Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ID-NFCC

Some editors of Inteligent design are teaming up and overcoming the non-free content policy to use non-free book covers and magazine covers against site-wide policy and consensus.

I'm about to violate WP:3RR since I have to deal with a whole team of editors that insists that people wanting to enforce the policy are just "NFCC regulars" that, unlike them, can't understand the topic of "Intelligent design".

It's well established, and derived from WP:NFCC, that we don't use non-free book-cover images in articles that just happen to mention the book. We use it in the book's article or in any article that discusses some topic that couldn't be fully understood without seeing the specific image. This is nothing special about book or magazine covers, but something valid for all non-free images, according to WP:NFCC#8.

A recent discussion on the article's talk page faded away after the image proponents turned it into a discussion about how bad our policy is. --Damiens.rf 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected the wrong version (in this case, I actually think that it is the wrong version, since I agree with you on our non-free image policy, but I'm not going to enforce it after protecting the page). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've warned those who were edit-warring in breach of policy. Happy to block if need be. Let's hope it won't be necessary. --John (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You warn me for edit warring? Since when is one edit edit warring? Completely uncalled for. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative of notifying the other editors you warned of this report. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the venomously misleading title of this section (The thread was originally titled " == Inteligent design editors teaming up to abuse non-free images ==", and subsequently changed here and again here to its present section title), I'm now not at all surprised to have received User:John's note on my talk page. At the moment, I'm glad I'm not an admin-- I might have fallen for that myself were I not already familiar with the situation. Here's the problem in part: Those editors that choose to frequently file and/or participate in FFDs and who hang around WT:NFC and related pages are not the only users capable of participating in the consensus process to assess whether a given file meets the NFCC. The editors who've descended upon intelligent design in the past week or so appear to be under the illusion that they're the only ones capable of making this assessment. Guettarda's comments immediately below give some perspective on what the arguments ended up being about. In terms of the NFCC, the argument ended up being about the often-subjective and highly debatable assessments called for in NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) and the especially subjective NFCC#8 (significance). These are not the kind of criteria that are appropriate either for a CSD assessment or for any other kind of purely ministerial action by an administrator. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of these images is in keeping with our fair-use policy. Rationales have been made per WP:NFCC#8. No one has bothered to address the rationales for inclusion under NFCC#8. There is no abuse of policy here. John, on the other hand, is making threats which constitute an abuse of his admin privileges, including issuing "warnings" in which he made no attempt to explain what policy he claimed was violated. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No Damiens, the discussion never addressed the issue. It didn't peter out because of "how bad our policy is", it petered out because the only argument that was made against inclusion of the images was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only argument was "because I said, that's why" and and dismissal without consideration of any argument for keeping the images, and any editor who disagrees is part of an abusive gang. That is not fair. This is a content dispute period. And there is absolutely no consensus to delete the images. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fair Use guideline is consensus. We don't have to reach a new one for each article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "The Fair Use guideline is consensus." : So is the definition and description of the proper scope of a "guideline" in WP:Policies and guidelines. Please go refresh memory about what a guideline is, by consensus, within Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The content part of this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The editor conduct issue can continue to be dealt with here. If a consensus is reached in the proper venue that these images meet our policies, this issue will be resolved. If editors edit-war to restore stuff which breaches our policies, they will be blocked. Straightforward stuff, I would think. --John (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the thread at NFCC says to go to Talk:Intelligent design. [Disclaimer: I should be blocked for this edit.] siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with John. The discussion on WT:NFC#Use of book covers in intelligent design has been short, superficial and in violation of WP:AGF (denigrating the WP:CONSENSUS on Talk:Intelligent design as "another case of majority rule ILIKEIT"). The issue has been done to death on Talk:Intelligent design. The regular editors on that article (including myself) believe that there is a long-standing consensus for the inclusion of this "stuff", no contrary consensus has been formed, and there is no objective evidence (only subjective back-and-forth arguments) that it "breaches our policies". It therefore follows that any blocks to enforce one side of this debate would be unlikely to be seen as "uninvolved". YMMV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite User:John's excellent suggestion that I take this up at NFCC, apparently there already is a discussion there explicitly shunting all further comments to Talk:Intelligent design. There is a pronounced lack of consensus at the latter discussion page, to which I have contributed. Presumably further discussion should occur there as well. Under the circumstances I have just described, a block threat seems to be particularly unjustified. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for John re his warning on my page ... he seems to have missed the quid pro quo and gone for the qui. Sad, really, but, well ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NFCC policy

1. No free equivalent. We meet that criterion
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. We're good there.
3. Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use. Not a problem.
4. Previous publication. Yep.
5. Content. Yep.
6. Media-specific policy. Looks good.
7. Significance. Case made. Nothing beyond IDONTLIKEIT has been offered to suggest why the case is flawed.
8. Restrictions on location. Not a problem.
9. Image description page. Got that.

No policy is being violated. The case was made for #8. Once that was done, the discussion petered out. No one pointed out any flaws in the rationale. Inclusion of the images in the article appears to be consistent with the NFCC policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't justify an edit war. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying it did; do you? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a heck of a lot of people making excuses here, yeah. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...for removal? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of people talking about how the photos satisfy (or do not satisfy) policy. That doesn't really matter, as far as ANI is concerned. Even if the images were public domain, nobody has the right to edit war to keep them in the article. And it's not urgent to remove them, either.

Policy can be debated by any user; the only action here that calls for admin intervention (which is what this page is for) is the edit war. I'm with John - I'm willing to block anyone continuing it, on either side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why did John only threaten those on the "wrong" side of this debate? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a warning, not a threat. Warnings are good things. If you're getting warnings, that means you haven't been blocked yet. Which is always nice. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so threats are a good thing. But still, why was only one side threatened with a block here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I didn't warn only one side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have said that you are "with John", without (apparently) bothering to examine what "John is with". siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. Nobody's interested. I know you've got a smart-ass answer for everything, but it's obvious what I meant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

John's threats seem to have sewn a bit of bitterness. Charges regarded horses and asses do not seem to defuse this situation. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. John's warning(s), I tend to think he might have been misled by the opening gambit and the title of this thread. (The thread was originally titled " Inteligent design editors teaming up to abuse non-free images", and subsequently changed here and again here to its present section title.) Obviously he thought he was enforcing clearcut policy and as such his approach, rendered against only one side of the dispute, is somewhat understandable to me. But the fact of the matter is, as I said above in this thread, the assessment of whether the images at issue meet policy is not anywhere near that simple, and the only credible "policy" issues being asserted by Damiens.rf and several others are based on NFCC#8, interpretations of what are debatable, subjective editorial decisions, not by any means clearcut policy-based decisions. Advocates of removal of the images also took a couple shots based on NFCC#1, though these were highly stretched arguments that free-licensed images of the authors should be used in lieu of the cover images, and, as should be obvious, there are no legitimately free-licensed replacements for the cover images themselves. I should add that in October 2007 the article was featured on the main page with these images present in the article, as well as withstood two WP:FARs, so you can dependably bet that many admins have seen the images in intelligent design before, the consensus among admins being that the use, while not bulletproof, was reasonable. Perhaps needless to say, several admins have also disagreed with this assessment that the images' use was reasonable under the NFCC, notably NV8200p and CBM. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The entire conversation above shows why use of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce WP:NFCC. Standard timeline;
  • Images removed per NFCC
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Goes to talk
  • Regular editors of article claim they have "consensus" to keep the images
  • Alternatively, a "rationale" is cobbled together which is claimed to "meet NFCC#8" (it almost never does)
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or editors eventually see that images aren't viable)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to enforce WP:NFCC will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL (this hasn't been the case so much this time, but is normal otherwise)
  • And we wonder why enwiki's use of non-free material is is such a terrible state?

Black Kite 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's run Black Kite's comment from the top from a slightly different perspective:

• The entire conversation above shows why policing of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce their view of WP:NFCC. Standard timeline of an NFC raid on Intelligent design (there've been multiple);
  • Images removed in spite of existing rationale and consensus
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (apparently compulsory)
  • Goes to talk
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing consensus
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing rationale on NFCC#8 -- which inevitably goes nowhere as the criteria is completely subjective and quite vague.
  • Edit war initiated by NFC advocates, taking any pause in conversation to being an admission of surrender
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or self-appointed NFCC enforcers regroup to try again in a few months time)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to defend legitimate content will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL
  • Rinse and repeat
  • And we wonder why these self-appointed individuals have a reputation for precipitate and non-consensual behaviour?

It really depends on who's telling it, doesn't it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "self-appointed NFCC enforcers", "NFC raid", "policing", "pre-existing consensus" and "non-consensual behaviour" proves my point exactly. Thanks for endorsing my posting. I don't think I need say any more. Black Kite 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "claim" & "cobble together" proves my point exactly as well. And I am amused that you would take umbrage at "enforcers" "raid" & "policing" given your prior use of "enforce". As to "pre-existing consensus", you and your fellows were pointed to archive giving exhaustive detail on previous discussions. And I believe "non-consensual" is pretty accurate for unilateral deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Foundation has tasked us with only two areas to keep control of on WP: WP:BLP and NFC. BLP is heavily policed (evidenced by the number of ArbCom cases over it, along with numerous ANI postings), but when it comes to NFC, that seems to be second bananas. Adherence to getting to the free mission goals of WP is not optional. Anything that can be done to reduce non-free use has to be done, with the understanding that some non-free use on en.wiki is needed to help with articles. --MASEM 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it surprising that we still have people who work on the thankless task of NFCC compliance (given how "significance" is rather subjective, it is impossible to get right). I don't think that non-free images are worth the trouble they bring (a clear decision "only free images" would be so much simpler than deciding where the border is), and they are certainly not worth compromising our mission as a free encyclopedia. In support of wikiveganism, Kusma (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we don't have many people working on it, because they end up going to work on something else when they get sick of the abuse and tendentiousness that they encounter. The real issue is that many enwiki editors play lip service to the idea of a "free" encyclopedia, until it's "their" articles that fall foul of NFCC. More worrying recently is that there have been a number of cases recently (I'm not talking about ID here) where admins have been amongst those agitating to keep images in articles against policy. IMHO, those people really need to consider their position as so-called defenders of policy. I'm coming round to the idea that we either go one of three ways. (1) No non-free use, per de-wiki (2) tighten up NFCC severely (3) allow all non-free images and call ourselves "The Encyclopedia". We wouldn't keep a BLP violation in one of our articles because a few editors banded together and declared it "consensus" so why do we appear to allow it with NFCC? Black Kite 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually I think we should have no one working on NFCC compliance. That time would be better spent writing articles or lobbying the Foundation to drop support for projects that are not committed to a free-content-only principle. Kusma (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I vote we frame that comment as a perfect summary of the problem. Somebody tries to enforce the policy, they get trolled to hell and back, they give up, the insidious creep of unfree images continues unabated. Are we actually serious about enforcing that policy? If so, we should adopt a protocol which makes personalising the issue blockable, because that is the root of 99% of NFC drama, IMO. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I fixed your way too common mistake. --Damiens.rf 20:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheese. This of course largely negates my statements in partial defense of John's response to the thread, as well as my description of the tone of the thread. I'll go make "note(s) to reader" where appropriate. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the images are obviously non-compliant, and need to be removed. Editors that may restore them should be apprised that intentionally violating NFCC is an offense that can result in a block.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are, but do you see the problem now? I haven't edited that article at all, but say I was to block someone restoring them - I haven't got time to respond to the ensuing RfC, because this article appears to be "defended" by a number of senior editors. I mean, ID is a featured article, it's a really good article, and it doesn't need to stamp all over one of our policies. So good luck on that one. Black Kite 15:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the problem, Black Kite. And it is a shame ... it's a good article that doesn't need to be tainted by policy violations, and the violation is so flagrantly obvious that there really shouldn't be any controversy at all in enforcing it here. Blocking any editor that restores the images after warning is the obvious move, and, in a perfect world, would be able to be done without blinking an eye.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but... While I recognize the importance of keeping the NFC to a reasonable minimum and the importance of the work of those who parse through the many--many-tens-of-thousands of NFC files as a housekeeping matter, in reality usages such as the three in intelligent design are most certainly not a problem except to the extent that those who choose to focus on removing NFC choose to make it into a problem, to make it into a poster child or example of some kind. Remember please that the NFC is a guideline. What works for comic-book covers, album covers, stamps, etc., as a general guideline does not apply here even as a guideline. What works for book and magazine covers as a general guideline may apply here to some extent, but again is a guideline that should properly be treated as a general guideline-- read that: "inherently flexible". Among the various arguments rendered by those who've targeted these three cover images (originally four), only one is a credible policy argument, the highly subjective "catch-all" criterion NFCC#8. The use of these cover images is by no reasonable stretch of imagination a "blatant" or "clear" or "obvious" violation of any policy. To the contrary, they are completely reasonable, thoughtful, minimal uses that are well within both the letter and the spirit of WP's Exemption Doctrine Policy (WP:NFCC). The consensus for their inclusion among the many participants in the article, many of whom became fairly well exposed and familiar with WP's EDP, was, and remains, virtually unanimous that the uses were minimal, reasonable, and significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. As to justifications based on the idea that WP's mission is to be a totally free-content project, the argument is fair enough but not consistent with the existence of the many tens of thousands (I believe it's over 100,000 but correct me if I'm wrong) of NFC files. Again, there's no need to make a posterchild of these images, as their use is entirely reasonable and well within WP's EDP. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that the EDP is a frequently-waved straw man. Let's look at WP:NFCC#8. The question that arises is simple - is the reader's understanding of the subject of Intelligent design significantly increased by being able to see the cover of a book about it, when the contents of the book are discussed in the article anyway? Answer: clearly not. And that, really, should be it. However ... Black Kite 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's EDP is the NFCC, although WP:EDP presently redirects to the guideline page, WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence my specific reference to NFCC. Resolution:Licensing policy redirects to NFC, but that's just a guideline, NFCC is the policy (even though it's transcluded into it). I've found a need to be precise in the past... Black Kite 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proposed Compromise Cut down WP's coverage of Intelligent Design by about 90% and lock it. Tell ID supporters to go edit articles on religion and critics to edit ones on science. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say that this is one of the most destructive proposals I have ever seen. Remove 90% of coverage of a notable topic from Wikipedia? That's insane. And besides, this isn't about the validity of ID, this is about whetehr some images come under fair use.--Patton^t/c 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the immense scope of WP's articles on this fairly minor topic, and the waste of time, talent, and energy involved in their upkeep. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess another major component to this is that the policy is (or at the very least seems) subjective. Is there anyway a community wide discussion could lead to the policy becoming more concrete? Do we purposely leave it flexible, even though it leads to conflicts such as this one? Is there anything we could do in terms of policy/guidelines to make the issue more clear for the future, or will this not lead anywhere because any policy based changes would mean one of these sides would loose, and the sides are too polarized as it is? Would those wanting to include the images on this page be willing to give that up if the policy was changed to make it clear those sorts of images in that usage was inappropriate? Would those wanting to remove the images be willing to give that up if the core policy behind all this was made clearer so that a case like this was unambiguously acceptable? -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to subordinate my personal judgment to policies and guidelines, and, if I think they are wrong, discuss that issue on the appropriate discussion pages for policies and guidelines. If there was a policy that said "Book covers can be used to decorate articles about related subjects", I would leave them be, but lobby pretty hard to change that policy. This really isn't an ambiguous case where the subjectivity is causing problems, though. It's more a case of editors that believe having an attractive article is more important than following guidelines and policies.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The authors of that article clearly believe they are following guidelines and policies. They merely interpret those policies and guidelines differently than the WP:NFCC regulars. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith in as much as I think they have an honest belief that NFCC prevents them from producing the article they think is best, and are attempting to evade it on that basis. I don't see any evidence that they believe they are following NFCC#8, as they have never been able to answer a straightforward question: what aspect of intelligent design is it that a reader might have difficulty grasping, that, having viewed the book cover, they would then find easier to grasp? When faced with that straightforward, simple question, one receives replies about how humans are visual learners, the nature of correct graphic design, comparison of the use of the book covers to album covers, claims that consensus is required to remove the material, but never an answer to that question. Unless that question can be answered, a defense of an image in terms of NFCC#8 can't even be mounted.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The question kww proposes, "what aspect of intelligent design is it that a reader might have difficulty grasping, that, having viewed the book cover, they would then find easier to grasp?" , is not the policy w.r.t. NFCC#8, but rather is made up by kww. The policy, NFCC#8, states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This question has repeatedly been asked and answered, addressed at great length by at least ten editors in at least twenty or thirty places, most or all of which were recently linked for convenience on the article talk page. And Guettarda and others including myself have outlined at significant length some of the benefits the images confer to readers in the current set of talk threads. The response among those who've come into the article with no significant purpose other than to advocate deletion of the cover images has been, essentially, "no they don't" and "that's not the way we use cover images" and "our goal is to create a free-licensed encyclopedia". I don't ordinarily draw on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it's just an essay, but if the goal is to make the encyclopedia completely free-licensed, then argue at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC to make the EDP simple-- no NFC allowed, and delete all of the 100,000+ NFC files. But until such time as there is agreed to be no NFC in Wikipedia we have an exemption policy in place' (an EDP) that explicitly allows NFC on the wiki, specifically WP:NFCC. The NFCC are designed to allow NFC on the wiki within reason, with reasonable restraint, and with reasonable justification as set forth in the NFCC. The images at issue have unquestionably satisfied NFCC#s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10a, 10b and 10c, and quite reasonably satisfied the very subjective and always debatable question in #8. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please, here and now, put this to bed by using those "twenty or thirty" comments you mention and actually answering the question - How is the reader's understanding of the subject of Intelligent Design significantly increased by being able to see the cover of a book about it, when the contents of the book are already discussed in the article anyway?. Then we can mark this resolved and all go to bed happy. Black Kite 00:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm back, briefly. The links were given on Talk:Intelligent design. I'm not able right now to grab every significant diff and list them here. I am willing, though, to go over them and give a reasonable sampling of them as well as a re-recitation of the substantive arguments in support of the proposition that readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the use of the cover images in that article--as soon as I have an opportunity, which will probably be in a day or two. I'll post them on the article talk page with a link-to on this page. Fair enough?... Kenosis (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite and Kww, I've been called to "real-life work" that needs my undivided attention for several days. I need to attend to that first, then get back to collecting the numerous diffs spread out among many threads giving reasoned substantive support to why readers' understanding is significantly enhanced by the images under discussion here, then time to organize those diffs to present for the scrutiny of all concerned users. So it'll probably be a few more days. My apology about the delay, and I'll post them in a reasonably organized fashion ASAP-- most likely several more days. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Back again. For now, you'll need to scan through the numerous links I gave at Talk:Intelligent design. You'll see how consideration of the first inclusion of the images at issue developed on the article talk page, what happened after they were included, etc. I wish the discussions were only on article talk, but they're in various forums pursued by advocates of deletion as they went around seeking favorable forums to get their intended way. So, I give no promises at this point, although as User:John observed in a separate discussion, given the lack of a new consensus this might very well take significantly more time anyway. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for trying to frame the issue in a concrete form that made it easy to evaluate whether you had any rational basis for your position. I don't see how you can satisfy its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding if there is no aspect of intelligent design that is made simpler to understand. Can you explain that to me? If there isn't an aspect that is difficult to understand without the image, the absence isn't detrimental, and if that difficult thing isn't made easier to understand by the presence of the image, then the image can't significantly increase the reader's understanding. You appear to be dodging the question by claiming I made things up.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no dodging of any kind going on here. You've framed the question incorrectly, because making simpler to understand is only one of a number of ways to significantly enhance readers' understanding. Fact is, they do make the iconography used by the "intelligent design movement" and by Time magazine simpler to understand. But they also add information that can't be properly conveyed with text, important visual information that significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic. Please see also my note just above in response to Black Kite's last post. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it puts the discussion in context, by making visual referents to things the reader has previously seen, to arresting visual statements made on book covers, to classic related images. Communication by images is as important s communication by words--and for topics where emotion is involved,is often much clearer. DGG (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But not when it is other people's copyrighted images. As a free project we don't do that. --John (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

John, the NFCC are not "we don't do that", they're "we do that only when it significantly enhances understanding" (with other technical criteria). As DGG just argued in broad terms here, and as I recently argued in more specific terms on Talk:Intelligent design, in this instance they do in fact significantly enhance understanding. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the argument you, DGG, and others are presenting is not specific to these images. The argument Articles with pictures and images are easier to understand and digest than articles without them is a hard one to refute on a general basis, and I wouldn't really even think of trying. The question is whether these individual images have characteristics that increase the understanding of this specific topic, and people aren't providing concrete arguments in support of.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the comment I linked to above, did you? It was very specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly did. You argued that presenting images of various milestones in the topic served to draw you in, and would possibly persuade you to read text that otherwise you wouldn't have read. That isn't an argument demonstrating that those particular milestones needed to be illustrated and that no text could have explained the occurrence of those milestones. "I wouldn't have read the text" isn't an argument that says that text couldn't explain the pictures, that's an argument that says articles should be attractively laid out and contain pictures to draw the readers eye.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I argued that the specific pictures had the specific effect of significantly enhancing my understanding, and that the text did not. I don't know why you bring in arguments like "that no text could have...": it's not a hypothetical, about some article that doesn't exist and some reader that doesn't exist, it's my actual reaction to the article as it now exists. If that doesn't meet WP:NFCC #8, then that criterion is meaningless and we might as well simplify WP:NFCC to "delete all unfree images". I realize that some ideologues might think we should delete all such images regardless, but by WP:AGF I'm hopeful that you're not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all? is part of NFCC#1, which intertwines a bit with the need for the absence of the image to significantly detract from understanding: if the image could be replaced by text, it's hard to argue that the absence of the image is detrimental. No, I'm not really an NFCC extremist, but I do believe firmly that the arguments for using NFC should be strong and in support of that specific use of that specific image. I don't argue against the use of book covers in articles about the books, or pictures of stamps in articles about stamps, for example. I think the need for images in this particular article could be covered by things like File:Flagellum_base_diagram.svg, illustrating one of the key contention argument points of irreducible complexity faction of the ID movement. If there was a fair-use image of the bone structure of a panda's thumb, I'd probably support inclusion of it, because without it it's hard to explain to laymen how the panda became the poster-child of the ID controversy. There's a real need for images in this article, and a lot of images that would actually enhance it. Stuffing book covers in it as a substitute isn't the way to go.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "There's a real need for images in this article, and a lot of images that would actually enhance it" : You've presumably become more familiar with the topic in the course of your analysis. In support of your statement, kindly point us to a couple such images that are free-licensed, or even just one.... Kenosis (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, I'll take part of my statement back. the flagellem diagram is a good illustration of the debate about irreducible complexity, though may be overly specific for the intelligent design article. IMO, there's a good argument to supplement the Behe book cover, though it would not be an equivalent replacement for the presentation on the cover of Darwin's Black Box because the cover shows how the ID proponents have publicly framed the debate in part with their misleading use of iconography (plenty of RSs in support of this). I'll bring it up on the article talk page, if someone else doesn't mention it first. Good catch. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You should watch your assumptions ... I'm intimately familiar with intelligent design, and have been debating and arguing against creationism for decades. Dig through the talk.origins postings archived on the web, and you will find that some of the earliest archived postings are from "Kevin W. Williams".—Kww(talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then I trust you're familiar with the importance of the slick cover presentations and other approaches designed to manipulate the popular mind and to foist their philosophy onto biological science. As you might perhaps have realized, without the elements of various manipulative or misleading presentation, "intelligent design" would hardly be controversial to the extent it has become in the United States. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, I'm interested in reading about the ID movement's techniques to foster their point through iconography and the like. Can you point me some books and articles (no self-published stuff, like webpages, please) covering the specific topic? Thanks! --Damiens.rf 11:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are already at least several such sources in the article which include this kind of information, scattered throughout in the footnotes. There are almost certainly more available. I myself will be mostly unavailable until the weekend, except for very brief periods of time. I'll find some then... Kenosis (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I said over the weekend-- this is Wednesday. In the meantime you might perhaps start to familiarize yourself with this rather complex topic and also at least scan the footnotes. Discussion of the misleading approaches used by intelligent design proponents is in various places in the article, in the lead, in the Intelligent design#Overview section, and it would be also be reasonable to pay extra attention to the Intelligent design#Creating and teaching the controversy section. As to the current use of the word "misleadingly" in the image caption of Of Pandas and People, which I notice you've commented on at Talk:Intelligent design, I think the use of that word is unnecessary-- indeed counterproductive-- in terms of WP:NPOV, despite that the statement is cited to a reasonably reliable source. The cover is set up to look like a high-school science textbook because it was intended to be a high-school science textbook. Numerous reliable sources and a federal court of law have said it isn't, but rather is a religious creationist book. You might also quickly check out Barbara Forrest's Creationism's Trojan Horse, one of numerous RSs that deal with the stealthy aspects of proponents' presentation to the public. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I was recently in a large Barnes and Noble bookstore. They had a whole row of books on science and also a whole row of books on astrology, spiritualism, and other "new-age" topics; ironically enough the rows faced each other. However there was not one book supporting creationism or intelligent design. Are these books really that influential to the public mind? And wasn't the Time magazine cover an attempt to sell magazines? Every Christmas they do a cover story on Jesus. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Look in the FICTION section. Actually, I would think you're most likely to find books on so-called "Intelligent Design" in the same section with books by Oral Roberts and the like, i.e. possibly somewhere near the Christianity section. ID is most assuredly not in the "New Age" genre. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip. I was looking for Icons of Evolution. I have never read any ID books. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive enforcement of non-free images guideline

As I've made clear at the outset, this has blown up at a time when I'm heavily involved with other matters, but a quick statement to give my opinion that what could have been a reasonable discussion over subjective opinions in the rationale for image use has been quickly escalated into a disruptive dispute by uncivil behaviour aimed at forcing through a partisan hardline interpretation of image guidelines which looks like policy creep and appeal to the "spirit of the policy" rather than accepting that the policy does allow well reasoned use. The episode started with an editor deleting images and at the same time making a talk page statement showing a failure to even examine the rationales which had been correctly provided to meet image use policy,[1][2] then edit warring to remove the images.[3] An admin demanding removal of the images has issued peremptory warnings to editors opposing removal, making a threat "If I see you make another edit like this I shall block you" without even showing what policy is allegedly infringed,[4] causing severe distress to experienced and valued science editors and not even giving them the courtesy we extend as a matter of course to persistent blatant vandals. There has been a willingness on the part of subject editors to discuss and put forward requested rationales, and to reconsider image use to the extent of agreeing to removal of one image, but there has been too much unexplained "Idontlikeit" in response along with the claim that such bald statements override a carefully established consensus. With more courtesy and patience I'm sure that an amicable solution can be reached, but a reasonable willingness to properly consider subjective criteria is essential, and those seeking to enforce policy must show more courtesy in future to meet normal standards and avoid such useless disruption. Won't be able to comment much for a few days, so can't promise quick responses to any questions. .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "carefully established consensus" that you speak of is illusory; there hasn't been any real consensus on these images for a long time. However, I want to respond more directly to the idea that enforcing the NFCC policy is disruptive.

There is typically a very small group of admins who follow NFCC issues closely, and their work is often described as disruptive because they appear to arrive out of nowhere to remove images. However, enforcing NFCC has become an established practice. In some cases, especially on lists of albums or lists of characters, we have even permitted admins to remove images and then protect the page, to prevent editors from re-inserting the images without a consensus to do so. My main point here is that administrators enforcing the NFCC policy are no more "disruptive" than editors who remove text that is a copyright violation, or who remove libellous material from BLPs, or editors who bring a page into compliance with the Manual of Style. They are performing important work, and they receive far too much criticism for doing it.

Claims that the NFCC policy is "subjective" are true in a sophomoric sense ("everything's just an opinion"). But we have a well established practice regarding the use of non-free images of album covers, book covers, etc. But (as with the Manual of Style) different pages are in different states of agreement with the established standard. The intelligent design article is just one of the slower articles to meet our NFCC practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please seek better accuracy in statements paraphrasing others' views here. Many of the 10 WP:NFCC are relatively straightforward--either they're met or they're not met. It's specifically NFCC #8 and to an extent NFCC #1 that have been characterized as subjective in the course of discussion and argument about these images, indeed they've been characterized as such by many other than several of the supporters of the images' use in the article. This includes at least one uninvolved closing admin at an IfD of one of these images (here, scroll up to see the closer's statement). But "sophomoric"? No way. Calling NFCC#8 "subjective" is slightly inaccurate perhaps. To be a bit more precise, WP:NFCC #8 is not so much inherently subjective as it is unverifiable. Hence it's subjective for our purposes because we can't effectively study the effects of our work in order to determine the actual result hpon the consciousness of the readers. Add to that the fact that most WP editors are highly text-oriented, and the arguments about the information value of images become, might we say, highly subjective. WP:NFCC #1 is highly subjective because of the way it's written, which calls for a discretionary editorial decision. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'd only add that this section and Talk:Intelligent design make it very clear why the pool of admins willing to work on NFCC is so small. Black Kite 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points: (i) What you call "established practice", many would consider to be self-created and self-fulfilling 'policy creep'. (ii) In order to maintain an equilibrium between copyright and fair-use, some degree of countervailing influence is needed to NFC-removal advocacy, particularly given the level of aggression that this advocacy often exhibits. Otherwise an equilibrium solution turns into a boundary solution (i.e. no NFC at all). However, as far as I can see, the NFC-removal advocates treat all who disagree with them as benighted heathens in need of enlightenment by the true faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 11:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The balance that has developed is not in favor of zero non-free images. For example we almost universally permit a cover image on an article about the work with that cover, images of art on articles about the work of art, etc.

A somewhat common response by editors who are faced with the need to comply with NFCC is to attack the policy itself. If you'd like to be an influence on NFCC, participate on that page; if you'd like to be an influence on the manual of style, participate there. Simply ignoring the Manual of Style does not make one an influence against it, nor does ignoring the NFCC requirements make one an influence against them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not about an "equilibrium between copyright and fair-use", it's about an equilibrium between fair use and our free-content mission. --Damiens.rf 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would usually agree that book covers etc should only be found in article specifically about the book, but the 2 i see at Intelligent design seem appropriate and have good rationales. Not perfect, and certainly arguments can be made against their inclusion, but it is not so clear cut that removing images aginas t talk page consensus is warranted. It may be that editors of the page are too close to the subject, but even so the images should be left until a consensus is formed amoungst neutral commentators (eg a RfC), or until the guideline is made more clear. "Complying with NFCC implies there is only one interpretation, which is clearly not the case.Yobmod (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The opposite is true. Non-free images are not used unless there's a consensus to keep them. So, they shouldn't be "be left until a consensus is formed". --Damiens.rf 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[Citation needed]. What was dave souza saying at the top of this section about policy creep? I don't see anything about a presumption of guilt in WP:NFCC. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"...it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created." - WP:NFCC, --Damiens.rf 15:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Providing a valid rationale is almost completely unrelated to forming a consensus of editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And what, if not Consensus, is to determine if a given rationale is valid?

What we're discussing on Talk:Intelligent design is exactly the validity of template rationales like "...its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" blindly pasted to File:Pandas_and_ppl.jpg and File:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, and I assure you there's no consensus (on the article's talk page discusion) so far. --Damiens.rf 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Damiens' statement about the rationales is false The rationale for the use of the cover image of Of Pandas and People has read as follows for well over a year:

• The image shows the first significant published work advocating the idea of intelligent design and introducing the term.
• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section of the article dealing the origins of the term "intelligent design".
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the book.
• The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot.

The rationale for the use of the August 15, 2005 Time Magazine cover image has read as follows, also for well over a year to date:

• The image shows an important public dimension of the controversy over intelligent design.
• he image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section entitled "Controversy" in the article on intelligent design.
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the magazine.
• The image of the magazine cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the magazine in a manner that prose cannot

Of course, the rationales could be yet more detailed and specific, as well as cite other reasons justifying their inclusion in the article. But they are by no means a mere copy-and-paste of boilerplate onto the image page. Further, Damiens' statement above about the burden of proof is wrongly applied here, as that burden of proof has long been met-- for about a year-and-a-half now, since August 2007. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not show other editors bad faith with words like "blindly." I suggest you strike that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are extremely reasonable written rationales for the use of these images... Kenosis (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw geez, a cursory look shows that the image use is compliant with non-free policy. They come in not as book covers used to illustrate a mention of the book, but as subject matter specifically discussed by criticism / commentary in the text of the article. Whether that material should be discussed in the article, or whether it's instead just perfunctory fluff written to justify the use and should be deleted, is a matter for editors on that page to determine by consensus with reference to content policy and guidelines. Absent anything blatant like copyvio, BLP vio, etc., consensus is normally required to change stable material in articles, and that includes replacing pictures. "Policy is on my side" or "consensus is always required to keep content" are not viable arguments for edit warring to delete stuff that's been in the article for a long while. That's all a content matter anyway. The problem here was two sides edit warring.Wikidemon (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "The problem here was two sides edit warring": Partially correct-- this is what happens when two "sides" disagree intensively, and neither side is satisfied to let it go. Thing is, this article on a very controversial topic has remained quite stable for well over a year, and the remaining participants obviously decided a very substantial change in the article, by fiat, was totally unwarranted. But the prime issue in this thread is the threat to block editors in support of the images who reverted only once, while failing to notify editors attempting to delete the images that they too were edit warring. More, we had one editor seeking to delete with three reverts and another with something like eight or nine reverts in twenty-four hours. This threat to block editors seeking to retain the images with one revert each, one of which is linked in the opening comment of this subsection by Dave souza above, was based upon a presumption that the issue is somehow clear-cut, e.g. in some way like the WP:CSD are fairly clear-cut, and amounted to taking away the ability of one side of the disagreement to assert its preference by making an actual edit. I myself reverted the removal of images once, and was threatened with a block along with two others who also only reverted once, and one who reverted the removals twice. NB: the editor who made the eight or nine reverts was subsequently blocked for 24 hours by a different, uninvolved admin.
.....Since then the arguments have gone back and forth intensively, as we'd expect to happen when two sides hold completely different opinions. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Another term for "asserting preferences by making an edit" is "edit warring". Indeed, the only reason that the images have remained in the article since 2007 is the continued willingness of certain editors associated with the ID page to re-insert them despite a lack of agreement that the images pass the NFCC requirements. This very point was also the content of my initial message on the ID talk page in January [5]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "Another term for "asserting preferences by making an edit" is "edit warring" " : That's right. Except for one thing. The participants in the article on Intelligent design followed WP:BRD nearly to the letter. Those who sought to delete the images did not do so, but instead chose to force their will on the local article participants. Where it gets extremely questionable is when an admin comes into the mix and uses highly debatable, subjective policy grounds to force the will of those parties opposing the presence of the images upon the local consensus of many experienced editors (including several admins) that support with near unanimity that the use of the images is in keeping with WP:NFCC and is a reasonable digression from the WP:NFC guideline. This sort of administrative practice, if it continues or becomes widespread practice, will certainly have a deletorious effect upon the community. At that point it becomes much more than an ideological disagreement between only-free-content advocates and NFC strict-interpretationists on the one hand, and those participating in an article who follow the WP:NFCC diligently (as the ID editors did) but who by local consensus choose to use a minimal amount of selected NFC in thoughtful, restrained, reasonable ways that might differ slightly from the general guidelines set forth in WP:NFC. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll back up Damien's take on the situation. A quick headcount of editors for and against inclusion of these images can be found here. While I am all too aware that consensus is not a vote, if this is a valid consensus to keep the images then I'm a monkey's uncle. --John (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that you seek a new consensus. Plainly this is one of those situations where not only do the opposite sides disagree vigorously on guideline interpretations and the debatable policy provisions, especially NFCC#8, but also don't agree about this new administrative procedure that John has suddenly set in place. That much, at least, is extremely plain, or should be to everyone involved by now. So among the questions here ought be "what does previously achieved consensus on significant issues by participants in a stable article count for after many of them have gone onto other things?" It's an extremely important question for the future of the wiki, I should think. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a greater issue that probably deserves a proper solution rather than being allowed to fester on for another year or two. I'm having difficulty squaring the evidence I gathered at the page linked to above with your the local consensus of many experienced editors (including several admins) that support with near unanimity that the use of the images is in keeping with WP:NFCC. Near unanimity? 18-15 is not near unanimity and I wonder if, in the interest of reaching a solution to this, you might wish to acknowledge that. It would be a step in the right direction. --John (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was near unanimity among the participants in the article. That includes many who are no longer participating. I thought I made that plain. So, as I said, you seek a new consensus among present participants. Obviously that won't happen, unless opinions change dramatically. Incidentally, in your head count, did you count those who weighed in on this page? Do prior participants count for anything? The latter question was part of my point about the future of the wiki. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a real shame, I thought for a moment we had a window to achieve a solution. What level of participation and what timeframe cutoff do you wish to use to make the facts fit your view of them? I see valid dissent on the talk page going back a long way, and I see valid dissent at the last FAR which wasn't addressed. Now I see wikilawyering from you (the editor who added these images). I don't see understanding of the principle that we need consensus to include things here, and I don't see willingness to actually discuss this. So disappointing. --John (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the tendency of many in the NFC patrol to quote "book, chapter and verse" of both the policy and the guideline whenever they set their sights on a target (in addition to some making up rules that aren't in either--diffs available upon request over the weekend), I find the accusation of "wikilawyering" to be, well, a heck of a stretch of reason. Sorry, but that's my take on it. Obviously there are two fairly distinct camps, those who insist on deleting the images from the article and who've never participated except to advocate deletion of these images, and those who find the images compliant with the WP:NFCC policy and a reasonable, relatively minor departure from the guideline that enhance the quality and educational value of the article. Me, it's late, I'm tired, and have very busy days ahead. For now, take care. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a credible argument, though, that the images fail NFC. That's either a gross misinterpretation of the policy or some kind of technical argument to support a content preference. For better or for worse, like it or not, the article contains reliably sourced content to the effect that ID proponents have used book cover illustrations to push an agenda. Showing those illustrations, clearly, adds substantially to the understanding of that article text in a way that words alone cannot. The debatable point is whether that content is significant or relevant to the article in the first place. So it's a two step question, first, does the content belong? If there is a consensus against the content it can be removed along with the images. If there is no consensus to remove, or a consensus to include, the article content stays and the images properly illustrate it. There is zero chance here that the images are a copyright violation. Any "I'm on a mission from the Wikimeia Board" trip regarding NFC is bogus. You can always find policy grounds to support your position, but "policy trumps consensus" doesn't cut it in matters subject to legitimate differences of opinion.Wikidemon (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would posit that as a general rule policy does trump consensus, that what makes policy different from guideline, guideline is subject to IAR, policy is not. That said, having taken a look at the article and wading through the drama discussion on the talk pages, I have to say that the Pandas and People cover is most certainly appropriate for the article while the Time cover most certainly is not. The article has a section specifically devoted to the Pandas book, the use of the NFC image to illustrate this section is proper. The article also posits that the debate over ID was widespread and tries to use the Time cover to illustrate this. This usage fails our criteria for NFC. As for the contention that those who enforce policy (of any kind) are somehow damaging the project, wow, that is so stupid as to almost not deserve a reply. More people should be working to enforce policy, we all should be editing within policy, and those that don't like our policies are welcome to go start their own encyclopedia elsewhere, Wikipeida review is thataway. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Policy trumps consensus"? Hmmm... allow me to ask you an ignorant question: Is policy arrived at through consensus? Or is it imposed by some higher authority? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

← The usual principle is that policy and guideline pages represent a broad consensus that cannot easily be overridden by a few editors at a particular article. This is particularly true with policies such as NOR, BLP, and NFCC which deem certain content to be inappropriate in articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is no different than the fights over random decorative screenshots of movies. The only thing different here is the proportion of people who want to keep the non-compliant images who are admins. --B (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd, but I've yet too see one convincing argument as to how they are invalid. And no B, they're not bloody decorative. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Again, nearly any edit anyone might make to the encyclopedia has a policy justification. Where consensus is that something complies with policy, and the consensus position is a plausible interpretation of policy, then removal of content by enforcers who claim their knowledge of policy is superior to others has proven to be a problematic to say the least. Looking more closely at this particular content issue I do agree with L0b0t that Pandas and People has a stronger case because is the subject of specific commentary in the article about the image, whereas the Time Magazine cover is weaker because it merely quotes the text of the cover, and no attempt is made to say why this one cover has any special significance - it just illustrates the subject of the cover. Both situations seem to be addressed in example #8 of unacceptable image use at WP:NONFREE: "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.". The example covers pictures of people as opposed to pictures of other subjects but it is no great leap to apply it more generally. The panda image probably shouldn't be on the page either, though, because the commentary about it ought to be moved to the article about the book rather than the ID article, but that's a two step argument and nothing so obvious that anyone ought to edit war over. We have notice boards and dispute resolution for such things. Wikidemon (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the panda image has a stronger case for inclusion than the TIME image. Although, at the moment the panda image may fall just short of the non-free policy, I suspect the article could be modified so that it complies. I'm less optimistic about the TIME image, and have nominated it for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive admin

Yes, I used that heading. Yes, I can't believe I did either. I am at a loss. User:John is in a content/policy dispute, the crux being whether or not criteria #8 has been met on the NFCC policy. I avoid such disputes and am not part of it. However, John has been threatening to use his admin tools to block and/or ban editors[6][7][8] during an edit war and after I counseled him against threatening to use his tools in a dispute[9], he responded by basically saying I was a liar and he attempted a misdirect to the content, accusing me of violation OWN[10] ignoring that I have said nothing on the dispute. I spoke only to his handling of the dispute. He has escalated to trolling my talk page, attacking me and my motives, and continues his attacks on other editors with whom he disagrees. He most recently made a personal and insulting attack on Guettarda[[11]. I left a notice[12] on his talk page, but he has summarily removed it, apparently feeling that if he trolls my talk page and is called on it by me, he can ignore NPA warnings from me. I cannot say I am done with John; as if he continues to insult and attack editors, and certainly if he blocks to gain advantage in a dispute, if no one else will act I will feel compelled to do so. Hence my presence here, as John has dismissed me as "not in good faith" and is continuing to attack and run roughshod over other editors. Please, do not confuse this or mix this with the content/policy dispute, which is being discussed elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• John's tone isn't much different from Guettarda's tone in the [diff you posted. I don't see one being better off than the other from a brief glance. They both should try to be calmer and AGF, for sure, but I'm not sure these are blatant personal attack violations. They disagree and have been at it for weeks now, so tempers are expected to be thin. I wish it wasn't like that, but it isn't entirely unexpected. Also, I believe John has been clear that he has no intention of using the tools. He initially issued warning on the 6th, but once he became involved in the dispute, he has not used the tools (nor issued any threats like the ones from the 6th). Are there any more recent diffs of possibly admin abuse??-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• IMO his tone is significantly different, but that's subjective of course. Where did he say he wouldn't use the tools? His response[13] to my concern was to call me a liar and accuse me of violating OWN, neither of which is correct or helpful and neither of which address his threat to end an edit war he was in by blocking three editors who disagreed with him. This is a matter of grave concern; that he threatened to do so at all is very disturbing, and he has responded to concern about it with insults. If he did state he would not use his admin tools, well and good - where did he do so? Do you recall? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  Adding, what do you mean "once he became involved" - he was edit warring before issuing the block warnings. That's why I said something. He was deep in an edit war when he made those threats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  I was referring to this, where John says I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. , and the whole WP:UNINVOLVED business is discussed further at John's talk page by two other admins.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)