assist me (because I'm a fucking asshole) in explaining why these are not appropriate for the article, or set me straight as to why this exception to our policy should be superseded by fans' consensus? (ESkog) 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you reverted a change and then subsequently protected your version of the page. You are entirely out of line. Cburnett04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If an admin is reverting a page in order to enforce policy, and other users repeatedly violate the policy, then protecting the page is entirely appropriate. Corvus cornix16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe several of the episode lists have already dropped their images for technical reasons (their parserfunction heavy template is hitting the mediawiki 2MB transclusion limit). This does need to get cleaned up, but sadly there are a lot of users heavily invested in these images.. after dejanewsing 1000 episodes and screen shooting each one you too would be pretty aggressive about keeping them in Misplaced Pages. :(--Gmaxwell03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand there is a lot that people have invested in these images, and that is why (1) I'm not going quickly through several high-profile series at once, (2) I'm not deleting the images outright at the same time, and most importantly (3) I open the discussion here. If I have 200 angry users at my Talk page doorstep at once, I can't respond to them with any degree of respect or thoroughness. Any advice/assistance from anyone would be greatly appreciated. (ESkog) 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) You'd be surprised how well one frame can illustrate the content of the episode. That said, I do not feel that the aforementioned images serve a decorative purpose but rather does "significantly contribute" to the article, as it illustrates what is being discussed and provides reference, ergo qualifying under Fair Use. And just for the record, I am not involved in the current dispute in any way. --MPD03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that one image can do a lot more than your average summary, and it should be looked more into a point of reference. It is more than just decoration as they actually apply to the episode and give you as good idea you can get from just quickly glancing down the episode list. Ive managed the family guy episode page, including pictures now and in the past, and I make sure to replace any random gag images that people upload with those that are more closely tied in with the plot. In some cases promo images are used which usually even more accurately give a brief glimpse at what the episode includes. So thats why my feeling is they should be allowed... Grande13
I have reverted your deletion of these images as "a gallery." This has been attempted previously under this rationale (by gmaxwell, IIRC) and it didn't pan out. Please refrain from using this rationale to remove fair use images. Discussion first. Cburnett04:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW you've never demonstrated a consensus to allow these images. In my view this is what should be required for something which is effectively an exemption to our policy. However, you seem to be taking a might-makes-right approach to changing policy here. I've been around long enough to know that there will be eventually be a backlash which will reverse on these changes more than completely. ::shrugs::. I do, however, wonder what would happen if we sock-checked the sixty some users who have uploaded large numbers of these images and been promoting keeping them, we already know that a dozen or so of the accounts were socks of a single "robbin hood" style copyvio vandal. --Gmaxwell04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You've never convinced to a consensus that your definitions of subjective words are "right." Just to be clear, are you accusing me of sock puppetry? Cburnett04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I don't think you are that stupid. However, some of the most prolific uploaders of episode list images have been proven to be sock accounts. I don't think it's a leap to think that we'd find socks among those supporting the abuse of non-free media in these articles. --Gmaxwell08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
eh we've had complaints about some of these image laden articles takeing too long to download.Geni11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Revert and page protection by Ryulong
As I have noted above, Ryulong reverted here therefore engaging in the edit war and subsequently protected it. This is a clear violation of policy by both protecting in an edit war he was engaged in and obviously endorsing the current version. How does abusing admin privileges get any more blatant? Cburnett04:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he is enforcing the law and Foundation and Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, he was not involved whatsoever in any edit war; there was an edit war between another user and an IP over the removal of these images. Ryulong then removed the fair use images per policy and against the edit-warring IP. —Centrx→talk • 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In general, taking sides when protecting is bad, but when it's an issue of the LAW (as in, the thing that can get people sued), that can and should be done. Protection was needed, and articles should not be protected in versions which are reasonably suspected to be illegal. -Amarkovmoo!04:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The images were removed under a rationale that has been tried and failed to be supported by community consensus. You are using an unsupported and baseless hypothetical as an excuse for blatantly violating policy. Cburnett04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Um... it's not an unsupported and baseless hypothetical. It may well be that the images are determined to be fine, but until then, the version which nobody claims violates copyright law should stay. And I see no unambiguous evidence that the images are definitely okay. -Amarkovmoo!04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it's over ambiguous and extremely subjective words of "decorative" and "gallery" (the argument and debates of these words go back many many moons). Both of which are stronger requirements than law. So this whole "because of law", etc. excuse is just that...an excuse. It's not a valid argument because it's obvious WP policies are stronger than the actual fair use laws. It's not a valid argument to pick a version of a page to your liking and then protecting it. Cburnett04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not "his" version of the page. Reverting to another version and then protecting happens all the time with libel and copyright issues. He is not an "involved" party in any sense. —Centrx→talk • 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
He changed the page to his liking and then protected it. That's endorsement of the current version and engaged in revert warring by reverting. Again, more excuses. Cburnett04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Do those 95 screenshots that were being used on the list page have fair use rationales that describe why they should be used on the list page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that you removed fair use images without checking if they have fair use rationales? That's your job as the remover to know, not mine. Cburnett05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And it is not our job as the reviewer to determine if the rational fits, it's your job as the uploader to tell us what the fair use justification is.User:Zscout37005:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? I never uploaded a single family guy screenshot so your lecture is entirely misguided and misaimed. You assume I am the uploader and you couldn't be any more wrong. Cburnett05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cburnett, you're wrong. Foundation policy trumps all, and using fair use images as decoration is clearly not allowed under our fair use guidelines. Ral315»04:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm convinced that the use of the non-free images is decorative. You are not. Incidentally, you are in the minority here. Hmm. --Iamunknown05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Cburnett can demonstrate a clear consensus to allow these images in any case. He is relying on the idea that the default is that we keep them, and that there are enough people numerically on his side of the debate that it wedges an effort to vote to show he can't. Most of our featured list articles are fairly light on images, it is only the episode lists which have started putting in an image for every item. Even for species lists which are a very visual subject and where there is no policy issue with lots of images our editors have chosen to not use too many images. Ryulong's actions are perfectly acceptable within our policy... it's not edit warring to enforce our copyright policy. He'd be perfectly within policy simply blocking anyone who restored the images after being warned so I see his action here as the lesser of possible disruptions. --Gmaxwell05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use does not spell out such as decorative (amendments have been tried and failed). I may be the minority here on this page at midnight CDT but I guarantee I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with such a liberal definition of "gallery". Don't get confused here. Cburnett05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A gallery is a collection of images. A list of television episodes that contains pictures that do not use the pictures in any other way other than showing a scene from that specific episode on the list is what is considered a fair use image gallery. I've deleted at least 6 in my time on Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this isn't the forum for changing fair use policy to your liking. And the interpretation of "gallery" you speak of failed to gain consensus that it applies to episode lists. Cburnett05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." From Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria, number 3.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is not the forum for a fair use debate. Quote all you want but it doesn't change that. Cburnett05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are making this into a forum for a fair use debate; whatever you say does not change the policy inasmuch as whatever we say does not change it. So what is your point? --Iamunknown05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to stay away form fair use debate here. It is everyone else that is making it into a fair use debate. Read my starting post and it's pretty obvious from my other posts that I want to stay away from a fair use debate. This started about an admin reverting a page to his satisfaction and then protecting it, which is against policy. Cburnett05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Endorse reversion and protection. Fair use is allowed under a very few limited purposes, and "decoration" is explicitly not one. The images were being used to decorate the list, and therefore can't be used there. That's not negotiable here, it's a policy set by the Foundation, and also implicates legal issues. If you want it changed, go talk to the Foundation and their legal team to see if that's possible. Seraphimblade04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, decoration is subjective and highly debated and no clear understanding of what it means exists. This argument is very old and not convincing. Cburnett04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC) It is not "voting" to say that one approves of an action someone else took, especially when that action is disputed. :) Seraphimblade04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
the images provide an additional point of reference that help summarize and/or give the general idea of the episode...enclylcopedias do have pictures...Grande13
I don't understand your question? What do you mean exactly by "justification"? I'm not here to argue fair use. I'm here to argue that an admin has protected a version of page that is to his liking, contrary to policy. Cburnett05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you, Cburnett, personally write out fair use rationales for each of the screenshots that was used on the page, explicitly describing how they add to the encyclopedic value of the page and why it is imperative that fair use law be permitted such that you can use the images on that page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please justify your fair use of 95 images. That was the right call on ryulong's part. Unless you have a justification per fair use policy. —— Eagle10105:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not upload a single family guy screenshot nor have I ever edited the article in question (to my knowledge). Regardless, Ryulong, your removal of the images was a rollback and did not state you removed them for lack of fair use rationales. So you're either violating policy for protecting a version you support or you failed to check images for FUR. Cburnett05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to remove images for not having fair use rationales then it is indeed your job to make sure it doesn't have one. Cburnett05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Random arbitrary section break 1
I have unprotected the page and reprotected it. As an uninvolved admin, this dispute is now moot. Ral315»05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's amazing. You have no other reason for raising this discussion than to have a reason to accuse him of abusing his administrative powers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an admin protecting The Wrong Version, particularly if there are copyright concerns. Please, once and for all, explain why this is a problem, other than just claiming "he protected an article he edited!" Ral315»05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reading and critically understanding my point for starting this. He didn't just edit the article. He performed a revert and immediately followed it with a protected (within the same minute). The revert involved him in an edit war; protecting the page stated that he's protected a version he endorses. Both are against policy. Cburnett05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I haven't gotten to Naruto yet, and I guess it's time to block a sockpuppet at Yu-Gi-Oh! GX.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't always consistent. Just because we make an error on one page doesn't mean we need to go replicate it on all pages. Eventually the errors will be corrected. Also, sometimes the details are different, and the details matter.--Gmaxwell05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cburnett, if that's not a decorative gallery, I'm not sure what is. Nowhere has it been made clear how these images actually contribute to the quality of the article (see WP:NFCC#8). These images were mass-uploaded under possibly the vaguest fair use rationales and least descriptive titles. I could look at Image:1ACX02.png and even (mentally) rename it to "Cartoon_woman_with_large_glasses.png" but it still would not help me, as a reader, to understand the episode article or the (corresponding episode list) any better than I would if I were using a text-only browser. As a starting point, that would be a good definition of "decorative". — CharlotteWebb05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, wrong forum for this line of discussion (I've said this many times now). This is about Ryulong protecting a version of a page to his liking and after involving himself in an edit war. Cburnett05:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's already been pointed out by several people that Ryulong wasn't protecting it against a content dispute, he was protecting it against an introduction of non-free content against policy.. in effect, protecting it against vandalism. Vandalism by a well meaning editor, no doubt, but we treat it the same. --Gmaxwell05:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The rollback he performed wasn't against the introduction of non-free content since it was already there. His rollback was an endorsement of ESkog's removal of images. Perhaps you want to try again? Cburnett05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious how you can infer whether Ryulong endorsed ESkog's removal or was actively against the introduction of non-free content based upon the mere edit summary, "Reverted edits by 68.72.138.171 (talk) to last version by ESkog". How are you making that leap? --Iamunknown05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry? The images were NOT just "introduced" as you imply. They had been there for a while. So, Ryulong's rollback of the removed version is pretty clear support for those images being gone. Besides, his comments here indicate to me that he endorses their removal. (Whether or not he endorses Eskog's specific version is just semantics and irrelevant since he protected a version that is to his liking.) Cburnett05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a hypothetically will help me understand your reasoning, Cburnett. If a user inserts a goatse image in Cheese, and ESKog removes it, then some other user restores it, then Ryulong reverts to ESKog.. Ryulong can't protect the page because that would be an endorsement of ESKog's removal? Instead, someone should stop the 'edit war' by protecting it with the goatse image in the article? This seems odd to me, perhaps I misunderstand your position?--Gmaxwell05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A loaded hypothetical example drawing comparison between an undeniably offense pornographic image and a TV screenshot to pigeon hole me into a supporter of an enlarged male anus image on a culinary article? Sorry, I won't play your game. Cburnett05:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Consider that others wish not to play a game that involves assuming, as you have done, that Ryulong acted in bad faith, and that it was part of a legitimate content dispute. Copyright policy isn't a game, it's serious business. — CharlotteWebb05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You claim to be arguing against Ryulong on pure policy grounds and you reject people discussing the images in much of this thread, ... I proposed an alternative situation where we can all agree on the validity of the revert so that you can focus on the aspects of policy which you complain that you complaint is about. I'm not trying to trap you, I'm trying to strip all the distractions out of the discussion by proposing a situation where I think we should agree on mostly everything. --Gmaxwell05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree on the validity of his revert because it's explicitly in WP:PROT that you shouldn't do what he did. And for very good reason. People are constantly iterating here that "decorative" and "gallery" are against policy and some even agree to their subjectivity. My complaint is about a much more rigid and much less subjective policy of not protecting a page in which you have participated in an edit war. It's exacerbated by the fact that "decorative" and "gallery" are very, very subjective terms (you should know this because you got sick of people posting on your talk page when you did this). Reverting and protecting based on highly subjective words on a very fiery topic (fair use)? Nope. Cburnett06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Removing what may be in violation of our non-free content policy and then protecting the page is not, in my mind, endorsing a specific revision of a page, it is enforcing policy or, at least, one valid interpretation of policy. --Iamunknown05:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"what may be"? Sounds like you agree that the adjectives floating around ("decorative" and "gallery") are subjective, debated, and not agreed upon. That would mean his revert was, in fact, him engaging in an edit war (after all, he's endorsing a version that agrees with his interpretation of policy) and he protected his version. Cburnett05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It was in violation of our non-free content criteria. A list of pictures is surely decorative unless you have critical commentary on all 107 on the list page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
By your definition of "decorative," which failed to gain community consensus as being correct. If consensus was there that an episode list used screenshots decoratively then I'd guarantee that every LoE would be "naked" of screenshots. But that's not the case at all. Cburnett05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Enforcement of policy is clearly off to a rocky start. The bathroom walls of Rome were not cleaned in a day. — CharlotteWebb05:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Correction: enforcement of personal interpretations of highly subjective words is off to a rocky start. Last I knew, policy didn't state anything so blunt that episode lists with screenshots are against policy. Cburnett05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And, by analogy, are you suggesting that every administrator who nukes a BLP and protects is somehow abusing his or her admin powers by endorsing his or her interpretation of WP:BLP? Not every edit and protect is admin abuse, and I don't think that it was in this case either. --Iamunknown05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a significant qualitative difference between "I'm protecting this page because it is the version I like best" and "I'm protecting this page because the other version violates policy and people keep putting it back". I see Ryulong as having done the latter, and I endorse the move. The episode lists were really excessive. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)05:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but how many times do I have to repeat that there is no established definition of "decorative" or "gallery", especially in terms of episode lists. This rationale has been tried and failed by gmaxwell (your signficant other, according to your talk page) and didn't gain consensus that episode lists violate policy. If List of Family Guy episodes violated policy by being "decorative" or a "gallery" then many, many episode lists are violating policy. Yet List of South Park episodes is a featured list...with a policy violation? My point is that this edit war and protection is trying to set policy, not enforce it. I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't protect this if it were in policy, but, at best, it is a loose interpretation (that has failed to gain consensus) of policy with no agreement/consensus/compromise on if it is. As a member of the board of trustees, if you want to change policy to be absolutely explicit about this then do it. But as of now, the adjectives here are subjective and highly, highly debated. Cburnett05:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This some kind of new corollary to Godwin's Law? Yes, I have been worn away to make this a fair use debate against my attempts to not make it that way. Oh well. When it's 10 vs. 1 it's easy to get pushed into it when everyone else wants to make this a fair use forum. Cburnett05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, there's no established definition. I can't think of one that isn't subject to gaming and ruleslawyering. ("Oh, but the rule says galleries must have 30 images or more, and mine only has 28!") If more patient souls than I wish to create firmer guidelines for this, they are welcome to do so and I wish them luck. Until then, we must call them like we see them, and take calls to places like the admins' noticeboard if they're disputed. And it looks here like there is pretty strong agreement that the episode lists were excessive. (And yes, this does mean that I think that many other episode lists are also excessive; there's not some tremendous rush of anti-Family Guy sentiment as far as I am aware. If there is, it is well-hidden.) The foundation-level policy is deliberately not going into great detail because it simply isn't practical to do so; there are too many situations to account for, but I think this is a fair interpretation of what was intended. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)06:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I appreciate you saying that there is no definition (I don't think anyone yet has said such). Despite my semi-inflammatory post, it makes me feel you and I can have a discussion when you can at least empathize to some of my points. Again, thank you.
As for the rest of your post. Changing fair use policy has been tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried. Mostly leading in failure partly due to exactly what you hit upon: too many situations to account for. That said, you have to interpret policy fairly liberally, IMHO, and this is tried and tried again in terms of edit warring. To me, this means deciding fair use policy is relegated to edit warring. So when an admin takes the next step of participating in the edit war and then protected his side, I complain loudly. And, yes, I would have raised the same hell I have here if an admin reverted and protected a version with images on it.
I try to say this in every discussion I get in about this. I am not a fair use freak. I definitely favor free material over non-free (anyone is welcome to look at my GFDL image contributions and argue to the contrary). TV shows are of a small niche where there is and will never be a free alternative for a long time (despite not having broached age 30 yet, I'm sure I'll be dead before these shows hit public domain). If you read my fair use support posts you will see I only defend the material that won't be in public domain and has no free alternative. I don't defend fair use celebrity photos. I don't defend magazine covers as celebrity images. Etc. With this, I am done with this thread for the evening. I seriously don't expect any de-admining or anything of the sort to be done here. At best, I hope discourse for fair use regarding television moves more toward discussion (in the proper forum!) and away from edit warring. If anyone cares to restart this discussion elsewhere, I would appreciate a link on my talk page. Thanks in advance to that person. Cburnett06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Cburnett, it is explicitly stated in WP:FUC that the amount of unfree images should be limitted. Having 100 of these images violates that part of the policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
This has become a fair use forum, despite my best intentions. Each episode is individually copyrighted which means the minimum is one per copyrighted work (which a LoE satisfies). Lumping 95 episodes into one copyrighted work to claim 95 images is "not the minimum" is legally absurd and a farce.Cburnett06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
From the beginning, I agree you have been very upfront about your intentions, which have been to attack Ryulong's credibility as an administrator. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — CharlotteWebb06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright registration died years ago.. you could just as equally argue that every frame of the video is an independent work, so therefore it's okay to include a crop of the 54,000 frames that make up an episode. Or you could argue that the season released on DVD is the copyrighted work in question, and we only included one whole episode out of a dozen. (a tiny fraction!). Quit the rules-lawyering when you don't know the rules. The folks here have already called a spade a spade.--Gmaxwell06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you could if you want, but I won't. All of the frames of an episode are an aggregate work (this goes to my argument that a single screenshot is a as minimum as you get for an episode precisely because it has thousands of frames). Arguing one page of a book is a separate copyright from the next is ludicrous. Arguing that one frame is a separate copyright from the next is also ludicrous. Why? All those pages are published at the same time. All those frames are published at the same time. The seven Harry Potter books are published independently therefore they have independent copyrights. The episodes of a TV series are published (read: aired) independently therefore they have independent copyrights. It has nothing to do with formal copyright registration at all! Cburnett06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that a serial novel is copyrighted differently to one published in the traditional "all in one go" manner? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a silly argument "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Each episode is a relevant section of text. This is an entirely appropriate use and if someone thinks otherwise, there needs to be a centralized discussion, the AN isn't it.
The other day I saw a different episode list with screenshots and thought it was so cool that users took the time to compile that, and now I see a concerted effort to destroy them based on flimsy reasoning. SchmuckyTheCat06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Many folks also thought it was cool that people took the time to upload the complete episodes to a Web2.0 video sharing site.. but thats not what we're about here. The episode list pages are also miserably slow to load, bog down my browser with insane amounts of HTML, and manage to hit the internal mediawiki protection limits which no pages should be hitting. Go look at the other featured lists and you'll see that only on the pages where people have decided to take a stand for their 'right' to cram tons of unlicensed material into Misplaced Pages are there many images. Our other featured lists are lightly illustrated. --Gmaxwell06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this really shows the level of abusiveness Ryulong is willing to go to. This is not the first time, and will not be the last (This is what happens when you have to get your friend to promote you on IRC). We've had plenty of discussion in regards to image use... a few dissenters at the administrators board will unlikely change this discussion. Now, the NFCC agrees with my self and Cburnett, I do invite you to open another forum for discussion. I personally cannot take Kat's message with anything more then a pinch of salt, for reasons unstated, but known... (Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists, et al). Addendum: "decorative" is an oxymoronic term for opinion. Matthew07:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what does any of that have to do with what Cburnett feels is my misuse of the tools? The issue here is that the first post in this thread complained about the abuse of fair use images on the Family Guy list. I reverted the last addition of the images and protected the page, as that was what was necessary concerning fair use and how much is too much. At least ninety-five fair use images were used on that list. Anything beyond 30 is excessive in my eyes, however I have dealt with massive fair use violations that have had over 200 images and nipped some in the bud that had the potential to get to excessive levels. The bulk of the list I linked (/YGOPTL) is to deal with one banned user and her abusive sockpuppets. Additionally, bringing my promotion to adminship into question is really out of line, Matthew. That certainly has no bearing on my past and current actions as an administrator or an editor of Misplaced Pages. I don't know what possesses users who feel that they have been wronged to come forward and tack on ad hominem attacks just because that person just happens to be in the spotlight for some reason. The last time I had protected a page and someone came forward to state that I had abused the sysop bit, another administrator (who knows who he/she is) decided to tack on "this is not the first time Ryulong has abused the admin tools." Unless you have something seriously constructive to add, go ahead, but I would appreciate if you redacted comments that have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion on how many is too much is irrelevant, wholly. If anything you stating you have n arbitrary number, after which you'll happily abuse administrative abilities proves to me that you are unfit for the position. Matthew08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion has been refuted in detail by a half dozen people upthread. I know it's a lot to read, but you'll have to try again. --Gmaxwell07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a new addendum for me (the don't revert, just protect thing, as the second paragraph about being involved in the dispute has no bearing for this situation, IMO). And there are no changes being done to any policy or guideline. When WP:NFCC was WP:FUC there was a statement along the lines that "please limit the amount of fair use (now non-free content) in articles." Removing the 90+ images on List of Family Guy episodes is one of them. I was involved in removing several hundred screenshots of Pokémon anime episodes, Digimon anime episodes, Yu-Gi-Oh! anime episodes, as well as the lists that were for a handful of Kamen Rider articles I deal with, all of which were pretty much galleries of images that did not add anything to the accompanying text (in some lists there was no accompanying text, just an episode title and an airdate). While the Family Guy list has more information, that does not make it immune to policy, nor is the South Park page which I feel may be necessary to take a crack at in the upcoming weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I changed it to include the specific instances of copyright or defamation, since there is abundant support for the idea that we should not leave copyright violations or defamation lying around just for the sake of following process. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC) No one's trying to change anything. WP:FUC pretty clearly states that fair use images must not be used excessively, must not be decorative, and must be irreplaceable. Let's examine those here.
Excessive: 95 fair-use images in a single article goes way beyond excessive.
Replaceable: This includes if text could adequately describe the scene! One image can convey an adequate impression of what the program looks like on-screen.
Decorative: For the reasons above, the images are not essential to convey the point. They are therefore decorative.
It's already gone well beyond that page, the Foundation has already spoken on the subject, and they were pretty clear-"If you must do fair use images, keep them to an absolute minimum." There also may be legal issues there. Either one goes well beyond any consensus on either of the pages you cite, and would override even a clear consensus there. Seraphimblade08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is why the page still states the following points:
"3. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). This includes the original in the Image: namespace. Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately."
"8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
If you want to help create minimum requirements that don't (effectively) outlaw images on episode pages, I would love to discuss it. As far as the foundation decree, somewhere in the WP:FU archives, there were some editors who thought it affected these list of episodes pages. That opinion had less consensus than most of the opinions conerning images in LOEs. - Peregrine Fisher08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"absolute minimum" is not an arbitrary number, it's minimum, and I've not seen any LOEs use over the minimum (which would be one per copyrighted work (per episode)). Matthew08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is perfectly fine for Misplaced Pages to have lists of episodes that contain screenshots for each and every episode of a series, even if that number exceeds something such as 200?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hole in one! (Though I'd advise possibly splitting the pages up for those non-broadband users). Matthew08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That is entirely false, Matthew. How is having 307 copyrighted image on a page not a copyright violation concerning the parent company? The mangaka who created the characters? The handful of animators who put that series on the air? If it were not a quarter to 5 in the morning, I'd be deleting maybe a minimum of 200 of those images as they are used only on the list page. There wouldn't be a problem if they each had their own articles, which would satisfy the "one image per copyrighted property" BS you're bringing up. But putting all 307 images on one page and using the excuse that there are 307 different intellectual properties being discussed on a single page is excessive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's because the copyright is per episode. One image with one table rows data is same copy vio as multiple rows. You really should read that "Images in lists" page. It goes into great detail. - Peregrine Fisher08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright registration died years ago.. you could just as equally argue that every frame of the video is an independent work, so therefore it's okay to include a crop of the 54,000 frames that make up an episode. Or you could argue that the season released on DVD is the copyrighted work in question, and we only included one whole episode out of a dozen. (a tiny fraction!). Quit the rules-lawyering when you don't know the rules. The folks here have already called a spade a spade.--Gmaxwell06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That'd be fine if we had 308 articles on One Piece episodes, Peregrine Fisher. But we don't. I do not know how many we have, but it certainly is not over 100. And the Images in lists page is a failed proposition to try and keep these extensive amounts of non-free material to make things look more aesthetically pleasing. I see no purpose to have Image:Onepiece032.PNG as an example for an episode titled "The Witch of Cocoyashi Village, Arlong's Female Officer." It tells me nothing about the episode. All it does show is that Nami has f***ed up eyes when she's angry.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to find it again. But certainly, that was the intent of the thing, even if they don't use those exact words. Seraphimblade08:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(EC) True, but it is a concept. Basically, the question to ask is "Could we adequately illustrate this subject with less (or no) use of fair-use imagery?" If the answer is yes, it must be scaled back until the answer is no. In the case of a television program, illustration is in most cases accomplished by a single screenshot. Anything beyond that is decoration, and certainly not minimal. Seraphimblade08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm. If I make a policy proposal which says "It's okay to delete obvious vandalism, but not on tuedays", burry it away on some page that no one sees, and when it fails to get support, can I go around insisting that people can't delete vandalism? ... Cause thats pretty much what we're seeing here with Matthew and Peregrine Fisher pointing to Misplaced Pages:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. --Gmaxwell08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are the most widely participated in discussions about this issue so far. Start a new one if you like. That's how this issue should be adressed. - Peregrine Fisher08:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry. I'm pretty sure that this page is now, actually. You grossly overstated the number of participants in the prior discussions in your uptread posts. --Gmaxwell08:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This might be a silly question, but when did "we've decided this is permissible" begin to trounce "this is a violation of copyright"? It is my understanding that each copyrighted image that is used on episode lists needs to specifically illustrate the text it accompanies, and must have a specific, customised, hand-written fair use rationale detailed for that individual use on that list on its image page. - Mark09:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
When they aren't copyright violations. Like I said, if we want to discuss what the image pages should, say, I'm all for that. - Peregrine Fisher09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Mark. Regardless of however many discussions have occurred elsewhere, this is not a point that can be decided on by a majority. The fair use restrictions on Misplaced Pages are imposed by US law and by the Foundation, who unsurprisingly take a stricter line on the issue than might be allowed by law so as not to take unnecessary chances. In order for fair use images to be used on an article, they must each have an individually written rationale as to why they qualify under Misplaced Pages's fair use policy and they must only be used to a minimum to specifically illustrate accompanying text. What that means, is that the text must specifically be describing the contents of the image. It is not sufficient for the image to simply be of the same episode. It should also be noted that, to all those who are complaining that other articles have such lists of images, this is not a valid argument. Will (aka Wimt) 09:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't even know. If we could agree on that, it would be awesome. There's a group of people who want to get rid of these images, and they won't discuss what makes an image OK, becuase then suitable images might be found. We've created entire LOEs with very individualized image pages, but that doesn't cut it. - Peregrine Fisher09:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of Fair Use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As I have already said, the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images is stricter than what may be allowed by US law (and there is some controversy over quite what is allowed by law). To quote this, "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Now I am not willing to believe that a list of episodes with huge numbers of copyrighted images falls within a narrow limit. Will (aka Wimt) 09:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm reading a lot of good points about fair use and copyright law. What I'm not reading is a clear and explicit policy, or even guideline, about how screenshots in episode lists should be handled. The same arguments that people are using to say "no screenshots should be in episode lists" are used by other people to say "one screenshot per episode is okay" and by others to say "screenshots are okay as long as the show isn't long". Why is it so difficult for people to at least try to come to an agreement about what's OK and what isn't? To Will, the common response to people that invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is to say "Delete the other crap". That's what is being said here. According to what people are saying the policy is, the other crap should be deleted. JuJube09:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So difficult? You have three editors here saying that one per episode is okay and a dozen saying it's not. All three on the pro image per episode side have spent a lot of time uploading these images. I am many others believe the rule is clear and has always been clear. The use needs to be minimal. I don't believe a list page with 300 images and almost no text meets the definition of minimal. --Gmaxwell09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Gmaxwell, I agree with you. I just want something plain and set that the people who don't agree can't argue against. JuJube09:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and why are people bringing up WP:FUIL when it's inactive and not recognized as either a policy or a guideline? JuJube09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Because that and the other were the big fair use images in lists discussions. Conensus may change, but it is also good to look at the last consensus. The latst consensus we had was that we aren't going to change our rules to prohibit the images in these lists. - Peregrine Fisher09:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Random arbitrary section break 4
You get different results, depending on which page you go to. Don't think this is the magic page that represents consensus. I think it would be cool to do a watchlist notification for this. - Peregrine Fisher09:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does there need to be a specific page to discuss whether or not its right to have 200 non-free images on a page?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a specific page, it just needs a lot of input. Someone mentioned 12 and 3 for this page: that's not a lot. - Peregrine Fisher09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But it isn't discussion that's important here, it's enforcement. It wouldn't matter if 400 people came along and told us that they wanted those images in the list. It would still contravene the fact that copyrighted images need to be kept to a minimum. Will (aka Wimt) 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope, 21. I am not for screenshots in episode lists. I only seem ambiguous because I'm willing to acquiesce to whatever the consensus becomes. JuJube09:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the opinions of the editors on this page, this day, we do not have a consensus. You probably do have a consensus to revisit the issue, though. - Peregrine Fisher09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not king of WP. It seems obvious to me that the removal of 1000s of images, not mandated by the Board of Directors, is something bigger than this page, this night. - Peregrine Fisher09:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Revisit? you never got consensus to do it in the first place. The only reason this has been allowed to last is that no one has bothered to fight it. Look at all this argument and it's only 3 people on the oppose side. --Gmaxwell09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3 people on this page, probably more if people here about it. I guess enjoy your "consensus" on this page, there are many people interested in this subject who don't have this page watchlisted. - Peregrine Fisher09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You completely missed my point. I'm not claiming that there is or isn't a consensus here, I'm saying that the people on the side insisting that we keep hundreds of unlicensed images on our list page are producing an disproportionate volume of argument. I can't blame you, had I wasted zillions of hours of my time pirating episodes, capturing, and uploading many hundreds of screenshots I too would feel pretty committed to keeping the images in Misplaced Pages. I wish I saw a way to resolve that desire, but I don't really.. --Gmaxwell10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not pirated any episodes. I own the DVDs of the shows that I uploaded screenshots of. I also have fair-use-reduced images that other uploaded - then there's no need for pirating either.--GunnarRene18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hell, I wasted my time doing that and I'm still against it. (Okay, I'm really going to sleep now.) JuJube10:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It is frustrating. Some editors argue that 1 image per episode is too much. They can't really say how many are OK, becuase they believe only 0 is the answer. There's no incentive for the 1 is OK group to compromise, when all they're given is 0. - Peregrine Fisher10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
1 is OK. 1 screenshot, in the main article about the television show, to illustrate how the show looks. Lists, individual episodes, etc., will all most certainly wikilink back to the main show's article, where that image can be found. Of course, in a few exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to use a fair-use image in an individual episode article or list of episodes. If that's the case, write up a detailed fair-use rationale (as has always, in all cases, been required anyway), and say why you think it's alright in that particular case. Seraphimblade10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Zero or one in what? You are managing to confuse people ... some have gotten the impression that we're discussion episode articles, we're not .. we're discussing lists articles which have hundreds of images.
For a page thats nothing more than a list, go look at the featured lists which aren't being used as an example promoting the use of unlicensed material in Misplaced Pages. They typically have no more than a couple images, and thats what I'd expect in a list. For all non-free media we require that the image be matched with and facilitating actual discussion. Most lists hardly meet the discussion test at all, but a few of them do.. For example, I think the lead image on List of The Simpsons episodes is close enough to okay to leave alone. Some of the list articles have a paragraph of discussion per season, and I think that for each of those paragraphs you might be able to make a good case for using an image to illustrate the subject being discussed in the paragraph. Beyond that, images of episodes should only be included in the article for the show as warranted and needed by the discussion and in the articles on the episodes when the episodes themselves are notable enough to have articles and only if the image is really needed to express some critical aspect of the show that the text can't express. I know there are some people who would favor a more restrictive approach, but I doubt the people opposing the overuse of non-free images in list articles here would find my position completely unreasonable. --Gmaxwell10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think yours is unreasonable. People can write up a fair-use rationale for use in anything, the question is whether it's acceptable or not. If there is, for example, a scene out of a particular episode which caused a ton of controversy or which the episode (outside of its fandom!) is highly-noted for, and that's discussed at length in the article/list entry, it would be appropriate to use a fair-use illustration. That would be one of those exceptional cases I mentioned earlier. Seraphimblade10:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Staying neutral to the discussion for the moment, but I wanted to note that I think it's more than somewhat contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Consensus to count anything like "21:3". The 3 could very well "outvote" the 21 in any discussion for consensus. Also, a likely unintended result of the above may be to have all such lists split into separate pages, to sidestep the "gallery" arguement. As I said, I'm not supporting either side, just thought I would comment on the discussion itself. - jc3710:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Be fair Jc37, I'm not trying to claim that because the numbers are a certain way that the result is forgone. Someone asked about why people were split, I responded that there was a 'a dozen' on one side of the discussion that it wasn't much of a split. Later Peregrine repeated my 'dozen' as evidence that only a small number of people supported the view that that these lists are abusing our allowance of non-free images.. so I went and actually counted. whoptie do. :) --Gmaxwell10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't presuming bad faith by your comments regarding "counts". Indeed, just as you point out, comments from Wikipedians of varying perspectives in the discussion above have commented about "numbers of support" of their POV. I just felt it was worth noting. - jc3710:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no real sidestepping there. Tons of fair-use images regarding one single TV series are inappropriate, be they split up among 100 articles or consolidated in 1. Seraphimblade10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not my opinion, really. The Foundation is pretty clear we should keep fair use to an absolute minimum. In this case, free content (a wikilink back to the main show's article, a prose description of a scene) can do the job adequately 99% of the time. (Note, we use free over fair use so long as it's adequate, even if it's not as good!) For that other 1%, write up a rationale indicating why this time, fair use is absolutely required, and no free alternative could adequately do the job. But we certainly don't use fair-use images to make articles or lists "prettier" or "nicer", that's the very definition of decorative fair use. Fair use is to be used when it's irreplaceable and absolutely essential, not when it's just nice. Seraphimblade10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you're talking the language of compromise. We've tried 100%, and people obviously aren't satisfied. You've offered 1%, which I feel is a bit low. How about 50%? - Peregrine Fisher10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I should say the number isn't really a matter of haggling here. You have to justify each-and-every use of a non-free image. --Tony Sidaway10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Tony. (And those numbers weren't intended in any way to be numerically accurate, the actual amount of time a fair-use image turns out to be appropriate might be 5%, or might be a tenth of a percent.) You must justify the use of a fair-use image each and every time you use one. There's no "compromise" there. Seraphimblade11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors disagree about the justification of images. For instance, some editors find all of them to be "decorative." Saying "you must justify the use of a fair-use image each and every time you use one" isn't constructive, because some editors feel they have done so, and yet they're challenged. We need something objective to deal with that. - Peregrine Fisher11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could certainly adopt the objective standards many Wikipedias in other languages have. Their rules are far simpler than ours-"Do not ever use any non-free images, period." Quite honestly, I wouldn't be too sorry to see that. But in terms of decorative vs. essential fair use, ask yourself-"Is the primary rationale for use of this image that it makes the article look nicer or snappier, or is it indispensable to discussion of this topic? Could its purpose be served any other way?" If someone else can come up with something and say "Well, yes, the purpose the image serves could also be served by...", then it's not indispensable. There's your objective standard. But in general, we should be using absolutely as few fair-use images as possible. Seraphimblade11:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not helping. Some people feel the images cannot be replaced by text, or a free image (I wish there were free images). Sometimes it seems like the plan is to make it super subjective, then delete them all. - Peregrine Fisher11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if anyone "feels" they can be replaced by text. If the only legitimate purpose for the image (illustrating the subject) can be served by text, or wikilinks back to one main article on the show with one fair-use image, people can feel otherwise all day long. Seraphimblade11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that my other removals of nonfree content have all been reverted by Cburnett: here, here, and here. I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that the picture can't be used unless it is itself the subject of critical commentary. Consensus will fail to align with law here simply because there are a lot of people here on Misplaced Pages investing a lot of well-intentioned time to, unfortunately, run us afoul of copyright law and our own policies. The recent clarification on fair use is not enough - this seems that it will never be resolved absent a clarification from the Foundation on how much risk they want to absorb over pictures of cartoons. (ESkog) 11:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Attempting to remove the copyrighted images, but have been reverted several times. I'm about a quarter-step away from following Ryulong's example here. Seraphimblade12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, naughty naughty, Matthew. First, you ave no right to impose your PPOV in that manner, and second, the default in cases of dispute is to exclude content. It is the responsibility of those editors seeking to include content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around, and "I don't think it's an infringement of copyright" won't mitigate the legal bills if some lawyer decides it probably is (note, too, that the number of different opinions on what constitutes copyright infringement may be calculated by adding one to the number of lawyers involved). WP:FUC does not allow for use as decoration, never has. Admins enforcing that are not subject to unilateral banning by involved parties. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Allow icon sized images illustrating items in a list
Is it possible a compromise could be reached if "minimal" in a list was used to refer to the size of the images? I'm thinking of a size that is really too small to make out exactly what is going on so you would have to click and go to the article to see a large enough image, yet the list size would be large enough to serve as an icon for the item in the list and identifyable to someone who has seen the larger image on the main article. WAS 4.25011:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, copyright is copyright, and a derivative (such as a thumbnail) is still just as copyrighted. Seraphimblade11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Icon sized images illustrating items in a list is without doubt fair use in legal terms. The only issue is Wikimedia policy designed to minimize wikimedia use of fair use in order to fulfill the foundation goals of both gratis and libre content. To that end, they insist we only have as few exceptions as are needed. The issue is if this is to be one of those exceptions. If we have consensus for it to be one of those exceptions then we can have lists with icon sized images illustrating items in a list both legally due to fair use law and by policy as policy allows for explicit exceptions to not using fair use. WAS 4.25014:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Although we have more than icon size images, most of the images are at pretty much full resolution (I'd consider 480p full resolution for an NTSC tv grab) on their image pages and most of those are only used on the lists. Obviously, our policy is the more restrictive thing by far, but I wanted to point out that we're not actually just talking about tiny icons.--Gmaxwell16:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that allowing icon sized images to illustrate items in a list might be a workable compromise. Like flags in a list of countries. WAS 4.25020:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal and if necessary protection on episode lists
I'm about to take the step of removing the images again and protecting the page, as the above-cited examples look to me a pretty clear example of decorative and excessive fair use. Thoughts? Seraphimblade12:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So long as you don't delete the images, no harm will be done by removing them from the list and protecting it. Is it true that the images still appear on the individual episode articles? CMummert · talk13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone and deleted some of the orphaned fair use images (which is standard practice). Obviously, this huge image gallery of episode screenshots should never exist in the first place. --Cyde Weys15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If the only place the images were used was the template, then deleting them is more reasonable. Some individual episodes of TV shows have their own pages, and I think that one fair use image per page is much harder to argue against. CMummert · talk16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Orphaned" means not used anywhere (following the removal of the image galleries from episode list pages). If the image is used on an article for an individual episode, that is a bit different. --Cyde Weys16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
100% support, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder wiht you at ArbCom if it is challenged. I am too busy on RL work right now to offer to tag team with you to satisfy the process wonks, but in the end the burden of evidence is and always will be on those seeking to include. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Same support here. And I'd even go a step further and question the legitimacy of the images on the main episode articles too. As a rule of thumb, any routine use of nonfree images across a large series of articles, for instance in infoboxes, is highly dubious. It encourages editors to include such images without regard to individual fair use justifications. For proper fair use, it is generally necessary that images be at least individually referred to in article text (typically for purposes of critical analysis and commentary). Infobox images very often have no close connection to the surrounding article at all, apart from being a nice piece of decoration. Fut.Perf.☼14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Support here. I find it sort of odd that the supporters of these images can't understand how 1 image per episode is not "minimal use" but is, rather, a decorative use. Maybe this will help: check out the lists of family guy episodes at tv.com, epguides.com, planet-familyguy.com, and about.com. Those are nice, informative lists, and none of them use more than a few screenshots. We do not have any need to illustrate each episode these lists, which is why the use of those images violates FU. Mangojuice16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Most of our own featured lists in other subject areas are not heavily illustrated, even when they could easily be with free images that we already have... I honestly believe that some folks decided to use these articles as an example of non-free content being permitted. They picked a bad example. It's time to stop it. --Gmaxwell17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems nobody has alerted editors of this discussion, which concerns a large portion of Misplaced Pages. Therefore I'll take the task to alert a few. Matthew12:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I predict this will not actually help; there exists a sizeable proportion of the user base who do not understand, or do not accept, restrictions on fair use. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if a large portion of the people commenting here thought the over use of fair use was a great idea, that does not override the decree of the Wikimedia Foundation. The use of images per episode in long lists of episodes adds little in the way of encyclopedic value for the "gain" of having a bunch of non-free images in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be free. This argument keeps cropping up in a variety of forums, and the answer is always the same; walk to freedom. --Durin14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Who's trying to override it? Using a screenshot isn't forbidden by that decree, in fact it allows unfree images for contemporary copyrighted works, which is what TV and movies are. --Minderbinder15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoting from the resolution, ", with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Narrow limits. An image for every episode in a list is hardly within narrow limits. --Durin15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. For 20-60 minutes worth of material, a low rez image of 1/24th-1/30th of a second seems pretty darn minimal. --Minderbinder15:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"Narrow limits", clearly no arbitrary number. Hence "narrow" would be consensual/opinion (and I agree with the above, one low-resolution screencap is minimal to me). Matthew15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please look to the upper left of the screen you are currently viewing. Observe the logo. Observe the last text line of the logo. "The 💕". Fair use images are not free. The use of fair use images compromises our goals and needs to be limited as much as possible. If you're not dedicated to the development of free content, you are focused on the wrong goals. --Durin15:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The important criterion is still what you do with them. Identification and critical commentary is what the guideline says, and that's a pretty good approximation. As long as the text of your article doesn't contain explicit analysis of some aspect of the visual appearance of the show that would be impossible to understand without the image, fair use is simply not an issue. Fut.Perf.☼15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I was actually quoting WP:NONFREE (although the formulation about "identification and critical commentary" is in the sentence dealing with cover art; the one about screenshots is even more restrictive: "critical commentary" only. Also look at the very next sentence, which deals with number of quoted items and with the necessity of having explicit textual analysis even for justifying a smallish number.) Fut.Perf.☼15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the use of fair use images in an animated sitcom's list of episodes is certainly within the narrow limits of that "limited exception." 1/39600 (22 minute episode * 60 seconds * 1/30th (for the standard 30 frames/second) = 39600) of the available image for an episode? Seems perfectly reasonable. --badlydrawnjefftalk15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll apply the argument given by some on your side above: "Each is independently copyrighted". So therefor you are using 100% of a copyrighted work, clearly too much. :)--Gmaxwell16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you have to delve into math in order to justify the presence of a fair use image, it's not justified. --Durin15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Where has anyone but you made this argument? I've only seen you make this silly comment, over and over. --Minderbinder16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a justification of these fair use images, in this case the burden is on those wishing to include the images. —— Eagle10115:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing them either. Each image should have a unique justification why it is necessary and uniquely suited to explain some important point of discussion. Since we are talking about images used on lists which are almost completely devoid of discussion, I find it hard to believe that you've met this criteria. --Gmaxwell16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Minderbinder, feel free to re-state your justifications, right now all I'm seeing is stuff about how we are only using a "small percentage", which does not go in line with our current fair use policy, which requires a handwritten message saying why fair use is required in the context that the image is used in. I find it hard to justify the use of 307 images as was found on one list. —— Eagle10116:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Policy says use is permissible: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." While there are probably some where this isn't met, it's contrary to policy to declare that no list is meeting this. It even seems that some feel that it isn't possible for a list of TV episodes to do this - this situation would probably be less ugly, and less bad faith assumed about the deletionists if removals were actually based on policy instead of a knee-jerk "gee, that seems like a lot" or even a blanket assumption that all screenshots (or all screenshots on episode lists) fail WP:FU. --Minderbinder16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The images are still unjustified. There is no commentary on the list, there is an episode recap. Perhaps you need to review your word choice in the future before you try again. -M18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Coming in here late, I see. It never ceases to amaze me when people try to claim that a large number of supporters to violate policy should be the "winners" in a discussion like this. It doesn't matter if there were 1000 people who said, "keep all of the fair use images just as they are", if the Foundation says we can't do it, we can't do it. If this continues, we might wind up going the way of other language Wikipedias and banning fair use altogether, which may not be a bad thing, but abuse like this is leading down that path. Corvus cornix16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Here an example. Image:RahXephon_episode_9.jpg. Please tell me how that jives with the text that is presented in List_of_RahXephon_media. (its Small_Shrine_of_Time to help you find it). Looking at that image, I can't see how it is doing anything *but* decoration. The image description says something about how the shrine doors are open is an important fact, but the list text does not even mention the shrine.... mmm... I can dig up more and question more fair use rationals if we really want to ;) —— Eagle10116:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh heck I'd question the use of the image on the article as well... its not illistrating anything that can't be described. I don't see any talk about this shrine at all... In any case, how is this one image, (out of the whole list) justified? —— Eagle10116:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It uniquely identifies the episode in question because the shrine doesn't look like that before or after (its doors are shown open later, but that is in a dreamlike vision where it looks totally different.)--GunnarRene17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok... But I don't see any commentary about that at all in either the article or the list. Hence the lack of justification. —— Eagle10118:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It comments on the work (the episode in question). The episode article is a work in progress, created because all the encyclopedic information didn't fit into the list.--GunnarRene18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There are 15 featured List of X episode pages. Five of them are currently fine and look like any other featured list, sparsely illustrated if at all. The remaining, however, are overloaded with decorative non-free images. Start your vacuums. (and update my comment as you clean them out). --Gmaxwell16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All three deleted, per standard practice of what happens to non-free images that do not justify a claim of fair use. --Cyde Weys16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better not to rush to delete these; it's clear that they are part of a bigger set of images, and they are not only used in the list, they are used in the per-episode pages as well. While you can delete images iwth no fair use rationale, it seems hasty not to give people a day or two to insert them here. CMummert · talk16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've not seen one image yet with a decent fair use rational... that is out of the 30 or so that I've looked at. This is getting silly. —— Eagle10116:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
People are probably confused (I was confused about this a while back) about the difference between a fair use copyright tag and an explicit fair use rationale. The solution is to educate the people about it and give them a very short deadline, rather than shooting first. CMummert · talk17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Which policy is it you are worried about? Following the link, I see a list of images, but not the images themselves... --OnoremDil17:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you are welcome to work on fixing it :) But the rationals for each article needs to be very good. Especially when trying to justify the need for 200+ images in a list. —— Eagle10117:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well come on, that's obvious! 200 episodes, you MUST have an image for each episode, else the reader won't be able to identify the subject episode in question. --Durin17:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think there is a rationale for the screenshots in the lists. But when each episode has its own article, one can rationalize having one screenshot on that article, just like a movie. This is given as an example in the fair use rationale guidline. CMummert · talk17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please focus on the lists first? Lets not distract ourselves with episode articles where our position is not as clearcut. --Gmaxwell17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
CMummert, it doesn't contribute much. It might illustrate the episode in question (might) but show me an article that discusses the scene in question in a critical, evaluative way. The images are decorative. --Durin17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All I'm asking for is a justification for each image that says how the image is being used, and then the image in turn being used and discussed with the text, not just some thing sitting on the right hand or left hand side of a list. —— Eagle10117:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But but but, it illustrates the episode!!!! Seriously, Eagle 101 is spot on. If the article doesn't discuss the image, it's outside of fair use. --Durin17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying the image in Star Wars also fails to qualify as fair use, because the article doesn't critique the logo? Star Wars isn't a good example. What about the screenshot in Raging_Bull? The fair use rationale guideline specifically uses "screenshot from a movie" as an example of a valid rationale. CMummert · talk17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We'ere talking about episode lists here, so why not confine your arguments to those for now.. there are plenty of them. --Gmaxwell17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on image justifications for these in the lists. I could go dig up more examples if we wish. :) —— Eagle10117:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Resp. to Gmaxwell and Eagle - I support removing the images from the lists. I was trying to explain why i don't think the images should also be deleted right away if they are currently being used in other articles as well. Removing the images from the lists only requires editing the template in question so that it stops transcluding the image. That would work if they only used templates... CMummert · talk17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well most use the episode list template... But removing it there has been tried but the use seems specifically designed to make doing that nearly impossible. Doing so goofs up the headers and the layout. --Gmaxwell18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well i think admin User:Cburnett's answer was clear enough on that one: "Revert: 1) there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONSENSUS to remove this field; 2) this is protected to prevent fiddling with it; 3) the format of every inclusion is messed up". The transclusions of this template are very high, and the template is VERY complicated. If you want to change something, it needs to be discussed and TESTED before you do it. Freaking admins thinking they know everything sometimes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Overlong plot summaries, and articles consisting almost entirely of such, are definitely also a fair-use problem that ought to be addressed at some point. Yes. Fut.Perf.☼17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, I think at some point the whole issue of episode-specific articles should be examined. But right now we should focus on fair use images in lists. ChazBeckett18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
he whole issue of episode-specific articles should be examined" Do we really need to go there again? It's so freaking pointless and repetitive. Fact is that some episodes are notable, and the other fact is, you can't stop people from creating ones that are not notable. The distinction between what is and what is not, is too hard to clearly define, so it will always be a problem area. Get over it, fix what you can based on WP:EPISODE and stop the whining already. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If overlong plot summaries violate fair use, then how have CliffsNotes and SparkNotes managed to stay in business all these years? Their entire raison d'être is to provide highly detailed plot summaries and analyses of literary works, many of which are copyrighted. Has there ever been a case in which it was even claimed by a copyright holder that a plot summary violated their copyright? *** Crotalus ***19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah thats subject to debate, but that is not the focus of this section. The concern seems to be fair use images on lists... especially in large numbers. —— Eagle10119:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think Misplaced Pages's actual legal exposure is negligible; I am not aware of any case in which screenshots of TV shows were claimed to violate fair use, even in much larger galleries and with much less commentary per image than is the case here. (Check out some fan sites and you will see large galleries of screenshots posted for each episode in many cases.) Since these screenshots are an extremely minimal portion of the episodes (criteria #3) and in no way prevents the copyright holder from profiting from the episodes (criteria #4), I think that including one screenshot for each episode in a list, accompanied by about a paragraph of commentary apiece, is clearly fair use under U.S. law. The question here is whether it is fair use under the much more restrictive policies of the Foundation. Too often people tend to confuse the two, and I'm concerned that this kind of confusion may give aid and comfort to the "content industry" forces that would like to do away with fair use entirely. *** Crotalus ***19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please be watchful of deleting all images and then protecting. That unmakes the featured status of lists that only had episode images (featured list criteria nr. 3). For Fullmetal Alchemist, you should place an image such as Image:Fma dvd.jpg in the lead. --GunnarRene18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed criteria #3. That should solve the problem. By the way, I do think it's kind of funny that you seem to think that featured list criteria, which are an unofficial thing put together by editors, can trump WMF Board resolutions. --Cyde Weys20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The criterium was there because it makes lists better, and it did not violate any policy or guideline. It's not funny at all. --GunnarRene20:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of criteria #3. It states that a FL "has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status" (vbolding mine). Nothing in that encourages the inapproriate use of fair use images. If proper, acceptable fair use rationales can be provided, then that is fine by the WMB, and also fine by the FL process. If no fair use rationale can be provided, then WMB say the image should go, and the FL process supports that. If you have followed WP:FLC at all within the last couple of months, you'll see that objectioms get raised whenever there are Fair Use images. The people who need convicnign are those at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television. On a related note, I have been trying to get the FL criteria changed to explicitly state that use of a copyright image for every single item on the list is "excessive" as per WP:FAIR #3. Please comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tompw (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Personally, I still think this is dead wrong, but if consensus is that way...well, guess I've got no choice but to live with it. Anyway, in the interest of positive improvement, anyone have thoughts on how these lists can be made more visually attractive? Because frankly, striped of images, they just look ugly.--Fyre238722:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your opinion anyway. Also, I would like to apologize if this came off too hostile: I won't lie and say I like this, but I do want to make a good faith effort to work with it.--Fyre238722:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been involved in this in a few musical performer articles...
I have seen articles about musical performers which contain discographies with album covers. I've deleted those album covers out of the people articles, as under fair use, they could be used only to illustrate an article about the album. But then there is a question about "succession boxes". If there is an article on Album One, which says it is the first album by performer X, and there is a succession box down below which shows that his second album was Album Two, is a thumbnail image of the album cover of Album Two allowed in the succession box in the article about Album One? Corvus cornix20:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As long as those discographies are not in gallery form (<GALLERY> or work-the-same), and they otherwise satisfy the criteria, they are OK. Thumbnails in succession are less likely to be OK, since while discussion of the albums is likely in the artist article, discussion of the next and previous album is less likely in individual album articles. In either case, proportion of representaion is not increased as long as each album has an article. --GunnarRene20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that. "work the same" would just be a collection of images, which is pretty much what we have in these discographies. Corvus cornix22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that, per WP:ALBUM, "Cover images should not be included in the chronology, as that would not be fair use," which I completely agree with. Incidentally, if anyone wants to go at The Used and related articles, I noticed they have lots of cover images in the chronology. (I was gonna do it a while ago but lost energy.) --Iamunknown20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
P
Random arbitrary section break 1,594,464,135,947,825,310
This discussion is going on too long. The question is: Are the images necessary? If they aren't necessary, then the images are decorative because it's there only to make the page look nicer. --myselfalso17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I've yet to see one fair use rational out of 200+ image justifiying just one image out of a 200+ image collection. Just for fun I've found yet another image (its not hard just click any of the lists listed above, and click any random image)
This Image:Springfield_Up.png at least has a fair use justification that is somewhat valid. its being used to identify homer simpson, though I would think we could find a better image for this, (one of just homer). But the fair use justification has nothing about being used to identify an episode. I found this image on The_Simpsons_season_18. Please justify the need to use that image in the context of the list, thanks. —— Eagle10117:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats the exact viewpoint that the foundation takes, and it's the one that allows us to keep fair use here. We can only have the FU if there is no other option. A list does not need to be prettified with pictures. It's a list. Prettify the episode article (or better yet, dont, and get rid of episode articles that dont meet the WP:N requirement of multiple, nontrivial sources). -M18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It is true that myselfalso has simplified the situation, and deliberately so. However, air date is an irrelevance to this discussion because it is not copyrighted. The entire nature of this debate is applying our policy on lists containing large numbers of copyrighted images which have been claimed to be fair use. Whether or not air date should be included is a matter for discussion on the article talk page as it is not affected by policy. Will (aka Wimt) 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They are not necessary. none of the content of Misplaced Pages is. Cavemen did without it for the longest time, and many people in world still do without just fine. However in order for the article to be somewhat useful, I think they ARE necessary. I cannot remember the last time i used on of these pages by looking at the titles. If I'm on such a page, it's usually because I want information about a specific episode. If I haven't seen the episode, I'm in general not interested in such a page. The images are the best way for me to identify the episodes in almost all cases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Screenshots are not necessary. They can never be representative of an entire episode, which is made up of many different scenes; are insufficient to illustrate an episode summary, which is its own can of worms; legally ticklish; and, finally, something that screenshot supporters are seeming to miss in droves, clearly against policy. It is a simple matter to me, but its supporters are trying to complicate the issue. JuJube21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is disputed, obviously, so established lists, some of which are featured, should be modified afterwards, not beforehand. - Peregrine Fisher23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you crushed yet?
I first encountered these episode lists a while back when User:Matthew came into the tech IRC channel asking about his problems with a List of Episodes page. The page was hitting the 2 megabyte transclusion limit due to the fancy markup needed to add all the images. I and several others told him that the images were a violation of our policies. He said he didn't care. Someone advised him that he should care because eventually people would come delete them and he'd have to argue with admins. Matthew's response was "Why would I argue with them? I have no need to. We just crush them. We then laugh.". So my question to all, is.. are you crushed yet? Can Matthew begin his laughing now? --Gmaxwell19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this all makes sense now. You're disrupting the work of lots of editors - many of whom has worked to provide fair use rationales - because one editor behaves badly. I'm ashamed at how I have foisted this kind of work on others when it's all in vain.
I especially like how lists with significant amounts of text have been called "galleries" to put a "copyright enforcement" face on all this.
Is is this a temporary lesson for Matthew to abide by policy, or is it something we have to live with for a longer time? --GunnarRene19:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For some context Matthew's comment was made a month and a half ago. I'd forgotten until I saw him making adminship hitlists in his userspace. So, your your allegation of a grudge is off the mark... sorry I gave that impression. Rather I saw Matthews comment as a statement that he thought he could use querulousness and throngs of uninformed TV fans to manipulate policy. He's wrong, of course, but I think it's an interesting point. --Gmaxwell20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice how you forgot to include the rest of the discussion, eh ;-)? Also, I imagine you would be "crushed" when people begin to wake up... notice how you've received little opposition in removing them? That's because you're doing nothing but bringing awareness. Matthew20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, shame on you, Matthew for using that language and for invoking WP:IAR. That was not the way to discuss policy and guidelines. Rational discussion of principles, policies and guidelines work better. --GunnarRene20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Laudable, why don't you ask Greg to post the full log ;-)? Oh, and I'm shamed... *honest*. Matthew20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
... I don't consider what other editors are doing with fair use lists to be punishment for what Matthew said. I think you may have stretched Gmaxwell's comment a bit. --Iamunknown20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the header of this section... I'm still waiting on rationals, especially to the images that I found and listed above. —— Eagle10120:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The Fullmetal Alchemist list had rationales. Some of those struck had boiler-plate (which is not enough, we've argued), while some listed above do have specific rationales. Note that when you're reading rationales, the work in question is the series or episode, not just the screenshot of it. Does the screenshot identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text? in other words, commentary in the text on this particular screenshot is not what we're after. --GunnarRene20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
FUC nr. 8 says "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.", while FUC nr. 3 says, in part "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." (And the purpose here is to discuss and identify the show and its episdodes.) Now, the part about how the fair use rationale has to be custom-written for each and every image is our own interpretation of FUC nr. 10. It could be that a single rationale can be copied to all episodes in one list, but on the Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates we have followed the practice that each rationale has to be unique (though with some invariant points). Please tell us if we were wrong to do that. --GunnarRene20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It can be argued (and I will argue) that screenshots do not contribute significantly to episode lists since they're only one snapshot of a particular scene in a particular episode. JuJube21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. Fair use is allowed to "complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ". It's those limits that we are discussing, and if the fair use criteria of this project (Misplaced Pages) are followed, those limits are narrow enought to satisfy the board resolution. I was around for the new board resolution, and the biggest change here is the policy towards "by-permission" or "non-commercial-only" licenses. --GunnarRene20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting how the phrase "within narrow limits" has been construed by some as "fair use is ok everywhere on an article". --Durin20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain how. The images in question are used exactly once on the page to describe exactly one aspect of the article. If more than one image were used to describe that aspect of the article, it would be a violation because one image is enough to convey the visual aspect of the episode and a second would add nearly nothing to it. I would be of the opinon that a fair-use image be used exactly twice on all of wikipedia (once on the list of ... episodes page, and once on the page dedicated to the episode). Any other use of that image would likely violate fair-use.--Will2k20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So hundreds of images on a list of episodes article constitutes "within narrow limits"? I could wallpaper my entire house with this stuff. The images in question are not commented on in the article. They provide nothing useful to support any critical commentary. The justification that they serve to highlight the episode, when the mass of images are mashed all together...just can't be supported. We are a 💕. We are not The 💕 except in thousands of articles where we have to have an image just to have an image, because we're not going to comment on the image but it somehow adds value. --Durin20:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No, we are not the 💕, we are an encyclopedia with free content within the geographical and legal boundaries of the United States of America. To say that Misplaced Pages is Free is hypocritical. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my position. I will not reiterate my entire position. I have posted it more than enough times. It would be more cordial of you to
Then by all means explain to me how adding dozens upon dozens, in some cases hundreds, of copyrighted images to an article encourages progress towards our goal of being a 💕? Every argument in favor of fair use crashes into that insurmountable wall. Copyrighted works are not free. --Durin20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't redact the whole thread, whoever did it; some of it is not off-topic (though the IRC stuff is). --Iamunknown20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it was not productive. This whole issue has just exploded along the same lines as before. sigh --Iamunknown20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Propose executive decision
On the subject of going too long, this discussion goes back several times as linked to above by Peregrine Fischer and on pretty much every discussion page for each list that has at one point had an image removed on fair use grounds. Bottom line is there are arguments which claim the images in lists constitute fair-use and arguments against it. Everyone has their own view. I would recommend we as users stay out of the discussion and defer the issue to Wikimedia Foundation lawyers to lay down an executive decision on the use of images so we can stop arguing over it. --Will2k20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We do not currently have a legal counsel. Brad Patrick left and the board is searching for a new counsel. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) --Iamunknown20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats not how things are done here in any case. Besides, nothing but a court can give you a certian conclusion on matters of fair use. Some things are more clear some things are less clear. But if you are using someone elses copyright works your never free and clear. Our own policy is pretty clear on this. The majority of our vested and established users seem to support that... It's true that the overall direction given by the foundation is "minimize", but we shouldn't expect them or ask them to micromanage our licensing policy. It wouldn't scale and it wouldn't produce good results. --Gmaxwell20:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We have to make an exception. The edit wars resulting from differing opinion is not helping the project. The fact that this discussion has dragged on so long clearly indicates the users are not capable of finding consensus even though that is how things are done here--Will2k20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine WMF board members have seen pages like these and have chosen not to include them in any official statement. - Peregrine Fisher21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That they may have seen the lists and have yet not included them in a statement is not an indication that they either condone or are opposed to their existence; it merely means that they have not included them in a statement. --Iamunknown21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Repeat after me: The board is not in the business of micromanaging our copyright enforcement. --Gmaxwell21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They've already made their statement. I really don't think saying exception policies (if they exist at all, and many projects make no exceptions whatsoever!) must only allow minimal usage is terribly unclear. Dozens or even hundreds of fair-use images for every TV series in existence is not minimal, non-decorative usage. A single screenshot in the main article about a TV show, especially if the screenshot serves to illustrate that show's unique style and is discussed in the article, may well be reasonable and necessary. If a particular episode has a particularly well-known (outside the series' fans) or controversial scene, a screenshot of that might be appropriate, as in that case it would be being discussed specifically. But most of what I've been seeing here is purely decorative, unneeded fair use. As to WMF commenting, we have several Board members with accounts on en. I'm sure they've noticed this thread, if they intended to comment, I do imagine they would have done so by now. But anyone who wants to is certainly welcome to email them and request a clarification. Seraphimblade21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No one's advocating prohibiting them, and we don't prohibit them. What is prohibited is to use tons of them. If one image is overwhelmingly necessary, write up an individual rationale as to why. But as evidenced by the discussion above, it's pretty clear that the use of dozens or hundreds of such images is not considered appropriate. Seraphimblade21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Well, there are a couple of folks who want to prohibit all inclusions of non-free content... and every argument where I see people try to argue that the fact that we allow a minimum justifies allowing much more I move closer to switching to the position that we should not allow any at all because the loss in the quality of our coverage doesn't make up for the endless arguments from folks pushing for changes which will decrease the freeness of our output. --Gmaxwell21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, arguments like these don't help matters. My position is rather clear: I'm against bulky, ineffective compilations of screenshots in episode list, where they're clearly not necessary since the article should be a simple listing of episodes. I think they're fine in individual episode articles, character articles and show articles as illustrative. However, if people keep pushing for their South Park featured lists with 236236326326222 screenshots, we're going to end up not being able to use anything at all. JuJube21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The lines are clearly drawn. There are those people who feel we should have a 💕, and there are those who are not interested in that goal. There's no real middle ground. Policy and resolutions support the former group, and not the latter. This does not stop the squabbling however. --Durin21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? PF is absolutely right, this "free" site allows nonfree content. And declaring "policy supports me" doesn't make it so. I guess the foundation isn't interested in that goal since they've made it clear that they allow nonfree content. If you really feel there's no middle ground, I'd encourage you to contact them and encourage them to forbid all fair use, that's the only way to remove any middle ground. In the meantime, quit pretending that "policy and resolutions" forbid nonfree content. --Minderbinder21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The big issue here is that while the English Misplaced Pages does allow non-free content, it is imperative that that non-free content be used minimally. Having 100 non-free images on a page because it is an episode list is not minimal use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The big issue here is that people are having a hard time with what "minimal" is. It's being argued that one image per episode is minimal in an episode list article. JuJube22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That's absurd. Zero images total is minimal for an episode list. That's what many episode lists have. The debate is over there <------ but you're claiming it's over there ------> Cyde Weys22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not opposed to no images in episode lists. That's my preference, actually. But I'm telling you that that's what people have, and will continue to, argue, as long as we keep using the word "minimal" and not a concrete number that can't be argued against. JuJube22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually zero images total is minimal for any article. So I guess you interpret "minimal" as the foundation banning all nonfree content? Funny how people only seem to be insisting on No Images on articles about TV shows. --Minderbinder23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the interpretation of "minimal" needs to be clear and not dependent on whoever is looking at it and for whatever purposes they might hope to gain from it. I am not for no fair use images in every article, just in episode lists. JuJube23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And lists are supposed to be navigational. There is no need to include unfree images in navigational aids, and it can hardly be argued that the navigational purpose is undermined by lack of images, which is the essential fair use rationale on the main articles. Of course, if someone were to suggest that we merge the directories of episodes into series articles, on the grounds that we are not an episode guide, a rationale might be made in respect of individual entries. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So if you want to rid us of that pesky middle ground, have you contacted the foundation and urged them to ban all nonfree content yet? I'm serious. --Minderbinder23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't see any of that, this was the garden-variety external link type. Still, I figured we should give him credit for effort and an indef block. Seraphimblade10:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the idea, though I really should be commenting at the talk pages, not here. Not really an admin issue. InBC14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We could rename RFA to "Featured User Candidates". We could make all sorts of, er, delightful puns with that FUCing phrase. >Radiant<16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We could have a Featured Administrators' Noticeboard Incident Thread (WP:FANIT), but I wouldn't want to suggest anything ever hits fans around here. Antandrus (talk)20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Count Hindu (talk·contribs), was created afterward. This nonsense brings up the question of if there is sock-puppetry going on, due to the timing patterns and similar nature of the vandalism. I could do an investigation, but I have neither the energy or time. My main concern is Reapersss x, which I feel mocks my user-name, and I feel should be blocked for that, the unconstructive edit, and possible sock-puppetry amongst the chaos on the TVDSB articles in early December 2006. Thank you. -- Reaper X16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Reapersss x as a vandal only account when this was first posted at RFCN, not sure why it was moved here. InBC16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I was advised to take it to WP:RFCN, and they shot it back here. Nonetheless I was unaware the user was already blocked. Thank you anyway, case resolved. -- Reaper X18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
HD-DVD decryption key
Someone might want to go through and remove the decryption key from HD-DVD's history. Something like that could get Wikimedia sued into oblivion. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've removed all the versions since the key was added this morning- no content worth keeping had been added (and actually some had been lost) so no GDFL issues. But it may still occur futher back in the history. Thoughts on whether we need to remove all mention? WjBscribe17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's OK- it shouldn't come up on any searches or anything. There's not much can we do about it really. It has to be listed somewhere for cascading protection to work. At least we can say we've taken all steps we can to remove the info if there are further complaints. WjBscribe18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As I have just noticed an anon pointed out on the talk page, another key remains at the bottom of the HD_DVD#Muslix64.27s_exploit section. I'm not really too sure about the meaning of such keys, but should this be removed as well as it clearly isn't necessary to the article? Will (aka Wimt) 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
DMCA-wise, I think the key is only a major issue if there's some context as to how to use it to circumvent copyright. I'm no law-talking-person though. Without that context, the number is completely useless and would need deletion (WP:CSD A1 and such) anyways. I like how they're crying censorship on Slashdot and Digg, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Although, it is building up a considerable amount of e-notability. Wired has an article on it, among notable sites. We may need the actual foundation law people to comment on this... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We can have an article on "X" without the article being "X". We can write about the leaked key without including the leaked key. WP:NOT a circumvention tool. :) --Gmaxwell23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser request mentions BryanFromPalatine, NeilinOz1 isn't directly related by IP but was mentioned as using open proxies. A quick glance at their contribs shows a sudden return from hiatus right around the time other users mentioned in the RfCU were active in a particualr dispute, and also a rather stunning familiarity with policy and Jimbo quotations for somebody with 0 prior edits in any projectspace... hrrm. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jeff is a controversial figure, can be an odd fellow and can rub people up the wrong way. But he's shown himself over the past year or so to be a basically good guy and utterly sincere in wanting to play nice with the Wikimedia projects, and hasn't caused anywhere near the fuss he did on en:wp since working on stuff elsewhere (notably a lot of hard work on Cherokee and other native American language wikis and MediaWiki work). And notably, he's not making any of the legal threats he did last time around, and has stated he plans to avoid the article about him.
So if he does come back to en:wp, I (speaking just for me) hope admins will not react reflexively but will work with him in a productive manner for all.
(And I know the last person I said this about was Jason Gastrich, and that didn't work out well at all. But this is not IMO a comparable case.) - David Gerard21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a given that he's not allowed to edit his own article? WP:AUTO is one thing, but add in history, and that's a no-brainer. --Cyde Weys23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering if you could help us here. HoneyBee and Myself have some difficulties with a new user Joe Dick. He has removed a large amount of content from the Methos and Duncan MacLeod articles and each time the content is reverted back he claims vandalism on our parts and refuses to discuss his reasons on the talk pages. Not only that he has been reverting the warnings placed on his talk page leaving a message on our talk page stating Please do not post any further invalid warnings to my talk page, or I will report you. Please can you help resolve this as he will not listen to any regular users, Thanks -- UKPhoenix7922:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you read the talk pages, you will find that I have in fact stated my reasons and have attempted to discuss things, to no avail. Joe Dick22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to take thoughts here on what people think of creating a new noticeboard that all username issues can go through. If you check the link above, you will see my proposal, it works very similar to AIV, usernames can be reported, a few comments if required, then blocked or allowed to edit, users can take the borderline cases which they don't agree with here (and I believe that will only be a couple a week). Basically it incorporates WP:AIV with WP:RFCN but with far less bureacracy. We need to get this issue sorted once and for all. Obviously there's the RFCN MfD going on at the minute, but we need to sort something out before (if?) it gets deleted. I would propose we call the page Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against usernames or WP:AIU for short. I would appreciate comments. Ryan Postlethwaite22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea very much. I've followed Ryan's proposal since he began working on it, and it's a great way to reduce and refine work at AIV. The renaming suggested by Mischa seems perfect too. Kickstart the new system at will! Phaedriel - 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved – No more backlog, at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
