Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for comment that is now closed. Please do not modify it.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note: Since this is a self brought RfC, I am waiving the certification standard.

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}'' Beginning in mid-February of 2006 I began removing fair use images from userboxes and shortly thereafter from userspace. I began doing this after discussion with a number of people and observing Fair use criteria item #9 which states "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages".

In performing these removals, I use the following edit summary:
 * Removing fair use image(s) per terms of Fair_use item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation).

To date, I've conducted 758 of these removals, with 349 of them being in the userspace of 314 users. I've been involved in some discussions regarding these removals. In total, there's been approximately a dozen such discussions that have made it to my talk page. There might be other discussions, but tracking them down at this point would be difficult indeed. Here's the relevant items that have made it to my talk page:
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin/archive
 * User_talk:Durin
 * User_talk:Durin

Some of the users in the above noted discussions took offense at my removal of images from their userspace. Reasons have primarly included that I should not be editing their userspace without request and that the images are used under terms of fair use. I've responded to these concerns at User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images and User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images respectively.

The basic reason for this RfC is to address whether or not Durin should provide notifcation of fair use image violations in userspace to the user's talk page prior to removing the image to give the user an opportunity to remove the image(s) themselves, or should Durin should continue as he has before, removing the images and providing a detailed edit summary that has rationale and further explanation. This RfC is not brought to address whether fair use of images is permitted in userspace, as this is already proscribed by policy.

While discussion with most editors on this subject has concluded amicably with the fair use images remaining out of userspace, some of these discussions have continued to be problematic. With that in mind, I am self-bringing this RfC as an attempt to address these discussions and, should I continue this work, provide a reference for future controversies in similar vein.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * See above list of discussions on this topic that have made it to my talk page. Some example removals;
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Fair use criteria item #9
 * User page

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * See above listed talk page links for discussion related to this.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Durin 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * This seems to me to be an accurate account of the issue - sannse (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems an accurate account to me as well  + + Lar: t/c 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I commend Durin for documenting the removals. This is a useful reference and should not be delisted due to lack of certification. El_C 02:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that removal of fair use images from non-article space is important. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  08:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Petros471 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Motivation for fair use image removal: I consider copyright violations to be one of the most serious threats facing the very existence of Wikipedia. There are droves of lawyers who spend their entire lives pursuing individuals and organizations for copyright and trademark infringement, even without seeking monetary damages. Wikipedia is a high profile organization. I believe it is a matter of time before such cases are brought against Wikipedia. If we are not careful in addressing these copyright concerns in a pro-active manner, it is in my opinion likely that Wikipedia could suffer very significant, even mortal, damage if only because the cost of defending ourselves against such claims would be prohibitive given our small cash reserves. It is with this motivation that I have pursued fair use image violations as one of a variety of ways in which users have either intentionally or unintentionally committed copyright violations on the project.

On the general point: In response to some early concerns raised by users who objected to these removals, I created User:Durin/Removal of fair use images in mid-March of 2006 and began including a link to it in my edit summaries when doing these removals. I also had discussions with two ArbCom members regarding my work in this area as a reality check, so to speak, to make sure that what I was doing was proper and inline with the ideals of Wikipedia. I received assurances from them that I was. I have further noted a number of users who have conducted similar work to mine in this arena (User:Durin/Fair_use_miscellany), and an ArbCom case that supported the underlying policy on this matter (Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision). Thus, on the general point of whether what I was doing was proper or not, I have and continue to feel that what I've been doing has been proper.

On the specific point: I've been asked by a small handful of users to please notify them on their userpages rather than delete images from their user pages directly. I've refused to do this because it would greatly increase the amount of work I would need to perform per image removal. My conservative rough estimates of the amount of work is a tripling of the work. Observe:

With this in mind, I've not performed prior requests for image removals because the amount of work it would require is prohibitive; if I had to do this amount of work per image removal, I wouldn't perform fair use violation removals. It would consume all of my wiki-time and more were I to remain at the same pace of removal. By providing the long edit summary with these removals, I show the relevant policy under which the removals are being done and have a link to a page that thoroughly discusses what I am doing and why. I feel this should be enough of a description to answer virtually any concern that might arise from these actions. If new concerns are raised that are not covered on the subpage referenced in the edit summary, I will gladly add them to the subpage.

To date, >95% of the users affected by these changes have not registered any complaint with what I am doing. That, combined with general endorsement of what I am doing leaves me of the opinion that I am acting properly, and prior notifications are not necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1) Durin 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Please continue doing the often thankless job you are doing elegantly and efficiently.  Jkelly 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I fully understand and agree with Durin's reasons for working in the way he does.  If there were another way (bot anyone?) then I would support that, but he is right that it would not be feasable to get this important job done the way he is being asked to. -- sannse (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Until and unless WikiMedia Foundation changes their policy, using fairuse images outside strictly proscribed places (articlespace, and moreover, only with articles where there is a clear tie to the image, and moreover, only where there is no good "free" image alternative) is a policy violation. In some (but not all) cases, it can open WMF to legal action which would set the project back by diverting resources we could better use elsewhere. Therefore removal of fairuse images is a necessary, if thankless task. The question then becomes is the way that Durin does it a good way. I think after careful consideration, it is. Certainly prenotification might be nice, but it is effort-prohibitive at the current state of technology. I see no reason to censure Durin for his actions and every reason to thank him for this thankless task. Those users who take issue need to be gently counseled as to why this is a needful thing and why the way it is done is the best balance of efficiency and civility.  +  + Lar: t/c 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I see no reason why violation of an important policy like this should continue just because it's nice to notify people.  Copyright is too important.  Keep up the good work.  Mango juice talk 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Durin's handling of this situation is appropriate and reasonable.  While it would be "nice" to warn people that they are using unlicensed media on their user pages in contravention of policy, it is certainly not necessary and his reasons for not doing so are quite reasonable.  I see nothing objectionable in what he's doing and no reason for him to stop. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I concur with the above. Wikipedia's policies are deliberately strict and users who wish to participate in the project should abide by them; I don't believe it is necessary to notify the users involved when edits are made to bring their pages in line with this policy and I have not seen Durin being anything other than civil when asked about it. Userpages do not belong to the user, they belong to the project. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Totally agree with all of the above (by Durin and others endorsing). Petros471 14:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Excellent work. Anyone doesn't like it, too bad, they can have unfree images on their Myspace account. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) He has removed images off of my user page as well but he really has every right to if they violate Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, when I asked him why he did so he calmly explained the image policy and after verifying it myself I discovered that he had the right to do what he did.--Jersey Devil 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) I never opposed it nor had a problem with it.--C&amp;R 00:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) I agree that direct removal without prior notification (with the edit summary's pointer to relevant policy and explanation) is the appropriate, fair, and efficient solution to this problem.  I applaud Durin's continued dedication to keeping our project "the free encyclopedia" by removing the unnecessary uses of fair use images outside the article namespace. &mdash; Jeff | (talk) | 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) It would be nice, but magnitude of the problem makes prior notification unreasonable. The way he's gone about it with edit summary links to an extended explanation is more than enough. Bravo, Durin.  ×Meegs 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) That sums it up. -- DS1953 talk  19:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) I did not even know I have a fair use image on my user page... Shame on me :( Renata 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Perfect summary. Totally agree with it. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) robchurch | talk 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposing view
This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute but having an opposing view to the response provided by Durin ''Note: I have requested all people who voiced concern about these deletions on my talk page to please review and comment on this RfC. I would be most satisified if one or more of them crafted an opposing view. To aid in this, I have added this section to make it clear where their view should be placed. To the first such person who does so; please remove this comment.--Durin''

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Gateman1997 outside view
I've also had images removed and while I disagree with the policy as it currently stands as both unneeded since images on userpage for ID would be within the letter and spirit of the law, not to mention being overly paranoid, I too removed said images. My only real question here is... why is this up for RFC in the first place? Gateman1997 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gateman1997 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by DS1953
I strongly agree with our policy of no fair use images on user pages. (Although I believe that some fair use images could be used appropriately on user pages, establishing enforceable and understandable guidelines would be nearly impossible.) I also agree that removing the offending images is appropriate. However, as I read Durin's self RFC, those are not the real issues here. The issue is whether his method of removing the fair use images without giving the user prior notice and without leaving a note on the user's talk page is appropriate. As Durin explains, he leaves a link in his edit summary to a detailed explanation in his own user space. Durin has explained his reasons for using his method well. He has obviously given this much thought and has come up with what he believes is a balanced approach to the problem. It boils down to the fact that spending more time to do it a different way would take more time and that he would therefore accomplish less in a given amount of time. On that issue, I have some concern.

A lot of what we do takes longer if we explain our actions. If I edit an article to put a book title in italics, it takes me far more time to type the edit summary than it does to type the correction. But people complain if an editor fails to use edit summaries. If someone from a shared IP adds a line of nonsense to an article, posting a warning on their talk page (even with the helpful javascript) takes more time than it does for me to revert the changes.

As we have seen with the user box issue and the current RFC on Tony for refactoring user's signatures, it is clear that when we give users their own little corner to play in, some of them feel violated when other editors step in.

We seem to bend over backwards to be civil to vandals because they might be editors of the future, but we often fail to treat current editors with the degree thoughtfulness I think they deserve. I don't think Durin is necessarily wrong in his approach, but we should recognize that the reasoning he advances puts efficiency above courtesy. -- DS1953 talk 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.


 * ''The above requests for comment discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this RfC or User talk:Durin). No further edits should be made to this page.