Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Wikipedia:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos

Where's the dispute?
''Note: The template improperly associated the "article". Dispute is located at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. Now moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1, mediation is on native talk page.''

The dispute is scattered over literally thousands of articles of sports team seasons, rivalries and specific games.
 * I respectfully disagree. While the dispute's potential impact runs the gamut of articles, the number of places this dispute is taking place is small. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the dispute?
A summary of the dispute is located at User:Hammersoft/rfar. In short, this debate has resulted in no consensus. There's really no middle ground. It's an either-or question. On one side, there are those that feel no consensus in the debate means non-free logos must be removed from the season, rivalry, and specific game articles. On the other, there are those that feel that no consensus means the use is acceptable.

We are at an impasse. A specific request was made to ArbCom as to what to do. The recommendation was to seek mediation. Thus, this request. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I think progress is (slowly) being made. I think we can come to an agreement with at least a 2 or 3 to 1 majority, but that will take time. I admire Hammersoft's desire to reach closure, but a guideline of this magnitude is going to take some time and I think that is what will eventually lead to a conclusion. — BQZip01 — talk 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "final" proposal is currently a dead even split 50/50 support/oppose. I don't think we're getting anywhere. We've been working at this for seven weeks now, with no end in sight. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also; it's entirely possible this case sits unaccepted for a month. There's two other cases in the queue that have been sitting for a month. Of course, if that happens I'll try other avenues. But, it's not as if everything grinds to a halt while pending acceptance of mediation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the major issue is the use or non-use of non-free team logos on season pages regardless of how everything else is written is going to keep any compromise from occurring. --M ASEM 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue to believe that only parts of this issue are controversial (needing to be settled in mediation), while many parts of it probably have consensus, or nearly do. Part of the problem is that proposals continue to be put forward to deal with this issue in its entirety, rather than dealing with the different issues separately. For example, I think most of the involved editors accept the use of non-free logos on articles about teams, while we are more evenly split concerning the use of such logos in articles about single seasons and rivalries. I think if we discuss each of these separately, instead of continuing to !vote on broader proposals, consensus regarding MOST of the points of disagreement could be reached. cmadler (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The original quandary had nothing to do with team articles. There remains a wide gulf between the parties regarding rivalry, specific game, and season articles. That gap has never been closed, and there really is no middle position. It's an either-or situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly close to getting consensus support. A small tweak to the last sentence in the Season's section of the Final version 2 to bring it in line with the other sections, and I think a large portion of people would move over into the support camp. (I know I certainly would make the jump, which is something I never did in any of the previous versions.) Assuming the availability of free alternatives (which appear to be widely available for just about ever school) then such a change would only be a failsafe insurance policy in very rare cases (or none at all) which would in essence not change the spirit of what is being passed, but would likely gather much more support among those currently opposing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably not going to resolve anything. If this is the box, think outside it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it will probably not resolve anything. However, we were specifically instructed by ArbCom members to seek mediation. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Final version 3 has garnered the most support of any final version to date, so it is likely heading in the right direction, but there is still likely a need for moderation, as you guys point out. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This "right direction" would have us using a single non-free logo across hundreds of pages. The "final version" can not be accepted as it is a direct violation of policy and countermands the Foundation's stance on the use of fair use images specifically with regards to minimal and narrow use. This version can not stand, even if it had 100% support. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Final version 3 has 66% support. That's definitely progress towards consensus. Why don't we continue discussion off that one? Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because if that version achieves supposed consensus, it would erode Foundation resolution...which can not be eroded. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, because a large part of what appears to be progress toward consensus may simply be a result of people becoming frustrated, giving up, and withdrawing from the debate. cmadler (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted previously on the RfC that any "vote" that had more than 20 people didn't come close to achieving consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And, as I pointed out, there, you were wrong.
 * "This "right direction" would have us using a single non-free logo across hundreds of pages." Sorry, but no, it wouldn't. Non-free logos would have minimal use and only be used outside "parent" articles in cases which a free alternative does not exist. This would only erode your view on what Foundation policy says; the majority of other users disagree with your POV. I also concur that policy and guidelines could be more clear to avoid such problems; the fact that a large percentage disagree on both sides shows their is some ambiguity.
 * The problem with people dropping out is their own choice on the matter. Guidelines get crafted over a period of time. Over something this contentious, I would expect time to be taken to make the best solution. If people choose to not participate, we cannot make them do so. Silence is acquiescence in this case.
 * The large volume of feedback seems to be "No, not that!" with very little in the way of counter-proposals or creative solutions. I hold no monopoly on ideas and welcome alternatives suggestions. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Several times now you've made claims about this or that being agreement with you, etc. Several times now you've claimed that something I stated as being true wasn't. Frankly, I'm past the point of caring. I've disproved you on several occasions, and it seems not to matter. I'm not interested in your claims that I am wrong. Fact: There are schools for which there is no free license logo. Fact: Those schools have multiple, multiple varsity teams. Fact: Those teams have plenty of sports seasons going back into history. Fact: If the guideline were accepted in the final version 3 and actually applied, it would ultimately result in a logo being used hundreds of times. That can not and will not be acceptable. I'm not particularly interested if you think that's minimal usage. It's blatantly obvious it isn't. As to continued claims of silence being consensus on this issue, as I noted before if you make an attempt to apply such supposed consensus you will quickly find out that is an inappropriate approach to solving this situation. I frequently advocated for not taking the lack of consensus to be used as a tool to remove all of the non-free logos from these articles, and instead continue the DR process. The least....least...you could do is stop threatening silence=consensus and therefore you get to have your way. It doesn't in this case, and you know darn well it doesn't. Enough already. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One of your "facts" is wrong making the rest of your conclusion in error. There is a free alternative available for every single school.
 * Another "fact" is a slippery slope argument that simply isn't true "it would ultimately result in a logo being used hundreds of times." No school has hundreds of articles that would use a non-free image under this guidance.
 * I'm making no such "threats". I am quoting policy: "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." If you disagree with that policy, I invite you to disagree on that talk page. Should you get consensus to change that phrasing, my argument would then be negated.
 * Please do not make threats. Consensus is the appropriate approach to just about everything on Wikipedia aside from Wiki-policies, law, Arbcom decisions, and edicts from the great and powerful Oz. Applying consensus is not a hostile act and you shouldn't take it as such.
 * This iteration is not "my way" it is what we have discussed and compromised to craft. It doesn't represent my views entirely. It doesn't represent your views entirely. But this is a compromise. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus when 75% of the previous participants in the discussion are no longer active in the discussion. Silence most emphatically did not exist, and when it did not there was no consensus. Continuing a debate ad nauseum until people drop off for lack of attention does not equate to you getting your way via a notion that since they are silent, you win. This will NOT work. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're working off the assumption that all those logos do not pass the threshold of originality to not qualify for copyright. There are some that clearly can't and thus PD: Notre Dame's simple two-letter "ND" can't, and of course the military branches are government and thus PD already.  But for something like Ohio State's (where there are geometric shapes but that follow placement and the like) that's not necessarily true (nor false).  Thus, these may not be free images.  --M ASEM  00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not working on any such assumption. I'm working off of these well-established concepts
 * "...a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters...is not protected by copyright in the United States."
 * "it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations.".
 * The image to which you are referring is nothing more than an "O" and the words "Ohio State" in an arch. There is certainly artistic intent here, but that does not meet the standards of threshold of originality and make it copyrightable. That said, let's assume for a moment you are correct. A simple red "O" is another logo of Ohio State and is also non-copyrightable. For just about every school I could find, there are numerous alternatives as well. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the McDonald's logo or CBS's logo do not qualify as free under threshold of originality, I'd argue that the free-ness of several of the other schools including Ohio State's in that list is up to legal interpretation, something that we should not be judging and thus have to consider as non-free images unless you can get Mike Godwin to assure that these are all ok by the threshold. When the logo is pure text with no graphical elements we can make that distinction easily but once you start adding too much in the way of graphics it is hard to tell where the law will fall. --M ASEM  13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those logos are not just text, as the OSU logo is. But whether a particular image is free or not is not the issue that we are bringing to mediation.  The solely revolves around the use of non-free logos.  Please see the title of the case and the RfC.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 14:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent, I disagree - one of the proposed alterations is using what are being called "free" logos instead of non-free. If they were truly free, there would be no NFC issue, and that's outside of this mediation.  But the fact that the issue of these being "free" in the first place based on the threshold of originality is part of this case, as exactly where these logos may or may not cross that threshold has to be considered, and the claim that "all" schools have free logos because they fail the ToO test is something that absolutely has to be validated as true.  It is not as core as using clearly non-free images across numerous articles, but as part of a proposed solution, it is still a concern in mediation. --M ASEM  15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that Wikipedia would be harmed, not helped by removing these logos. As has been explained on the various discussion pages: Generally speaking, there are several potential reasons to remove an image from an article:
 * 1) It is a copyright violation
 * 2) A replacement exists or may exist in the future
 * 3) The image detracts from a mission to promote free content
 * The use of a logo in an article about a sports team does not violate any of the above:


 * 1) Fair use allows use of the logo to identify the brand/product/company being discussed, exactly as being done here.
 * 2) By definition, a logo is unique and their is no replacement. Any user-created drawing that was similar enough to the logo to be recognizable would still be covered by the trademark or copyright of the owner of the logo.
 * 3) Since no replacement can be created, there is no advantage to us in avoiding the use of the logo. Most of these articles that use the logos have multiple free-use images as well.  For examples, see 2005 Texas Longhorns football team or 2008 Texas Longhorns football team.  The logo has not in any way detracted from promoting free-use images.
 * Therefore, there is a benefit to keep the logos and no reason to remove these logos from articles. Hence, the logical course of action is to keep the logos.

Johntex\talk 03:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * concur. — BQZip01 —  talk 05:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VEGAN shows that this argument fails, and there are advantages to even removing all non-free images. Kusma (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VEGAN is an WP:ESSAY, which argues for a change in the existing NFCC WP:POLICY. Unless I've significantly misunderstood the issue, that is beyond the scope of this debate. Current policy allows some ("minimal", not "none") use of non-free content, and this debate is about what constitutes non-zero minimal use in this context. cmadler (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that there is no advantage to us in avoiding the use of fair use images is totally at odds with our Mission and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Past practice has also dictated heavily against this, in that we don't liberally populate product articles with corporate logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To fail to acknowledge that there is at least some advantage to using fair use images is misleading, mission/license policies notwithstanding. Your interpretation isn't supported by even the majority of users, much less consensus. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And once again you make unsupported claims that consensus supports you. Wikipedia take a strong stance against fair use images. Their use must be minimal and used narrowly. That there is some advantage to including a fair use image is not the sole metric for inclusion. If it were, we could have fair use images on just about every article. There's considerable advantage, for example, to including album covers on discographies. Certainly helps some people with identification of the album. Guess what? Album covers not permitted on discographies. There's other examples. Just because something has some marginal utility doesn't make it acceptable. You've got to jump through a lot more hoops than that. Sigh. We're arguing in circles. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the majority of users support my point of view. I said they didn't support yours. As I've said ad nauseum, there is nothing (NOTHING!!!) which states "minimal" must be a minimal number of articles, only that there must be minimal use within an article. I never said that "some advantage" means we should use an image. I said that there is some advantage to using such an image, not that such an advantage necessarily warrants inclusion (the example you cited is a perfect example of just that). Please don't take my words out of context and twist them. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to cite where it states that there must be minimal use WITHIN AN ARTICLE? Now before you accuse me of twisting your words, that is precisely you said. You said, I didn't. Now prove where it says that in policy. Go on. Please. I'm waiting... --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Points 1 and 3 under "Non-free image use in list articles" on WP:NFC support an argument that there should be minimal use within each article. Interestingly, point 4 of that section suggests that repeating the use of a non-free image which is also used in another article is preferable to simply referring to the other use. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dovetailing into what Cmadler stated: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This is the only instance of minimal use which states that it means you cannot use multiple images when one will suffice. It states nothing about using the same image in multiple articles. I take this to refer to a single article because to stretch the same logic across many articles defeats the meaning. Each article should stand alone, by definition. Stating that one article cannot use an image because another article already uses it defeats this basic premise and, in any case, is not an instance of multiple images, but of a single image. — BQZip01 —  talk 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think it is funny how the argument is now spilling over onto here from the other page. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All part of the WP:DR process. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I would like some clarification. I thought (according to WP:LOGO) that non-free logos that have not claimed fair use should not be anywhere here. What makes it legal to put them on articles about matches? Also, I thought fair use logos are allowed on Wikipedia. Can I have some clarifiacation about what this dispute is about when the above statement is a clear policy? Leujohn ( talk ) 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC on the issue covers this. In short, is it permissible to use a sports logo across potentially hundreds of articles, or should the logo use be restricted to only the specific article about the specific team. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A sidenote, but one worth mentioning: "Potentially hundreds"? The very oldest football programs date to the 1880s and 1890s. Princeton played in the first college "football" game in 1879 (it is debatable whether it was even really football and not soccer or rugby), so if every single season had its own page, there would only be about 130 articles.... That is not remotely close to "hundreds". And Princeton itself does not even have a separate athletics article, much less a football article. Strikehold (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're presuming the only place the logo would be used is on football season articles. This is false. There's football, basketball, baseball, hockey, wrestling, tennis, soccer and many other sports and most have men's and women's teams. All, in most cases, would use the same logo. We're not talking about just football here. I did an example breakout of this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos (search for "18 varsity sports"). That example came out to 721 uses of the logo. Yes, hundreds. We're also not talking about just colleges here, but every sport that has per team logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not false in practical reality. The example used is Texas, and you can see here that the Texas logo is actually used in articles for several football seasons and one men's basketball season article, but no other sports team is represented by any individual season articles. Theoretically, there could be "hundreds" of uses, but this ignores reality and practicality. Besides college football, the only other sport that has anywhere near the representation on here is men's basketball. Given the fact that college men's basketball is an even more recent sport, even if there were, for argument's sake, an article for every single season of a team, it would most likely just barely fit the definition for "hundreds" (200+). And one team having an article for every football and basketball season is rather unlikely. In any case, it certainly seems like an exaggeration to call about 200 uses "hundreds". And as for other (non-collegiate) sports, I'm not aware of any leagues that are older than the early 19th century (more than 200 seasons).Strikehold (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring nothing. Reality is that we are creating an encyclopedia. When complete, there will be season articles for these teams. If we permit the use of logos as desired by the proponents of their use, we'd have a logo used more than 700 times. When this kicked off, there was an Ohio State fair use logo which was used more than 100 times. This is reality. If we permit the season articles for football teams, there's no reason to not permit them for every other college varsity sport. Conclusion; sports logos used hundreds of times, and not just 200. Most universities have at least a dozen varsity sports. The argument you're taking is one the proponents frequently try to make; "This isn't a big problem because it's not as big as you suggest" but these arguments consistently fail to recognize the complete encyclopedia aspect of this, and refuse to acknowledge that minimal use doesn't mean we get to use a logo that many times. We don't do this for corporate products, and it's no different here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because we don't do something somewhere else doesn't mean we can't do it period or we can't do it here. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I wouldn't even presume to say that seasons of college sports other than football and men's basketball even meet notability criteria. Especially in light of how much resistance there was just for seasons of these two major college sports (which are arguably more notable than many other professional sports). Therefore, you haven't convinced me that, even if the encyclopedia was ever completed, these sports would all have articles. Secondly, someone who suggests that a school's cross country, golf, field hockey, cheerleading, women's lacrosse, swimming, volleyball, and softball teams will ever have articles for many, much less all, of their seasons is being a bit naive. Strikehold (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no reason why it could not have these. WP is a combination of encyclopedia and almanac, and I see no fundamental reason why any collegiate organized sport could not have a page to cover each season; the sourcing may not be as readily available as football and men's basketball, but there's sourcing out there. --M ASEM  (t) 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Strikehold; When you decide you can discuss an issue with someone without resorting to attacking them rather than the points they raise, I'll be happy to discuss this more. Until then, I refuse to engage you further in this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When did I attack anyone? Masem: College football is on par with practically any other sport, professional or otherwise, by any metric. The fact that college football season articles still routinely get nominated at AFD leads me to believe that many people would tolerate any of the above-mentioned sports far less. Taking one of the more popular of those sports, volleyball, as an example, I see that there are only nine college teams with even main team articles. There simply isn't the inclination amongst editors to make these articles. So, when people aren't even making team articles, I find it unrealistic to say that, one day, every one of the seasons for one of these teams will have its own article. Strikehold (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it was your use of the word "a bit naive." I think that it is doubtful that what H suggests will happen, but there is a possibility that it might.  I don't think you were being uncivil, however, as I see that as your description of H's prognostic abilities rather than H personally.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you stop describing people you are in debate with as "naive". I fail to see how insulting others is a means to an end, and I refuse to engage you further in this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A description of your actions being naive is an analysis of what you wrote, not an insult of you personally; it's an interpretation of your thoughts. If I say you are being sarcastic, just because it can be taken as an insult doesn't mean you should. WP:AGF applies here as well and your personal beliefs contradict that policy
 * "Once such an insult is made, the person making the insult has proven themselves to be wrong on all counts."
 * Complete and utter nonsense. Someone can make an insult in the heat of the moment or say something that someone else doesn't like and it doesn't mean they are wrong on everything else. If a Ku Klux Klan member says the sky is blue, just because he's a neo-nazi racist SOB doesn't mean he is wrong.
 * ""A person who makes personal attacks will...insist it wasn't a personal attack..."
 * You cannot just label everyone who disagrees with you as engaging in personal attacks and then dismissing everything they state. This runs completely counter to WP:AGF.
 * We shouldn't have to walk on eggshells around here just to discuss points. I believe your points take things beyond reason and practical usage. Just because something can or is preferred to be done a certain way, doesn't mean they must be done that way.
 * Lastly, the image you were concerned about was improperly labeled as a copyrighted image. It isn't. As I stated this ad naseum before that the instances which you cite are not copyrighted images and do not have copyright protection. They do have certain legal protections, but not within Wikipedia, and their use is already covered outside of the non free content criteria (General_disclaimer). — BQZip01 —  talk 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in meta discussions regarding whether something is a personal insult or not. The insulter described me, not the position, as being naive. That is fact. Read it yourself. If he can not engage in rational discussion without resulting to insults, I have no interest in discussing things with him. By WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW, he's lost his position and there's no further point in my discussing things with him. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aren't interested in such a discussion, don't bring it up. "...someone who suggests [XYZ]...is being a bit naive." is an assessment of the content, not a personal insult. Declaring it to be a violation of WP:NPA and then refusing to admit you are wrong is a "convenient" way to ignore opposing opinions. WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW is not a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. While you do not have to discuss anything with anyone who violates your own rules, by not doing so, you are intentionally and actively ignoring other opinions (valid or otherwise)...a violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely every intention of refusing to engage people who use personal insults as part of discussion. I have every intention of actively ignoring opinions of people who use such methods. Since I fully intend to continue to do so, and you claim this is a violation of one policy and one guideline, I suggest you report me to WP:AN/I, since I absolutely refuse to not continue to act in this manner. I'm sure you'll find an administrator willing to block me for failing to accept personal insults. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I should think that we are meddling with official policy here. My opinion is that we should go to WP:ARBCOM since their descisions are binding and will become the "official" explanation. WP:MEDCAB descisions are NOT binding, which means that even though it is solved here, anyone can challenge that for some lame reason, but at ARBCOM, you can't challenge that except for reasonable reasons. Leujohn  ( talk ) 08:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We were specifically instructed by ArbCom to seek mediation first. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The goal of mediation is to build a consensus. As with any consensus-built project, if consensus changes, so does the rule. We aren't meddling with policy, we are attempting to define a clear framework from which everyone can work in peace. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The most concise argument that this issue boils down to is this: the language of WP:NFCC on "minimal use" as it presently reads does not clearly state the difference between the use of non-free images in the bounds of an article, and in the bounds of all of Wikipedia. If #3a is only to be treated in the bounds of the article, the use of the logos on all season/rivalry/game pages can be reasonably justified; the logo's use would pass all other NFC criteria, including WP:NFCC, "Significance", since most other pages on published works or the like will use a non-free image strictly for identification without significant justification in the body of the work.  If #3a is meant to apply to all of Wikipedia, then the use of the logos on pages outside of the single team page is inappropriate, unless stronger significance beyond simple identification can be showed per #8. (for example, if a certain season is the first time a new logo is used, reflected in various other documented changes, reception, or impacts, then that's an acceptable used).
 * Thus, the core of the dispute can probably be resolved to how #3a should be interpreted. I will note that WP:NFCC used to say for #3a "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."  My understanding of the change to remove the language was only to tighten up the language, not to remove the intent of that statement, but this has opened this point of discussion. --M ASEM  16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good summary Masem. Perhaps it's time to reintroduce that language. The attempt to tighten up the language created a loophole big enough to drive a whole fleet of cargo ships through. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing it now with this discussion going on would be WP:POINTy, but I would like the discuss to determine if it should go back based on the history of WP:NFCC along with the discussion on the logos' use per the RFCs. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that Hammer views this historical context as some sort of vindication. I view it as the opposite. We used to do it that way and we don't any more. In any case, simply having an ARBCOM decision state "You can do XYZ" would do wonders. While I think we should allow sport logo NFC images within context of teams, seasons, games, etc. (certainly not on user pages, simple decoration, etc), that doesn't mean a simple decree from Jimbo wouldn't just solve this problem by setting a concrete rule. In any case, I prefer a concrete rule to this endless argument/discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, again, (and I can't point to any diffs yet, I just can't seem to figure out the point where it happened, yet), my understanding of the change was not because consensus changed, but that people wanted tighter wording. Regardless of that, we are here now where it's meaning is disputed; a new consensus or some dispute resolution to decide the issue needs to be applied to revert that change. --M ASEM  (t) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it needs to be reverted to that supposed version but clarification is certainly in order. Additionally, I can't find anything in the edit history to indicate such a version ever existed in the first place. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For ref, here's when it was changed (around May 08), and here's the discussion of that change, which I note as put forward by DCGiest in their initial proposal:
 * "Wikipedia as a whole" is superfluous and redundant—these are criteria for image use within articles; all the criteria to some degree serve the rationale of limiting the total amount of non-free content hosted by Wikipedia.
 * In other words at that time the change was not to limit #3a to only articles, just to tighten up language. Technically that intent should still be read into it, but we're at DR now, so might as well let it carry out. --M ASEM (t) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing "Wikipedia as a whole" was in response to 3 problems and it doesn't solve our dilemma:
 * "[ WP:NFCC is] criteria for image use within articles".
 * That would make our entire discussion moot
 * "[A]ll the criteria to some degree serve the rationale..."
 * That is to some degree, not every degree. It doesn't specify why or to what degree each part of WP:NFCC applies.
 * "...serve the rationale of limiting the total amount of non-free content hosted by Wikipedia."
 * That would be the total number of non-free images hosted on this site, not the usage of usage of the same image across multiple articles. Our discussion pertains to using an already valid image across multiple articles. This simply doesn't apply to this problem no matter which view (inclusion or exclusion) you have in this case.
 * — BQZip01 — talk 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem...
I believe Masem hit the basic description of the problem on the head, but that is only part of the problem. The metaproblem here is that people aren't willing to compromise at all and they are well-entrenched within their respective sides with many well-established points of contention.

The problem I have with people opposing any idea is that very few seem to have any constructive ideas on how to fix the conflict. No one else is proposing any concrete counter ideas. While "No, this is a bad idea because of X, Y, and Z" is a certainly valid, clear, and constructive response to any proposal, no one else seems to be proposing any other concrete addendums to policy, just, "no, not that!". Please folks, I don't mind if you oppose my ideas, but let's see the support for any other ideas. Right now, solution 3 has the most support proportionally. If you have a better idea, let's hear it and see what the people think! If you aren't going to set forth any countering phrasing for a guideline or policy, then all you are doing is driving us towards ArbCom to get a final ruling. Mediation is fine, but if you are unwilling to work with others to find a solution through mediation and just oppose any proposals, then ArbCom is the only thing that will make any sort of solution stick (one way or another) and this page is a waste of time.

In short if your idea is "We can only use logos in the article about the entity and not any articles relating to that entity," and you won't accept anything less, this mediation is a waste of time and we should bypass this and go straight to ArbCom. — BQZip01 — talk 02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted before, the final version has had less than 20 people weigh in support/oppose on it. Considering that four times as many people have been involved in the discussion previously, this is not sufficient numbers (regardless of your assertion that everyone who is silent = consensus) to support this conclusion. Honestly, there is no compromise position available. Either we allow the images or we do not. There isn't any middle ground. I don't think the mediation attempt is a waste of time. I have one view. You have another. Maybe an uninvolved party can figure something out. I doubt it, but I'm not against the possibility. Ultimately though, I do think this has to go to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems no mediator is going to touch this with a ten-foot pole.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 18:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible. 7 other cases have been posted and accepted after this one was posted. If no mediator takes this, the only other option is to approach Requests for mediation. However, they refuse cases where all parties do not accept mediation. We couldn't agree on mediation when this was posted . So, medcom isn't likely to be an avenue for resolution either. We're then left with ArbCom. That's where I think this is headed anyways, but it's only been three weeks since this case was posted to med cabal. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said I wouldn't accept mediation and neither did anyone else, so quit trying to paint such a bleak picture and put words in other people's mouths. If you have a better idea, let's hear it! :-) I have notified everyone involved in this discussion and they chose not to input ideas. Those are their choices to make and if they don't give more input, then we cannot assume anything from their lack of input other than acquiescence. I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but this is policy, not merely my assertion.
 * Mediation is an attempt to find a middle ground and help everyone work toward consensus. If you are unwilling to give & take on your position, then mediation isn't going to solve anything and simply asserting the contrary doesn't make it true (if you aren't going to budge, then what makes you think mediation is going to do any good?). I also don't oppose going to the medcom, but I think you are forum shopping a little here. That you don't like the outcome of this discussion is irrelevant. If there are no further comments, I feel little option but to include this as part of WP:LOGO in the near future as it meets all the criteria for consensus and is the closest we can get to complete agreement. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep on trying to push consensus by silence down our throats. I'm sorry, it's not going to fly. As I've said repeatedly before, exhausting everyone in a discussion after two months of discussion to the point where most people have lost interest, to the point where there's more than half a million characters in the discussion, and then claiming a limited subset of people agree with your position, so therefore you get to have your way is NOT going to fly. It simply isn't going to happen. Period. End of discussion on that point. Am I being clear? If you try to move ahead with pushing this "final version 3" into any guideline, this will immediately go to ArbCom. That's not a threat. It's a means to prevent continued disruption of the project. And let's be clear; it IS disruptive for you to try to force this down people's throats. Myself and several others considered the option of moving ahead with removals of the logos due to lack of consensus. You and others vociferously disagreed with that idea. We didn't move ahead because it was disruptive. In the very, very least you could have the decency to see this dispute resolved in an orderly manner rather than trying to force things down people's throats.
 * As to forum shopping, well add that to the long list of things I am violating on Wikipedia that you seem to be keeping, along with violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN, and who knows what else. I specifically asked you to report me to WP:AN/I before because of accusations you made that I violated a policy and a guideline. You want to keep accusing me of violating guidelines and policies? Fine. Have a look at Polling is not a substitute for discussion, or Not. Further, just because people do not state a vote on your polls doesn't mean they agree with you. I can readily go back through the discussion and find plenty of people who would strongly disagree with final version 3. Either stop with the accusations or make a report. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.". There has been adequate exposure to the community and I have contacted everyone who weighed in at least three times. I cannot help it if people do not wish to voice their opinions on the matter. I am "forcing" nothing.
 * Your personal beliefs are not policy and you cannot make edicts by which everyone else has to do. If you believe I am not following the rules of Wikipedia, please feel free to report me.
 * No one is making an accusation, I'm stating it directly that you are violating several policies/guidelines that aren't helping things. I have no desire to report you to any authority, but that doesn't mean what you are doing is helpful.
 * Implying that I don't have decency because you believe the dispute isn't resolved and that I am forcing things down people's throats is simply misleading. I am making a change of a guideline with respect to a policy and appropriate discussion. It doesn't have to be unanimous and it doesn't mean that we have to wait until every person is happy with the outcome. This addition is the best we've come up with and it, quite nearly, has 2:1 support, a supermajority. I don't see any better ideas and, for the time being at least, it is the best we can come up with right now. Like I said at the beginning of this section, I haven't heard any other proposals from you or anyone else. If you are stating "No, not that. We should do it my way because XYZ" with no counterproposal, Arbcom is the inevitable end for this because you aren't willing to compromise in any way. While I wish we could address your concerns, they simply weren't part of the best solution we could come up with. If you have a better solution, then please put it out there.
 * In short, I'm saying we have consensus on the matter (as defined by Wikipedia). Accordingly, we should implement that consensus into the guideline. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not have consensus. Please continue to read the policy you keep on quoting over and over again. You may be interested in the quote "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." You might also be interested in "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue". I will restate my position again; if you make the change you claim you are going to make, you will be reverted. You do not have consensus, and you are not the final arbiter on what is and is not consensus. You are counting votes. I cited Polling is not a substitute for discussion to you previously. Further, you claim a supermajority. There is no definition on Wikipedia as to what a supermajority is for fair use guidelines and policy, so your conclusion is baseless on vote counting alone. Further, as I previously noted there are multiple people who previously commented on the RfC who would strongly disagree with this final version 3. That's part of the process of evaluating consensus. You're ignoring their comments in favor of your preferred version. Silence does NOT exist, therefore your claims are baseless. Unilaterally deciding such a major issue is far beyond the scope of a single person.
 * As for me being unwilling to compromise, this is false. I am quite willing to compromise. However, as I've stated before, I do not personally see that there is any potential for compromise. That is distinctly different from being supposedly unwilling to compromise. I am open to the possibility that someone may come up with a reasonable compromise. I don't expect it to happen, I haven't seen it happen, but I do not accept that I have sufficient brain capacity to unilaterally declare there is no possibility for compromise.
 * Continuing to claim that I am violating several policies and guidelines while refusing to do anything about it impedes the discussion. Stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages."
 * Over 100 people have participated, so participation isn't an issue. Everyone who participated has been given the opportunity to voice an opinion now for about a month. With no further opinions...this is the best we can do, at this time. The standards for general support for admins is even higher and the bottom of support required for adminship only stands around 70%. We currently have 65%, so, I believe that cleanly meets the basic standard. From the guideline you insisted I read (like I haven't before): "While the end result is often obvious based directly on counts of who said yea or nay, it is possible to sway people's opinions by applying solid reasoning and logic. Even so, people new to wikipedia are often confused, due to the strong resemblance between such structured discussion and a majority vote process, which they are not. There is no exact "target" percentage that forms the cutoff point, although some processes, such as WP:RFA, do indicate a rough numerical percentage for establishing consensus."
 * "Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue"
 * I've done no such thing, I've proposed more than one alternative and not posed the same question over and over. This doesn't apply. Furthermore, the same group has responded. This simply doesn't apply and insinuating I've done something wrong is quite uncivil.
 * I can claim you are violating policies, but just because I do, doesn't mean I have to report you. I'm doing my best to get you to come around and handle it here.
 * "...you are not the final arbiter on what is and is not consensus. You are counting votes." I'm counting the number of people who participated in this discussion and evaluating their opinions.
 * We've had a discussion and we are trying to decide on the final phrasing. I see zero options from you. You claim that you are willing to compromise, but state no circumstances which will make you change your mind. From that, I will correct myself and state that it is not that you are unwilling to compromise, but that you have failed to offer any compromise and continue to do so. The only thing you have offered is opposition and obstruction. Give us some more ideas. Give us some more options.
 * This isn't a vote. The majority does not rule Wikipedia, consensus does. The notion that because Wikipedia doesn't explicitly define a "supermajority" so I can't use the term is absurd. I'm using the common English definition of the word: "a majority that must represent some percentage more than a simple majority." The !votes themselves don't mean we should implement a guideline based upon them, but the discussion does. This is not a matter of counting votes, but only an expression of the current support for this wording.
 * "...there are multiple people who previously commented on the RfC who would strongly disagree with this final version 3. That's part of the process of evaluating consensus. You're ignoring their comments in favor of your preferred version. Silence does NOT exist, therefore your claims are baseless."
 * I never said there was no opposition, but I can point to many people who could support this phrasing and you can point to others who might oppose it. The point is that those people, despite being notified, chose not to voice an opinion. The only conclusion anyone should base on that lack of input is, "they didn't voice an opinion on the make a conclusion based on what anyone "thinks" they will say.
 * "Unilaterally deciding such a major issue is far beyond the scope of a single person."
 * ...I believe 10 other people support this change as well, so I am deciding nothing "unilaterally". — BQZip01 —  talk 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Implementation
I intend to implement the previously discussed consensus-built proposal. That said, that doesn't mean this discussion can't/shouldn't continue. Hammersoft and others obviously have unaddressed concerns, but this is the best we can come up with right now and it has supermajority support.

Everyone should agree this at least removes some copyrighted images (regardless of what you think about trademarks) from articles. No matter how you view this proposal, it removes some images, replaces others, and provides concrete guidance on future use. It doesn't mean that it can't be over-ridden by future discussion (even discussion in the near future) or by ArbCom. — BQZip01 — talk 23:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not. Although the !vote of "Final Version 3" runs 11-6 for (65%), there are a number of other editors who have stated opposition to that proposal (Masem, Hammersoft, etc.) but who aren't counted there. Supermajority != consensus, and in this case, IF there is a majority in favor, I'm skeptical that it's a large majority. Further, there is the issue (which I have raised previously) of declining participation due to the long drawn out arguments. Many people have previously participated in this debate, who, it appears, would not support this proposal. Mediation has been requested, at the suggestion of ArbCom, and this is clearly NOT a settled matter.
 * Despite threats to the contrary, all participants have generally refrained from attempting to "implement" a proposal while this remains under dispute, and I ask you to continue to respect that "truce" until this is truly settled. Otherwise, I suspect you will ignite massive revert wars throughout the affected articles; this is not in anyone's best interest. cmadler (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there have been opinions of "active" participants that have not registered as active !votes, but I could also point out a dozen others who also didn't !vote. It is the responsibility of the participants to voice such opinions. We shouldn't draw any conclusion from their lack of !vote status. My point about 65% is that there are very close to 2 people who support it for every person that opposes it. We shouldn't really wait to implement such a consensus as it removes some images that we are willing to agree are unnecessary. It doesn't mean it is the final conclusion, but it also means it is at least a partial solution and reduces the number of non-free images in use. I will also acquiesce and not act upon this change until the discussion (where ever it may lead) is complete. That doesn't mean more accurate guidance won't follow. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My position remains unchanged, and I strongly, strongly concur with Cmadler. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So why not actually voice the opinion? Why not endorse this as a temporary solution that, at least, starts putting images in the format you desire? — BQZip01 —  talk 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They have voiced their opinion, just not in the !vote format, and there's no requirement that voicing an opinion come in the form of a !vote. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To BQZip01; because I do not endorse this voting as a means of measuring consensus, and thus refuse to participate in it. I have voiced my opinions, as Cmadler notes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmadler, it appears he doesn't want to participate. That is his opinion and he is welcome to it. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, am, and will participate. I choose not to endorse voting as a means of evaluating consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BQZip01, please consider that "polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion." Not participating in a poll/straw poll/!vote does NOT mean that an editor doesn't want to participate in the associated discussion, and it definitely doesn't mean that the recently-voiced opinions of such editors can be ignored. cmadler (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't cherry pick your quotes. WP:CONSENSUS states in its entirety:
 * "''In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.
 * Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others.''"
 * So, by definition, this poll is not a vote (no matter how many times Hammersoft claims otherwise) and is a structured discussion. Actively and intentionally failing to participate in such a discussion, leads me to believe he doesn't want to be part of the discussion. It should also be noted that polls may be the start of a discussion. That doesn't restrict them from end-state usage; WP:RfA and WP:FAC are two prime examples to the contrary. Lastly, Hammersoft is not a new user. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, Hammersoft has provided no version of clarified policy/guideline to prevent such issues in the future. His statement "The status quo can't continue. There must be a decision either way," insinuates that someone must decide if he is right or wrong. In fact, this is not how we decide things on Wikipedia. Maintaining such a POV and refusing to participate in discussion will not result in consensus with his opinion included. Such refusal to participate is an option anyone is welcome to use, but they cannot complain when a decision with which they disagree with is decided. Like I've said before, Hammersoft may have an opinion, but failing to participate in a relevant discussion doesn't make that opinion clear or voiced. The whole point of this section of the discussion is to come up with a final draft of what the guideline should say. Lots of things have changed from the beginning of this discussion to the end which makes some of the earlier discussion null and void. To scour the entire 650+ KB of text to make a guess as to what is everyone's final opinion is counter-productive. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of being forced into your voting mechanism via wiki-lawyering of passages that you, BQZ, have cherry picked yourself to support your views. My stance and opinions remain unchanged, and that is what matters...not whether I vote in your poll or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is forcing you to do anything. You may participate in a discussion I started or not (simply because I started it doesn't mean I own the discussion; it is open to ANYONE!!!). That is your choice. You may also start a section or propose something else if you so desire. But if you propose nothing and refuse to participate, then you don't really have much cause to complain when it doesn't go your way. I'm open to hearing other ideas. Let's see how much support they get. (You can certainly propose it here, if you want). I've said it before and I'll say it again, all views are welcome and all suggestions are welcome.
 * If I have cherry picked/wiki-lawyered anything, please feel free to show how I have done so (I don't believe I have). Just because something doesn't support your point of view doesn't mean it has been "cherry picked". Just to make sure we're on the same page, my usage indicates I believe something stated has been taken out of context. If by "wiki-lawyered" you mean "based my opinion on established policy and guidelines and showed how I formulated my conclusion," then I'm guilty. If you mean something else, please explain. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am done arguing this with you. There is no middle ground between us. After months of this debate, we've convinced each other of nothing. Further dialogue between us on this point is futile. My stance and intentions remain unchanged. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "My stance and intentions remain unchanged" My point exactly. See you at ArbCom. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I remain hopeful that mediation may be successful. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)