Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] General discussion

Chowbok's response claims that acting to implement a unpopular policy justifies the behavior under dispute. Unfortunately, it avoids the major issue of the policy itself which is not as clear as Chowbok would suggest. Chowbok's user page points to a discussion on the policy and (more accurately) recent changes to the associated guidelines . As this discussion admits, it is complex to piece the various information together. I seriously doubt whether Chowbok is acting to enforce the policy as it is currently stated. Chowbok would actually seem to have a rather extreme interpretation of the policy. This interpretation is most likely based on various other talk pages in the discussion referenced to justify Chowbok's tagging. The reaction to Chowbok's tagging is caused by the fact that there is no consensus on Chowbok's interpretation of the policy. Chowbok should cease tagging and instead seek a consensus. Jbuzza 21:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That may very well be. But it's not fair to me to file an RfC when I'm in good-faith following a policy as I understand it. There are other ways to clarify and settle this. (FWIW, almost all the images I've nominated (that have been disputed) have been deleted, so at least some people agree with me.) —Chowbok ☠ 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, in my view, this The RfC was brought upon yourself by consistent refusal to accept other points of view or seek a consensus. It is good that this can be resolved through proper process. Jbuzza 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Chowbok, RfC was only filed when it became apparent that you would not stop tagging images and wait a bit to form a consensus. People have tried and tried to explain this to you, to show you that what you're doing isn't simply "unpopular" because people don't like having their images deleted but also because the action itself is based on an incorrect interpretation of the policy and devalues Wikipedia as a whole by removing a great deal of helpful and informative images. TheQuandry 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A consensus had already been reached, weeks before I tagged anything. Your talk of reaching a consensus is disingenuous as it is clear you will not accept any consensus that arrives at a conclusion you disagree with. Also, I don't think "Don't you have anything better to do?" (your first message to me on this matter) is really an attempt to seek consensus. —Chowbok ☠ 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my first few comments on your talk page were impulsive and childish but stemmed from my frustration at your monolithic viewpoint that you are right and everyone else is wrong. As the old saying goes, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Also, your response (caling me crybaby) wasn't any better. And the only "consensus" I can see are three or four village pump discussions which are not official policy. TheQuandry 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I never called you a crybaby. I said I wouldn't be a crybaby. That you took that to mean I was referring to you is indicative, I think, of your view of your own behavior. —Chowbok ☠ 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. See here. That's not Village Pump. And I do think I'm wrong, often. I've admitted it here and many other places. —Chowbok ☠ 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is the continual issue, as you state it, there there are "thousands of free images available if you just look" (this is in regards to promophotos and you've mentioned this once or twice in debates with people who don't want their images deleted). If this is the case, what is keeping you from finding a free image yourself, uploading it and replacing the fair use image? If they are so easily obtained, why don't you help the project by replacing fair use images with a free one? Instead you place RfU tags willy nilly. If you believe that an RfU tag is warranted, then you should know that a free image is available to replace it, and don't tell me that isn't the policy because IT IS. I quoted the policy on the main page word for word. Therefore, if you know a free image is available, you should provide it. Otherwise, placing the RfU tag without knowing that a free replacement is available goes against policy. TheQuandry 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to find a replacement for every fair-use image in Wikipedia, and I don't think it was ever intended as a requirement that the person tagging the image is responsible for replacing it. That said, I think I've done a lot of work finding free images for use here, and I'll stack up my contributions in that respect against you or anybody. Take a look at User:Chowbok#Images uploaded; not one fair-use photo in that entire list. —Chowbok ☠ 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can really say you wouldn't help find an image if asked, from looking at your record. In my case, I just wanted time to work on the issue you raised without being rushed and pressured. I am more than willing to work hard on issues related to images I have uploaded, once I know about them, but pressuring me with "7 days or too bad" is stressful, especially if I don't know about a notice left for me, and I've seen someone else mention this problem about not knowing we have messages waiting too at chowbok's talk page. I guess I'd better make it part of my routine to log in here for messages. I didn't know policies would change so drastically to my previous understanding of them that I might miss a message warning me of a deletion if I didn't look in. Maybe this is because there are so many wonderful people working at wikipedia who make things run so smoothly by, for instance, reversing vandalism of articles, that I stopped worrying so much about things I used to check for when I started, like vandalism, and I ended up dealing with my own life situations when I didn't have time to do wikipedia projects - but I should have kept logging in more frequently. That said, I do wish people would not get officious in how they "enforce the law" though. Remember the cop in Harold and Maude and what Ruth Gordon had to say to him? What I mean is that I think a little leeway could be given when an editor is trying to get something done rather than follow the letter of 7 days (or else change the letter because it's not enough time). – Bebop 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no fair use images because you went and tagged all the ones you uploaded under fair use to be speedy deleted after I started asking you to provide sources. The point was (before you twisted my words) that tagging the image is redundant and pointlessly destructive. What most people here seem to be saying is that Wikipedia would be better off if people who disagree with using fair use images on Wikipedia and who know that free images are out there and can be easily found should spend their time replacing the fair use images with free ones instead of mass-tagging things for deletion. YES, it would take much more time to replace individual images as you come across them rather than adding templates across the board. But most things worth doing take time. TheQuandry 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
All three of them, yes. I think this comment proves the point I've been making all along; you've filed this chiefly because I'm acting in accordance with what the policy is instead of what you think the policy should be. Think I'm wrong? Then point me to any comment by any admin involved in creating this template where he/she says that the intended procedure is for the tagger to find a replacement. —Chowbok ☠ 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You can claim that you're operating within policy all you like, but for all your talk you haven't quoted policy once. All you've done is claim that you're right and then quote talk pages where Jimbo Wales said he supported a stricter interpretation of what images should be allowed under fair use. However, he began that discussion by saying that this was NOT POLICY and that he was afraid it might be confusing to people that it was placed there. Furthermore, in the past Jimbo has said that using the words "Jimbo said so" is not actionable (meaning it doesn't hold any sand). What I will do here is refer you, once again, to the official Wikipedia policy which I have added in bold on the main page. And you're still not listening to what anyone is saying. You're just repeating the same crap about templates and makers of templates and how it's "not your job". TheQuandry 02:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've talked about some of the issues on another RfC - User_talk:Herostratus/Image_RfC. Our policies on fair use are far from clear cut as implied elsewhere on this RfC. There is a fundamental disharmony, and it needs sorting out. Jimbo is welcome to intervene to clarify the position, but in his absence we will have to sort this out for ourselves--luke 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I belive that 99.99% of this issue could have been resolved if -

  1. Chowbok explained on either his main User page or top of disscussion page very clearly that he was undertaking an "unpopular" task, and has received a blessing (e.g. Admin status, signed permission slip from jwales, etc) to do so.
  2. Chowbok talked with users first, E.g "I noticed that your image is missing X or could better be Y, thoughts?"
  3. A clear policy be presented regarding images that were copyrighted but intententionally pushed into Public Domain for promotional use

Hackajar 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thought - If I opened the door to my house one day and realized that everyone that parked their cars on the street were breaking my Home Owner Association's rules, then got little red flags that I placed on each car. How do you suppose my neighbors would react. Sure they are not doing things correctly, but suddenly without warning, me not even being a the board of directors this just happend? Everyone would be pissed! Especially if when people come to my door to ask questions, and I don't answer. (See talk page archives, it seems you were cherry picking who you would talk with, only speak to people that "attacked" you, not people who asked vaild questions). Sure what's going on needs to be addressed, but the manner in which it took place, and by who was laying down the gavel (not an admin) is what really caused many issues.Hackajar 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case it's more like someone posted a note on an island you only visit every so often about a statue you put in the park and you didn't know the note was there till after three weeks after they removed it, or else you get to the island and are told "comply in 7 days or else"; it feels like a police state when people handle things that way and not very friendly. – Bebop 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with both your analogies, in my opinion, is that you're regarding the deletion of images as punishment. It's not meant and should not be taken that way. Nobody is saying that you uploaded these images in bad faith, or that you did so reflects negatively on you as editors. The RFU notice is not a "ticket". We're just trying to move forward in our goal of a free-content encyclopedia. —Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, Hackajar: to whom did I not respond? Do let me know because I'd like to rectify it. I did try to respond to everyone but I've gotten so many comments I certainly can see I may have missed some. —Chowbok ☠ 07:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You have taken a "punishing" tone to other editors in the past, though I must say that some other editors pursuing a path similar to yours have been much worse in this regard. Keep in mind that reasonableness must be exercised at all times, on all sides of what we do, which we can all agree it has not over the past several weeks. Badagnani 07:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I should state that I am not upset at deletion of any image, only "tagg and run" approch to this project. If you engage someone indirectly with tagging of an image, you have to expect them to respond. Further, you cannot take the attitude of "well if they just whine, and go away, then fine, but if they start attacking me, then I will respond" which seems to be the case on your talk page. I have updated it with some constructive critisim on what probably went wrong, and how you can mitigate this situation moving forward.Hackajar 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Robth's caveats

I agree with both of Robth's caveats. I realize that incivility is no excuse for further incivility, and I know I need to try harder to be polite no matter what is thrown at me. I think he's right about accusations of bad faith, and I shouldn't have done that, whatever my thoughts; I should have just pointed out Sebeng's edit history and let people draw their own conclusions. I will try hard not to do either of these things in the future. I would also like to add, though, that I'm certain this RfC still would have been filed even if my conduct was 100% exemplary, simply because I'm tagging these images. —Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: The sole act of tagging images, although part of the discussion, is not the sole issue under consideration here. Badagnani 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand that. Once the RFC was filed, everything I've done relating to images was thrown in here. My point is just that even if I had been 100% impeccably polite, this would have been filed IMO. —Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You may be correct, because I was not referring specifically to politeness issues, but to the summary deletion of images without meaningful comment, failure to take into consideration longtime and productive editors' good faith comments, failure to tag pages on which the images appear, targeting of individual editors' uploads, and other attendant issues, as well as the totality of conduct over the past several weeks (of which perhaps the most significant example is the personal interpretation of WP policy and taking it into one's hands to summarily delete hundreds of images which it is not clear should have been deleted), which some editors believe to have been disruptive. Badagnani 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm not an admin, so I have never deleted a single image. The only way any images could be deleted is if admins agree with me, which, for the most part, they have. As for personally interpreting WP policy and acting according to that interpretation; well, yes, of course I do that. Don't we all? When you make an article more NPOV, for example, aren't you acting based on your interpretation of WP policy? —Chowbok ☠ 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Badagnani's comments

In response to Badagnani; I was focusing on tagging promophoto-tagged photos; specifically I started at "Q" and went down through the alphabet. I agree that I wasn't tagging the articles initially because there wasn't really a good procedure for that (which I complained about here, as a matter of fact). Once somebody came up with a template to add to photo captions, I started doing that on all articles that images I tagged were in (except ones in infoboxes with no caption parameter; I'm not sure what to do about those). I would also respectfully disagree that I "[do] not acknowledge those instances (namely, those images that are irreplaceable or extremely difficult to recreate) when fair use is the only option at this time", although I think it's indisputable that I have stricter criteria for determining this situation than does Badagnani. See for instance here, here, and here for a few examples of when I changed my mind on a tag based on uploaders' irreplaceability arguments. Of course, this doesn't reflect the vast number of images I looked at and didn't tag in the first place because I wasn't sure they were replaceable; if anyone's really bored, they can compare my image edit history with the promophoto category and see what I skipped. —Chowbok ☠ 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple random thoughts

  1. I think it's telling that everybody so far (most recently Fourdee) who has said I am inappropriately placing tags has yet to give a specific example. I'm ready to defend any tag I placed, but it's much easier just to say I'm wrong and avoid specifics completely.
  2. Sebbeng and I live in the same neighborhood of Chicago. That's not really relevant to anything, I just thought it was funny. We probably pass by each other all the time at the Co-Op (the local grocery store). —Chowbok ☠ 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been mentioned (above) that it isn't solely the tagging that is at issue. Badagnani 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was. But when Fourdee says something like that I am "placing the tags improperly", it would be nice to have specifics so I can at least clear up my thinking on the issue. —Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to above point #1"placing the tags improperly" I will give the example of Cassandra_Ford. This is an image released by publisher to public domain. Did I just tag with wrong copyright then? What is the right tag?Hackajar 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a specific general Public Domain tag there someplace. See, that's another problem: when you're uploading images, the pulldown doesn't give you the full range of acceptable license tags. This makes it really difficult for people to find the correct one. TheQuandry 03:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't touch that image. This is the first time I've seen it. How is that an example? —Chowbok ☠ 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it was the band photo that you tagged, not her individual pic. Both were from same press junket though.Hackajar 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Robth's outside view

I disagree with most of Robth's summary except the sentence in his final paragraph where he mentions a better notification system is in order, an idea I generally endorse. I do not know what he meant about Orphanbot and commenting out though.

I said in an added italic notation to my first comment, before finding the outside view, that I thought Chowbok could be beneficial in leading an effort to converse with editors about photos that would be good to try to replace, rather than by rushing to tag items first, and pointed out that time is needed to give the editor to communicate to the photographer first the meaning of the license if they haven't heard of it and try to get a free one. The earlier part of the above discussion fails to take into account criterion 1 at the fair use policy page. Jimbo talked about replaceable media, but to be replaceable first it must be "reasonably" replaceable and that means the person must have tried to get a free one first but not been able to get one and a replacement must adequately give the same information, not be a lousy, blurry, poorly shot photo that doesn't transmit the same info (such as replacing a live concert photo closeup with something that is vaguely related but not the "equivalent" as used in the definition). This policy distinction is also mentioned by an admin in chowbok's talk page. As for the incivility issue, I didn't experience rudeness of speech from chowbok; I found the pushiness of how I was being approached to be rude (but I have to learn how to reply better too when dealing with being pressured) and I was not treated as putting forth a good faith effort to seek the possibility of a free image after I replied but instead he started competing with me to contact the band, confusing the band I was working with for image licensing. I would have rather also been asked to do it first before it was tagged for deletion, and I'm not sure who I'm supposed to ask to not delete it till I have a few days to see if I can get a freer license on the image because chowbok has said somewhere on the page he isn't the one who deletes them and is not an admin. So he's setting things up to be deleted without even first giving me a chance to do something about the image if it is possible (replaceability is being investigated by me as we speak). I've only known of his message a couple of days. – Bebop 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To the end of improving the notification system, editors should be worked with to make changes rather than tagging and pressuring people. It takes time to get a license explained anew to a photographer, which is the first thing an editor may attempt to do with the photo that wasn't previously free. Not all photographers have heard of these licenses and some aren't going to agree to them. Editors have to explain these issues with the photographer, pressuring the editor doesn't help him get time-consuming work on licensing done. Have a project where someone like chowbok greets the editor with what is desired and works with the editor to let him try to do something before immediately listing a photo for deletion, and allow the editor time to try to replace it. Don't assume an image is necessarily "replaceable" without finding out the situation the editor experienced and what he'd like to do about it. Also, re: someone saying chowbok is only accused of implementing an unpopular policy, I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm making comments about the general situation and I disagree he is properly implementing policy in that he assumes without asking the editor that an item is replaceable and tags it without discussion. Discussion should come first with the editor, then the tag. Chowbok leaps to tag without discussion in advance. – Bebop 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm 100% in favor of a simple notification system as well, rather than a "if you don't upload a free replacement for your image, it will be deleted in one week". I think that would be lovely. TheQuandry 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple of clarifications. First, OrphanBot is a bot account that comments out images in articles (like this: <!-- [[Image:Example.jpg]] -->) when they are listed in certain categories for deletion, and uses an edit summary that explains what is happening with the image. This allows editors of the article to notice that something is happening with the image and respond on the talk page of the image if they wish.
Secondly, regarding your interpretation of the policy. I'm not sure where you got this interpretation from; the criterion states that it must be the case that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". This does not merely imply that we have to try to get someone to release an image; if it is possible for someone, using methods and instruments available to members of the general public (a previous discussion arrived at that as a definition of "reasonable"). As you can see from this discussion and this one, this was a clarification of existing policy (not a creation of new policy), passed down from Jimbo-level; this is why there has not been more widespread discussion in the creation of the policy. Bear in mind also that the fair use criteria, containing that first criterion, have been policy for some time now, and was on the reading list for people uploading fair use images.
Now to the issue of notification vs. tagging. The problem with things like notification and replacement requests (as opposed to deletion tags) is that they have been shown not to work very well for getting images replaced, whereas the current rfu system has had some major succcesses already. The important thing to remember is that, if the image is not replaceable, this can quickly be established in discussion on the image talk page. If someone wishes to pursue free licensing for the image, several things can be done. First, I would certainly be willing to let an image stay around past seven days if someone has left a note saying that they are currently engaging in licensing negotiations. Second, if free licensing is secured after the image has been deleted, it can always be undeleted or reuploaded. Deletion is not the end of the world, or necessarily the end of the discussion. It's important to remember that the majority of the images tagged in this way are neither disputed nor necessary (images of cars that you could photograph on the street, etc.), and requiring an extended notification period beforehand would greatly slow down a process that is probably going to require months to years to move through the vast number of problem image (months to years in which more contributors will see existing problem images, assume they are permitted, and put time into uploading problem images of their own, which then will have to be deleted with hurt feelings all around, etc., etc...). I don't think this is feasible or desirable; what would be very useful is ideas about (1) how to spread awareness of this policy more broadly and (2) how to make the tag and notification seem less threatening; input from people who have been offended by the manner of tagging would be very useful in this regard. --RobthTalk 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
My emphasis was on whether something that conveys the equivalent information was available as a free file and it can't just automatically always be created just because someone is alive; that was mentioned on Chowbok's talk page by another user. I did make a reply in the image talk page but I didn't even know of the tag until two weeks after it was put up because I don't log in here constantly. I am in the middle of trying to get free images and I was getting haranged with lists of questions in bad faith after I'd already answered them, just to spend my time replying to this person. I said I was going to check on replaceability or a freer license. You say the majority of the items are not disputed, but obviously there are plenty of them that are where if the person had simply notified the editor of what they wanted (before leaping to assume it's replaceable in the case of some of these music promophotos that people negotiated to get as fair use and now have to try to renegotiate) before tagging and issuing ultimatums, there would not have been many disputes. The tagging editor did not know anything about whether anything could be created or was available to replace the live photo via free license or not and didn't ask the main article editor (me) first, which I have suggested is better to do in cases where it's not something obvious like a photo of an apple or banana. That someone is alive does not mean they perform live often where they can be photographed. You said you would be willing to let an image stay around past 7 days if I said I was negotiating to see if I could get a free license but Chowbok wrote me a message saying not only was he not giving me time for replacing the photo (it's in my Archive #2 [1], but added a sarcastic remark pressuring me to immediately convince him within less than a week that it couldn't be replaced even though I'd already written him what I was doing to research replaceability and what the status was immediately when I found his tag in my page. He twisted my reply to say I'd "conceded" it would be replaced when I said I was researching it and made a glib comment about how it therefore had to be deleted instantly, was not trying to work with me at all on this even though I had notified him I was working on it.
I felt badgered by his comments like "for the third time I ask you" and not respecting my replies; they read as though he just wanted to spend my time endlessly replying to him instead of allowing me to try to see if I could replace it or not (I am still contacting photographers to ascertain it and hope I can even get a free license on the photo already uploaded without even having to replace it, but I am still ascertaining what can be gotten). I had already answered him what I was doing and why it wasn't just yet possible but that I was working on it and I am in the middle of emailing photographers including the one whose photo it is. It isn't possible to create something just because someone is alive and just because photos exist. You have to go to the people who own the photo or an equivalent photo and see if they will allow a free one when previously they did not. If the person performs live all the time and you are replacing a live photo, then I'd agree, all you have to do is go to the next concert and take a photo yourself, assuming you can get a nice camera into the venue (not all venues allow this); in that case it's obviously possible to create one. That's not the case on the photo I dealt with of a Europe-based musician who rarely performs and could stop performing forever at any time. If you're talking about a car, it's different.
Also, the image Chowbok tagged that I had uploaded was uploaded in April 2005, which is longer ago than a year since you say I should have known better. It's not enough to say "assume good faith" when someone repeatedly badgers you over something. If the person is feeling pressured, then someone might look into whether the person asking for time to get something done is making the claim in good faith. My feeling of being badgered is truly how his way of handling it makes me feel. Just saying to me "assume good faith" to me is starting to me to seem to be a mantra people can use to write whatever they want and be sarcastic or antagonistic and baiting flames or else just lacking in common sense about what wears a person out, well intended or not.
I am not speaking in agreement with everyone else's tales of woe on claims of bad faith; I haven't noticed chowbok being rude in words to me, but the effect of the repeated comments was I was being rushed, badgered and pressured to do things faster than I can get them done instead of having my notice I am working on it respected as good faith. I told him I'm working on it and I hope I will be given a minute here to get the work done. I repeat that I think Chowbok can do some good work here, but just maybe doesn't notice when he's being a little unfair or pushy (so in that respect maybe it's good faith he exercises but just not ideal judgment in handling people). I feel he can do good work here on this project if he will let people like me who are working in good faith get our work done checking on a photo without hassling the band with announcements of impending deletion as they received in an email after they'd already heard from me on it, or not acknowledging to me that the fact I'm working on it is understood, instead just leaving the status of the situation as "it might be deleted at any second" as was implied in a message to the band. – Bebop 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bebop's View (previously was posted in my RfC endorsement)

The below is text I have tried to streamline from what I had originally put in my endorsement comment; Irpen said it was too long and needed to go in its own section.

I disagree with Chowbok that he is implementing policy the way it is intended to be implemented and if the consensus is that people are supposed to go deleting all fair use promophotos one encounters after just sticking a tag up, when only a tiny percentage of people in the community have heard of this supposed new policy then the procedure should be changed. Chowbok doesn't listen to the reasons given in reply to his tag messages and then tries to bait an argument by repeating the question that has already been answered, tries to feign a halo of courtesy by complaining on each person's talk page that he can't get a civil conversation out of the person, and disrespects reasons given in reply to the photo tag notice, then doesn't give the person a chance to get any further work done on the photo in reply to the first notice. The procedure Chowbok follows, which I do not believe is that of wikipedia, is antagonistic and baiting arguments rather than working as a team with people because he's not interested in any of the articles. If the purpose of this RfC is to discuss procedure, I think this could have been handled in much more harmonious way by user Chowbok, who refuses to give me any time to work on seeing if a replacement or freer license can be found. Chowbok also says everyone is terrorizing him by their responses when he is flame baiting by his lack of respect for their replies.

I do believe Chowbok would be very beneficial to wikipedia if chowbok were in charge of a project to communicate to editors who need to learn of the new rule and ask them if they could find a a free photo or if they could ask the photographer about a different license, but without rushing to add tags to photos first; that is, Chowbok could ask the editor to investigate whether it's replaceable or not before Chowbok assumes it's replaceable and tags it for deletion. Chowbok could write a greeting to editors who have fair use photos up, mention to them how much better a free photo is for wikipedia and the new policy, and ask the editor if it's replaceable, or offer to help replace it (in my case, I don't need help, I'm working on it with the band and photographers to see if a free image can be located or the current promophoto given a freer license myself, but some might want chowbok's help in obtaining a freer photo, should it be determined by the editor contacted that it's possible to get one). I think there are good ways for Chowbok to use this energy in a way that will benefit wikipedia, but should approach people differently, not by tagging first and pressuring people. In the case of a photo that an editor is trying to find a replacement for at Chowbok's request he investigate this, it can take a bit of time to get free ones because you have to explain to photographers what a license means sometimes and not just introduce the concept of the license without explaining it; we don't want to mislead a photographer by not providing information about what we are requesting. Editors need time to do this. If Chowbok would lead this project in a way that doesn't pressure people, I think he or she will see more fruit come from this.

I don't like a procedure such as RfC that sounds vaguely like "censuring" an editor; I wouldn't want to be RfC'd, whatever this means (a "dispute"?) and want Chowbok to enjoy his time editing. I think Chowbok means well, but the way he's gone about this has really added stress to my life and not treated me as a person who is in good faith trying to check on what he wants done; this is because of his understanding of tag first, instead of inquire first and not involving the editor uploading it in the decision to remove it or conversing first. I hope everything works out for editor Chowbok and we all get our work done in a way that makes us all feel comfortable. – Bebop 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Views

Please note users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view. At this point, Robth would not seem to be in compliance with that. Jbuzza 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorsed the response--that's different from editing it. You can endorse as much stuff as you like, but you can't edit (i.e. change the content of the statement) in more than one section. --RobthTalk 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(At least that's my understanding--I've observed RfCs before, but never actually participated in one.) --RobthTalk 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Another thing that isn't clearly worded ;) Jbuzza 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Wales' statement

Regarding the idea that "every image he has tagged should be deleted in due course" -- I think that there are ways to check with the editor before tagging them for deletion if there is a question and try to let an editor work with you first. If the article editor doesn't get anything done after inquiring of them, then tag and delete. If you tag first, it might be deleted before the editor even knew about it to defend, replace, or update licensing on the image. I guess editors should log in at least once a month or expect after 2 months that a disputed image they didn't know about would be gone. I'm speaking about ways to be "kind", as mentioned by Wales, in working with editors and how to handle people in a way that makes them easy to deal with to get done what another editor wants done for an image. "The point of the tag" being the only notification needed? The tag issues an ultimatum and may not be seen by the editor till it's already removed, and it can result in loss of an image that can't be replaced if the tagging editor is fallible, as most are.

I doubt Chowbok is guilty of any more "behavioral problems" alluded to in an endorsement than anyone else in wikipedia; I think Wales was right to call them missteps. I am surely guilty of missteps myself and so are most of us. The emotional aspect mentioned by Wales sometimes occurs when an editor doesn't work with you on the issue and just ignores your answer or that you have replied you are working on the issue; if the contacting editor is told the article editor is trying to see if a free license for the image can be obtained or if a replacement can be found, then it would be nicer to give the editor a chance. I don't think tag first, talk second on borderline cases is a good idea; I think contact first is best on images that are not cut and dried cases, wait a month then take action if you don't hear back. I think it would be good if the developers could eventually set up accounts to have the option of notifications on our own talk page to come to us in email as someone else suggested on another user's talk page, although I suppose if a visitor to your talk page made several edits to a comment there would be many emails. These are just suggestions I have on how to implement things in a friendly way with teamwork instead of in an adversarial way. I hear in part of the discussion that many images weren't even borderline cases and deserved tagging wthout waiting to talk to an article editor, so I guess you have to exercise some discretion about when it's really unnecessary to bother with asking the editor first. I have repeatedly said though that I think Chowbok has good energy to be put to the right use, certainly more energy to get things done in wikipedia lately than I have, and that is not something that should be squelched. I can see that Wales would want to encourage him so that his energy to work here is not lost. It takes a certain kind of person to put in the time getting work done here. We shouldn't take any of us for granted. – Bebop 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This Jimbo's answer shows one thing actually: that people writing content are not the same that write policies, and that they never speak to each other. The latter write grand discourses about such and such stuff, the former write the content - and as a recent enquiry revealed, they're less than a thousand.
Trouble comes when a bunch of people (Chowbok is not the only one, there are more and they will recongnize themselves) start tagging images at will because they feel like it and because they feel it gives them power over the other editors (and don't even get me started on what happend if the guy is an admin).
Obviously, if the goal is to have an unproductive bureaucracy, that fits, but when the goal is to write an encyclopedia, well... it does not. The recent arbcom case shaked things up a bit, but no more than that. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, for heaven's sake, Grafikm. Now I don't disagree entirely with the spirit of what you just wrote, with regards to Wikipedia as a whole--we has similar thoughts that recent RFAr, as you may recall--but don't paint too broadly with that brush. Look at the list of articles Chowbok has created and original images he has uploaded. Do you honestly believe that Chowbok is only here to write "grand discourses about such and such stuff"? How about me?--I've been plenty involved in working on rfu images, and I've certainly written my fair share of "grand discourses" lately. Am I just here to play politics and lord it over my fellow editors? Please accept that this is an issue on which good content-writing contributors can disagree, and that the people opposed to rfu images are opposed to them because they believe that the encyclopedia will be improved over the long term by removing them. So how about we talk about the issues instead of lashing out at the people who hold certain opinions? --RobthTalk 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that shows that these policies are somewhat flawed, which are in turn flawed because they're written by bureaucrats (in the common sense of the term) who have little understanding of what being an editor is like.
I'm all for removing unnecessary FU images, but defining one is a tricky thing. If one uploads a FU image of a graph, I'm all for tagging it RFU and redrawing it under GDFL. But a photo? Chowbok's reaction on that is simply ridiculous: "well, someone should go and take a free photo".
That shows that these rules need further refinement. For instance, if an image represents an artificial and/or CG-generated object, it can be reasonably redrawn. But ask someone to find a GDFL photo of some professor or a celebrity is a bit too much.
The trouble is that the copyright subject on WP is dominated mainly by a bunch of people who don't seem to realize what copyright paranoia is, and who happily delete thousands of images without further ado, yelling "oh noes the dead nazis gonna sue us"(c) ... <_<-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't caricature my views so. It comes across as rather condescending. The important point, at least for me, is not that we might be sued; it's that I take seriously our ambition to be a freely-redistributable encyclopedia. I realize that's not as important to many people, but please give my views the respect of summarizing them accurately. —Chowbok ☠ 21:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do find it a little inconsistent that while some people find it normal that hundreds (or was it thousands?) of pictures disappear on one day, other people are proposing that no article should be put on AfD before the creator has been warned and explained the procedure. [2]. --Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not say "no photos" at all should be tagged before trying to talk to the article creator, if by any chance that referred to my comment above. I specifically said I was talking about the borderline cases. I said that clearly in my comments and I mentioned that I saw that some people had said it was cut and dried that most images should be tagged right away, and this may well be true, as I agreed, but there are situations where working with an editor first and checking on the situation is better, and the editor is not made aware just because an image is tagged if he has no idea there is a message waiting for him. He's not warned till he logs into see it, and wikipedia doesn't have accounts set up currently to get email notification messages await at wikipedia. Some of us don't get messages that often. – Bebop 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
To be fair on Bebop, I did not have his proposal in mind. On the other hand, he explains the problem I wanted to hint at, much better than I could have. In the case of articles, you have to actively scan DRV to know that your article is there. (But whether it is really necessary to add one more bureaucratic step needed to get rid of a hoax, is something else of course, and does not really belong here). --Pan Gerwazy 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read several of my other comments from prior to what I wrote in this section and see that actually it does look in other sections on this page that I meant all photos should be inquired on first before tagging for deletion (so I can't say I clearly made that plain in other sections). But I do understand that waiting to tag is often not practical. So I hope that when a photo is obviously a cut and dried case of needing deletion a tagging editor doesn't need to wait if that would be a problem. I'm also not saying I'm sure I'm right about anything I've said on how what might improve things. I'm just speaking how I feel about these things. I could be wrong. I think this RfC is most valuable to me for just helping figure out what's the best way to go about things. Chowbok likely thought he was doing everything the right way and perhaps nothing should be changed. And that's why Wales wrote the support message. I've already otherwise explained my experiences in this situation. – Bebop 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally just logged in a minute ago to add one more thought to my comment, and this has nothing to do with comments by Grafikm or Robth. I noticed someone endorsing Wales' view on the other page talked about chowbok taking a vacation. I don't think chobowk would need to take a vacation but might want to give up communicating with the two or three irate people at his talk page who seem livid with him currently and let someone else handle the photo images with the people who are already too upset for him to seem to be able to talk to any more. Then he could try to handle others differently as far as whichever thing he said that set off the different people unless they are wildly off base, and I don't know if they are because I did not read any details. – Bebop 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't be tagging any more images until this is concluded. (I will restore RFU tags that have been removed from images I already tagged.) What I do after that depends on the resolution here. —Chowbok ☠ 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Chowbok, what you're being asked to is being realistic. Ask yourself a simple question: If I were that editor, could I recreate simply and efficiently the same image without considerable efforts? If it's just a plain graph or some maths diagram, tag it, it's quite easy to recreate. If it's a map, one can redraw it. But in the case of photos, things are not so simple... And like someone said, you spend less than a minute on a pic before tagging it, which is a pretty hasty judgment. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Me, or any editor? A lot of uploaders seem to interpret the tag as "you have to find a replacement", which I never understood. And as somebody who has uploaded over 100 freely-licensed celebrity photos so far, I think the difficulty in obtaining them is vastly overstated. —Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And why is it unreasonable to ask editors to put forth considerable effort? —Chowbok ☠ 21:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And we're back to this -> if someone is taking the time to tag something as being out of compliance with the first rule of fair use, and if it's not only up to the original uploader to find a new image, why can't the person who thinks a free image could be found or created do so instead of tagging things for deletion? Wouldn't this be more constructive, if quite a bit slower? You know of a lot of places where free images can be found, so why not help out a bit more by providing them? The implication given by tagging something RfU is that you believe a free image can be found. But placing a tag and then not providing the image, or at least telling someone where they could look, makes it look like you just want to delete images. TheQuandry 21:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
How about "because they're on entirely the wrong continent", as just one example? I live in the UK: I could inspect a picture of a US celebrity and tag it as you describe, but I wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking a photograph myself. However, somebody who was in a position to do just that might be spurred by my tag into doing so and uploading their image in place of the non-compliant one. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(after a couple of edit conflicts)Because that's not what the tag/policy says. The point is not that the uploader of the fair use image have to be able to create a free licensed work, just that a free licensed work could reasonably be created by someone. The "deadline" is just to provide an argument for why the image can not be replaced, not to actually find the replacement (and if the 7 day delay is too short and you come up with a solid reason the image is not replacable just take it to WP:DRV or talk to the deleting admin and have it undeleted, deletion need not be the end of the world if new evidence turns up later). And I think Chowbok have been above average helpful in providing free images already, and I'm sure he'll provide more, but no one person can reasonably find free images of everyting. Yes finding the free images is naturally the ideal solution, searching Commons and the CC-BY images from Flickr alone can turn up quite a few things. That I know of images for Craig Nicholls, Wolfberry, Legion Field and Suona have been found there in just a few seconds (and for two of those the uploader disputed the tagging), and I'm sure there are lots of simmilar cases. That said if a web search comes up empty there is little any one of us can do alone, unless we happen to live nearby or whatever. That doesn't mean the comunity as a whole can not replace such images though. We have people all over the place from all walks of life. Just because you or me can't get a free licensed image of something doesn't mean no one can. With that in mind I think flagging as many replacable images as possible and make the community work for us is more "productive" than personaly trying to dig up free photos of buildings that are on the opposide side of the planet or plants that don't grow on your contient and what not. --Sherool (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The suona image is of very poor quality, as are many such images, which does not reflect well on our encyclopedia. Badagnani 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Stealing other people's images and calling it "fair use" reflects far more poorly on our encyclopedia. —Angr 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The use of the word "stealing" in this context (in this case, the use of promotional images, properly tagged with the "promophoto" tag) is unfortunate and appears to be a form of trolling unbefitting the above editor. This is uncalled for and brings the discussion to a level to which I will not lower myself to respond. Badagnani 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, ruining other people's work is much more fun, doncha know... :(
And why it is unreasonable? Well, for financial reasons for a start, and because people have life and jobs too.-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Phil and Sherool, that's the exact reason some people here (including me) have given for being unable to replace fair use images with free ones (that I don't live on the same continent, I'm unable to get in touch with the person, etc). That excuse was summarily dismissed and I/we were told "an image 'could' be created, period". In spite of this statement, the original uploader has a special interest in this particular image because he/she uploaded it and he/she doesn't want to see it deleted. Therefore, what is this person supposed to do if, say, they uploaded a promotional photo of Diego Maradona under fair use, but they live in Australia? People can't just up and fly somewhere and try to take a picture of a washed up soccer player. And how do you go about finding someone who COULD do this? So the original uploader is faced with an impossible mission just because someone, somewhere, could THEORETICALLY replace this fair use image with a free one. And 7 days later, the image is probably deleted by an admin with the original uploader left scratching his/her head about what the hell just happened. TheQuandry 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose they would argue is that one way to use the hypothetical photo you'd originally wanted to use would be to seek written permission to use it from whoever took the photo or is using it as a promotional photo on their site. I agree that reasonableness has been in extremely short supply over recent weeks. Badagnani 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you both. This exactly is the heart of the problem. If perhaps we had an efficient images request department, such an attitude would be understandable, but in the current state of things... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points. I'm not sure what Grafikm means by an "images request department"; we don't really have dedicated staff for any task. The "images request department" is all of us; the form letters available at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission are good tools for anyone seeking the release of an image that they think would benefit Wikipedia. We also have the permissions team on OTRS--I and a number of other people each spend several hours a week negotiating and confirming the release of images and text for Wikipedia. What removing these images does is spur the replacement or release of these images. If an image is tagged and this prompts someone to negotiate its release under a free license, this is a positive outcome. If an image is deleted and the article goes without an image for a while until a contributor somewhere notices the need and creates a free one, this is a positive outcome. This is why we have this policy.
That previous point is the really critical thing here. It isn't the end of the world if an image is deleted. Many of the articles I write don't have images; eventually I hope we will have maps or photographs to illustrate them with, but they are still good articles in the mean time. If an article goes without an image until a new image is taken, or someone negotiates the release of an existing one, that's OK. It can still be a good article, and will be better for it in the long run, when not just the text but also any accompanying images will be available for free redistribution. It doesn't have to be the original uploader who creates the image; Wikipedia and Wikimedia have contributors all over the world, and I am constantly amazed by the variety of subjects for which we have quality free images. Removing replaceable images encourages the creation of replacements, and over the long term that makes the articles better. --RobthTalk 03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are other pages on this subject where many other users disagree with Jimbo Wales on the use of promotional fair use images where no others are available, and let me add my voice on this page to theirs - if a substitute image exists - FIND IT. The images I use are the exact same images offered to and published freely by press sources worldwide. Tvccs 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment on, and response to, Jimbo's statement

I unequivocally deny that I, Irpen and the endorsees of the main RfC presentation are on the wrong side of the policy disagreement. I haven't found any official Wikipedia policy stating that fair use images should be deleted. I have found one stating that they are acceptable until a free one is created. If anything, the RfU template is not in accordance with policy. I insist that my/our stance is legitimate, in spite of how we may say it. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm not always a very nice person, but this doesn't negate that I believe I/we are absolutely right and that policy is on our side. TheQuandry 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What would it take to convince you that this is not the case? Just out of curiosity. —Chowbok ☠ 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#I7 (a policy page): "...Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after 13 July 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before 13 July 2006 or tagged with the {{Replaceable fair use}} template, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified.". --RobthTalk 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is a selective presentation, ignoring the significant discussion that has taken place on the Fair Use discussion page and elsewhere. Earlier in this discussion, on at least three separate occasions, examples were provided by several editors regarding the continuum between easily replaceable and irreplaceable/extremely difficult to replace images, yet these examples have not been satisfactorily responded to. Such examples regarded the example of taking a photo of the summit of Mt. Everest, individuals photographed at a particularly meaningful time in their lives that cannot be reproduced, or individuals who do not appear in public. This is a continuum and in many instances images that are on the upper end of this continuum have been summarily deleted. There has to be some reasonableness exercised here, something that has been sorely lacking (to say the least) over the past three weeks or so. In such decisions of replaceability the input of productive and long-time editors should be respected, and has often not been, in the most blatant way. Badagnani 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for providing that policy, it's the first time anyone has provided me with the policy they're following. Do we have two policies that are refuting each other? It seems that way. This is the one I'm operating on (from Wikipedia:Copyrights) [3] Additionally, (and as Badagnani covered above) the fair use guideline states that fair use images may be deleted if a free image can REASONABLY be created. That word "reasonably" is up to interpretation as what's reasonable for me may not necessarily be reasonable for you (and vice versa). TheQuandry 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are other pages on this subject where many other users disagree with Jimbo Wales on the use of promotional fair use images where no others are available, and let me add my voice on this page to theirs - if a substitute image exists - FIND IT. The images I use are the exact same images offered to and published freely by press sources worldwide. If these images cannot be used, then the entire promotional category should be deleted from fair use, and Wikipedia can handcuff itself versus nearly every other published source on the planet. Absurd. Tvccs 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is that absurd? Unlike nearly every other published source on the planet, we have free redistributability as one of our core principles. Promotional images are still very useful for subjects of which no free image could be created--deceased people, fictional characters, unreleased concept cars, etc.--but if an image can be replaced (which does not imply that a free replacement exists right at this moment, but that one could be created by one of the many people who contribute their original images to Wikimedia projects) then we decline to use an unfree image so that a free one is more likely to be found or created. --RobthTalk 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Because the entire concept of fair use, as stated in Wikipedia policy is that "an image may be uploaded under fair use until a free replacement is found". Not "fair use is limited to the deceased, fictional characters and concept cars". And in the case of fictional characters, why did Chowbok add an RfU tag to an advertising poster for [Soviet Champagne], which was then deleted by an administrator? The poster contained fictional characters and I provided a LENGTHY explanation of why it was not replacable on the talk page. Yet IT WAS DELETED ANYWAY (emphasis, not shouting). Why? Furthermore, it appears to have been deleted in such a way that I can't view the delete log. It has been "disappeared" somehow. So I can't even find the administrator who did it. TheQuandry 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Checkout here 21 November. Megapixie 04:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is the crux of the problem. There seems to be no accountability and the deletion occurs without proper discussion and without notification of the original uploader, even when the use is justified, and evidence is presented (even at some length, as mentioned above). This does need to be addressed, and still has not been. Badagnani 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The image I had tagged was also deleted despite an explanation of why it was irreplaceable and of historical significance. No explanation was given for deletion - did anyone even look at the reasons once it had been fatally tagged ?? The policy is not being implemented as written. I can see what people are trying to do and would have no issue with it if the policy were written in that way but it isn't. Jbuzza 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Jbuzza can you confirm you are talking about this image - Image talk:Steele Retchless.jpg - replicated at answers.com. This seems like a fairly straightforward RFU case to me. Megapixie 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what we are reduced to? Quasi-legal procedures after the image has been deleted without careful, considered discussion? Something is very wrong with this, and an editor feels s/he has been slighted. Let's improve this, please. Badagnani 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How is it replaceable ? This is a picture of Steele at the presentation of an award for becoming the player to have made most appearances ever for London Broncos (a career highlight described in the article). I have searched the web and found 3 images of Steele in total. This one being the only head shot (a promo picture from the club) and two copyrighted by a sports picture agency called Empics (one of which was used also by BBC). He is no longer in public life having retired from the sport. I am happy for people to make decisions to delete pictures but lets have a clear definition of "replaceable" first Jbuzza 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The implementation of the policy as has been advocated by a select few here, and is the case in dozens of images I have posted, is that they should be wholesale deleted NOW if there is any possibility a free image could eventually be produced, regardless of its actual availability, and this is being proffered by those that have a policy belief that all Wikipedia content should be GFDL free, regardless of the actual policy in place. That is exactly what has occured in the attack I am under - every single image marked as promotional is being targeted with a CFD in revenge for me expressing a contrary opinion. It's also just incredibly galling for people here to say what's the big deal about deleting images when I have busted my ass to find legitimate images, even going to the artists directly, for use on Wikipedia, and to see dozens of pages and dozens of hours of work simply trashed so someone who generally never bothers to find any "free" images, instead just play editor god, can butcher my efforts and get their ya-yas out. It's beyond pathetic. And I notice not one of the advocates of the so-called "when it's actually available, we're really not that unreasonable, we're actually flexible and reasonable " group here has stepped forward to say anything about the wholesale attack I'm under. I'm expected to add material to dozens of promotional images in seven days, and then likely have those images simply dumped by an admin without anyone proving they are in actual violation, or actually providing the replacement image they claim must be available, god forbid. Tvccs 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a huge hang-up on what "Fair Use" is vs "Public Domain" vs "GPL". The wikifoundation has come in under budget now for last year, why can they not hire a copyright lawyer to help re-write the policy from a true legal standpoint? IANAL claus seems to apply to everyone in this disscussion (as no one has pipped up and said otherwise).Hackajar 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think User:Postdlf is a copyright lawyer. Badagnani 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Ghirla's comments

Ghirla takes me to task for three things: incivility, lack of mainspace edits, and revert wars. I've conceded the first point already, and have promised to work on that, but I think the other two accusations are completely unwarranted. Anyone who looks at my edit history overall (not just in the past couple months) will see that I have done extensive work in the main space (obviously, it's nothing compared to Ghirla's edit numbers, but that's a pretty high bar, after all). It's true lately I've been focusing on images, but even now that's not exclusive; I just created Ralph Bates (writer) the other day, and I submit that it's not terrible as a starter article. As for revert wars, the only time I've done anything like that was when having to continually restore improperly removed RFU tags. It says "do not delete this tag" right on the tag; what am I supposed to do when people ignore that? —Chowbok ☠ 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the Ralph Bates page. I encourage you to spend your time on similar efforts going forward. Tvccs 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happens when this is over?

I had a look through the main RfC page... it doesn't seem to cover this. How long does the RfC continue, how do we know it's over/when a decision has been reached and who will enforce the decision? I don't see anyone with admin privileges involved in the page, except Jimbo. TheQuandry 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We keep discussing until it appears that an agreement has been reached or new comments stop coming in, I believe. RfCs aren't really the forum for creating enforceable decisions, but for giving editors feedback and clarifying issues. So far it looks like we've made steps on both of those fronts; Chowbok has responded positively to feedback about the importance of civility, and Jimbo and others have clarified that tagging and deleting replaceable fair use images is indeed policy. --RobthTalk 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Rob, I still dispute that the policy is being implemented correctly, but I do thank you for explaining RfC to me. TheQuandry 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Nothing really happens. RfC is toothless and is only a tool to determine how the community perceives a particular user's behavior. If an RfC determines that a significant number of good-faith editors see a particular user a problematic one, nothing else happens except this fact's being stated for further record. In that case the user may change his behavior or may persist with it. The final step of all dispute resolution is ArbCom. Arbcom is very busy and requires that other means to resolve the dispute are exhausted. RfC proves that other means to resolve the dispute has been tried and the dispute remains unresolved. This increases the chances that an ArbCom would take the case, provided the ArbCom members agree that the user's behavior is problematic enough to merit the ArbCom case. --Irpen 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. TheQuandry 03:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
For example, this one seems to clearly be demonstrating that community consensus is that this RfC is without merit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain how you came to that conclusion? I don't see that. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just wishful thinking, something we're all susceptible to from time to time. Maybe he didn't read this. Badagnani 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, apparenly he failed to notice where consensus seems to lie. Or maybe he just likes making glib, unsubstantiated comments for fun. TheQuandry 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only admins talking here and the founder of the encyclopedia agree with Chowbok, although I may not know who all the people are who are admins. That kind of weighs in his favor, I'd think. I wish that someone would look at procedures to make things run smoother since Chowbok would probably follow whatever procedure is agreed to as policy. The bottom line would probably be that many of us would like things handled differently, and that's a policy issue. Chowbok's behavior is reflecting his understanding of policy although he's a little pushy about how to implement it sometimes, but if the policy says "7 days" then he's doing what it says. So someone should look at dealing wtih the policy. Chowbok would probably enforce any policy to the letter, so maybe the people in charge of policy should review this RfC, take a look at things like my comments at Robth's talk page showing an example of what is sometimes involved in trying to get a photo license regarding needing time to communicate with a photographer the details of legalities on the license, and make some alterations that give an editor a sense of when it's appropriate to give an editor a bit of time to work on things instead of be pushy. People's time should be treated as valuable. Also photographs are valuable works and the photographer needs time to consider what he's doing. It can take a bit of time for people to research and negotiate these issues. Not just 7 days. – Bebop 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if I understand this thing, Jimbos and admins opinions are no more valid or invalid than anyone elses. It doesn't matter who they are. That's MY understanding anyway, I could be mistaken. TheQuandry 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
7 days is the time to discuss either or not the image is replaceable. Not the time to replace it. The article may go without an image if no free one exists but could be created. The point is that the lack of an image is the incentive to produce a free one. --Abu Badali 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
But that's not policy. Like I keep saying, per wikipedia policy, "images are allowed under fair use UNTIL a free replacement can be found. That means the fair use image should be left intact until a free replacement is obtained. TheQuandry 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Which policy are you referring to exactly? --RobthTalk 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As seen by this edit, an editor seems to have taken it upon him/herself to unilaterally change this language TheQuandry seems to have been referring to. How strange that this should happen without any debate. Perhaps this should be contested. Badagnani 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Publicity photos states: "Use of such images on the non-profit Wikipedia, for encyclopedic purposes, is highly unlikely to be contested." I wonder why nobody brought this up? It's right there in the page. Most of the images we have been referring to have been of this type, yet much energy and time has been taken up with disrupting Wikipedia over something that is "highly unlikely to be contested," for several weeks now. Badagnani 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not any more - the self-appointed guardians of original content have now appeared to define any promotionally tagged image as a subject for deletion regardless of any other circumstances. How totally asinine. Tvccs 05:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You're referring to this edit? What is the justification for that edit having been made without discussion? There is significant debate over this at the Fair Use discussion page, as we all know by now. Badagnani 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This change occured to bring WP:FUC into compatibility with WP:C, for more info see this section. - cohesion 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who oppose Jimbo's summary

This was deleted from the main page, so I've copied it and pasted it here. We don't want to delete commentary. TheQuandry 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. There are other pages on this subject where many other users disagree with Jimbo Wales on the use of promotional fair use images where no others are available, and let me add my voice on this page to theirs - if a substitute image exists - FIND IT. The images I use are the exact same images offered to and published freely by press sources worldwide. Tvccs 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Since I'm actual press, I've sent Jimmy a letter requesting an interview - All images I've uploaded with promotional tags, even with the direct permission of the artist, supplied by the artist, are under attack by User:Abu_badali, who has arbitraily decided that any image I've uploaded with a promotional tag should be deleted to somehow "encourage" the creation of new images - what a load of b*llsh*t. This is totally absurd, and I'm ready to open a god-forbid Rfc. Tvccs 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And now the same user is attacking all the CD covers I've posted - under his rationale every CD cover art image on Wikipedia, as well as most other images, would be deleted for lack of a lot of linking pages - review his User contributions - if anyone knows how to open an Rfc page quickly, please do. Thank you. This is insane harassment.
  1. TheQuandry 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dionyseus 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Badagnani - The concern about backlash over the use of promotional images is significantly overstated (contrary to our own guidelines, which state that problems with such images are extremely unlikely), and the summary deletion of images without consideration of the validity of editors' comments is even worse. This policy impoverishes our encyclopedia. Badagnani 06:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, current Wikipedia policy nowhere states that fair use images can be deleted in advance of a free image becoming available. It says such images can be tagged as "please replace"; it does not currently state that they can be arbitrarily deleted. Some people have expressed the opinion that fair use policy should be extended that far; it has not, to date, been accepted as actual policy.

My position remains as follows and will not change: the only acceptable way to resolve this matter is to launch a project that will take on the job of locating free replacements for the fair use images currently on Wikipedia. If you think Image:Spirit of the West.jpg was replaceable with a free image, then you take on the job of figuring out how to get a free replacement image; given that when I uploaded said image it was fully in accordance with Wikipedia policy as it stood at the time, and Wikipedia policy still does not state that the image can be deleted before a replacement image is found, NOBODY HAD ANY RIGHT TO IMPOSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON ME. Bearcat 07:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Who said it was your responsibility to find a replacement? That certainly wasn't intended. —Chowbok ☠ 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It may not be what was intended, but it's certainly what was actually communicated, intentionally or not, by the way you've chosen to approach this issue in the first place. Forcing the original uploader of a fair use photo to provide a rationale as to why it isn't easily replaceable? The responses you posted to the rationales that were provided, explicitly suggesting that the original uploader contact the subject or their publicist to obtain a free image, when you could just as easily (a) do that yourself, or (b) create a project page where such images can be listed and willing Wikipedians can work on replacing the images together? And then going ahead and deleting the image three days later even though no Wikipedia policy yet says that that's the accepted process? Have you perhaps heard of this newfangled alternative to confrontation, known as "solutions-oriented teamwork"? Bearcat 07:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This comment is perhaps one of the most insighful so far. It is telling that the editor in question, in spite of this entire process, seems still to fail to recognize the full extent of the ramifications of what s/he has undertaken over the past weeks. I ask that the editor read the above comment more than once, and try to understand what is said there. This is a community, and we must begin to work together as such, not against one another. Badagnani 07:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, WP:CSD#I7 has for some time stated that images which fail any part of the fair use criteria may be deleted after 7 days and notification of the uploader; that includes replaceable fair use images (the criterion has recently been edited to reflect the creation of a separate process for such images, but they have been subject to deletion for some time). Deleting these images, irrespective of the current existence of a replacement, is Wikipedia policy. --RobthTalk 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:CSD#I7 - the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified. Of course, this assumes that all users tagging images notify the uploader. (And that the deletion happens seven days after that notification.) That's not happening; I've had properly attributed images tagged without being notified, and images deleted in fewer than seven days after such tagging. Yet another problem with the current policy... but perhaps, best addressed elsewhere. Jenolen 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's easy to forget, but this RFC is actually supposed to be about me. And I don't think I've ever failed to notify an uploader. Even Sebbeng didn't accuse me of that. So I would argue that this comment should indeed go elsewhere. —Chowbok ☠ 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The point remains that I explicitly do not accept that there's an onus on me to assume the responsibility of locating a free image to replace a fair use image that was fully consistent with Wikipedia policy when I uploaded it. If you want it replaced with a freebie, you figure out how to replace it with a freebie within seven days. Don't pretend that's my job, because it ain't, and don't think it's fair or reasonable to delete it without taking that responsibility on, because it ain't. If you think it's replaceable, you take on the job of replacing it; if you can't do that within seven days, then that's not my problem and it's not the article's problem or the image's problem — either you accept that it takes longer than seven days to replace an image, or you consider that your judgement of what's replaceable might need a tune-up. It's certainly not my responsibility to accept that my work can be undone just because somebody else thinks an arbitrary and unrealistic policy is more reasonable than it is. You want it replaced, then you replace it; no other approach to this is acceptable. Bearcat 08:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not your responsibility to replace the copyrighted image with a free image. But it is your responsibility not to upload copyrighted images that violate the fair use criteria in the first place, and it's your responsibility not to object when policy-violating images get deleted. If a free image gets found or made within seven days, that's great. If not, no big deal, the article goes without an image for a while. No great loss. —Angr 08:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I just needed to mark this one as indicative of the incredible arrogance of some admins on this subject. Tvccs 17:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never uploaded an image that violated the fair use criteria as written at the time I uploaded the image, and if I believe that an image is not easily replaceable, I most certainly do not have any responsibility to withhold that opinion. If you want an image replaced within seven days, then you replace it within seven days; that is the only acceptable approach to this matter. The lack of images on Wikipedia is most certainly not "no great loss". You'll kindly note that I've proposed a proactive solution to the matter, namely a project that would actively take on the work involved in locating free replacements for fair use images — because as things currently stand, the existing approach is simply pissing people off, where instead it could become an opportunity for people to work together to promote Wikipedia's goals. Bearcat 08:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No one is demanding images to be replaced in 7 days. The 7 days period is to give you the oppotunity to dispute the asertion that any member of the comunity can reasonably find or create a replacement in the first place. That's all. If the image is deemed to be replacable despite your objections it's then up to the comunity as a whole to find replacements, this may take 5 minutes or it may take 5 years, there is no spesific time table, just like there is no timetable on getting a stub to featured status. It takes as long as it takes. --Sherool (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't and won't accept "5 minutes or 5 years" as a timeframe. The replacement deadline has to be concurrent with the deletion deadline — if it takes as long as it takes to find a free replacement image, then it takes as long as it takes for the fair use one to be removed. Either the replacement deadline is seven days, or the deletion deadline isn't; I consider it unacceptable for any image to be removed from Wikipedia before a free alternative is uploaded. Sometimes Wikipedia policy needs to be revised or rethought; this is one of those cases. Any other approach is both patently unreasonable and unacceptably tendentious. And I will not change that opinion, nor will I cease to express it. Bearcat 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

← Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't happen to reflect Wikipedia policy. And the fair use criteria have not changed recently, only the enforcement of them has. AFAIK, criterion 1 has always said "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." For as long as policy has said "or could be created", uploading copyrighted images of living people who appear in public from time to time has violated policy. And the deletion of policy-violating images, even before they have been replaced by free images, is most certainly no great loss. Pictures of the people we write articles are about are nice if we can get them (without infringing anyone's copyright), but they are by no means essential. —Angr 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is possible to come out of the mouth only from an editor who does not write articles at all is "proud to say no article [he] have started or significantly contributed to has ever been featured"! Wikipedia's function is to be as much freely distributable as possible and to provide the readers with the quality content. Only those who don't care about content at all can err so much on one side of this somewhat contradictory goals while we should all strive to combine them with a reasonable case to case solution.
So, how can one expect the article about a pop-star or a supermodel give the reader essential info about its subject without an image? Models, for one, are largely what they are only because of their good looks. I guess a politician article could do without an image to some extent.
Sadly users who write content are uninterested in endless chatter at policy discussion pages. That allows those who come to Wikipedia to socialize hijack the policy pages. This is not a new problem but an ever persisting one. --Irpen 09:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of this one, but once I saw models, I popped up the Cindy Crawford page as my first one, and lo and behold, what should I find but no image and a page history showing Abu_bdali removing multiple attempts at fair use images. What a joke - Wikipedia must be the only publication on the planet that could write a biography about Cindy Crawford and not have an image for the article. The "goal" is served. Tvccs 14:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I most certainly do write articles, but not on pop culture. I know it's difficult to believe anything else is covered at Wikipedia, but we do have one or two articles on scientific topics. —Angr 09:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I also haven't written a single pop-culture article. I just provided an example which you failed to address. --Irpen 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Policy is not always right; sometimes it needs to be reevaluated. My opinion may not reflect policy, but it certainly reflects any remotely reasonable approach to managing a volunteer-oriented contributor community, and it certainly reflects what the policy should be. Pictures may not be essential in principle, but if the image is already here, then it is essential to replace it before deleting it, because deleting it without implementing a replacement first is effectively undermining contributions that have already been made in good faith. It's the moral equivalent of taking a hammer to somebody's work because it doesn't meet expectations that you didn't communicate properly in the first place. And then it surprises you that the contributors in question feel backed into a corner and get their hackles up about it? Anybody who's ever done volunteer management knows that you don't undermine your volunteers in a confrontational way — if the problem results from faulty communication of the project's expectations, then you work with the volunteers to solve the problem. You don't just throw their good faith contributions in the trash and say "tough shit". Bearcat 09:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to also check how this "policy" is enforced. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. --Irpen 09:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that was hardly "by the book" and the admin in question have been blocked for a week for using a unauthorised bot and admin powers and I suspect that won't be the end of it. --Sherool (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is, I did not see any of the FU deletionists who propose those policies in the first place rushing to undo the harm by restoring the deleted images for further evaluation. Nice backlog reduction. Reminds me of this old story. --Irpen 10:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In the extremely unlikely event that any actual harm was done by that mass deletion, the images can be restored. Undeletion of images (unlike un-shredding of passports) is technically possible now. —Angr 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the attitude I expected from this user. That any one out of thousands images frivolously deleted by illegal bot is legit is extremely unlikely. And how are we to find out if they are gone with their discussions. I interprete this response as an endorsement of the user who ran amok into mass deletion. Does not matter as he pushes the Wikipedia to the right direction of less content. --Irpen 11:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment that the thousands of improperly deleted images were not of any importance: for an editor to treat another's contributions and hard work in such a dismissive manner is against our principles as Wikipedians. Please reconsider your style of discourse. Badagnani 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, you are right of course. But how would you expect the user to value the contributors with the attitude like "I am proud to say no article I have started or significantly contributed to has ever been featured"? --Irpen 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we all have our own personal feelings about things, and he has the right, as stated on his user page, to be skeptical of the review and featured article process. But it is true that, at least in my experience, this particular editor has a tendency to be particularly unfriendly. This, however, is off topic. Badagnani 11:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to Angr's "no great loss if there's no image on the article" attitude, here's my response to that: if I've put most of the work into an article, then I am bloody well entitled to at least a modicum of respect for my feelings about my work. That's the loss involved here: if you want contributors to take pride in their work and in Wikipedia as a whole, undermining their good faith contributions is not the way to go about that. Volunteer management 101. Bearcat 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You've made several valid points here, particularly regarding angering good contributors and volunteer management. It's important to note that Bearcat is correct in saying that his images were policy-compliant at the time he uploaded them--the fair use criteria are only about a year old, and many of his uploads predate them. Even for people who uploaded replaceable images after the criteria were policy, however, although this was a mistake on their part it was also a failing on the part of the project for not communicating the standards for images to them successfully. Care must be taken to avoid antagonizing these good contributors.
At the same time, we can't let mistakes made in the past force us to make mistakes in the future, and this is where the principle of respecting contributors comes into conflict with the enforcement of policy. As I said in my view on this RfC, if we are ever to enforce this policy, we should enforce it beginning immediately; if we grandfather in huge numbers of rfu images, we will continue to receive huge numbers of newly uploaded rfu images. Far more people learn the standards of Wikipedia by observing the site's current content than by reading down all the relevant policy and guideline pages. Thus, the longer we wait to deal with these images the worse and more painful it will be when we finally do turn to dealing with them, as even more contributors will have, in good faith, uploaded images that they believed were acceptable but which were not.
So that is one reason to delete these images in the short term. Another relates to the practicability of Bearcat's proposal for "a project that would actively take on the work involved in locating free replacements for fair use images". The problem with this is that it simply wouldn't be able to handle the volume. No large backlog on Wikipedia can be fixed by a medium-sized group of people attempting to replace problematic content (the ongoing growth of the WP:CBM backlog is a great example of this; the number of people who will be attracted to dedicate their time to working on this specific project will not be great enough to address the huge number of images to be dealt with here, as replacing each image is a time-consuming task. The only way to deal with this is to create a system that distributes the work around the much larger community. Removal of images is such a system; it creates an obvious place for images in articles, and encourages contributors passing by the article to fill that void. Already, after only a few weeks, a number of images have been replaced with free images after going through this system.
It's important to remember, in all of this, that the goal of this project is not to produce an internet encyclopedia, but to produce a free-as-in-free-speech encyclopedia. If removing an image, and thus temporarily reducing the quality of the internet encyclopedia, improves the freely reusable resource we are creating over the long term, this is a positive result. The trick is to do this with the minimum amount of upset for good contributors who have uploaded these images. --RobthTalk 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the potential backlog as an infinite thing — I'm proposing it as a solution for fair use images that are already on Wikipedia, not for new images. Since it's a finite class of images, it's a finite backlog. By all means, put the onus on the contributors to locate GFDL-compatible images for new contributions. But for the ones that were already here before the replaceability criterion was being enforced, we do need to keep in mind that they were uploaded in good faith by people who legitimately understood them to be compatible with Wikipedia's requirements at the time. And if this many people are feeling personally attacked, then policy or not, something is clearly wrong with the way the matter is being handled.
I can't and won't view "temporarily reducing the quality of the internet encyclopedia" as a good thing. I continue to believe that images should not be deleted until an image has actually been replaced by a GFDL alternative; I can't and won't support letting articles that already have images on them suddenly go imageless for five years just because a GFDL image is theoretically possible. As far as I'm concerned, if we can't find a way to resolve the matter while maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia in the meantime, then we're simply not doing our job either as an encyclopedia or as a community. GFDL is not a weapon to beat contributors over the head with. Bearcat 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I have started many new articles on actors and films recently which were missing from wikipedia and I bothered to take to time to upload images which are specialized promotional images. Many of my new articles on finnish actors - come on it took nearly six years to get them onto wikipedia and I keep telling Cjhowbok it is highly highly unlikely a totally free image of the guy walking down the street is suddenly going to be available, but he keeps tagging my work. I have privided all the relevant criteria and it fits the fair use tag but he deletes them - I see this as vandalism. Why doesn't he concentrate on making wikipedia a better place rather than vandalising my work. I believe it is very important to physically identify the actor in question and he is removing a valuable information source which wikipedia strongly needs. It really is annoying me and I many many agree with it. To be honest it is quite discouraging to know I am bothering to start the articles and find a image which is fair use and it is being deleted. I agree for instance an image should be tagged for a photograph of a town that is copywrighted for instance when a replaceable free image is very likely but not for people where it would be very difficult to have a fair use image immediately. He is ruining it all for everybody. I understand that he feels he is helping wikipedia by removing anything that is not completely free but I feel his efforts are seriously misguided and not helping people by provinding information is he? I say block him Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy clearification

There seem to be a gread deal of confution going around as to what the Wikipedia's policy on fair use images. So to clearify:

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is what you need to be looking at, that is where the actual "up to date" fair use policy is laid out in detail (it is also translcluded to the Wikipedia:Fair use guideline page, wich I agree is not ideal since it's confusing to have one section of a mere guideline also be bonafied official policy). Wikipedia:Copyrights just give a brief summary of it, and was unfortunately due to an oversight left with an old wording that did not reflect recent updates of the fair use policy itself, resulting on some confusion. That's all there is to it rely, no grand conspiracy by the WP:CABAL or anyting, just a simple oversight that caused the summary on Wikipedia:Copyrights to not reflect changes to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Wich resulted in some unfortunate good faith misunderstandings about what the policy rely was. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A clarification of a simple question would be helpful - is it appropriate to use free promotional images for living persons if no free image is readily available? Can someone answer that? The position being advocated by some here is that any living person could somehow have a free image magically produced, and until that happens, no promotional images should be used. Is THAT the policy, and if so, why even have the promotional tag at all? Tvccs 16:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not what the policy says but those are exactly the type of images that are being deleted through RFU tagging. Jbuzza 19:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Robth

Robth said (as quoted from above): Just to clarify, WP:CSD#I7 has for some time stated that images which fail any part of the fair use criteria may be deleted after 7 days and notification of the uploader; that includes replaceable fair use images (the criterion has recently been edited to reflect the creation of a separate process for such images, but they have been subject to deletion for some time). Deleting these images, irrespective of the current existence of a replacement, is Wikipedia policy.

My question is: if no replacement exists for a fair use image, how is it replacable and therefore deletable? I won't requote the first criterion of fair use as we should all know it by now. TheQuandry 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is that oft-repeated first FUC that is at issue here; replaceable is just the shorthand we've been using for the definition given there, which is that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". A replacement does not have to currently exist for an image to be replaceable; it just has to be reasonably creatable. --RobthTalk 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That word "reasonable" is at the crux of the problem, I think. It's totally up to interpretation what represents "reasonably creatable". For example, the promo photo of Bob Vila I uploaded. It was tagged RfU by Chowbok and I noticed today that it has been deleted. Now, my interpretation of "reasonable creation" means that I (as an interested party), or someone who has actually seen the image since it was RfU tagged, should be able to create a new one (example: by photographing the man personally). On the image talk page, I gave an exhaustive explanation of why I personally could not replace it with a free one at that time (primarily that I had no means of taking a photo of Bob Vila and didn't know how to contact his representation). It seems that one instance of claimed reasonable creation should only warrant one instance of the inability to create. It should be down to whomever responded first and end there.
My point is that if we allow "reasonable" to just float in the ether like we're doing now, we'll keep on having these disagreements, and I have a feeling that this is only the tip of the iceberg in that regard. The only way to end the ability for people to interpret "reasonable" is to define it hard in policy, preferably with some kind of process.
I'm also a big fan of creating a project page to handle the issue of replacing fair useimages with free ones. Yes, it would create a backlog, but as I've said before, the right thing isn't always the quick or easy thing. TheQuandry 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional problems

2 problems:

  1. The greatest problem with this mass tagging seems to be that admins are not actually reviewing the talk pages or attempting to decide fairly if an image is actually replacable (and READING peoples explanations for why the image is currently not replacable). They just seem to be going along hitting the delete button. So, thus far, pretty much any attempt to dispute replacability has been pointless. This reeks of a select few people ramrodding their agenda through Wikipedia with no concern for others.
  2. The text on Wikipedia:Copyright was edited by someone participating in this discussion. I DO assume good faith on your part, but I find it counterproductive at BEST to begin rewriting policy pages when debates are ongoing here, not to mention on the fair use talk page. TheQuandry 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed in total. Tvccs 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, 200%. --CJ Marsicano 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chowbok making claims of "petty harassment"

When the RfC was filed, I alerted a few people by posting to their talk pages. In each case, I posted pretty much the exact same wording (click on the link) [4]. It was brought to my attention that this wasn't kosher, so I stopped. In the meantime, I discovered that Chowbok did the same thing (fair enough), but what he posted, instead, was baldfaced lies and inflammatory remarks regarding mine and Irpen's motivations. Click the link for an example [5]. While I acknowledge I was wrong to engage in a form of canvassing, this kind of BS is unacceptable and should pretty clearly illustrate the kind of person we're dealing with here: someone who puts on a polite, rational face when it suits him and then stabs you in the back when you're not looking. TheQuandry 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have several comments on this but will save the best for last. While I understand how frustrating dealing with Chowbok can be I don't fully agree with the wording in TheQuandry's final sentence above. However I do agree with the Eddie Haskill concept TheQuandry is putting forth.
I am glad TheQuandry posted the message to me. I have an interest in this Request for Comments and would never have known it was being conducted. While I strongly disagree with Chowbok's wording, posting notices on User Talk pages by both TheQuandry and Chowbok allowed for a more complete story to be told. The U.S. court system or arbitration are good examples of this. They generally look at relevant information brought in from both sides. Going to friends is wrong but personally I feel that asking people who have personal knowledge relevant to the discussion for their opinion should not be frowned upon. Whether pro or con they know at least part of the issues better then outsiders that may not have the time or take the time to research the topic completely before commenting.
When I first started looking at the Request for Comment I saw the stop message posted by User:Robth on Chowbok's talk page but chose not to comment on it when writing my comment in this RfC. Now that TheQuandry posted the link and I'm able to read what Chowbok wrote I feel I have to respond because it goes to issues in this RfC and Chowbok's attitudes. Chowbok knew that canvassing for votes was wrong. The example given above by TheQuandry was posted by Chowbok on, 26 November 2006. On, 9 November 2006, (17 days prior) Chowbok left me a message that vote canvassing was frowned upon. You can read the full text of the message Chowbok left me at User_talk:HeartThrobs#Vote_canvassing. --HeartThrobs 23:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
But this isn't a vote. I know, article deletions in theory aren't votes either, but in practice whether an article goes or stays often depends on a headcount. The point of this is just to get a range of opinions; there's no real decision made at the end. Since Sebbeng was recruiting everybody with a grudge against me, I felt like getting a few editors with a different perspective. I'm not a masochist, and I didn't want to sit here and get beat up exclusively. —Chowbok ☠ 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Chowbok's "claims" here is another good example of this user's spin. I don't see the self-reflection to the criticism making any effect on the user so far. And this is exclusively about the attitude issues and has nothing to with the separate issues of the policies in question. Apologies, anyone, for not posting my detailed view to the RfC page yet. --Irpen 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Publicity Photos - Does this mean anything anymore? - there is no living persons restriction

Wikipedia:Publicity photos

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

Publicity photos, distributed as part of press kits by celebrities, corporations, candidates for political office, and others, may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. These images are most often photographs of people, products, or events. As with all images uploaded to Wikipedia, the source of the photo must be identified on the image description page, and copyright information, when supplied with the photo, must be included.

Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted. This assumption of an implicit license may or may not include for-profit commercial activity, however. Because Wikipedia no longer uses restrictive licenses, their usage on Wikipedia must fall under normal Wikipedia fair use policy restrictions.

If it is possible to replace the publicity image with a new, free, image of similar value to the reader then the free image must be used in preference to the restricted and copyrighted publicity photograph.

Note that the above only applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes, and does not apply to most photographs of celebrities. For example, a wire service photo of a celebrity or a film still from the site for a movie cannot automatically be presumed to be a publicity photo distributed as part of a press kit. Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder.

Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos. Publicity photos found on the Internet typically have the following characteristics:

They are found in a section of a web site called "media kit", "press kit", "press", or something similar The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions (upload the JPEG versions to Wikipedia though) There is text on the site asking that the photographer be credited and/or there is licence text permitting reproduction for certain purposes (usually using them to sell products is prohibited). If you have personally contacted an official promotional agent, modelling agency, or talent agency and have received written support for the use of a promotional image on Wikipedia, please additionally add

to the image's description page, along with the relevant correspondence. For how to solicit permission, see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

Use of such images on the non-profit Wikipedia, for encyclopedic purposes, is highly unlikely to be contested. Commercial reusers of Wikipedia content should consider whether their use of such photos qualifies as fair use, and whether their use infringes on the subject's publicity rights.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicity_photos"

I am having clearly marked press kit photos marked for deletion when no free images are available only because they are of living persons - this essay clearly allows the use of press kit photographs - these deletion requests would seem to directly conflict with this essay. Tvccs 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing this. What undoubtedly will happen, now that you have pointed it out, is that some editor or other will simply go in and change the text to fit his/her personal interpretation, of course not allowing for any significant discussion of such changes. Badagnani 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an essay, not a policy. --Abu Badali 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, a nice quality press photo uploaded by Chowbok of the Beastie Boys. I was not made aware of the {Copyrighted free use} tag when asked to find a free replacement for my image. I was asked to request licence under GFDL. This approach seems easier. Jbuzza 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample of fair use promotional vs. Creative Commons licensed images

Although I have no problem whatsoever with the inclusion, and substitution of free images, and this isn't the only time I have seen this issue come up - I wish to provide a sample, in this case by Chowbok, of a free image he apparently found, edited and uploaded to replace a promotional image that had been on a page prior, i.e., Keith Emerson:

Original Image vs. New Image

  • Original Image Image is being linked because, per WP:FUC#9, we can never use unfree images outside of articles
New Image
New Image

It would be my hope that users who find and substitute free images would find ones of far better quality before replacing same. I have little doubt Keith Emerson would abhor the image being used here being distributed as a primary image worldwide. Tvccs 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Keith Emerson abhors the new image, than all Keith Emerson has to do is license a publicity photo under the GFDL or similar. —Chowbok ☠ 02:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why can't folks understand how hard it is to convince a public figure, especially an artist, that they should sign over complete freedom of their image, even allowing it to be used for commercial purposes? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go online and find that someone has taken my freely offered image and added it to their website in order to help them market whatever questionable item they sell. Most people like to have some control over how their image is reproduced and just because someone is famous doesn't mean they necessarily give up that right. The people who deprive them of that by taking pictures in secret, etc. (like tabloid photographers) are incredibly unprofessional and low class vermin. TheQuandry 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, because I've done it, several times? Just out of curiosity, how many artists have you tried to get free images from? —Chowbok ☠ 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am in contact with numerous artists who have provided images for me on Wikipedia as promotional - with only one exception, they have no wish whatsoever to be licensed under GFDL for exactly the reasons offered above by Quandry - as one said to me earlier this evening when I explained what's been going on here the last week, and I quote - "fuck that!". As I have suggested before, supporters of this absolutist approach on Fair Use images should create a Wikipedia paparazzi network crossing the globe far and wide...for free!!! Tvccs 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, they have no right to complain if amateur pictures show up on Wikipedia instead. —Chowbok ☠ 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What really pisses me off is you went after my voice actor photos, you have no idea how mad you have made me by doing that. Some of those actors have only one really good photo. Richard Cansino for example barely has any photos of himself, for you to insult me by going through all my work for you own pleasure angers me. I want you to know that I am somebody who does not take lightly to harrassment, and if I sound angry, I am sorry. But I want you to know I think your behavior is very sneaky and very nitpicky. I don't like, I have a problem with that type of behavior and while you will think I'm wrong and probably the dumbest person you ever met. I'm not going to sugercoat this, because I really, really think you do not know what the hell your doing.--Jack Cox 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that my actions made you angry. I mean that. Despite several claims to the contrary, my goal is not to anger people. And I wish there was some way to convince you not to take this personally. Please do try to understand that I'm not doing this because I get pleasure out of annoying fellow editors but because I believe very strongly in the "free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia" that is on every page. —Chowbok ☠ 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
They have every right to complain! Don't people have a right to say when and how their image is used? Your explanations are flippant, unrealistic, foolish and insensitive to the subjects of the photographs. You seem to advocate using poor quality amateur images as a means of strongarming people into providing Wikipedia with better free images. Maybe someone should take a picture of J. D. Salinger sitting on the toilet, put it on Flikr under a free licence, and put it up here in order to force him to give us a better one.
I don't care if you've managed to get a few people to release free images to you. The vast majority of people will not, particularly if they're smart and listen to their management, allow such a thing. I sure as hell wouldn't. Many of those whose images have been uploaded under fair use promophoto make their living off of their image. If they are happy to improve Wikipedia with a nice, professional picture of themself with the one rule that it not be allowed to be used commercially, who are you to take them to task over that? You're expecting people to compromise their livelyhood! TheQuandry 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, actually. You don't own the light waves bouncing off your head, as a matter of fact, even if you're famous. If you go somewhere where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then you don't have the right to stop people from taking pictures of you, and doing what they want with them. (Your Salinger example is eliminated by this criterion; obviously, if you're in your bathroom, or your house generally, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.) Anyway, aside from that, I'm not sure why you are or would be so hostile to a freely-licensed picture of yourself. Obviously, if you're a professional photographer, you wouldn't want people selling your photos without you getting a cut. But if you're a musician, an actor, or a politician, why would you care? You're not making money off photos, you're making money off what you do. The more photos out there of you, the better; all of those professions depend on as much exposure as possible. Why would you want to restrict that?
And I take it your answer to the question "how many artists have you tried to get free images from?" is "zero". —Chowbok ☠ 04:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Artists will, if you're decent about it, and respectful, allow you to use images on some occasions where they have some control remaining as to their use, exactly as illustrated by Quandry - others, when the see the attitudes of people such as yourself, will absolutely forbid it, and Wikipedia will be the worse for it. There are any number of artists I have attempted to gain fair use images for who either have none available or refuse to release any for exactly the attitude you're expressing, and concerns about misuse for commercial and endorsement purposes. You appear, like a few others on this page, to be completely incapable of accepting any other viewpoint than your own. Tvccs 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that makes sense. My experiences have been different so far, but I can see how it would change depending on who you ask. But we have every right to put conditions on the inclusion of images here, don't we? —Chowbok ☠ 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant to me, Chowbok, therefore I chose not to answer it. I don't need to put my hand in a boiling kettle to know it's hot. And as you conveniently chose not to notice, Tvccs, who DOES have experience in this field, responded to your query. Read what he has to say, as it sums up my point very neatly. TheQuandry 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And so does the artist, who, if Wikipedia is respectful, may be kind enough to grant Fair Use, as they do for every other media, press and encyclopedic outlet on the planet, but a few Wikipedians are hellbent on degrading actual quality and content, and the work of thousands of other people, in the interest of "free and only free on our GFDL terms or go to hell", their only measure of correctness, which IMHO is both short-sighted and asinine. The number of Wikipedians who have uploaded legitimate Fair Use images is in the many thousands, the number of people intent on destroying them is but a tiny few, but they are very intent on smashing their absolutist point of view down everyone else's throat - the level of arrogance shown on this page by some users both towards other users and artists is absolutely astounding. Tvccs 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if you're capable of holding a civil conversation on this matter. I accept that you hold a different viewpoint, and although I disagree, I recognize that you are sincere and I respect that. It's too bad you can't show me the same courtesy—so far you've insulted my contributions and called me obtuse and arrogant. It is possible to respect someone's views while disagreeing with them. —Chowbok ☠ 06:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only possible but most necessary. At the same time with sufficient evidence it is totaly proper to call an arrogant user as such. If the user (Chowbok) has a record if being discortious and arrogant but wishes to be treated with courtesy and respect, such user should start the improvmenet from one's own house. Judging from this very recent contribution, the user hasn't shown any tendency towards the attitude improvement. --Irpen 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, please do not respond to this. Irpen, your ad hominem attacks on other participants in this discussion are doing nobody any good. Please stop. --RobthTalk 07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will leave it to the judgement of the community whether my statement of fact was ad hominem or Robth's telling me what to do is proper. --Irpen 07:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And let me add, for the record, that your reply to my last post, regarding the fact that you now recognize some artists will not release images under GFDL, was a change from your prior positions on this page responding to Quandry, which I specifically note. The attitude you've expressed on the image's talk page, that if KE doesn't like the image he should just send you a free and better one, is one I totally disagree with, and would generally contradict your latest comments here about artists not readily supplying GFDL images. The position taken by some on this page, and I believe you are one of them from your earlier comments here, that essentially every promophoto of a living person should be removed immediately, regardless of the actual availabilty of a free image, is inherently disrespectful and arrogant towards the contributions of thousands of similar Wikipedians who have made completely good faith contributions, regardless of how polite or impolite the language and scripts surrounding the dozens of often unnoticed CSD requests may or may not be. I note for the record you are not one of the persons placing, at least on my images, unnoticed CSD requests, etc, as are others contributing to this discussion who have designated my images for attack, as they also attacked the Original Image above here. I also appreciate and note the fact that you attempted to find and properly detail the image and copyright status above on the new Keith Emerson image, because you at least made a sincere effort to replace a fair use image with a free one before removing it, and document same. I certainly respect your efforts in that regard - however, I have made my opinion of the quality of the image and it's suitability for the purpose used more than clear - I think images used on Wikipedia, especially as a primary image as in this case, should be of sufficient quality to do someone, especially a public figure such as Keith Emerson, reasonable justice. As a professional journalist and photographer, the above image totally fails that criteria, and should never have been posted here in the first place. I would be more than pleased to see a free image of similar quality to the orginal posted if one is in fact available, but it should not be overexposed, washed out and off color as the above image is, especially when it's of a living person. I would expect as time goes on, if images like this are published and distributed worldwide by Wikipedia with the prominence they are, that some public figures will begin to refuse to have the type of fan photos, such as this one originally was, taken at all for fear they will end up on Flickr or some other site with a Creative Commons or GFDL license available for this kind of eventual use. And those fans will generally think the public figures are nothing but arrogant for refusing to do so, without realizing at all what can happen to those images under a CC or GFDL license on Wikipedia. And the artist or public figure will suffer for it. Tvccs 14:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it though Chowbok, I have never hated any user more then I've hated you, ever since you started going after my personal collection which took me months to find, you have made me very angry, I do not care what you think, because I am sick of you slapping every image and shutting down debate on those tags. I am extremely upset and angered by the fact you don't even take the time to try and find a replacement instead you just slap on tags and run on your merry little way, I make no bones about my feelings towards you, I do not like you and I do not like your little operation, it reeks of shit-disturbing.--Jack Cox 06:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific follow-up information on this image

As an FYI, I contacted the image source, who is also a musician and a fan of Keith Emerson, that you copied this image from, and others, from Flickr. You did not seek his permission or notice him you were using the images in the way you did. Let me quote him directly:
"I had no idea Keith's photo got nabbed off my website and edited."
"Keith Emerson deserves a better photo on WikiPedia, doesn't he? Plus, that gets the mysterious hand off his shoulder"
"I've changed the licensing of my Flickr account to All Rights Reserved...Not only am I happy to do it but thank you for letting me know in the first place."
The copyright owner has now specifically permitted (I have the email) the Keith Emerson image's use on Wikipedia for the purposes only of this discussion. He has decided to relicense all of his images after seeing how they were being used on Wikipedia of his own choice, and any and all images from his site should be immediately removed from Wikipedia. Tvccs 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You may want to know that a creative commons free license is irrevocable (although I agree we shouldn't use the image if the copyright holders explains he released it by mistake). Also Tvccs, I would really really be interested in the text on your message to him. Could you paste it here? Best regards, --Abu Badali 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire point of the Creative Commons license is so that you don't have to ask permission. He shouldn't CC-license stuff if he doesn't want it copied. —Chowbok ☠ 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The reality is that many Flickr posters have no idea what can be done with their work under a Creative Commons license, and this is a prime example. The person in question can change the licensing as they see fit, chose to do so, and it would be in extremely bad faith for a Wikipedian to insist they could continue to use an image that was posted by someone who had no idea it could "nabbed", (his term, not mine), and used for this purpose. I find that line of rationale appalling in light of all the babbling about potential liability for Wikipedia that goes on here, even in regards to images some artists themselves provide and release under fair use for specific use on Wikipedia. It's really quite simple...I sent the person a link...asked them if they thought the image of Keith Emerson was used appropriately, and explained they could leave the licensing as is, change the one image, or change them all. They chose to change them all to restrict usage because they thought Keith Emerson deserved a better image than the one kluged from his Web page, and didn't want to see any other images used as such. Tvccs 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The license specifically says what people can use it for, and that it's "perpetual". I don't think it's bad faith to assume people know how to read. —Chowbok ☠ 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Many people have no idea how a CC license can be implemented, and this person is a direct example. Bad faith would be to continue to use images that once a person understood and saw how their images were being used, and chose to change the licensing as a result, would be to continue to do so. That would be very, very bad faith. Tvccs 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. On Flickr specifically, when you select a license, it walks you through a wizard which very specifically asks you what you do or do not want done with it. It's insane that we should just assume people are too stupid to understand what the words plainly say. If the license could be revoked at will, it would be useless. You managed to get him to change the license (by the way, I love how everyone's accusing me of making the encyclopedia worse by removing copyrighted images, but you are actually actively trying to get people to revoke licenses for free content, which is repulsive) before the Commons folks verified the license, so I won't contest this; but if they had, there's no way I'd let this go. I hope sometime when somebody enters a legal contract with you, he tries to get out of it later by arguing he didn't really understand what it said. I'm glad you'll show your "good faith" by letting him opt out. —Chowbok ☠ 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would he actively try to get someone to revoke a free license? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of. What he did was show the person how their image was being used and they made that choice themself. TheQuandry 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Um...yeah...And you'll likely get your chance on the license verified issue. The nonsense is that everyone understands what a free license means on Flickr in real life when it comes to how their images are used, and that the license runs in perpetuity essentially allowing anyone to do anything - this case is proof positive. I would never be so presumptuous as to tell someone that they should change a license for something they owned. As indicated above, I simply informed the user, showed him the link, and gave him the options. The choice was his. He thought it was a good choice, and I certainly support it. Tvccs 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's why I say I'm really really interested in, if possible, reading the contents of this message exchange. --Abu Badali 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh...a suggestion for all the Flickr grabbers...don't you think it would be a good idea to notify the user that you wish to use their image for the intended purpose and show them your edit? And if they choose not to allow the usage, suggest they change their licensing accordingly? That would be common courtesy at the least. Or doesn't that work here? Tvccs 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
By specifically marking their photos cc-by or cc-by-sa, they already have consented to allowing people to copy the image. That's the entire point. (And I should add here for people not familiar with Flickr that you have to opt-in; the default is "all rights reserved" and you have to jump through some hoops to mark them CC.) I don't share your low opinion of people's intelligence; I assume they know how to read. —Chowbok ☠ 19:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, how many times do I have to say it...this person did not understand how his images could be used and edited under a CC license before I showed him the Emerson image you edited and posted. When he saw what could happen, he changed the licensing on all of his images. I didn't make it up, and he made his own decision as the copyright holder and original source of the images. The above quotes I've provided verify same. I work with and write an Internet, etc. newspaper column for the general public, and I can assure you the large majority of them would be largely baffled by all of this, and many, many people would do exactly as this Flickr former CC user did once they understood under similar circumstances. Once again, you appear to struggle with accepting anyone's viewpoint other than your own, as you did for some time on the question of artists not wishing to provide GFDL images. Tvccs 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indentation) So what, exactly, did this fellow think he was doing? Your point, apparently, is that people shouldn't be held to legal agreements because they don't know what they mean. This is, shall we say, a novel theory. —Chowbok ☠ 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the photographer, when he learned that a professionally shot promotional image of Emerson was forcibly replaced with his admittedly more amateurish and unflattering one (under the very unfortunate circumstances described again and again in this page), he was displeased with the way this site is being manipulated at this time, and rightly so. Rather than being proud to have his image replace the professional one, he realized that his own photo belonged on the Flick site, and the promotional photo taken specifically for the purpose of representing the musician was the one which belonged in our encyclopedia. Thus, out of respect for the musician, he asked that his own photo be removed. Personally, I can't argue with that reasoning, although it leaves the article without a photograph. Badagnani 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And you continue to object to the common courtesy of simply notifying a user what you wish to do with their image, showing them same, and gaining their approval. You just "nabbed" and ran, and want to continue to do so. Your lack of respect for both the subject of the photograph and the person who owns it are simply staggering. The user in question had no idea whatsoever that his fan image with Keith Emerson could end up cropped as the primary image of Mr. Emerson, who he is a huge fan of, worldwide. Pardon him for not having a crystal ball, like 95% of the rest of the general public would not in a case like this. The usage of images without expressed permission in cases like this opens a far larger can of potential problems, not to mention ill will, for Wikipedia than a thousand legitimate press images, which you are hellbent on removing, ever could. Tvccs 07:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lookie here...another related Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali

And I didn't even start it...someone beat me to it, it appears. Tvccs 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject ideas

Bearcat suggested on the RfC page the idea of a Wikiproject dedicated to seeking replacement images. I like this idea, and would definitely be interested in participating. Here is how I would envision the Wikiproject shaping up:

  • Maintaining a list of all images that have ever been tagged or deleted as replaceable would quickly grow unmanageable, and would probably not be terribly useful. What would be useful would be, for as many images as possible, as they are tagged, to
    1. Contact the copyright holder seeking a free release (the material at [[Wikipedia:Example requests for permission will be very useful in this regard), and
    2. do a search of Flickr for freely licensed images of the subject.
  • The best way to coordinate this would be to create a bot that, every time an image was tagged, would list that image and its source url at a subpage of the project. Participants could then take responsibility for various images and carry out the procedures for them.

Bearcat proposed this as, and I agree that it should be, not a replacement but a complement for deletion. Basically, the idea here is that right as the image is tagged this project would check the quickest ways to secure a free image. This would not only produce a number of free images, but would also reassure contributors that their images were not just being deleted for no purpose. This is obviously a very rough sketch of how the project would work, but what do people think? --RobthTalk 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see you apparently support the need to locate an actual free image before deleting the fair use image - I hope you make that point clear elsewhere. Thank you. Tvccs 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of a WikiProject to do this sort of stuff. Another thought, such a WikiProject could also be used to find free images for articles without any to begin with (and there's a lot of low-hanging fruit here). If anyone decides to get this rolling, let me know. If not, I might get this started next weekish. JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I have added an optional parameter to the {{reqphoto}} template to allow for easy sorting of photo requests into more managable sub-categories simmilar to the location based requests from {{reqphotoin}}. For example {{reqphoto|cars}} adds Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of cars. Sorting the exsisting requests into a logical category structure and spreading some awarenes about it would seem like a good first step since there is already a fair number of requests floating around in the main Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. The next logical step would seem to better coordinate with and "promote" existing projects and resourses like Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration as well as things like Wikipedia:Requested pictures Wikipedia:Public domain image resources, Wikipedia:Free image resources, Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources, Wikipedia:Images with missing articles etc. I'd say the need is not so much a new project as it is to get more people involved with what we laready have (though some of these pages could use some maintaninace work I guess). --Sherool (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at all of these things. These individual pages are all useful, but maybe the one thing that's missing is that there isn't any overarching effort to attempt to ensure that all articles have free photos. Having said that, I'm thinking it makes more sense to work through one of these existing avenues rather than create something new. JYolkowski // talk 23:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Exotica II.jpg and Image:Mad11.png

Can Chowbok please comment on what the heck went on in these 2 images. Why did Chow tag his own uploaded image Image:Mad11.png with a db-author tag, when the irreplaceable fair use image was being used in an article? Or what happened with Image:Exotica II.jpg, loads of tagging some dispute, then finally Chow tags a valid self-sourced irreplaceable non-orphaned image as unsourced? How would the deletion of that image be of benefit to the encyclopedia? - hahnchen 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to fight over them anymore. Apparently Sebbeng thinks album covers and corporate logos are replaceable, which is an odd position for him to take. —Chowbok ☠ 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. I never tagged Image:Mad11.png with anything, and Image:Exotica II.jpg was tagged with a no source tag. The latter still has no source or fair use rationale provided. This is a great illustration of how this particular editor chooses which rules (or interpretations of rules) to force on others, while he disregards other rules entirely. TheQuandry 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
See [6], where you indicate that you think record covers are replaceable fair use. —Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, this was before I understood the clear as mud "policy" (interpretation), which seems to state that one image is okay but another is not on terms that appear to change daily and depending on who you're speaking to. This RfC is about you and I won't let you hijack it and turn it around on me. TheQuandry 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The debate

Thought many of you may find this interesting- [7] TheQuandry 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spirited discussion also here

This page also saw some seperate debate about Chowbok, fair use, and whatever. Image talk:Jennifer Granholm.jpg It would appear that talk about this springs up all over. Can't we get some centralized location and figure out exactly what the policy is and how it should be enforced? There is no concensus, there must be middle ground somewhere! (DELETION AND NON INCLUSION IS NOT MIDDLE GROUND!). It took me days just to discover that there was discussion going on here! --Jeff 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My twopennorth

I have had a coupla images tagged by Chowbok. I do believe s/he is over zealous with tagging, however, I have to say that s/he did contact the copywrite owners of at least one of the images and got them to change the license on it, so it could be included here under the rules as Chowbok understands them. I also have to admit I over reacted when my images were tagged and apologise for my rantings. Jcuk 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rank and File" users roles in Copyright

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page.
Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it. But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked. Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the phrase in the policy is obviously wrong. Everybody do what they want to do (or have talents to do) on wikipedia. Very few jobs are rezerved to specially appointed people, tagging copyvios is not one of them Alex Bakharev 05:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The phrase is right if taken in the correct context, but in this case it certainly is not. It was meant as a friendly introduction, and rarely are friendly introductions wanted in policy that is left to be interpreted.--Jeff 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As I have explained on Chowbok's talk page, I think Jeff is misinterpreting the statement. --RobthTalk 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well... Sorry; it's not me. Hackajar is the one that made the original interpretation. Not me. Please, you're seeing things! --Jeff 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You're competely right, and apologies for the confusion. I knew that I was talking to two people, but I confused who was who... --RobthTalk 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone tagged one of Chowbok's images

Imagine that. And it wasn't me, either. [8] TheQuandry 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the was tagging completely inappropriate; there is no debating that it is not possible to create a free image of an artist's copyrighted drawing. The tagger is apparently a sockpuppet of User:Waiting4 and has been blocked. [9] ×Meegs 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would this be appropriate for a "statement/response"?

NOTE: Someone deleted this comment[10], I don't know why. If it's not appropriate, then tell me why --don't delete the thing :-p --Bobak 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my view, and it's a slightly more overarching opinion from reading all the similar WP:FU disputes. If there was one time for the Wikimedia Foundation to use its own actual attorneys, this would be it: have them craft a very simple, short guide to what is acceptable Fair Use on Wikipedia. I'm not naive, I realize this will almost certainly create a very conservative view (or at least, if the lawyers are worth their salt, it should) that will leave a lot of potentially arguable images outside of acceptable use on Wikipedia. It will also cost some legal fees. But it will result increased efficiency: a central document/position that will be indisputable, citable, and will be the final say in all this hoopla. It will remove all of these awful semi-knowledgeable (and thus dangerous) arguments over what is copyright law. The policy, as defined by actual attorneys, would simply have zero room for interpretation by anyone other than those in the . It certainly won't please everyone but it would solve all this crap in one fell swoop. Yes, I am a US lawyer and I have absolutely no interest in putting something like that together: my perspective based on my experience as an attorney in a private company: if I were to have a legally-related problem of multiple interpretations of law, I would solicit my outside counsel to create a central, guiding document to remove any future inefficiency. I would feel pretty confident in stating most attorneys would agree with that, and this is the one time I think the Wikimedia Foundation should do the same. --Bobak 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free vs "free"

An interesting thought, so I hope people are still following this.

The concept that is continually brought up by the editors and administrators who tag and remove fair use images is "Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia". Again, how you define the word "free" dictates courses of action.

For as long as I've been reading and, later, editing Wikipedia, I took "free" to mean no cost. As in, if I wanted access to an encyclopedia at home, I'd have to buy a set of the World Book or Britannica for many hundreds of dollars. But here at Wikipedia, I have a huge wealth of collective knowledge that doesn't cost me anything to access. To me, that means free.

But to others, "free" means LEGALLY free, as in " we can do whatever we want with said image and aren't beholden to anyone". I don't agree with this interpretation. Is there a place in Wikipedia that defines the meaning of the word "free", as it applies to this website?

Thoughts? TheQuandry 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars item #3: "Wikipedia is free content". See also Gratis versus Libre. --Abu Badali 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. TheQuandry 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem is not with Chowbok -- Problem is with the policy

The problem is not with Chowbok. He is enforcing the fair use policy as it currently stands. Rather, the problem is with the policy itself. I have a problem with Wikipedia being entirely a "free liscence" encyclopedia if it does not allow for the use of "fair use" publicity photos of living people. I recognize that this brings me into direct disagreement with Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.

The thing is that most non-wikipedians are not aware that Wikipedia is intended to be a "free liscence" encyclopedia. Rather, most non-wikipedians simply think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia with no cost. As such, they will think less of Wikipedia for its lack of cast photos and screenshots on articles about movies and tv shows.Librarylefty 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Chowbok_cb94.html"