Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Archive 2

Police patch collecting
Will someone please help clean this article up? It keeps getting vandalized by an anonymous user, who keeps removing the tags. It's an okay article, but the tags need to be there until it is a good one. Chris 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put a last warning on the talk page, if it happens again ill seek admin's opinions about what action to take regarding the IP addresses. SGGH 17:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if an article is being vandalised repeatedly, or there is an edit conflict, bad wikiquetee or anything of that nature, please add it to the article watch list on the no vandalism no conflict subpage of this wikiproject, thankyou. SGGH 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help, it's starting to look much better. Chris 01:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'll swing by a little later on to check how things are doing! SGGH 09:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Patchbook
This user has left a (rather unfair I feel) message on 3 talk pages now, mine, Chris's and the article's itself, about how his original article has been butchered and vandalised. I pointed him towards Vandalism to show him what vandalism actually was, and informed him that the continual editing of articles was how wikipedia worked. I apologised for the fact that the article has changed for (as he feels) the worse, however if you put content on wikipedia it WILL be changed. He wants to delete the thing, I instructed him how to do that out of courtesy though its the wrong solution.

It will hopefully be handled on my talk page without blowing up into something. If he is the expert on the subject, we should listen to him and the article will change for the better then, but if he becomes abusive on either Chris's talk page, or my own, or on the articles, he will get a warning.

Remember to keep it clean SGGH 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate how tactfully you've handled the situation. Given how the guy describes himself, he's about my father's age, I probably know him. But Wikipedia is no one's private domain, and given the day I've had, I'm glad you stepped in. I'd not have fared so well. Thanks much, and happy new year. Chris 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now been physically threatened on my talkpage, last comment, by user Patchbook, and I need to report it to someone in the proper method. Please help. Chris 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good God, Patchbook has no idea how to conduct himself on wikipedia. I see he has already been warned, and that you, chris, have already been shown how to report him by another user on your talk page. I hope this thing gets mediated and the user either pointed (finally) in the right way or blocked, because he can't contribute helpfully to wikipedia with that kind of mental attitude.

Besides, that example he gave? He was rightly diciplined then in my own (real life) honest opinion, and is rightly so here also. I'm a police officer too, and I wouldn't care for comments such as his from a fellow officer, likewise i wont care for comments such as his on this place. You're doing a good job at coping in this situation chris, SGGH 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reported him to WP:AIV, in my opinion he can't be a valuable contributor with his current attitude. SGGH 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check this edit by user User:Patchbook. Apparantly concerning this image:.
 * → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at his contrib history he seems to have spent the last week doing nothing but delete image links wikipedia-wide. US law leaves no doubt that this image is in the public domain. Irides cent  02:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference your comment that FBI emblems are in the public domain is inaccurate. Use of FBI emblems in part are restricted by US law under Title 18 United States Code which has nothing to do with copyright laws.Patchbook 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean section 712? I'm not convinced, and certainly don't see anything here that could be reasonably taken as misrepresentation. In any case, only administrators can delete images from Wikipedia. If you like, you can propose it for deletion at Images and media for deletion, but removing it from individual pages is inappropriate and does not accomplish the intended goal anyway. Cheers, Bobanny 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed this also, he removed it from this wikiproject's main page and from my talk page by editing another users comments. SGGH 13:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I have contacted two admins and reported Patchbook at both the incidents and the more long term abuse reporting pages, but no action has been taken as of yet, which is worrying as his vandalism and inappropritate behaviour is growing more and more. SGGH 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

''Whoever, in the course of collecting or aiding in the collection of private debts or obligations, or being engaged in furnishing private police, investigation, or other private detective services, uses or employs in any communication, correspondence, notice, advertisement, or circular the words "national", "Federal", or   "United States", the initials "U.S.", or any emblem, insignia, or    name, for the purpose of conveying and in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the false impression that such communication is from a department, agency, bureau, or instrumentality of the United States or in any manner represents the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or   both.''

We are not collecting or aiding in the collection of private debts or obligations, or furnishing provate police, investigation or other pirvate detective services, and we are not using the image for the purpose of conveying the impression that such communication is a deptartment, agency, bureau etc. So no, I do not agree either. SGGH 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * furthermore, explain this image then? I do not believe any laws have been broken, and if anyone comes across any more removal of the image in question by Patchbook, then I would suggest that they revert the dammage and I will petition again for Patchbooks blocking. SGGH 13:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked for the user to be blocked here. SGGH 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * and yet again it just seems to get ignored... SGGH 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevant part of Title 18 refers to impersonating police officers which clearly does not apply. Title 17 specifically places images created by the US government in the public domain. In any event, Wikipedia is owned and hosted in England, which makes any reference to US law a moot point, and there's no way on earth that the image is unlawful under English or European law. Irides cent  16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia was based in Florida, USA, last I heard. *Dan T.* 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that. SGGH 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops my bad, memory going inmy old age... Irides cent  22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Title 18 and opinion on FBI Image use
My concern has nothing to do with copyright. My concern is not about use of the image of the FBI badge, or seal, or term FBI in general, for informational Wikipedia articles. I believe that to be lawful under current law.

1. I suggest individuals go to the official FBI website and examine "A LAST WORD TO THE WISE" at the bottom of the page. You will find an official posting indicating the position of the FBI on use of the name and logos. Please note that this specific page is the FBI Cyber Taskforce, however the same warnings about use of various FBI logos can be found elsewhere on FBI sites.

2. My concern stems from using the FBI badge logo for personal or group ID, or awards in Wikipedia. This would appear to violate USC Title 18, PART 1, Chapter 33, Section 709, which restricts unauthorized use of names of federal agencies. The section authorizes the US Attorney to prosecute unless the parties have written permission of the Director of the FBI.

Since the Wikipedia law enforcement group and individual members of it are using the badge likeness, it infers endorsement by the FBI which is what the federal law mentioned strictly addresses and prohibits without authorization.

An option would be to either formally request permission for the Wikipedia law enforcement group to use the FBI badge logo from the Director of the FBI, or to formally request a legal opinion from the US Attorney. Both options might cause unwise scrutiny to Wikipedia.

Another option would be to design a generic emblem to replace the FBI badge logo for the use of your Wikipedia law enforcement group which would not be in conflict with the US laws.

The Wikipedia is based in Florida and under the jurisdiction of laws of the United States.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is NOT to be construed as legal advise. Patchbook 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am curious about two things. First is if Patchbook is (or was) an FBI agent or any form of law enforcemnet officer. Second is why he has a particular bone to pick with this issue. It doesn't seem to me that anyone has inferred endorsement by the FBI, and I dont really think the FBI or the attorney generals office cares if it is used here as long as noone infers endorsement by the FBI or that they personally are associated with the FBI.  Patchbook seems to have a vested interest in causing turmoil in this project for some reason. EMT1871 21:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

EMT1871 does not accept email, so I answer him here.


 * My contributions to Wikipedia have been out of a desire to provide another perspective, and stimulate academic discussion. I am pleased that my contributions have a resulted in discussion of the status quo which is one the main objectives of the Wikipedia Project.


 * Thousands of professional police officers are currently wearing police emblems which I have designed, and I have been acknowledged in independent printed press as an expert in the field. I am an honorably retired law enforcement officer and certified law specialist, and am not an FBI agent. Patchbook 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Was about to reply when Patchbooks edits led to an edit conflict. As I was about to say, Patchbook's interpretation of the law was a valid one, and while it was decided that there wasn't a legal issue, he still made a good catch. Better to make a fuss and check than break the law, even if just deleting the image from pages without proper discussion was the wrong way to go about things. SGGH 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree that Patchbooks interpretation of the law is valid, because I believe it is an incorrect interpretation in this context. I also disagree that Patchbook's contributions have been "out of a desire to provide another perspective, and stimulate academic discussion." since he insisted the interpretation he gave were fact, and deleted images and content from this project without discussion or authority. I respect the fact that he is retired from "the job" but because he has designed emblems and is a "law specialist" (whatever that is) does not make his interpretations correct or give him the right to delete content from these pages without discussion.  The issues he raised, which were valid for discussion, should have been discussed and referenced to experts rather then just deleted because he felt they were inappropriate. I too am a LEO and have a law degree, but I do not state my opinions as fact and take it upon myself to remove questionable items from here.EMT1871 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Myself, other admins and users agreed with you on that point, and Patchbook has been given warnings and so on for his vandalism and content removal without prior discussion. However, I am hoping that this wikiproject will by synonymous with good wikiquette, thus any questionable behaviour by a user in the past shouldn't discourage any valid, helpful contributions by that user, from being listened to. If users strive to contribute helpfully to wkipedia, then their past negative conduct will hopefully be under the bridge :) SGGH 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubai police image
Hey guys,

Can someone who knows their image copyrightness let me know if the image of all the peices of uniform in this news article can be used for wikipedia? I want to add it to Dubai police and im not too good at knowing whats allowed and what isn't.

If you cant tell me, could you show me where to ask? Is there an image submission thing where you can submit a link to ask whether an image is allowed on wikipedia?

cheers, and heres the link again: http://archive.gulfnews.com/supplements/dubai_police/more_stories/10043780.html

SGGH 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, got them. SGGH 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts
I am going to be making a shortcut for the first page in this project, (eg. the box on the right )

just to make is easier

Regards

Dep. Garcia (Talk) (Help Desk) 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooo SGGH 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
If and when people think we'll need a bot to start archiving talk pages or the peer review page, let me know here. Just creating this now while I think about it SGGH 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I did it in the endSGGH 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

article watch
You can now add 'article-watch=yes' to our banner to highlight than an article is being watched due to vandalism, poor wikiqueete or an edit war, just remember to add it to this list too! SGGH 10:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Police Museum
I have moved the article at Police Museum to Hong Kong Police Museum so as to make a disambig page of the earlier title. I found nearly a dozen police museum articles existing on the Wikipedia, I had no idea. Some of them are quite good. I have tagged all (I found) with the LE project tag. Chris 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now added several law enforcement memorials throughout the world. Would there be support for a Category:Law enforcement museums and memorials? Chris 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, but make sure that we don't get military memorials put in there, and I don't think articles on officers who have memorials made about them should be in that catagory, keep it for the actual memorial/museum itself. SGGH 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I created an infobox for police departments. It can be found here: Template:InfoboxPolice. I would appreciate some editorial review to make it better. Thanks --Daysleeper47 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Perhaps if you added a "area covered" or "population covered" part as well? Just a thought SGGH 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, nice work. → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't read this until after I created this template: Template:Infobox LE Organization. It is done in the same spirit.  I took the liberty of filling in some of the information as an example of what it can look like.  I am going to add it below to the template that was proposed and is being discussed.  I look forward to comments.  Thankscprockhill 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

John Gibson (police officer)
My article John Gibson (police officer) has been nominated for deletion. Detective Gibson was one of two police officers killed when a gunman stormed the United States Capitol in 1998. I encourage everyone to visit that article's nomination page here and extend your support for a KEEP! Thanks, Daysleeper47 14:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WPP:LE
I've just realised we are the wipple project.... SGGH 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion
Well, for one reason or another, our symbol has been deleted. If Patchbook was correct, then I extend our apologies however he did not go about things the correct way anyway.

An admin has speedily deleted the image temporaily while the rule is checked, to avoid possibly legal snaffus. Even if it turns out to be legal, we might as well create a new one anyway, that one was only meant to be temporary. Anyone feel like making one? SGGH 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous, where is the relevant talk page or admin that deleted it? → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the log of the delete, and left a note on that administrators page, here. → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We appear to have image back! Though a new logo could still be on the cards if any user wants to try it? SGGH 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the image was okay'd here. SGGH 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An informal request for comment
Please visit Donnie Young (police officer) to offer suggestions on a rename of the article. --Ginkgo 100 talk 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that he received the medal of honour means that he is more notable than the killer,so I think Raúl García-Gómez is out for the name. However, seeing as much of this article refers to the event rather than the person, I would suggest moving to "Denver Mother's Day Shooting (2005)" with Donnie Young (police officer) and Raúl García-Gómez redirecting to it. SGGH 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New image proposals
Proposals for a new project logo go here, SGGH 13:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

. If other users want to make a new one, I suggest uploading it to [www.imageshack.com] first and linking it in, so as not to use up wikipedia space. SGGH 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the surprising event that patchbook is right, a request can be placed to Graphic Lab/Images to improve to make a free and/or generic image, we did this at the Scouting WikiProject, and they did quite a nice job. We had the same copyright issue problem as earlier the World Crest was used, and it is not representative of all Scout organizations. I would propose keeping the shield image that is used now, maybe having them clear out the wording, or perhaps inserting a bright blue five or six-point star in the center, to make it generic and yet representative, so that there is never a question of propriety. They will make a free-use, crisper and easier to scale image, and they do great work. Just a thought. Chris 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like this (crude, I know, but...) [[Image:Policefreeimageidea1.jpg|140px]]. Plus this would have the benefit of being inclusive of nonEnglish-speaking forces that have articles... Chris 03:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks great! That's definitly a contender. One thought perhaps: If you made it black and white (well... silver and black) and placed the wikipedia puzzle peice globe in the centre instead of the star? So it looks like a silver wikipedia badge of some ::sort, if you see what I mean? I would do it myself if I could work out photoshop. SGGH 15:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like that but silver. SGGH 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Voila? [[Image:PoliceWikiglobesilver blue.jpg|140px]] Chris 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, if we really wanted to make sure we weren't using a copyrighted logo, [[Image:Policefreeimageidea2.jpg|140px]]. LOL, sorry, couldn't resist, hope you laughed. :) Chris 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm wouldn't you be violating the Jam Donut Copyright Act of 1567, Punishable of 6-7 years in jail and/or £2000 fine? I think the image looks great but maybe black and white, like a LAPD black & white or a panda car? just a suggestion. Dep. Garcia ( Talk  |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  ) 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like this? [[Image:PoliceWikiglobepanda.jpg|140px]] Chris 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent, Love this one (Image:PoliceWikiglobepanda.jpg) Dep. Garcia ( Talk  |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  ) 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is homage violation of copyright? [[Image:PoliceWikiglobepanda714.jpg|140px]] Chris 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are awesome Chris! → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That last one with a silver metalic hue/texture? Would be perfect. And I admit I don't know what you're hommaging to? :O SGGH 23:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the last one too, but I also don't know what your hommaging to, and I am curious as to what the "714" means.EMT1871 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dragnet, sorry. :) Chris 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think an hommage is a great idea but, no offense, I think we could come up with something better than a T.V. show. Maybe 9/11 or the N.L.E.O.M.??EMT1871 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Wikipedia logo, ironically (hypocritically?), is fully copyrighted. Otherwise, I think it looks great! Bobanny 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol is it? That's a drag, what about the symbol for the golden wikipedia awards? That mounted golden puzzle peice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SGGH (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm getting myself out of my limited artistic league, but what if we were to put in a request to the Wikiartroom to have an image of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial made to look like it is stamped into the badge, like the LAPD badge? No offense taken to any ideas, I've just been spitballing and having fun with these. I created the original free image for the Scouting WikiProject, a variant of which is still used. Just like to play around with ideas. Sure you don't want the donut? :) Chris 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * here's another corny one, playing with photoshop and some images I already had. I'd be fine hitting up the wiki-art dept, though (never knew there was one!)Bobanny 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[[Image:WikiLE logo.jpg|170px]]

Bobanny, if you could make the background see thru then that would be it! SGGH 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are awesome. → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * how's this? Bobanny 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[[Image:WPLE logo badge.jpg|170px]]

Your logo represents the group ideals. It should be professional and uncluttered, and be balanced artistically. It should clearly identify you without infering that you are an authorized agent of a police agency or official agent of the Wikipedia organization. Take your time in this design, and come up with something that you would be proud to wear.Patchbook 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would you wear a WikiProject image? → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great, really good on the banners and such. Hope you don't mind i edited it slightly to put the background colour in the gaps inside the letter O :)SGGH 15:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The new image looks great, it really reflects the topic of the project: law enforcement. Dep. Garcia ( Talk  |  Help Desk  |  Complaints  ) 15:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

''1. The proposed image looks like children playing "cops and robbers" by showing an officer with a drawn weapon. Police service in a civilized society may occasionally need weapons, but the vast majority of policing is not as depicted in television drama as any law enforcement professional is aware.

''2. The order of the badge wording infers that you are "law enforcement" for Wikipedia which you are not. Wikiproject law enforcement are simply volunteer editors in a very large blog project open to anyone on the planet with a computer connection and some free time.  Patchbook 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The new image looks great, and is completely original work. I'm glad Bobanny could work in your considerations. → James Kidd  ( contr / talk / email ) 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Patchbook, you're not even a member of this project. Furthermore, the image does not infer that we are the law enforcement of wikipedia, as even inexperienced wikiusers know that wikipedia is regulated by admins and no one else. The term "wikiproject" and the definition at the top of the project's main page state this. Plus, considering a good number of the users here are police officers, I think the real nature of policing is not lost on us. SGGH 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that some of the members here are in law enforcement, but the vast majority of Wikipedia users are not. They surf the web and find references in their browser to Wikipedia. Coming across an article, they likely do not reference the disclaimer at the bottom of the page and take the article at face value. A person not familiar with wikiproject-law enforcement would see the logo and make logical but inaccurate connections. This would not be a positive service to Wikipedia users in my opinion.Patchbook 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point, Patchbook, but it doesn't apply to this context. The logo neither represents members of the project nor police professionals. It should somehow symbolize the articles covered by the project. Yes, it's a popular culture police image (an image created by police by the way), and does not reflect what police do for the most part. 'Law enforcement' isn't even the majority of what police do, and that's the name of the project! The point is that it's an easily recognizable symbol of the subject covered by this project, a little corny and cliche maybe, but that's what makes it recognizable. It's not the only possible image, and if something better comes along, we can easily change it. "WikiProject" also isn't the same as "Wikipedia," and any confusion in that regard could quickly be cleared up the same as with someone who thinks WikiProject United States is a government website. Bobanny 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the hard work that goes into emblem development and commend Bobanny on his contribution of the new logo for the Wikiproject.Patchbook 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just state that it would be more clear-cut to put "Wikiproject" on the logo, because, at first look, if seems to just be a badge. I am not clear on the legality on the internet, but posing as a cop is a serious crime, if even by mistake. Also, everyone can have their opinion, even if they are not on the project. Jeff503 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "wikiproject" is on the logo. SGGH 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good then, so it is.Jeff503 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Five years with no distractions, less with good behaviour - could write a lot of Wikipedia articles! Bobanny 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)