Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive472

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Deleted article on user page[edit]

My understanding of the rules about user pages, specifically Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages, is that they're not designed as an indefinite space for deleted articles. User:Presumptive has a copy of an article on The murder of Joseph Didier which has been deleted three times in various forms and for various reasons [1] [2] [3]. The deletion was upheld at DRV [4]. At one point she even suggested that her user page would become a memorial as a result of its high google ranking [5]. It's been suggested twice [6] [7] that she create a sub page if she wants to continue to work on the article, though she went on wikibreak without doing anything about it. I took the initiative and removed it a day or so ago. Today Presumptive returned from her break, and restored the article with warnings attached that no one was allowed to scroll to the bottom of her page to view it. As I have no desire to edit war on another editor's user page, I'd appreciate an administrator looking into this, as there has been some troubling behavior from this user including tendentious editing on the September 11 article [8] and asking another user to give her access to an admin account [9]. AniMate 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that having been deleted and drv'd it is innappropriate, at the very least it should be moved to a sub-page, and deleted if no improvements are made to it over time, although it's probably better of being deleted outright. As for the "do not look down" warnings, seems to me the user is trying to be clever/funny, obviously any person anywhere ever who reads that will scroll down and look (hands up anyone who didn't)--Jac16888 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I am the adopter of User:Presumptive, I adopted her when she was in some trouble on AN/I. She is somewhat eccentric and I'm sure she waits till I'm asleep to do these things lol:) I was hoping to see some improvement in her editing but there are a range of problems with this account and user, the main one seems to be a common sense bypass :) but I suspect other problems. Sticky Parkin 11:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that we give Sticky a few hours to counsel this user about this issue, and if no movement by tomorrow, GSD G4 Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to User:Presumptive/Murder of Joseph Didier. Who nobbled {{prod}} to bitch if used outside mainspace? Several people advised me to use prod for contentious userspace content as a low-drama way of dealing with it. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I must be losing my touch - someone else speedied that as G4. When was the last time someone else was more deletionist than me? Honestly, I think PROD was the right solution as it would have left it around long enough for the user to copy it offsite. Perhaps we could fork the PROD process for userspace junk that we temporarily undelete for people to copy away? It really is quite useful - undelete, move, delete the redirect, tag as a userpage and remove mainspace cats, add prod tag and walk away, nothing more to do. A week later, bingo, it's gone again. Everyone happy. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You're probably right, though she can just as easily ask an admin to give her a deleted copy via email or via a google cache as well. Thanks for taking the initiative though. AniMate 22:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • August 2008 discussion at WT:PROD#Prodding user pages challenged the late 2006 consensus to expand prod and allow user pages to be prodded. Allowing {{prod}} to continue to be used on userpages got no strong support. GRBerry 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Could someone please restore the original article to my userspace? As I made clear in the DRV, I think this is pretty darn notable and easily sourced with over 40 sources spanning 20 years... I likely won't get to it for months, but I will get to it. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ask me in a couple of months, and I will happily get you a copy of it. Whenever you're ready to work on it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Banned "Gay Pornography Vandal" is back[edit]

Every three months or so we have to renew a range block on the banned Gay Pornography Vandal; they obsessively check to see when it has ended, and it apparently has just recently. Could someone please renew. These are the current pages where they are removing content or lodging violent death threats against Wikipedia editors and celebrities. After that is the previous block discussion and which range to block:


Archived Discussion (see dates):

Notification: Rangeblock on 72.76.0.0/16

The IP range 72.76.0.0/16 has been soft-blocked (AO, account creation allowed) for a month due to ongoing activity related to harrassment of David Shankbone and vandalism to porn and adult themed articles. This rangeblock may need to be expanded if the stalker moves outside that IP range and will be extended in time if the harrasser returns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to whois, the full range is 72.64.0.0/11, but I haven't yet seen this one operating outside of 72.76.x.x, so a /16 seems the obvious place to start. Had figured this might come to a rangeblock if the abuse continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there were some back channel discussions on the /11, but as nearly all the abuse happened from that /16 I'm starting there. If they step outside that range please let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki can only block /16s. Blocking 32 different /16s (2 million addresses) to stop one vandal would be a really bad idea. Thatcher 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have undone George's block, since it is not the correct IP range for this particular miscreant. The three that are (71.127.224.0/20, 72.68.0.0/17, and 72.76.0.0/17 for future reference) are all blocked now. east.718 at 10:15, July 12, 2008

End of Archived Discussion


  • They are also spamming my site in edit summaries, which is verboten. --David Shankbone 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Shankbone, you spam your website in the Summary of every photo you have uploaded to Commons. Who do you think you're kidding??
  • 72.68.29.38 just vandalised King Charles Spaniel as part of this. I thought I'd report it here for consistency - please can someone block it. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tracked two attacks to Verizon. I suggest that either David or a Wiki official send the death threat diffs to abuse at verizon.net and ask them to take action. ϢereSpielChequers 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Those death threats freak me out. Poor David... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Status: Complete - the IP range was re-blocked this morning. --David Shankbone 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody called Mike Godwin?[edit]

This has gone beyond online harassment into a real world threat. David, what will you do when you see someone aiming a camcorder or other camera in your direction?? -- you'll think they're aiming a gun at you. Or you'll think that somebody's hiding in the trees or behind every bush, waiting to attack you. That's no way to live, in fear like that. The authorities should be contacted. And Lucas should have guards posted at his house, where you are, and others should be with you at all times. I fear you are not safe, nor is Lucas or anybody that's with you.

--72.76.81.27 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The Foundation has rarely, if ever, acted directly to help one of its contributors in situations like these. If you are concerned, you should contact local law enforcement directly. They will able to subpoena the ISP to divulge the name and address of the subscriber who had that IP address at the time the edit was made. Since the editor is contributing as an anonymous IP, you don't even need checkuser assistance. Thatcher 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • When people like David aim a camcorder or other camera at you, they want to take a free photo of you. Also, there is a policy called "no legal threats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The FBI were contacted in the past about it, but (I assume) as is the case in the UK, unless someone turns up on your doorstep they won't do much about it unfortunately:( I suppose if they were re-contacted to say more of it had happened, they might do something about it this time. Sticky Parkin 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He's back[edit]

See here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

East718's range block didn't take for some reason (maybe it doesn't like years as expire dates?). I redid it. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 12.160.202.152[edit]

The IP address 12.160.202.152 has over the past few weeks repeatedly added promotional material, often copied (verbatim or very nearly so) from other webpages such as this one. I realize there are complications regarding blocking IPs and I strongly suspect that if it were blocked another IP would take over (such as 24.62.152.77, which has posted in many of the same articles), but this IP is consistently disruptive and given how focused its edits are it appears to only be used by one person or organization (some sort of travel agency associated with the Azores perhaps), so I don't think blocking it would harm any innocent editors. Rohein (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 12.160.202.152 blocked, since multiple prior warnings have been given (last was L4). 2nd IP warned. I agree that both IPs seem to be involved with SATA International, given some of the linkspam and editing, particularly the removal of criticism from the SATA article here (although the IP is right, it was unsourced). Thanks for catching this - if it becomes problematic and more IP addresses appear, you might consider requesting semi-protection for the affected pages at WP:RFPP. EyeSerenetalk 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

admin Wo st 01 messsing around with Yevloyev[edit]

Can anybody stop admin Wo st 01 messsing around with Yevloyev ?

85.2.249.9 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wo st 01 (talk · contribs) is not an admin on the English Wikipedia, and has rarely edited here. He is an administrator on the German Wikipedia (see de:Benutzer:Wo_st_01) - if you have an issue with him, you should probably discuss it with him there. I see from your IP that you are based in Switzerland, so communication should not be an issue. Neıl 10:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Diffs on en.wiki pleaseRlevseTalk 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that Switzerland has three major languages, and many people there don't speak all of them very well. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is true, but given the user the IP mentions is German, it's a safe bet the IP speaks German. Neıl 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Userpages / Spam[edit]

I've been noticing recently that after I flag a spam article it appears on the authors userpage. Sometimes the usernames are clearly promotional and I've flagged them but I'm wonder what a "normal" editor should do if a userpage is basically a spam article? Do I csd it? Should I edit it and remove the spam? Are userpages treated differently? I didn't want to tread on toes too much! (Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but I figured there'd be some admin oversight in all of this!) --Blowdart | talk 10:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After talking with the user, an MfD or CSD would likely be next. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
See the relevant section at WP:UP for further information. SoWhy 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Aye, just found that myself finally! Thank you both, I'm starting out slowly with one user to see what sort of response there is :) --Blowdart | talk 10:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
just to emphasize: G11 (SPAM) does apply to userspace (G stands for General). -- lucasbfr talk 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So does G4, really. We often delete egregious end-runs around deletion policy under G4, there is a limit to how many kicks at the can any article gets. Good faith rewrite attempts are obviously OK, though. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:CSD#General, the general criteria apply to all namespaces, which by definition includes the User namespace. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Oops I thought you guys were saying they did not apply to the user namespace. Extracts foot from mouth.... – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning POV attack vandal Nangparbat[edit]

Hello all, I need a second opinion here. A couple weeks ago I made a series of rangeblocks to stop a repeat sockpuppeteer, User:Nangparbat from returning via IP addresses to attack other editors and accuse the site of biased, POV articles. He's back again, which at first makes me think we just need a larger rangeblock and then a few admins playing whack-a-mole with any IPs that pop up afterward, but the problem is these IPs are from BT Broadband, one of the UK's larger service providers. The large list of IP's I've collected (see User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Nangparbat) make it very clear that he's going all over the place, and so any rangeblocks applied would have huge collateral damage. Second thoughts on this? The vandal watch page I've linked lists all IP addresses used so far, which ones are active now, and blocks that have been previously enforced. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is some vandal who is really really dedicated in evading all blocks, maybe WP:ABUSE is the right answer? Just a thought... SoWhy 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Rangeblocks to UK Broadband providers (especially private subscribers) is fraught with problems. You get a new addy each time you log on, so a range that was used for vandalism one day is chock full of good faith contributors the next. I regret to say that abuse reports are not handled with the urgency one might desire (it is rumoured that the first complaint is always binned as standard practice). If wiki software cannot resolve it, go to the ISP and complain often and frequently and say you will refer it to the ombudsman if no joy. Best luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Some do, some don't. I'm on a permanent IP address. If you plug the IP into http://samspade.org/ and it shows "ASSIGNED PA", it's likely to be permanent over a term of months and can usually be safely blocked for such periods. FYI, Virgin Media give out static IPs, Tiscali don't. --Rodhullandemu 16:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool tool. I am aware that some ISP's (Tiscali for example) provide stable ip's (at a cost, since it is aimed at the business community) but the lower cost subscriptions are generally whatever is available at the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused now, as the check on Samspade shows that one of the recently used addresses is "ASSIGNED PA", and should be a stable IP, but this vandal has used at least nine IP addresses in the past few days alone. It seems like something's not adding up here.
For the record, I had thought of an abuse report, but I think that's more for after we've stopped the immediate problem, as the ISP is not going to pull someone's plug just on our say-so, and I have also had some rather slow experiences with those anyway. I'm looking to block first, and then consider contacting the ISP. The problem is, I'm not sure if we're better off rangeblocking or if we should just play whack-a-mole. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The ip may well be assigned, but not to that individual (place of work or other business that allows people internet access - or even a friend) necessarily. I think it is whack-a-mole at least for the time being. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
With BT broadband, the IPs are sometimes dynamic, sometimes stable, but if the IP is stable you can force it to change by rebooting your hub and not logging back on for a couple of hours. Range blocks are not going to help much, as BT broadband has a very wide range of IPs. Contacting BT Broadband's abuse department with a detailed list of IPs used and times they were used may work. Neıl 10:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
<- I'll work on filing a report, then. Fortunately I've got a very long list of IP's to give them. Thanks for the advice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about User:1oddbins1[edit]

User:1oddbins1 appears to be making large numbers of edits marked as "repairing disambigs", but many of them are actually disabling wikilinks: [10] and [11]. See also Special:Contributions/1oddbins1. I've dropped them a note on the user talk page expressing concern, but the user hasn't responded yet, even tho they have made a large number of edits in the meanwhile. This concerns me, because at the moment, the user is over 2300 edits of this nature, and I'm not sure if there's a way to fix these things, other than manually auditing those edits. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just him, I have noticed other editors using something called "wikicleaner", which claims to fix dablinks but in fact simply disables the link. DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess the script is broken or misconfigured or something. I'm really not in the mood to look at over 2000 edits and revert them. . And unfortunately, an earlier edit spree appears to have been correct [12], so not everything is wrong. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think some admin should review this and if he/she continues using wikicleaner, although it's apparently broken and despite being told so at the user talk page, he/she has to be blocked for the time being because it does constitute vandalism even if not intended. But I think we should hope he stops himself and some bot can do the cleanup afterwards (it just has to revert all changes by this user for a given time period after all). Also, I have left the user another note to stop and informed him about this discussion here, as people should be notified when their actions are discussed at WP:AN/I. Regards. SoWhy 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, no response from the user or an admin, so I am going to go over to AIV and see what they can make of it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Good call, I was about to do so myself, although it is not the correct place for it (because it's probably good faith tool usage) but something needs to be done. It enforces my belief that we need much more admins tho... SoWhy 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
the user was also modifying pages that should not be changed see my userspace page for an example. Canis Lupus 12:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, he uses a script that does that stuff automatically. I doubt he looked at the pages he edited... SoWhy 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User has already been blocked for one hour (12:21). Let's see where this goes. seicer | talk | contribs 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've blocked for an hour for now, hopefully he/she will respond. Maybe he/she didn't get the new message bar due to use of that tool, but he/she is responsible to check the edits, especially when made at a higher speed. --Oxymoron83 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and rollback all of those edits, even in cases where the script worked, it often disambiguated things to the wrong target[13]. Mr.Z-man 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought admins had a "rollback all edits for this user"? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you use the &bot=1 parameter instead of spamming the recent changes? That's what it is for. --Oxymoron83 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Because I didn't think of that :P (I've only had a reason to use it twice ever, this being the second time). Looking at the description for the script, it appears he was running it in automatic mode, I'll leave a note explaining that he needs bot approval to do something like this. Mr.Z-man 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While not responding to the inquiry, he has been repairing some links. seicer | talk | contribs 15:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed him pop back into my watchlist a little while ago, but these appear to be manually edited. Well, either that, or a more generic edit summary and much slower speed. Do wish he was a bit more communicative, tho. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help me?[edit]

I received a message that states "Editing from 64.12.0.0/16 has been disabled by Pilotguy for the following reason(s): you appear to be editing from a bypassed AOL proxy range." Apparently this block is indefinite.

The problem is, my AOL IP address is 209.247.22.166, which isn't even remotely like 64.12.0.0/16, so I don't understand what's going on. I contacted Pilotguy but he didn't respond.

If someone understand what's going on, could he/she please explain it to me? I don't know how I could even get a message intended for 64.12.0.0/16 if my IP address is 209.247.22.166, or how a block placed on 64.12.0.0/16 could affect me.

Based on another message left on Pilotguy's talk page, it appears I'm not the only one who is having this problem.

I had to use Internet Explorer to be able to send you this message. Please respond here, because I think that's the best way I'll see it. Thank you very much! 172.163.4.124 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This situation is rather complicated. The bottom line for you is that if you create an account using Internet Explorer, you will be able to log in from AOL and use it. The block only affects anonymous editing (although the block log does not reflect this due to a change in the blocking software).
The full answer is that 209.247.22.166 is your home cable IP address, not your AOL address. In the past, AOL was used extensively for vandalism because editors' IPs changed rapidly and AOL concealed your home address. AOL implemented XFF forwarding; they pass on your home address. The MediaWiki software trusts AOL and records your edits as coming from home rather than AOL; thus, any blocks for bad behavior affect the individual, not all of AOL. So the AOL range is blocked, preventing editors from making anonymous untraceable vandal edits, but the block is ignored as long as MediaWiki trusts the XFF information because it records the edit as coming from your home (or work or whatever) instead of AOL.
However, it appears that MediaWiki no longer trusts XFF information from AOL for that range, so all edits there are recorded as coming from the AOL range rather than the home addresses of the users. (The XFF information is saved and available to checkusers, but it is not trusted.) As a result, the original block of the AOL range takes effect.
Since this is an anonymous only block, you can fix the problem by registering an account. Or you can contribute anonymously using Internet Explorer, which accesses a different IP address than AOL's browser. And we can note this problem at the techincal forum to try and get it fixed. Thatcher 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing evasion of block by Wikitestor[edit]

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block. Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. As a result, his block was extended to one week. However, he has continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period. See 81.184.38.52, 67.161.4.108, 62.57.197.139, 81.184.38.42, and 62.57.197.82. Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184. Tennis expert (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He has just begun using anonymous IP account 81.184.39.254, too. Can't something be done about this? The blocking administrator has been notified but has not acted. Tennis expert (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of days left on the extended block, so perhaps a friendly reminder to the blocking admin 24 hours before it expires - if things haven't happened before then - would be the way to go? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I invite any admins who wish to do so to block the various dynamic IPs. I'm not 100% sure that User:Tennis expert has consensus for a number of his recent actions on tennis articles, so I have not been as vigorous as I might in pursuing the various socks. (The IPs are among his frequent opponents on the Talk pages of tennis articles). Rangeblocks don't seem practical. Undoing all the IPs' Talk contributions might be considered but could lead to further drama. User:Tennis expert would be performing a service if he opened up an WP:SSP report on Wikitestor and distinguished the active socks from those that aren't editing any more. That would simplify further actions, if any are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I was supposing (as opposed to assuming, for various Silence of the Lambs related reasons) that disruptive ip's were being reverted and reported already, and that the question was whether the already extended block needed reviewing. However, an SSP report would go some way in determining the extent of Wikitestors's ongoing disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I've extended Wikitestor's block to one month due to the continued block evasion, and semi-protected 2008 U.S. Open - Men's Singles as well as Jim Courier. To block the rotating IPs is not worthwhile, in my opinion, unless they are committing serious vandalism. It would be better to expand the semi-protection. I have yet to see the need to protect any Talk pages or to revert any Talk edits, but am open to suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Website using Wikipedia trademark content in order to advertise the website owner/maintainer[edit]

Take a look at this blatant use of Wikipedia sourcecode to pretend that the article is a Wikipedia article. Somebody else who has trademarked a similar nickname and was blocked for spamming about his (r) identity, has sent me an indignant demand to know why we permit the other guy to maintain this article on Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looked fine to me till the bottom, where he's got the "Wikimedia Project" logo pasted. Still, that makes it a Foundation issue, not sure there's much anyone here can do about it, directly ... Shereth 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, very nasty content as well. —Travistalk 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Cute; it's an article that was deleted from Wikipedia, but he has it linked into the disambiguation page John Bryant that was put in its place, complete with the note on the link to it, "It's a hell of a read, which is why it didn't take long for the followers of political correctness to take it down". Guess he didn't read the notability criteria. I don't know what there is to do about it, though, unless Mike Godwin thinks it would be entertaining to pursue it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the procedure for this is, but if you send something to info (at) wikimedia (dot) org, we can hopefully get it forwarded to someone higher up. You could also try starting a discussion on foundation-l (at) lists (dot) wikimedia (dot) org John Reaves 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I’ve taken the liberty of notifying the foundation by email. —Travistalk 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what is with the poor web design of these cranks? Every single one I've seen looks like it was built by a high school student circa 1993. I demand a higher caliber of extremist nutcases. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Leaving the logo at the bottom was probably a mistake, since he removed the one at the top. The URL shows it's an copy of an old version, but not making that clear on the page itself is probably a bad plan. Also the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" bit should be changed, it could well be a trademark violation, I'm sure Mike will deal with it if it is. It's also potentially a copyright violation, since it links to the current history page, which doesn't include this version (I say potentially because he may well have written it himself, I don't know). Also, the deletion log shows the previous version was deleted as a copyvio, doesn't say who wrote it, so it might still be a copyvio even with the GFDL compliance. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we tell if it's supposed to be a hoax or just a sandbox of someone trying to learn how to set up a wiki? If you download the free mediawiki software and set it up right you get this page, more or less - minus the logos. It's a rather innocent mistake to copy the Wikipedia images over for testing, and may not even be a trademark violation. In 90%+ of the cases people like this are just experimenting rather than trying to start trouble, and a simple email from a concerned user might be enough to get them to switch the images and save our hard working general counsel the time of dealing directly. Wikidemon (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemon, have you read the content of the page? He's definitely trying to start trouble. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you got me! It was too nasty so I kind of tuned out after a couple sentences. I'll take your word for it. Wikidemon (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Sarah Palin[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin User:Keeper76 protected Sarah Palin and did not give a reason for doing so on Talk:Sarah Palin. patsw (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is here. rootology (C)(T) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People's Alliance for Democracy[edit]

This article (about a Thai political party currently involved in a crisis) is out of control. It is experiencing massive edit-warring, and probably sock-puppetry as well -- two new editors showed up today, who first contribs were [14] and [15]. Also, take a look at [16]. Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's a battleground alright. As a temporary measure I've fully-protected the article for a couple of days; one editor has tried to start a talk-page discussion, so hopefully this will encourage all parties to join in. There does look like some socking too, so maybe a checkuser request would be useful, and perhaps it's best for now not to mention WP:3RR... EyeSerenetalk 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jakezing[edit]

Jakezing (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - . Indirect attacks towards other editors, administrators, as seen by entries in their talk page and in their history. Supposedly been banned previously. Is known for abusing WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Originally filed as a vandalism report -- consistencies remain from that report. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide diffs, and notify Jakezing about this thread? EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perineum[edit]

We are having a problem with uncivil SPA, User:Now registered, on Perineum. There are two photo illustrations that have been on the article for about a year, and right now the SPA (formerly an IP) is edit warring against multiple, long-standing editors who keep reverting. The SPA then issued a threat to continue to disrupt, accused me of having sockpuppets multiple times, etc. I'm not the only one wanting the photos. I am more than willing to have a discussion on the Talk page, but the year-long status should stand as the issue is revisited (especially so, since people can see the context). Help please? The SPA has said, "Just remember, I will revert your changes out each and every time..." I'm happy to take part in a discussion, and even lose - but the lead into it should be the status quo that has been discussed, and instead User:Now registered is trying to bully his way against established consensus before any discussion begins. --David Shankbone 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not great behavior on either side, as there seems to be a distinct lack of discussion on the talk page, except of course from that pesky SPA who has been trying to start one. Maybe if you responded to his comments, he wouldn't keep reverting. Just a likely unpopular thought. - auburnpilot talk 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what SPA means. I did threaten once; I've learned better since, and I have been very civil about it. I do appreciate that it is being discussed somewhere, and I do want to learn more about contributing here. I left some very detailed, good comments about what I felt was lacking in the images, and in my "newness", yes, I was perturbed that you kept reverting without acknowledging and discussing it. I would think someone who is an experienced, good editor would take the time to note the discussion page themselves instead of reverting a new user's good faith changes. I am hoping we can determine the best course of action, but I do want several other parties to get involved so it isn't two or three experienced users ganging up on me. Thanks, now_registered (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • "SPA" stands for single purpose account. (Disclaimer: I have not looked into the circumstances to know whether anyone involved in this incident really is an SPA.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now read about what SPA stands for. I've only just registered recently, about two weeks ago, and hope to be around long enough to dispute that claim. So far, this is the only article I have edited with my user id.

Thanks, now_registered (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes! Because starting a conversation with this is always the most constructive way to go about it! I'm with other people on this, this reeks of 72.76... seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few mistakes certainly, and I have owned up to them, but I am certainly learning the process and trying to get this resolved by engaging other people to discuss the article. I am not a sock puppet of 72.76, and I would rather people discuss it in the article's discussion page. I did in fact remove that insult. I made an error in judgment when the user wouldn't engage in useful communication about why he was simply reverting my own changes to the article. It won't happen again. Thanks. -- now_registered (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if it will shed light since the 72.76 vandal is a floating IP but could we run a checkuser to see if they indeed fall into those ranges? That might confirm if it quacks or not. Banjeboi 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; I have no idea who that user was, but my IP is pretty stable since I use DSL from home. My IP is usually a 66.*.*.* from home. Not sure what this work one is, first time I have logged in from work, but I don't think it will match that 72 range. -- now_registered (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne socking[edit]

Rather than sit out his two-week block, AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs) has chosen to create the sockpuppet AlexandreLevy (talk · contribs). I'm leaving for work and don't have time to file an SSP report just now. If this message doesn't get any action, I'll do so when I get home. Deor (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The puppet has been blocked. What an original username :P Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have indef blocked the sock (it sounded like a duck with a bullhorn) for block evasion and notified AkexLevyOne of the act. I shall leave it to others to consider the current block on the sockmaster account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And Then There Were None[edit]

Hello, I'm not sure if it's right to come here with this issue, since it's not something that requires use of admin tools, but I've noticed something that I'd like more eyes on.

Agatha Christie wrote a novel called Ten Little Niggers. Some time later the title was changed to Ten Little Indians. Later still, it was reissued as And Then There Were None. The Wikipedia article for that book uses the most recent title.

I have some Christie-related articles on my watchlist, and I noticed a few minutes ago that the Agatha Christie Template had been edited to change the title of the book from And Then There Were None to Ten Little Niggers.[17] Furthermore, I noticed that the contents of And Then There Were None had been copied and pasted into Ten Little Niggers, and that And Then There Were None was made into a redirect to Ten Little Niggers instead of the other way round. Also, the article was not moved - it was a copy and paste. So far, it has not been undone.

The IPs in question (obviously the same person) are Special:Contributions/79.166.16.117 and Special:Contributions/79.166.35.194. The second one is the one which changed the redirects, through copying and pasting, rather than through moving the article. I think this is too big to be done without some kind of discussion, but would prefer an administrator to take care of it. Thank you. Stratford490 (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin but have rolled back the IP edits. Clearly a troll of some kind, maybe some admins will have recollections of similar incidents? DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is just a newbie who thought it should use the first edition title? Let's assume good faith first. I have left the latter IP a warning at it's talk page [18]. I will keep the page watchlisted and see if it happens again. SoWhy 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
All fixed now. Yes, we should assume good faith for now; but this is such an obvious trolling target that we should consider semi-protection if this is repeated. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Started again with Special:Contributions/79.166.7.187. DuncanHill (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected the redirect. I'd like to hold off on semi-protecting the article for a while; I've seem legit IP edits in the history, and it's not at an unbearable level yet. --barneca (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK cool, thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/79.166.23.224 is trying it on now. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours. GbT/c 12:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
They are actually not the 1st vs. later editions title, but the English vs the American. The Englsih used the "Niggers" title not just in the 1st ed. of 1939, but as late as 1977; even in 1940 for the 1st US ed. it was "Indians" See [19] for the details. DGG (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There was another spate today. I personally have difficulty in assuming good faith where there are clear hidden passages above the areas that clearly ask people not to change them. --Ged UK (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How to find deletion history of articles?[edit]

How does one find the deletion history of articles? Rockport (Need for Speed) and Bayview (Need for Speed) are possible recreations of part of a previously made set of "city" articles related to the Need for Speed franchise that I believe was deleted sometime ago.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

in this case, [20] and [21]. The best way to find them is to got to the edit history and at the top it says "View logs for this page"--Jac16888 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh, looks like I will have to go to two places it seems. RFPP and Afd I go!!--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think rfpp is necessary for the rockport one, i messaged the user about their revert, i think it was just a misunderstanding of how thinks work here, but yes afd'ing the bayview would be a good idea, even if the consensus is a merge/redirect--Jac16888 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that vandalism to AN/I was....fun. Anyway, gotcha, try and pull my RFPP immediately. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and threat of violence (?) at Floppy disk[edit]

An IP editor re-reverted a reversion by User:Mahjongg with the edit summary Mahjongg was fatally wounded in an accident. I know some editors were recently blocked due to edit-warring regarding MOSNUM and binary prefixes, so (newbie admin alert) I'm not sure what's the best course of action - should a checkuser find out whether this nastiness is associated with a named editor? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall some similar incident reported to a Admins noticeboard a few days back - but when checking this ip I saw that the above diff linked to the first of three attacks with inappropriate edit summaries, so I have blocked the account for 31 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
More nastiness at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2. I have blocked another IP, User:217.237.148.72 for similar actions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Also User:217.237.150.116 editing File Allocation Table. sigh SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thunderbird2 filed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The RfCU is itself now a target for the dynamic IP (217.237.*.*): diff and diff.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Death threats on Sony[edit]

Resolved

User:Comicfire posted death threats on Sony recently, and I saw "edit conflict" two times in a row when trying to warn the user. I think (s)he needs to be blocked, and perhaps Sony needs to be protected. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say report to WP:AIV if vandalism still is continuing despite uw lvl 4 and request protection at WP:RFPP if he/she returns with different IPs to evade a block. SoWhy 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a particularly offensive racist vandal, now permablocked, along with two apparent socks. No obvious need for protection. Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin edit warrior spamming talk pages[edit]

I have been following the activities of a couple of the Palin edit warriors when I noticed that one of them is now spamming a number of talk pages to get there message accross.[22][23][24][25][26] As IP: [27][28]

The editor, EricDiesel (talk · contribs), has been one of two editors who creating, and then recreated, a series of articles related to two churches that Sarah Palin has attended and their pastors. Three of the articles have been sent to WP:AfD where they are revising overwhelming support for deletion while the third had been proposed for deletion.

I'm not exactly what needs to be done with this particular editor, but IMO, this needs administrator attention. --Farix (Talk) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What did he say when you warned him and ask him to stop? John Reaves 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And they call me sarcastic. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You are sarcastic, Bugs, but that's what we like about you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought what you liked about Bugs was that he looked good in a dress... HalfShadow 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Delicious! seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Is you is, or is you ain't, my baby?" Hmmm... not sure if I was channeling Bugs there, or John Edwards. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I notified EricDiesel of the thread. I also deleted the above three articles per notability rationales, and because the creator has been spamming WP with various incarnations of this in a vein attempt to push it to some magical notability status. In addition, there was a snowball's chance in hell of having any consensus towards keeping the articles. seicer | talk | contribs 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
He started a rather bizarre conversation at my talk page User_talk:MBisanz#Palin.2C_Descriptions_becoming_names.2C_Wikipedia_General_Notability_Guideline, I'm not sure he understands our notability, sourcing, or BLP policies. MBisanz talk 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Check my user talk page, and many other user talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This definitely appears to be a new editor. I'd add to MBisanz's list that he also does not understand the NPOV policy. It appears he has not chosen at any point to slow down and really try to understand any of the feedback he has been receiving. This editor is not currently on a path towards a successful and long running editing career. But I am still willing to assume the combination of good faith editing and massive ignorance. With such high profile, high activity topics, it is hard to really receive and incorporate feedback - there is just too much and it can be overwhelming. It is possible that if he were to step away from high profile, high controversy subjects he might be able learn the policies better. It also appears that he spends a lot of time reading the political blogosphere, which is not going to help him understand what he is doing wrong; there are too many rants by bloggers who themselves are not well informed. GRBerry 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he continues to ignore any message on his userpage and continue to spam every user talk page in existance... seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I've interacted with this editor extensively on my talk page, but I've made little progress. He seems determined to counter what he sees as a failure on Wikipedia's part to expose certain religious connections to Palin, thus making Wikipedia complicit in handing the election to McCain somehow. I believe he's read every fifth word I've addressed to him. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment on my talk page, I've sent him a reply. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, this spamming is becoming very tiresome. The vast majority of his edits outside of the articles have been spamming user talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had some discussion with EricDiesel yesterday. Please give me a chance to discuss things with him. My impression is that this is a just a situation where a new user is not familiar with the content standards. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean I'm not the only one recieving messages from this guy? Well, now I feel singularly unspecial, also I wasted a good half an hour replying to him. Can we speedy delete these articles now? L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 06:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I stopped replying after he called us "deletion article zealots", a (conservative) "group", "undergraduates", an "army" and then tried to convince me that the whole episode was me deleting the article for political and religious reasons. seicer | talk | contribs 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here, thanks for your time. I deleted several messages that had not yet been responded to, since any response would be better made where I posted Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God. If any of you have the time, it would be appreciated if some of the quesions could be responded to on that page, since the five questions were culled from numerous other (apparently new like me) editors and others on the four deleted articles, Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon.

These were my first four articles, two for creating, two for editing. After review of Wikipedia people and policies, I think I made inappropriate, and certainly unproductive comments all over the place. I did not even know about my own discussion page until late in the deletion debate.
  • If you think I should apologize anywhere or delete communications that are inappropriate, please let me know if you have the time.
That said, I still think the edits (deletions of information) of WasillaAG were politically motivated, and that homophobic or anti Semetic sermons, voluntarily attended by Palins, are notable because of their etiological relationship to her bizarre public policy views and reasoning (bizarre at least from the perspective of science).

Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think it appropriate that the Barack Obama article has more coverage of Rvverend Wright and his controversial sermons, than the Sarah Palin article devotes to her minister and his controversial sermons, if reliable sources have discussed the sermons and said they are controversial? Edison (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A week ago you and everyone else hadn't even heard of Sarah Palin. Within the last few hours all sort of new things are coming out. This religious stuff is such a small portion and no one in the mainstream media is really paying attention to it right now. Maybe if you wait a few weeks and it turns out to be as important as Barak's paster then it would be appropriate. As it is, the only people who seem to really be paying attention to that stuff are the editors who REALLY REALLY want to make sure we ALLL read about. Not so BLP, NPOV, wiki appropriate. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question re: Notability is not contagious Thanks for your comment on my discussion page.

I am new, and have been asking questions about this without a response from anyone and maybe you can help me understand the deletion of my four articles.
Palin's history teacher is clearly NOT notable. However, if Palin were a politician known for her denial of the Holocaust, her history teacher WOULD be notable, especially if the history teacher was a Holocaust denier.
Similarly, I would think Hegel’s history teacher would be notable because Hegel’s is notable for his theories on history, while Hegel’s sewing teacher would not be notable.
The general point is that a relation of B to notable A does NOT automatically transfer notability from A to B, but a relationship of B with the CAUSE of A’s notability WOULD, in addition to the mere simple relationship of B to A.
  • 1, Is this correct at Wikipedia?

Question re: removing deletions of 4 articles for 5 days of Evolution

  • 2. Would it be possible to reopen the pages for Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church, and Larry Kroon and let them independently evolve for five days, especially as completely different facts were being added by many on each page? A videotape of speaking in tongues in an independent church in remote Alaska, would be appropriate on not be appropriate on the Wasilla Bible Church page, but not on the Sarah Palin page (unless this independent church’s doctrine was to do this at home, like at the White House?). The international coverage is different for the four topics. E.g., Larry Kroon isgetting coverage in the Israeili press, but not Ed Kalnins, BECAUSE the two are NOTABLE for DIFFERENT reasons. since

A third Sarah Palin pastor has been in the media more, but this appears to be ONLY for his being her pastor, so would not be notable.

I also sent these questions to Carl and Seicer, but there may be a variety of opionions, or they may not be online. Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive anon editor[edit]

I have blocked 124.169.43.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 124.169.154.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) due to vandalism. I rollbacked all of 124.169.154.40's edits, as many were blatant vandalism and the rest added unsourced claims of Arabic parentage and/or Arabic translations of their names. Shortly afterwards, the editor logged back in as 124.169.43.56 and reverted all of my edits. I blocked the new IP, but it's certainly likely they will hop IPs again. I'm at work right now, so my ability to monitor these articles closely is limited for at least 4 hrs. I would like any other admins to look through the articles targeted by this user (about 30 in all) for further reversions coming from the 124.169.0.0/16 range & semi-protect the articles as necessary... just in case I don't get there first. Cheers, caknuck ° is geared up for football season 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The anon returned as 203.59.250.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Some help semi-protecting the articles in question would be appreciated. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 21:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be safer to semi-protect the said page rather than to range block the IPs. It doesn't look safe to do that, and also, a dynamic range like this means that rangeblocking the IPs will pose a risk to people who are not involved. Also, even if the guy can create accounts to bypass a semi, those accounts can be easily dealt with and indefinitely blocked. So, I support the protection. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?[edit]

Resolved: Excess FU tags removed, removed from all but the one article. Wizardman 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Unresolved: Edit warring and suchlike means that this is still going Stifle (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg seems to be used by 50+ (I lost count at 50 before giving up, but i'm sure it's more) articles on Wikipedia, mostly used on broadcast stations operated by TBN. My understanding of the rules states that this type of useage for fairuse images is frowned upon. Is the useage in this many articles justified, or did I find a potential lawsuit trap by accident?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus F. Christ, proceed directly to IFD and do not pass Go. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, watch it - That's Jesus H. Christ, to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? It's a corporate logo, being used on articles about broacast stations the corporation owns. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 02:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Logos can only be used for the company is represents; the stations that it owns may fall within that company, but they do not qualify to use that logo (the only logo they may use is their station logo/callsign). Also, IFD isn't appropriate as there is at least one true fair use image, but they does need to be a mighty purge. --MASEM 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have apprasied WP:TVS on this matter as this is their area of expertise. The problem with this is that TBN stations do not have individual logos; they all universally use the TBN shield as their station logo with their call letters and city of license in boring ol' Helevetica during station identifications. Nate (chatter) 03:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
TBN HQ in NYC is about 1/2 mile from my apartment -- shouldd I run over there tomorrow and ask for official permission to use the logo? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite honestly, that's probably the simplest solution; the alternative is no images at all, as Nate indicates. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I think we are missing something. First off, the image in question is a piece of non-free content, more specifically a logo of a company. I would find it very far-fetched if a company would allow the use of their logo on Wikipedia, which means they would be giving up their rights and allow anyone to use the logo for basically any reason. They aren't going to go for it.
Secondly, we need to remember the policy that governs non-free content, WP:NFCC. Specifically, WP:NFCC#8 which states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." We need to ask ourselves how the logo of a parent company placed on a bunch articles on all the companies stations significantly increases the readers understanding of the topic. The answer is of course, that it doesn't. Thus, all of the fair-use rationales except for the article Trinity Broadcasting Network fail our policies, and should be immediately removed. This isn't even a borderline case, this is very blatantly against the law. If someone could code a script that can quickly remove the photos, that would be great. Otherwise, the job will have to be done by hand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is certainly not "against the law". It's what the stations themselves use as their logo. Please revert your edits and avoid copyright paranoia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Most of the pages you have removed the logo from are TBN owned and operated affiliates, the others carry the network 24/7. I see zero problem with this. But I do see Gonzo_fan2007 "jumping the gun" by removing the logo from pages before this discussion has ended. Firsfron is right, having the logos there isn't against the law (by any means) and you should revert your edits, please. - NeutralHomerTalk 04:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, but it is against the Foundation's use of non-free images, which are stricter than fair use allows. Logos are fine for the company they represent, but even if the individual stations are fully owned by TBS, they are a separate entity; if their station logo includes the TBS logo, that's one thing, but if they have no logo at all, then there is no picture to show per WP:NFCC. This is a long-standing practice with logos. --MASEM 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
People this is a Foundation Issue. The use of the images specifically violates WP:NFCC#8. Someone please explain to me how the use of this image meets WP:NFCC#8 and I will gladly stop what I am doing. Also, I am admin of this site, and am obligated to enforce policy. I am not required to wait to enforce policy, nor do I need consensus to enforce policy. I am stopping now because there is opposition (ignorant opposition, but opposition at that). « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Significance": It is the logo of an international television network. A network that owns stations throughout the United States and cable networks throughout the world. It's logo is one that would be difficult to explain in words. I think that is good enough.
I may be overstepping a line here, but saying opposition is "ignorant" isn't very polite. - NeutralHomerTalk 04:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I used "ignorant" as meaning "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact." Meant no offense by it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 04:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine to demonstrate significance for the logo's use on the TBS page and thus why this isn't a IFD issue but more image review. However, the use of the logo on any of the affiliates is where the significance argument breaks down, because the fact the station may lack a logo doesn't mean the reader's understanding is improved about the station itself by having the controlling company's logo there. It's the same reason we don't paste logos of vendors of products on the product pages (barring any depiction of the product itself). Logos are only significant on the single page of the company that the logo is for, nowhere else with very very very few exceptions (so few I cannot recall any, but needless to say you need a very good rationale to keep it there). --MASEM 04:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Like I said a moment ago on Gonzo's talk page "TBN stations don't have individual logos like NBC, CBS, ABC, etc stations. They have just the one. So, that technically is that station's logo along with the logo of the network. It is rare for a TBN station to have a logo that isn't the official one." - NeutralHomerTalk 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If TBN stations don't have individual logos, then they don't need identifying images because no such image exists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The logo of individual TBN affiliates is the national TBN logo. WHRE uses the TBN logo (owned by a Virginia based company) not with a "21" (it's channel number), but just the logo. That's it's station logo. - NeutralHomerTalk 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason individual station articles have logo images is not a "one logo per article" quota, but because each station has their own brand, and we're illustrating that brand. In the case of TBN, TBN has one single unified brand, so we deal with that in the one article on that brand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Newbie admins, heh. The use of the same image on multiple articles is certainly not prohibited, and in fact it actually reduces the amount of non-free content (instead of having 50 different logos, you have one). Finally, there was a misstatement above (by Masem): it's not that the stations have no logo, it's that they use the TBN logo on-air. Finally, the "ignorant opposition" comment is a personal attack which really shouldn't be used by a fellow administrator. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using ignorant in its precise sense is a personal attack, but calling another admin with legitimate concerns a newbie isn't? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AMIB, the number of good-faith users driven off the project by you has been huge. I say that as a person with respect for you as an editor, but your demands last year for "one FU image per article" last year upset many good editors, some of whom will not ever come back after trying to work with you on the logo situation on WP:TVS. I was hoping you had calmed down a bit since then and that you would be willing to look at the issue from a different perspective (or at least not make demands that aren't actually even in the policy, like the "one FU image per article" stuff you demanded). Calling another admin a "newbie" when he voices legitimate concerns isn't what I did. Calling a new admin a newbie when he says that the editing being done is "against the law" (his exact words) and actually goes and removes the logos in a mass semi-automated purge while calling the "opposition ignorant" is calling a spade a spade. Seven months isn't a long time, to my mind, and certainly calling "opposition" editors (even that term is inflammatory) "ignorant" only inflames the situation further. I didn't say much last year when you tried to enforce your "one FU image per article" interpretation of the policy, but now the number of FU images on TVS articles is dropping to zero, as some editors plainly intended from the beginning. English Wikipedia still supports non-free image use within the policy; there was a Fair Use Rationale provided for each instance used in an article (diff), the image was sourced, and actually reduced the number of Fair Use images from 50 down to just one. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how any alleged history of mine or a misrepresentation of a view I held (and discarded) months ago has anything to do with you making personal attacks while warning people for supposed personal attacks they've already apologized for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't allege what you said: you did say it. And calling someone a newbie isn't a personal attack. Calling someone ignorant is. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, not seeing the apology or retraction or explanation for personal attacks other than "Well, I was right to make them" or "They weren't personal attacks." My good-faith conduct months ago is not germane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok Firs, first off, I apologized above for the misunderstanding, I use "ignorant" as "not understanding the facts." I meant nothing by it, so get over that. Secondly, been an admin for 7 months, not a newbie. Lastly, you still have not explained how this meets our WP:NFCC, specifically #8. Anyway, I am tired and off to bed. Have a good night guys. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm correct that the stations have no logo. If they use the TBS logo on air, it is using TBS's logo via their affliation with the parent company, not because the station owns the logo - again, they have no logo to speak of. (A logo is not a requirement of any company, and, extending to WP, is not a requirement for a company's infobox, but is allowable should one exist). --MASEM 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree with Gonzo here, he's right, it's a blanket corporate logo that adds nothing to the individual page. If there's no individual logo, there shouldn't be an image. What is to be gained by having the logo of the parent company on every page? It would be like using the PepsiCo logo for Doritos. Dayewalker (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If the TBN affiliates used the Pepsi logo on the air as their individual station logo, I would argue for that. But individual TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their station's logo (whether they are owned by TBN or not). - NeutralHomerTalk 05:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Only if Doritos actually uses the PepsiCo logo. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man. Here we go: we tell them it's not that the stations don't have a logo, it's that they do have a logo: they use one every day, on-air, to identify their station as a TBN affiliate. It's the TBN logo, used on most (but not all) TBN stations. And yet, over and over they repeat the same thing: "well, then, they don't have a logo". Missing the point entirely. The situation is analogous to Wikimedia and Meta-Wiki: they use the same logo. Look at both of the pages. They're run by the same company, and use the same logo. There are other Wikimedia pages which have a different logo, but that doesn't mean that the pages which have the same logo as Wikimedia "have no logo": they clearly have a logo which is the same as that of the Wikimedia Foundation, and they display it prominently on the project pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to dispense with the superior attitude.
There's only one brand here in the case of TBN, so we deal with it on the article on that brand as a whole, instead of putting it in every article that uses that one unified brand. Your example is poor: Meta-wiki uses the Wikimedia logo because it is Wikimedia's coordination/policy/discussion wiki, a project intimately linked with Wikimedia as a whole, and thus lacking its own brand. It does not use its own logo which happens to also be Wikimedia's logo, it uses Wikimedia's logo.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg - Facepalm. Let me try this a different way, because it seems only Firsfron is getting it at the moment. WHRE, a TBN affiliate, uses the official TBN logo as the logo for their station. Most, if not all, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as their individual station's logo. It's both...local and national. There is no "unified brand". - NeutralHomerTalk 05:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Every station uses the same branding" = "These stations do not have individual branding." That's what individual means. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, all the articles we're dealing with are almost meaningless sub-stubs anyway. Most of them should be merged into a single extended-list article. Why does a sub-stub need a logo image at all? No image can pass NFCC#8 (contributes to understanding the article) if there's no content in the article in need of understanding. Plus, of course, all of these articles lack fair use rationales, formally speaking. Fut.Perf. 05:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the articles each had a Fair Use Rationale here. The rationales were mass-purged tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless if all of the stations are broadcasting the content, we can easily explain using words that these stations, under their call signs, are broadcasting TBN content. This would easily remove any reason why we need to use this one image in 50+ articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But we aren't talking about the content, we are talking about the images (the TBN logo). Fut.Perf., I wouldn't call all of the TBN affiliate articles "meaningless" or "sub-stubs". Some have large history sections, some have been affiliated with other networks before TBN, so they aren't all meaningless and certainly don't need to be all merged into one extended list. - NeutralHomerTalk 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Could be, for some (not any I've seen). But even so, even for logos, NFCC#8 goes together with NFCC#1. Replaceability, which includes replaceability with text. Each of these infobox usages can easily be replaced with the text "The station uses the logo of its parent company TBN as its own channel logo", or some such. Since we have have the logo in the parent article, that's perfectly sufficient. By the way, "we're talking about the image, not the content" makes no sense. When judging NFCC, you always first and foremost judge the article content, it's only the article content that makes an image legitimate. Fut.Perf. 06:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
One could say that very same thing for any number of other affiliate stations like "the station uses the logo of it's parent company, FOX Television, as part of it's own channel logo"...and wipe out all the FOX logos.
But writing a 15 to 20 word sentence about a logo, that one could just put on the page (and was already there to begin with) just seems kinda silly.
Also, I don't think an article's content should decide whether or not to add a logo. If so, I have about 200+ articles that don't need logos. - NeutralHomerTalk 06:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Then remove them. Yes, they don't need them. The routine nature of logo inclusion has apparently led many people to believe logos are somehow exempt from normal NFCC standards. They are not. Of course an article's content should decide whether it can support a non-free image. Fut.Perf. 06:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"As part of" is different from "consists the entirety of." The former means there's a different logo based on the network's, the latter means the logo is just the network's and can be covered in the network's article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
@Fut.Perf.: I have seen no rule that says an article has to have "such and such" amount of information before it can "support" a logo. If there is one, I would recommend a change. There are hundreds of pages that have logos on them (or pictures) that have a small amount of information.
@A Man In Black: Do what now? Can you explain what you wrote there for people who haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about, please? - NeutralHomerTalk 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If the article subject doesn't have its own logo that identifies the subject, the article doesn't need a logo to identify the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But if the logo listed is the station's logo (which happens to also be the networks logo) then, yes, it does need to be there. Remember, TBN affiliates use the national TBN logo as the logo for their individual stations. - NeutralHomerTalk 06:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not the station's logo, it's the network's logo. The station uses it to identify itself as part of the network. The stations have no individual logos. You said the last yourself. No individual logos for the station means no individual logos for the station articles. We don't add the Apple logo to every Apple product article even though the Apple logo is present on every Apple product, we don't add the Sony logo to every Sony product article even though the Sony logo is present on every Sony product, we don't add the TBN logo to every TBN station article even though the every TBN station uses the TBN logo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Need to be there"? Since when is it a law of nature that every company article must have a logo image? If it can be replaced – and I showed you how it can – it must be replaced. Find it silly or not. NFCC#1, period. Fut.Perf. 06:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
@AMIB: No, I said the stations do not have numbers (channel numbers) on their logos. They use the TBN logo as their own individual station's logo (I think I have typed that about 20 times now)....that logo is the TBN National logo.
I wouldn't doubt that the Apple and Sony logos are probably on those pages somewhere, but that isn't what we are talking about. WHRE (a TBN affiliate) uses the national TBN logo as the logo for WHRE. There isn't a [TBN Logo] 21 (WHRE's channel number), they use the national logo as their logo.
@Fut.Perf.: Facepalm again. We aren't talking about a company article, we are talking about an affiliate article. Also, when did it become a "law of nature" that images weren't allowed? - NeutralHomerTalk 06:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, then remove the images from the affiliate articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
How did you get that from what I said? - NeutralHomerTalk 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am tired of having people trying to turn this discussion about an image to some debate/education clusterfuck on what is a brand, a station, affiliate, whatever. So, I decided to cut the crap and said we should remove the images from all articles about the affiliates. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I gotta agree with ya on the "clusterfuck" point, cause this has certainly turned into one. I personally think, with what Fut.Perf. has said, that all logos on all stations (TBN, FOX, ABC, whatever) should go. If you are going to do it on one network, might as well do it on all of 'em. - NeutralHomerTalk 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer dealing with one image at a time. I am personally not a big fan of logos on articles of these stations, but just using one image for over 50 articles and the image is copyrighted, something has to give. I maybe can only see this image at, maybe, 2 places (the article on the station and the mass repeaters in Tampa). It's getting late here, but I still think the image should be removed from the articles on the affiliates. Until then, keep the FUR's there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice. In fact, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #10c states that a Fair Use Rationale must be provided for "each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item," indicating that the opposite is true. Using the same image actually reduces the number of Fair Use images on Wikipedia: the articles link to the same image instead of 50 different images. And this image had a FU Rationale for each instance used in an article, until it was removed tonight. NFCC policy clearly indicates that Fair Use images are to be kept to a minimum; one image is certainly a minimum, despite its use in multiple articles, specifically allowed in the policy. NFCC #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The logo is used to identify the station as a TBN affiliate or owned-and-operated station. "Significant" here is particularly bad wording (because it's led to some significant edit wars between AMIB and various WP:TVS editors over the past year due to differences in interpretation of the word "significant"): it's too easily gamed; anyone can claim "significant!" or "not significant!"). Readers understand the affiliation better with the logo, and it's a logo the stations themselves use: it's not as if the stations use no logo when broadcasting: they definitely use a logo: it's this one. This image complied to NFCC 1-10 until tonight; now with the FURationales removed, it will be far easier to claim that the use is non-compliant, and the removal can continue unabated. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it is going to be done whether there is consensus for it or not. I just hope we aren't setting a precedent for other images. - NeutralHomerTalk 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break[edit]

There's a proper place to discuss this which is Wikipedia:Non-free content review. There is obviously a difference of evaluation, and this needs to be resolved through consensus, not unilateral action. Ty 07:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could say consensus was trying to be reached, but as it stands Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf. have pretty much taken upon themselves (Gonzo stopping when there was opposition to his deletions) to remove the logo from all pages except the main Trinity Broadcasting Network page and A Man In Black has removed the fair-use rationales that remain on the logo's page as "false rationales" (which I don't quite understand).
So, I don't think this will be moved to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, because most of the images have been deleted already, so there wouldn't be much to talk about. Consensus wasn't reached here (or even tried for), I doubt it would be reached (or even tried for) there either. - NeutralHomerTalk 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This is quite typical with image deletionists - ignore consensus debates and act in a pre-emptory manner to delete images, creating a "fact on the ground" so that the debate becomes meaningless, and the community's prerogative to create consensus is usurped. This really has to stop, it's undermining the very basis of Wikipedia to have administrators act in this manner. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 08:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite.[29] Ty 08:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about the RFC on FuturePerfect, but yes, I agree. I'll also note that the editor who uploaded the image that we are currently discussing left Wikipedia in 2007 due to AMIB's overly-rigid "enforcement" of NFCC; this wasn't the only editor who left due to AMIB's personal interpretation of the policy (which was "only one FU image per article"). This interpretation is not part of the actual policy. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)That sounds like a couple people I know. Plus, it sets a dangerous precedent...."well, so-and-so did it, then that means I can." Bad idea!
With Fut.Perf. saying above, essentially, that a page didn't need a logo and also saying that some pages needed a certain amount of information first before a logo could be added (he didn't back up what any of this with any links to rules stating such), I am waiting for the precedent he just set to be used to remove pretty much all logos from all TV and Radio Station pages. - NeutralHomerTalk 08:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gonzo_fan2007 and Fut.Perf for doing the legwork on this. The blatant misuse of fair use was shockingly evident, and it's good to see some "newbie" administrators take this on... seicer | talk | contribs 11:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are thanking them for completely bypassing this discussion, as Ed put it above "usurping" consensus (and not even bothering to get any period), essentially making the entire consensus process pointless, and creating dangerous precedent in the process? Not to mention breaking several rules to do so and completely ignoring the fact that, as Firs put it, "There's no policy which states that an image can only be used once or twice."
You are thanking them for that? Come on! - NeutralHomerTalk 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not needed when you are dealing with blatant and gross violations of fair use and guidelines, in which the logo can only be used on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and on no other derivative. I don't see how coping with policy can be so difficult to understand. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Coping with fair use policy is difficult for many, many Wikipedia editors; either they don't understand it, or they believe it can be ignored. Black Kite 14:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The handling of non-free media is one of the very few areas where consensus can be trumped, in this case by the Foundation's mandate on reducing non-free image use. Now, it is true there is absolutely no rule that says how many times an image can be used, only that it needs a FUR for each use it has. And while the TBS logo has/had a FUR for each use of the image, having a FUR does not automatically make the use valid; the image has to meet the other NFCC criteria on the page it is being used at; based on pass precedent and WP:LOGO, the logo, save for very strict exceptions, cannot be used on any other page besides the main corporate entity it represents. --MASEM 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Neither NFCC or WP:LOGO say anything about a logo only being used on the main corporate entity the logo represents. The logo itself is being broadcast by the individual stations into people's homes; it's the logo they use. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You can't say there is no rule on how many times an image can be used (as long as it has an F-UR) and then say that image has to pass some criteria and then it might not be valid. You can't have it both ways.
The "rule" that limits the number of times the image can be used is WP:NFCC#8 - the significance of the image. There is a practical limit to the number of times a non-free image can be used while still remaining significant. It's not a hard-set number because it will vary for each image, which is why there is effectively no rule on how many times a non-free image can be used, it just has to meet NFCC#8. For example, there's probably a good hundred+ uses of The Simpsons on articles outside the discussion of the show and related elements, maybe as the topic was mentioned on the show or the like. It is not appropriate to reuse a picture of the Simpsons each of those 100+ times because there is likely no significance that the reader will gain by including that picture; some may be appropriate (a characture of an actor, for instance) but not all of them. That's all that that means: there is no limit on the number of uses as long as each use meets NFCC#8. --MASEM 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
What is it saying to plain ol' editors when the admin can "trump" consensus (no one even tried to get consensus) and make whatever changes he or she sees fit. - NeutralHomerTalk 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with what has been said already, my specialty is logo FURs and I've probably handled nearly 6,000 of them, and I agree that in this case, the logo is definitely being overused. The main station should keep the logo and maybe if there is something like a corporate article or a large list it could be debated, but having it reused 50 times is far far too much. MBisanz talk 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So, we are just going to allow an AN/I discussion to be bypassed, consensus to be usurped, the entire process to be made pointless, dangerous precedent set, rules broken, others ignored (blantantly it appears) and those editors thanked for doing so.....and then call this whole thing "resolved"? - NeutralHomerTalk 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
When you are dealing with issues of copyright and gross fair use violations, yes. In addition, I don't see "consensus" towards slapping the logo on 50 articles -- I just see two or three editors spieling of abuse and misrepresentations of policy and guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, at this point, with you "spieling" accusations of editors being abusive and misrepresentating "policy and guidelines" (not even bothering to assume good faith there) and being that the damage is done and the discussion is "resolved", I am going to go back to the radio and TV station pages. - NeutralHomerTalk 14:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of TBN's US TV stations are owned outright by TBN; they're not "affiliates".[30] TBN had problems with the FCC for owning too many stations, but those seem to have been resolved. They own at least 23 full-power stations outright. So the TBN logo can properly used for all the directly owned stations. There's a question as to whether the low-power stations which are just repeaters are notable, but that's a separate issue. --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does impair understanding of the topic for individual stations in this network to not have logos on their articles. While there may be no rule requiring a television station's article to have a logo in its infobox, it's certainly expected enough that any station that doesn't have one will cause the user to wonder why. How else is Wikipedia supposed to actually convey "this network's stations all use the same branding and logo without local variation"? Simply not having a logo on the station articles at all doesn't convey that — what it actually communicates, rightly or wrongly, is "Wikipedia is either too lazy or too biased against religious television stations to put in any effort to upload logos which show how the stations are branded", not "this station simply uses a non-localized version of the national network logo".

And there simply isn't any rule against using fair use logos in as many articles as appropriate — the rule about derivatives applies to templates, tangentially-relevant articles like 2006 United States broadcast TV realignment, and other such cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo. It would violate WP:NFCC to use the logo on a network affiliates template, certainly. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being placed on Category:Trinity Broadcasting network affiliates. It would violate NFCC if the logo were being added as a secondary thumbnail to provide a visual identification of "the network this station is affiliated with" in addition to distinct station logos in the infobox. But as long as this logo is the only brand identity these stations use, and as such is their primary visual identification, using it for that purpose on as many articles as necessary most certainly does not violate NFCC — and not using it communicates something very different from the intention. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"the rule about derivates applies to .... cases where the logo is clearly being used for a purely decorative purpose, not to cases where it's being used for the exact same purpose as any other television station's logo..." - the exact same purpose? Ah, you mean purely decorative, then? Black Kite 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, no. Fundamental visual identification of the topic in the infobox ain't purely decorative. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so literal. "Decorative" = "image use I don't agree with" in deletionist lingo. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 17:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we not throw the word "deletionist" around like a slur, please? I think that FPS's and AMiB's interpretation of "decorative" is different from yours for reasons that owe more to their personal opinion than to the facts, but that is usually the primary cause for a difference of opinion. Please don't make broad assertions/aspersions about "deletionists". Thank you. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree, it seems to me to be an apt (and polite) descriptive term which fits very well with the behavior of people who prefer to delete images rather than take the extra step of exploring ways in which they can be kept, if at all possible. Obviously, not everyone who deletes on image is a deletionist, and not every deletionist abuses the system, but generally those whose actions end up in reports at AN and AN/I or RFCU are without a doubt deletionists who put considerable effort (which could be put into positively improving the encyclopedia) into getting rid of images through a variety of means, including those which, as in the example in this thread, undermine the consensual basis of Wikipedia.

It's like the old saw about different political systems, one in which everything that isn't banned is permitted, and the other in which everything that isn't permitted is banned. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Give the sarcasm a rest, please. Incidentally, you might want to look at my logs for image deletion. (Hint: it's not actually very many, and most of them are vandalism and clear speedies). "Decorative" is quite clear, by the way. It's an image which is there for aesthetic rather than informational reasons. If they're free images, there's not an issue with them. When they're fair-use, their use need to be assessed critically. Black Kite 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasm? In my last post? There wasn't a drop of it, honestly. I meant, and believe, every word there. But if you're referring to my deletionists' definition of "decorative", yes that was sarcasm, but the irony is that the rhetoric of deletionists are a much better fit to my sarcastic definition than they are to the definition you give, which I quite agree with. I would say that a decorative image is one which has absolutely no connection to the article it's in, does not clarify, explain, supplement or otherwise provide information on the subject, and is included for aesthetic reasons alone; I think that quite closely matches yours.

In reality, I've had all sorts of images that fulfilled the requirements of both our definitions be called "decorative" by people seeking to delete them, and that leads me to observe that to those folks "decorative" is essentially a buzz word, something that can be thrown into an argument or an edit summary to provide a semblence of policy "cover" when you're trying to get rid of something you want to get rid of (for whatever reason). Thus, my sarcasm is based on actual experience and not pulled out of thin air. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't want to completely denigrate aesthetic reasons for adding images -- they are useful in deciding whether one image is preferable to another, and breaking the text up with images also serves a functional purpose in making the page easier to read for the user, whose eye can more easily take in the "chunks". I myself will frequently look at an article I'm working on and say "This really needs an image right here," and I'll go looking for one -- but if I can't find one that is appropriate (i.e. fulfills the requirements above), ah well, too bad, there's no image going there, no matter how much the article may need it. So to have someone come along and claim that an image I've worked hard to find and provide a fair-use rationale for and properly place in the article is "decorative"... well, you may understand why I would be sensitized to the non-specific use of the word.

What's even worse is to have someone delete on image because in their opinion it doesn't fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, when that policy is so full of requirements which are subjective that for a great many cases only editorial judgment can decide whether an image is valid or not. Deletionists make a point of acting as if determining the policy-validity of an image is a simple matching operation, equivalent to 2+2=4, or answering a series of yes/no questions, but it's clearly not. It require judgment and, frankly, I don't trust their judgment because they are clouded by what appears to be an ulterior motive, to remove as much fair-use content as possible, no matter how appropriate, and no matter how valid.

But, in any case, when two editors have differing judgments about things, it's supposed to be community consensus which decides what happens, and, instead, we're now having this NFCC-trump card played on us: "I say it doesn't fit the policy, so I'm deleting it and you can't question my actions because it's policy and it's non-negotiable." That's astonishingly opposed to the basic foundations of how this place is supposed to work. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this is a copy of the patent nonsense on your user page? seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Is that a question? Sounds more like a statement with an errant question mark.

I don't recall off-hand if I covered this specific topic in the thoughts about Wikipedia I put down on my user page, but I do aim for a certain consistency in my ideas, so it wouldn't surprise me. As for "patent nonsense" -- well, that's a judgment call, and you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree.

Any particular reason you thought it necessary to insult me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 02:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert[edit]

There is obviously disagreement with the unilateral actions of AMiB and FPaS. I would suggest that per WP:BRD, all articles be reverted back to the status quo ante and further discussion happen on the appropriate pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be a reasonable course of action, allowing a consensus to be formed before further action is taken. After all, there's no particular rush here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. We're not revert-warring over your misunderstood characterizations of policy and guidelines, and no consensus is needed to enforce copyright policies -- especially when it was this serious of a violation. Continued misuse of the tags led to the images speedy removal from 50 pages that went beyond the scope of NFCC. Since you openly asked editors to revert despite policy, and despite work that has been done to abide by policy, it has been protected for the interim. Don't keep pushing the issue by asking others to edit war. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, since Dragon695 was inviting a consensual reversion in order to determine what to do about the images, it wouldn't have been "edit-warring". Obviously, though, having used admin tools to bypass a consensus decision, I understand completely that you're not anxious to open things up to community discussion again. So it ever is. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Seeing that some have argued that the useage of a non-free image is begin used for "insignificant" repeater stations, howabout we just combine the other non-24 "powerful" stations into one article or list like List of TBN repeater stations? I'm willing to suggest that many of the low-power stations doesn't meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability and any notable events can be listed in a broadcast history of sorts. That way, you have an image that isn't being "violated" over a wide derth of articles.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I just want to note that the image in question had been placed on over 110 pages (I believe the exact number before removal was 118). I see everyone saying 50ish, which isn't the case. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I stated that I lost count after 50. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. That makes the issue much more paramount that we don't allow this crap to continue. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral actions? My actions consist of commenting on this thread. I'd appreciate it if nobody reverted those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely. You removed the Fair Use Rationales last night. I'll also note that Seicer has protected his version of the image: the one with the missing Fair Use Rationales. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Huh. Doesn't seem to have lasted long, in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, because the image was still being used on 20+ pages and at the time consensus was trying to be reached. I readded the F-URs until that consensus was reached, it wasn't...because FPaS and Seicer pretty much bypassed consensus and removed them all. - NeutralHomerTalk 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that seicer has protected the image page. I've declined to unprotect as the issue that led to the protection has not been resolved and I'm disinclined to see edit wars recommence at 30 paces. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See also[edit]

How many pages do we need on this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#WP:AN/I#One fairuse image = 50+(+?) articles using said image?. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That post on WP:TVS was made in between the third post (waaaay at the top) in this very discussion. - NeutralHomerTalk 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Can we try to consolidate the discussion here? It's otherwise becoming too disorganized to have effective communications. seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The only reason discussion resumed there was because the issue was force-resolved here. Since the discussion here has been reopened, I offer my opinion. There is nothing in policy that restricts the number of articles in which a non-free image may be used. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. WP:NFCC#8 is a weak reason for deleting the logos, as it is so subjective that if one wanted to, they could use it to say that no logo significantly adds to the understanding of the article. I disagree. The logo gives a reader a quick visual reference to the subject of the article, so the understanding of the article is significantly increased before the user has even read a word. For that reason alone, the logo is not purely decorative, as some have suggested. That is true when used in one article; it is true when used in 118 articles. If each station used its own logo, then there would be 118 logos, each used only once. By deleting the logo from any one article, the visual reference is lost, and all the reader is left with is a coded callsign, which is meaningless until the prose of the article is read. Since no policy has been breached, there is no reason for the heavy-handed tactics that have been practiced here during the course of the discussion, or for remarks insinuating that those opposed to deleting the images do so out of ignorance, i.e., lack of knowledge. My position is not based on a lack of knowledge; on the contrary, it is precisely because of my knowledge of what the policy says that I take my position. The logos and fair use rationales need to be restored. As for whether or not the stations' articles should even exist, that is irrelevant to this discussion, but is being addressed at the project talk page. dhett (talk contribs) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, NFCC 10, for starters (As I'm sure there aren't 50+ rationales listed on the image page). Protonk (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, there were over a hundred boilerplate rationales on the image page that said the exact same thing (see the page's history). To everyone else, I still cannot see where someone said "I think this image should be removed because it is on over 100 pages," and if so then I disagree with that statement. So can we stop saying arguing that fact, as everyone basically agrees that just pure quantity is not the issue here (it was only a combo of quantity, the type of articles the logo was used in, and whether that was justifiable). The reasoning for removal was clearly stated as non-compliance of WP:NFCC#8. I agree that that policy is subjective, but it is policy, and sadly this logo came nowhere close to adding any significance to the article, other than recognition. And even that is questionable, as all the articles already stated who owned, operated, or controlled them. I understand your frustration, but the admins (myself included, even though I did cease after there was opposition) were enforcing policy to the best of our abilities. If you want to debate the policy, please do!! (I would agree the policy needs to be clearer and would voice my input where needed) But this is not the place to do it. All we have is a bunch of frustrated people arguing the same arguments over and over (I know I have repeated myself a lot at least) and we aren't getting anywhere. I would recommend a change of venue, such as a policy talk page or even a request for comment on WP:NFCC#8 as a whole. I really think this discussion is getting nowhere and should be moved to a more appropriate place. But that is up to everyone to decide. I for one will be off editing, if anyone