Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

---

• (Lupo | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Probelms with images published in the Soviet Union prior to March 23 1973.

Description

User Lupo, since January began assaulting a tag that he thought (ie Original research) is not applicable to thousands of images that currentely uses it. Those images can be found in all foreign press and prints, however he though otheriwise. Back in mid-february, without any mention on Portal:Russia, or Portal Ukraine (as well as other relevant community portals), he proposed the wiki tag for deletion. wikipedia community responded accordingly with a majority of "keep".

On 12 May 2006, User:Lupo, on its own initiative and without getting nor an official WP approval or even a clear consensus on the subject, edited the {{PD-USSR}} template and [replaced it] with a mesage saying that this tag was deprecated and should no longer be used. No valuable evidence was provided to justify such an edit.

Moreover, User:Lupo abused his admin privileges by editing the semiprotected MediaWiki:Licenses page and removing the reference to the corresponding template in the template list.

Furthermore, User:Lupo edited the Category:Pre-1973_Soviet_Union_images category and added the same style of message.

Additionally, User:Lupo attempted to realize the same operation on Commons, once more without any sensible evidence.

It has to be noticed that like User:Lupo said here, "I believe this template is completely wrong.". So he just believes so and has no evidence to prove it, just his personal beliefs that, just like anyone personal beliefs, are not worth much legally-wise.

What is more, such a move was attempted without even trying to evaluate its impact on English Wikipedia.

Finally, despite a heavily negative reaction on such a move both on English Wikipedia and on Commons, User:Lupo kept on reverting the template back to his version.

A good summary of the subject was made by User:Alex_Bakharev (see here)

“ Huge number of people use pre-1973 Soviet publications as the public domain works. Many use them commercially. The legal reasons to depreciate the tag are obscure and certainly are untested in the USA courts. I can not imagine that the first test case will be Wikipedia (noncommercial organization working for the common good). Depreciating the tag will be a catastrophe for a whole section of wiki and the risk is most probably just our imagination. I would suggest to stop the self-harming actions until a real danger (test case) will be present ”

Powers misused

Edit of admin only articles [1], absolute ignorance of other communities who use those images, by twice having the tag deleted both times, convinientely forgetting to put those communities at notice.

Applicable policies

• Protection policy

1. Edition of a protected MediaWiki:Licenses page to its own interests and without serous evidence [2].

The discussion that was here has been moved to the talk page. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Template talk:PD-USSR
2. Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Kuban Cossack 12:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. MaxSem 13:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Elk Salmon 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Irpen 07:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Eupator 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Zserghei 17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

What a load of nonsense. First off, MediaWiki:Licenses is not protected, so there cannot be any talk of "abuse of admin power".

I was mistaken about that. Apparently the whole MediaWiki namespace is protected for technical reasons. I wasn't aware of that and didn't notice it because I didn't get the usual warning message admins normally get when they open a protected page for editing. Lupo 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The root of the problem is the refusal of some editors to accept that {{PD-USSR}} is just plain wrong. For the detailed reasoning, see this summary. Note that I didn't invent that reasoning; there are several U.S. experts who say so; and Russian and Ukrainian experts also agree, and I even discussed the issue with Jean-Baptiste Soufron, our very own Wikimedia foundation lawyer specialized on international copyright issues. What I find most annoying is that none of these editors has participated in the discussions about this template during the past months, although they most certainly were aware of the issue.[3] None of them ever brought forward any rational argument why the template should be right; all I ever got were gross personal attacks and threats.

In particular User:Kuban kazak's behavior is very deplorable, covering the whole range from gross violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and the "no threats" policy (see "you will regret this", calling me a "parasite" or a "nazi" twice, or stating that he "will make my life more miserable".)

These editors willfully want Wikipedia to spread misinformation by opposing a dearly needed correction of a wrong image license template. These editors also have chosen not to participate in the discussions, although they were aware of it. These editors have not presented a single argument in favour of the wrong "pre-1973" version (except "we like it"), whereas my summary is extensively sourced.

The longer we wait to correct the tag, the more work will it be to clean up afterwards. Deprecating it (see my text) and removing it from MediaWiki:Licenses just appeared as common sense, and I still think it is the appropriate action.

Sidenote: I endorse neither side of the whole USSR public domain dispute, however, I have blocked User:Kuban kazak for 48 hours for his actions above. Sasquatch t|c 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Addenum: Kuban kazak has had his block reduced after assuring me that his outrage above was just momentary and he will not insult other users again. I hope you guys can resolve this resonably. Sasquatch t|c 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Lupo 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Renata 18:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Lysy^talk 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
5. -- Karl Meier 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Guinness man 22:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I agree, but please forgive the other side for whatever wild statements they have made (sometimes claiming to represent the entire Russian community, which is certainly not the case). Some of them appear to be no legal experts but thorough contributors who spent hours and days of their lives uploading stuff that seemed to be completely kosher at the time, therefore changing rules on the fly will be very, very painful. Some of my work will be ruined, too, but we have to obey the rules, this is why I endorse this. Guinness man 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Jkelly 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
8. KPbIC 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
9. --Tarawneh 00:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
10. I have myself removed images I uploaded because Lupo (quite rightly) pointed out copyright problems with them. We should regard getting it right as more important than the work we have put in uploading images. Chick Bowen 00:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
11. I am sure people uploading these images did so in perfectly good faith. That's not the issue here... it's getting stuff right. "Ignore all rules" doesn't apply to copyright law, and Lupo has acted in good faith and has produced evidence to support his case (whether he is right or wrong). TheGrappler 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. 5ko 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Lupo has been clear-headed and correct through this whole imbroglio; as an attorney, I'm frankly shocked at the thin reasoning that created this claim to PD in the first place (and to think I went and used it, too!)Reimelt 06:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Konstable 02:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Lupo's arguments seem reasonable. It looks like the PD-USSR tag is plain wrong.–Kjetil_r 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
16. How does Lupo sorting through the maze of relevant copyright laws to establish whether we can or cannot use these images fall under "original research"? It seems to me that, by that reasoning, any checking into whether a public domain claim is valid would be OR, and that's clearly not the case. Andrew Levine 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Renata

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Alright, this is my first time participating in any RfC or Mediation, so excuse me if I do something wrong. First, I am uninvolved 3rd party. Quite a while ago I noticed the tag and thought it would be one of the most convenient things; however I also noticed all the discussions and disputes on the talk page. I did a bit of research and found out that it is an extremely complicated matter. It involves all kinds of domestic & international laws passed in the 20th century. There is no simple Yes or No answer and I respect Lupo for going into all the nasty details. The template was disputed many times before, just no one really showed any interest. Lupo posted his reasoning many times over and over again on different talk pages. I have yet to see the same detailed reasoning from the opposition. Saying "oh, others do it" is no good.

Nominating a template for deletion is no violation. Not notifying Portals (?!) is no violation. Editing a template is no violation. Being bold and trying to prevent copyright violations is no violation. I believe Lupo did his best to attract attention to the problem and spark discussions to reach consensus. But it did not happen and he took more drastic measures. It did spark the controversy, just its direction is very wrong.

Just because the template is very convenient does not mean it should be used.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Renata 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 17:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --Lysy^talk 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Eloquence* 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Karl Meier 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Gmaxwell 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
7. --Historiograf 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Jkelly 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
9. KPbIC 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
10. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
11. --Tarawneh 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Konstable 02:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
13. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (I have worked with Lupo over this template and we are still trying to seek the answers for the true stauts of this template)

Outside view from Werdna648

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I'd like to express my full and absolute support for Lupo in this situation. I'm going to divide and enumerate through each accusation made by the filers of this RfC.

1. "Back in mid-february, without any mention on Portal:Russia, or Portal Ukraine (as well as other relevant community portals), he proposed the wiki tag for deletion. wikipedia community responded accordingly with a majority of "keep"." So? Any editor is entitled to nominate, in good faith, a template for deletion. I see no evidence of bad faith in this situation, and hence I have no problem at all with Lupo nominating a template for deletion. Additionally, this issue has nothing to do with the Russian or Ukranian Wikiportals. This is to do with the Copyright law in those countries, not the articles from those countries themselves. Additionally, I see no specific policy that states that there was any need at all to inform your portals.
2. "On 12 May 2006, User:Lupo, on its own initiative and without getting nor [sic] an official WP approval or even a clear consensus on the subject, edited the {{PD-USSR}} template and [replaced it] with a mesage saying that this tag was deprecated and should no longer be used. No valuable evidence was provided to justify such an edit.". I am under the impression that evidence has been provided a number of times by Lupo, and by other people against this template, and much of this has come from the Foundation Lawyer, an expert in international Copyright issues. Those filing the RfC have not made any coherent effort to disprove any of this reasoning, their best argument being given as "Huge number of people use pre-1973 Soviet publications as the public domain works. Many use them commercially. The legal reasons to depreciate the tag are obscure and certainly are untested in the USA courts. I can not imagine that the first test case will be Wikipedia (noncommercial organization working for the common good). Depreciating the tag will be a catastrophe for a whole section of wiki and the risk is most probably just our imagination. I would suggest to stop the self-harming actions until a real danger (test case) will be present". I find the attitude that we should not bother worrying about Copyright until somebody comes after us for it disturbing. Copyright is of paramount importance to Wikipedia, and the attitude that Copyright is "most probably just our imagination" is absurd, and frankly dangerous to an open-content encyclopedia that is already wrestling with perceptions of accountability and reliability.
3. "Moreover, User:Lupo abused his admin privileges by editing the semiprotected MediaWiki:Licenses page and removing the reference to the corresponding template in the template list." Since when was this an abuse of admin privileges. Do you have any policy evidence that this was the wrong thing to do?
4. "Furthermore, User:Lupo edited the Category:Pre-1973_Soviet_Union_images category and added the same style of message." This is part of cleaning up after deprecating the template.
5. "Additionally, User:Lupo attempted to realize the same operation on Commons, once more without any sensible evidence.". This is again, part of the process of completing the deprecation of this template.
6. "It has to be noticed that like User:Lupo said here, "I believe this template is completely wrong.". So he just believes so and has no evidence to prove it, just his personal beliefs that, just like anyone personal beliefs, are not worth much legally-wise." Now you're just splitting hairs on tiny nuances of the language he used. You should note that following that comment, he provided a link to a talk page, on which he explained his evidence and reasoning.
7. "What is more, such a move was attempted without even trying to evaluate its impact on English Wikipedia." Please provide evidence to support this claim.
8. "Finally, despite a heavily negative reaction on such a move both on English Wikipedia and on Commons, User:Lupo kept on reverting the template back to his version." Some diffs of the negative reaction and of his reversions would be helpful here. Did either you or him break the 3RR?
9. "Edit of admin only articles [1], absolute ignorance of other communities who use those images, by twice having the tag deleted both times, convinientely forgetting to put those communities at notice.". I don't believe editing admin-only articles is an abuse of admin powers, I don't believe you have evidence to support your assertation that he was "[absolutely ignorant] of other communities who use [the images]", and I don't believe that he had any obligation to notify any community of his rightful cleaning-up of a potential legal issue.

In summary, you've misrepresented him, personally attacked him, been uncivil to him, made unsupported assertations against him, and yet you still see fit to open a Request for Comment on his behaviour, when an RfC would have been far more justified to be going the other way. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. --Lysy^talk 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --Historiograf 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

1. So? Any editor is entitled to nominate, in good faith, a template for deletion. Sure, except when someone nominates a template for deletion, that someone has to consider the people that use that template on a regular basis and the comment Additionally, this issue has nothing to do with the Russian or Ukranian Wikiportals. is even more rediculous. Let I remind you that over a thousand images are under question here. We wrote thousands of articles with those images in mind. Absoloutely all of them came from open public sources on ru-net or ua-net. Deleting an template that will have a direct effect on our work is bad enough, but by compleately ignoring us twice is even worse and that is not only bad faith but downright isulting.

   I would like to, again, ask you to find policy and evidence to support your accusations. You have not shown me any policy that requires those who nominate a template for deletion to notify parties who they think may be interested. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   And I quote: What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD

   Proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever:

   1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
   2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
   3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");
   4. The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);
   5. The template does not clearly satisfy a criterion for speedy deletion (if it does, tag it with a {{db|reason}} and ask an admin to delete it - these do not require consensus).

   Now then that tag does not fall into ANY of the categories listed above, it is noteworthy, it is not redundant, it is used, it is NPOVed and certainly does not satissfy any of the criterions for deletion.--Kuban Cossack 19:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   The response that the original TfD got did however clearely say to Lupo to keep us informed, we would have even helped him, but no, working behind our backs yesterday I realise that nearely all our work stands on the edge of a rubbish bin. And that is not bad faith or insulting? Shame on you having such admins! --Kuban Cossack 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   See the talk page for my rant on assuming good faith. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Copyright is of paramount importance to Wikipedia, and the attitude that Copyright is "most probably just our imagination" is absurd, and frankly dangerous to an open-content encyclopedia that is already wrestling with perceptions of accountability and reliability. True as that may be, it is not up to a one person to decide on the matter but to the whole community. Again a good faith editor would have first done a survey, then constantly notifying the community to gave his reasoning. The fact that he contacted a solicitor means what to me? WP:NOR? What is this double standard people have, on one side they say that it is up to a majority to decide on how articles and images should be formed, and here it is directely the opposite? That is dowright rediculous hence the point of the RfC - Lupo forgot that there are hundred of users who use that tag on a daily basis.

   Firstly, I'd like to start by stating, for the third time, that Our Original Research policy applies exclusively to articles. It does not apply to project or talk-space pages. This can be seen in the direct quote from the policy, "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages". Please factor out our No Original Research policy in this discussion as it is NOT RELEVANT. Secondly, the Foundation Lawyer is who he contacted. This is somebody officially associated with the Wikimedia Foundation, and knows a great deal more than the filers of this RfC, the creators of the tag, and those who use it, about Copyright law. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   So hold on a second one lawyer decides on what to do here? Since when does the opinion of one becomes law when in all other cases it is the opinion of a majority. Secondly I have never seen this lawyer, I have never had his comments on the talk pages of that template and all I have seen is Lupo and his quotes to Russian laws that he copied from second hand sources. --Kuban Cossack 19:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   First you claim original research and then "second-hand sources". You're not making sense. Lupo 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

3. Since when was this an abuse of admin privileges. Do you have any policy evidence that this was the wrong thing to do? Yes, Lupo knows that by default we shall oppose this action following the failed vote in february. Lupo knows that if he puts us on notice we shall dig ourselves into Russian laws (original not the third party sources that he has) and will eventually prove him wrong. So Lupo deprecates the tag to and removes it from mediawiki page. He knows we can't reverse this action and it gives him an upper hand in the debate. Of course he also forgot that since we are going to be affected by this action to put us out of notice. I mean next time he might as well decide that all the articles we write are also worthless and illeagal, and then declare all ex-Soviet wikipeadians as second-sort people, if the latter is not nazism, then I would like to know what it is. Because that is exactly how we feel, like we have been ignored and spat at. Now that is serious.

   You are not answering my question. I asked for specific policy evidence that Lupo has breached policy in his actions. You failed to produce any, therefore I am forced to assume that you have no policy basis to back up your claims. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

4. In sach a case Lupo did not even give a chance to mount a response, to do our own research into Russian laws, contact Russian solicitors, etc. (If he is allowed to do Original research why can't we?). That is the point of this RfC. --Kuban Cossack 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   You are welcome to contact an expert in Russian Copyright Law. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 18:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Well no good telling me three months after his first attempt to have them deleted. That's when he should have contacted us and let us participate in the dispute, not AFTER he has deprecated the tag and effectively told us that yeah I'm deleting the tag You got seven days to re-tag 1000+ images.

   What I would like is a gurantee that the images will be secure until ALL parties have agreed. Even if in the end they need to be re-tagged. --Kuban Cossack 19:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that you needed permission from somebody who is, essentially, a complete stranger, who you didn't know three months ago. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 19:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, If you read the TfD, then the outcome was keep the tag discuss. At that point as I did not have the image tag on my watchlist and as Lupo forgot to notify on the TfD or a portal about that, everybody went back to writing articles (which is why I came here). Yesterday I notice a commons clone of the tag and immediately post an urgent announcement and start a full discussion on the commons talk page. The people there from the start opposed Lupo and then returning to the portal noticeboard someone has found how he edited the mediawiki notice and deprecated the tag. The question to Lupo is WHEN WERE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS? As we would be the ones that would have to re-tag those images, when were we allowed to voice our arguments against its deprecation? --Kuban Cossack 19:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You're again misrepresenting the situation. "The people there from the start opposed..." is not correct. In fact, the two commons admins involved seemed to find the argument convincing. They (not me!) deprecated the tag on commons, and one of them went on to resolve the situation with that tag in the German Wikipedia. As to your question: you were aware of the issue, the logical place to discuss it was the talk page of the template, where indeed I've presented my arguments long ago, so if you had been the least bit interested, you could have easily found it. You do know about watchlists, do you? If you have an interest in something, it is your job to find where that something is discussed. Other people are not obliged to come running to you. Lupo 19:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Other people are not obliged to come running to you. Not when we're talking about major issues. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't assert what we should and shouldn't have done, cite policy, and show us where it says that other people are obliged to come running to you when we're talking about major issues. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is called common sense. If you wanted to delete all fair-use pics for instance, at least you could have warn everybody... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is not universal - your common sense is not that of Lupo, and his common sense is different to mine. You need to show policy that supports your point-of-view, as I've reiterated many times. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate: these editors (and in particular User:Kuban kazak) were very well aware of the issue and the discussion taking place. They knew at least since the premature TfD in February 2006! Yet none of the people involved there has bothered to make single comment on the issue since then. Lupo 07:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lupo if we were aware, would we have mounted this RfC against you? Do honestly think that we are this thick? No I honestly thought that the TfD put a cross on the subject, as I was only asked to voice my opinion there I voiced, nobody told me why or for what reason the dispute continued. For your information my main objective here is writing articles NOT going into disputes. --Kuban Cossack 12:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Carnildo

I don't know who is right and who is wrong here. What I do know is that no amount of discussion and "community consensus" can trump copyright law.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Carnildo 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Gmaxwell 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Lysy^talk 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Well said. I wish the same approach would have been applied to Template:PD-Poland and other questionable tags. I don't see why Polish editors are allowed to upload anything they wish, why the Russian and Ukrainian editors are persecuted on the basis of someone's not knowing Russian copyright laws well enough. Please provide equal conditions for wikipedians of all countries. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Jkelly 17:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
9. KPbIC 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
10. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Agreed. This goes for all editors - Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Australian, American - but just because a stand has been made here doesn't mean Lupo should be condemned for picking fights elsewhere too! TheGrappler 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Elk Salmon 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Konstable 02:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Kevin_b_er 02:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
15. --Kjetil_r 07:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
16. 100% correct. And furthermore, the burden of proof is on those claiming public domain to prove the case. Thus far the only actual evidence I've seen here is on the side of Lupo. Guy 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

Please cite this, and in such a case there is no consensus on the law itself. However the point of the RfC was that Lupo simply forgot that there are people who use this copyright tag and that it will be them who will have to clean up a 1000+ images. Naturally they deserve to participate in a dispute that he forgot (by accident of course) to tell them that was going on. --Kuban Cossack 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding!? Do you think breaching Copyright law is okay if a there is a Wikipedia consensus that supports it. "Your Honour, it's okay to breach Copyright law if a Wikipedia consensus says so", "Oh, that's okay then. Case dismissed". Come on... Also, please do not use the {{fact}} template on meta-pages. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If we'll have an official statement of Wikimedia on the subject of Pre-1973 Soviet images, okay. But we don't have one. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the official position on copyright related to this matter is: Because the rights (reproduction, derivative works, etc) are reserved by default under international law, we must not use the work unless we are sure that we have the rights to do so. Although an official statement of this exact matter would be useful, I don't think it is necessary. Clearly the burden of proof rests on the users who assert that the material is acceptable, and I do not think it is clear that the burden has been met. --Gmaxwell 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case however everybody is unsure because the research Lupo has done is inconclusive thus jumping the gun is certainly not acceptable here as thousands of articles of work are at stake. --Kuban Cossack 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Grandmaster

I think the issues like this cannot be decided by the will of one or a few persons. The decision should be made after a thorough research of the respective copyright laws with participation of professional lawyers. The community should be informed about such important changes, because it affects many articles, especially those that are dedicated to the history of the territory of former USSR. Most of them would have no illustrations at all, if the 1973 tag changed. So before taking any measures it would be advisable to assess the impact they may have to the quality of the articles and also have a clear legal basis for any such changes of the policies.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I second that! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Damn right. MaxSem 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
3. abakharev 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Kuban Cossack 21:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Irpen 07:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Elk Salmon 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
8. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Pan Gerwazy--pgp 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
10. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Obvious. ugen64 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Agreed. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by abakharev

Let me first start that I see no reason not to assume Good Faith from the User:Lupo or any abuse of the admin privileges by him, but I would like the matters over the PD-USSR template to be done differently in the future. Maybe we should have a special RfC over this template.

Lets briefly see the problem, how I understand it. Soviet Union considered public domain all the works published abroad before 1973. Reciprocally, most of the other countries considered public domain all the works published in Soviet Union before that date. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union it was negotiated that all the international assets and liabilities of the Union went to Russia. Since the copyright policy of Russia has not changed, so most of the people considered that nothing has changed there and continue to publish pre-1973 Soviet works as public domain. It is a good faith assumption that was never challenged in US courts. Wikipedia follows this policy and has thousands of images labelled as PD-USSR. Not a single x-USSR copyright holder complained so far, many actually see promotion of their work on Wikipedia as a thing that increases the value of their rights.

On the other hand some bright legal minds see the situation as potentially challenge-able. They see the copyright as something different from the other assets inherited from the Soviet Union. As such they want to check the laws of the other successors of the Soviet Union. All of them continued the Soviet/Russian practice or did not recognize western copyright at all (as Belarus) but Georgia (country) formally declared in 1991 that it recognized copyright as the author's death-date+70 years. In practice the law is usually not enforced there yet. Thus, there is a theoretical possibility that somebody can challenge the public domain status of n image published say in Moscow on the grounds that it should be evaluated on the basis of the Georgian law. Been theoretically a possibility I don't believe such a case would have a real perspective in the court. The potential test case would have even less chances to succeed if the first target would be Wikipedia - a non-for-profit site, run by volunteers with good public standings.

So what we have now - a good faith assumptions of a public domain status of the images with a very remote possibility to have this assumption challenged. On the other side there are thousands of articles that use these images. Some of them, like the articles about Russian Avant garde painters, are loosing any meaning without reproductions of paintings.

I think in this situation it is simply wrong to over-react and depreciate the tag all together. Instead we might negotiate a compromise between a remote possibility that we are wrong assuming the PD status of the pre-1973 Soviet images and the interests of developing our Wikipedia. In my opinion, the best compromise will be to continue the current practice until any test case in the court will surface. Meanwhile we can remove any PD-USSR by any request of the owner of the rights in the Soviet Union (so far there was none of such requests). Maybe we can go father and stop uploading of images first published in Georgian SSR. Any proposal for such an action should be at the very least announced on Portal:Russia, Portal:Ukraine and Portal:Belarus. Any actions to completely depreciate the tag or remove the images should be adopted by the WikiBoard due to the shear volume of the images involved. Sorry, but it is absolutely outrageous to have such a drastic action as depretiation of a PD tag used by thousands of images all over Wikipoedia taken by a single administrator without prior discussion with the all involved parties. abakharev 18:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Irpen 07:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
2. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Michael Z. 2006-05-16 17:57 Z
5. -Kuban Cossack 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Pan Gerwazy --pgp 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
7. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Phr (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Elk Salmon 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Dionyseus 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

That's quite a mouthful of words to basically say "the tag's convenient, let's keep it" and ignoring and denigrating all the evidence to the contrary presented. Lupo 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will formulate it as The benefits of having this tag grossly overweight the imaginary litigation problems. I have also spent some time to explain why. abakharev 07:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry, but it is absolutely outrageous to have such an action taken by a single administrator without prior discussion with the all involved parties." Well said, Alex!!! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Say, you are a funny guy: popping up all over the place, seconding other people's opinion. Don't you have any of your own? Lupo 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have my own opinion: that all this story is ridiculous and that Pre-1973 Soviet images are PD until you show me a court case saying otherwise. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please address valid criticism of your own actions rather than stooping to personal attacks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just expressing my own irritation. Nobody's perfect :-) Lupo 07:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What's more, is this, last night (wikitime) I contacted an old photographer who used to work for the Soviet press. Now, all of the press and prints in the USSR were state owned. When photographers or painters wanted to publish something, as the Soviet system saw that withholding copyright would go against the principle of communal images, a special form existed which upon agreeing to publish the author signs the norightsreserved equivelence. I.e. his name is not quoted and the copyright owner becomes the Soviet state, the image would then be used by Soviet press in any way they deem necessary and the photographer would simply be paid originally, and the cut-off date is not 1973, its 26th of December 1991. Now the Soviet press itself never ever forbade anybody to take its images and publish them in reverse for personal use, as they too had a norightsreserved policy to all its works. Now the law that Lupo said about 2004 only affects works previously unpublished, like personal collections that have not been circulated in the pool of the Soviet Press. So in retrospect if the tag is purged it would fully suitable to re-tag all of the images with the norightsreserved tag, as that was the policy of the Soviet Press and print. So the bottom line is that yes the images are copyrighted but legaly it would be impossible for the original author to persucute, since he has agreed to relinquish all of his rights to the Soviet state. Thus all work published in the USSR which would have been published by Soviet Press, is totaly free to be used on wikipedia.--Kuban Cossack 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not confuse the issue even more by posting completely unsourced fabrications. This is very wrong. I have given you some hints at your fallacies on Template talk:PD-USSR, where you posted this fantasy, too. It's no use engaging in such confusion tactics now that your initial intimidation attempts have failed. (To others: a particularly egregious graphic example that I hadn't seen when I wrote my initial response section above can be found at Template talk:PD-USSR.) Anyway, what's this supposed to be: a bad cop/good cop routine played by you alone? Lupo 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How dare they threaten you with THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITING TO OVERTHROW THE CAPITALIST LUPO?! Indeed, it is a _very serious_ threat, and in no way could be construed as a silly, silly joke. AH, MOTHERLAND!

If there is a possibility that pre-1973 Soviet images will be found to be copyright in some way, it makes sense to retain the tag, so that images whose sole claim to being PD is that they were produced in the Soviet Union before 1973 can be easily identified for removal or status change at such time that there is a case which verifies that pre-1973 Soviet images are not public domain. Without any such ruling that those images are not PD, the tag, and the images, should remain. Argyriou 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As Lupo says above, "the tag's convenient, let's keep it" is not an appropriate argument. Wikipedia's copyright policy is not based on weighing up the risks of being sued against the usefulness of the inclusion of potentially copyrighted material it is based on building a free encyclopedia. TheGrappler 20:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tangential view by Mackensen

Nothing cited above, much of which appears to be inaccurate, rises to the level of an RfC. All that should come of this is renewed discussion on the appropriate talk pages.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Mackensen (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Discussion good. Voting foolish. We can't simply vote on copyright matters. --Gmaxwell 22:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Lysy^talk 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
5. aye, this is getting no where. Sasquatch t|c 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
6. --Historiograf 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. KPbIC 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Konstable 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback to feedback

From what I read on peoples comments, nobody seems to have a clear understanding of the rules, and the point of this RfC was that Lupo forgot (let's assume that word) to inform the people who he knows would be directly affected by such an action to have their rightful say. Ok if that might have not been totaly bad faith but it was certainly not good faith. Hence this RfC. Now I don't want to continue this debate in circles so I ask the wiki admin community to a) Participate in the discussion on the fate of the tag and the template. b) Full security to the images until a consensus be reached. c) No premature decision at present d) That Lupo (and all others) in the future would keep respecitve communities notified of major changes to the patterns that will have a direct affect on them. If he can do the latter, than I shall apologise to Lupo for some of my earlier insults and withdraw my accusations from this RfC. --Kuban Cossack 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. What we need is a) to get an opinion from a Russian copyright specialist, b) get a direct opinion from Wikimedia's lawyer and c) reach consensus before doing anything. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds okay, but if that is the entire issue in the RfC, then this RfC is entirely pointless. The best thing to do was, instead of opening a full-blown RfC, asking him to notify you of any major changes he makes to images in the future, at most. At least, you could simply watchlist pages that you're interested in, Werdna_Tc@bCmLt 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Mzajac

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Good points have been made on both sides.

From reading this page, and a number of the previous discussions on this topic, it appears that we don't know that there is a case of copyright infringement here. It might be that we can't know this without a copyright lawyer's professional advice, or more likely, without referring to the precedent of a court case. And it's possible that no relevant precedent exists at all.

Given this situation, since there has been no legal claim by a copyright holder against Wikipedia, nor even a request to take down any allegedly copyrighted work, there is no real evidence that copyright infringement exists, and therefore no reason to take down the materials in question. The assertion that we need to do this to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits seems to be without legal basis, given the facts that I have seen.

On the other hand, it does seem that the assumptions made in the template PD-USSR may be wrong, so further investigation or clarification is necessary. —Michael Z. 2006-05-15 04:44 Z

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Absolutely. As I said previously, I condemn selective approach of Lupo and others who seem to fight copyright violations where they are least likely to happen. Why don't they turn attention to Template:PD-Italy or Template:PD-Poland first? These countries are members of the World Trade Organisation and should have stricter copyright laws. Are they sure that a Polish photo from 1992 or Italian photo from 1986 is copyfree and the Soviet foto of 1933 is not? The ignorance on copyright laws that I have seen in the above discussion by those who attempt to delete every second photo they come upon is incredible. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
2. abakharev 07:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Irpen 07:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Elk Salmon 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
6. This case needs professional advice by an expert/lawyer Denniss 13:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Eupator 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Pecher ^Talk 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
9. And in the meantime, the tag is suitable for continued use. -Kuban Cossack 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Kober 03:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
11. KPbIC 19:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
12. —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Everyone else uses these images like PD. While copyright holder has no objections, there's no need to harm Wikipedia. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Yakudza 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Dionyseus 22:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by Chick Bowen

I'd like to address two particular points in the accusation. At no time did Lupo abuse his admin privileges. His edit to the mediawiki namespace was perfectly acceptable within Wikipedia policies (and exactly the sort of thing endorsed by Be bold); when it was reverted, he exercised commendable constraint in leaving it be. Also, the accusation of "original research" is nonsensical--that policy is explicitly meant to apply to articles, not to discussions of copyright. We need more research on this issue, not less.

Users who endorse this statement (sign with ~~~~):

1. Chick Bowen 00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Short & sweet :) Renata 06:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree abakharev 10:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
4. --Lysy^talk 15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Exactly. NOR is inapplicable, admin powers were not abused. TheGrappler 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Jkelly 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but... Without taking a position on the case, I would like to point out that Be Bold specifies that you should be bold in updating articles, and goes on to note that boldness should be avoided when dealing with templates and categories, since changing them will affect a large number of people; it furthermore states that such edits should generally be discussed with the people who will be affected. Far from endorsing those sorts of actions, Be Bold specifically warns against them. --Aquillion 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by Phr

This dispute is about a complex legal question that nobody knows the answer to and only a court can decide, and then only in its own jurisdiction. Alex Bakharev claimed that lots of people are using this pre-1973 material, commercially and otherwise, without getting hassled. The "legal research" conducted by nonspecialist users looks useless and if anything will do more harm than good. Such research, if done, should take the form of an opinion given by the WMF's counsel to the WMF. There is practically nothing that WP does that's completely free of copyright risk (e.g. the amount of dubious fair use images on en, the retention of definite copyvios in article histories etc) so it's a question of what is tolerable. "Be bold" in this situation means leave the template alone and keep using the images unless/until there's an actual problem, rather than trembling at the theoretical possibility of a problem arising. If the WMF wants WP to use a more paranoid approach, then it can announce one; at the moment, it apparently finds the status quo acceptable, so we should do the same. Phr (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, MediaWiki:Licenses is definitely a protected page. Phr (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, indeed it is. I have meanwhile figured out that apparently the whole MediaWiki namespace is protected for technical reasons. I wasn't aware of that, and didn't notice, because I didn't get the usual warning message that admins normally get shown when they open a protected page for editing. As for the rest of your statement: I find this attitude troubling. "Public domain" does not mean "we can get away with it". Lupo 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement (sign with [~~~~):

• Full support to this one. Kuban Cossack 09:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Full support for me too. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Elk Salmon 08:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Irpen 07:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by TheGrappler

If someone corrected a spelling error and got called a "spelling Nazi", then had an RfC filed against them because they were only correcting spellings on a particular topic (being selective and therefore biased against the work of certain users) there'd be outrage. For someone who, in utmost good faith, and citing substantial evidence in support, tries to correct what they believe (after diligent research) is a copyright problem - a far more vital issue for our "free" encyclopedia - to be called a "copyright Nazi", have an RfC placed against them, then get criticised for not having tried to address all of WP's other copyright issues as well... this is distasteful, disgraceful, and hostile both to the notion of Wikipedia as a "free" encyclopedia and to the establishment of the supportive, co-operative, pro-active community we need to build it.

Wikipedians have to fix our own problems. People who try, in good faith, to fix problems are our most vital asset.

We can't always just wait for the board to sort things out. The Foundation has legal advice available but that doesn't mean we have a lawyer on call for all user disputes, or that he'll prove to be an expert in Georgian/Ukrainian/Russian copyright law (let alone Polish or Italian...). Most of all, we can't afford to scare off users who try to fix these problems, or criticise them for not attempting to solve all of Wikipedia's problems at once.

Neither should we apply "innocent until proven guilty" to uploaded media. When we upload media as PD we are making a very striking assertion: that they are no longer anybody's intellectual property (at least as far as U.S. law is concerned). It's that assertion that should be backed up: for instance, information about the exact source has to be given or the image is deleted (hardly "inncocent until proven guilty" here). Lupo collected and documented a substantial body of evidence that strongly suggests that many of these good faith assertions were based on a false premise. The burden of proof surely reverts to the uploaders: their good faith is not in question, but the correctness of their original assertions is in severe doubt. The continued existence of this template and category may be prolonging a false premise - at the very least the template should keep its warning sign. I emphasise "may" because the issue is a complicated one. Some stronger legal advice would be welcome.

However, as far as the law is concerned: consensus can't override copyright law, "ignore all rules" doesn't apply to copyright law, "nationality X gets away with it so why can't nationality Y, stop picking on us!" doesn't apply to copyright law, and usefulness to Wikipedia certainly doesn't make a copyright violation okay. If we are striving for a genuinely free encyclopedia, we ought to be extremely cautious in making assertions that work is PD if that assertion is reasonably (in good faith, and with supporting evidence) disputed. I can understand the "it's complicated, so we'll just ignore it until something else crops up" approach, but don't believe that it benefits the project. On a wider view, this RfC highlights the deficiency of our current way of dealing with copyright law. But it also highlights the possibility of abuse of the RfC system. TheGrappler 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close

There being absolutely no evidence of anything other than good faith, a sincere commitment to the project and a substantial amount of hard work on Lupo's part, there is no realistic chance that there would be any community sanction against Lupo based on this complaint. This RfC should be closed and discussion of the substantive issue continued in the relevant place.

Users who endorse closure:

1. As proposer, Guy 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
2. No evidence of Lupo breaking policy. It also appears that the consensus is to refer the copyright issue to be taken over by Wikipedia Foundation. I recommend both parties to withdraw from the disputed namespace(s) and refer the problem to Wikipedia Foundation. - Tutmosis 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As an ininvolved party, and seeing that this RFC is over 4 months old and essentially stale, I'm going to archive it and remove it from the main RFC page. Thatcher131 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.