Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rama

Re outside view by SoWhy

Just wanted to say that I don't think the edit war and forum shopping re Chicago Spire (both images) is the worst problem. If Rama has been deleting images with valid FURs for years, then although in some cases this will have spurred editors to find good free replacements, I am willing to bet that the overall impact on the encyclopaedia has been negative. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I tried to say with that is that it's the worst problem in the particular case that prompted this RFC. If all those deletions have happened, then yes, it's a bigger problem. Although the kind of behavior I mentioned in my view is a sign for behavior unbecoming of an admin. An admin who edit-wars against decisions they don't like is also more likely to ignore other policies. Regards SoWhy 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. In terms of the RFC, then yes, that is the behaviour that led to here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight changes

FYI, some slight changes: [1]. I removed "Rama does not delete images which have not previously been tagged by another editor for deletion" because it's a little too broad. I don't think anyone would have a problem with Rama deleting a blatant attack image, for example. The intent of the statement is covered by the initial desired outcome, that is, sticking to the process in place and not simply summarily deleting files when they haven't been tagged by another editor for the requisite period of time. –xeno^talk 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

good enough. --Jayron32 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that Rama abstained from deleting disputed fair use images altogether, but I don't see a problem with other categories. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would go with that suggestion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How's [2] then? –xeno^talk 14:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, think that is a good idea. It would also be good if we could get Rama's input on the RfC and the desired outcome, so that we tailor the recommendations to be as narrow as necessary. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close

I would've closed this RfC/U earlier (if I wasn't on break) as the RfC/U has been roughly inactive between 9 January and 21 January 2010 - about a month from when the RfC/U was filed. However, since 21 January to now, it has been quite active due to more concerns. Is anything being achieved by keeping this RfC/U open? If not, I'd propose the RfC/U be closed and that the parties be directed to the next step in dispute resolution. I welcome input from all participants in this RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Close it. The focus has changed in that sysop flags are no longer being used in the disputed area, but the individuals determination regarding Fair Use and their use of templates still concerns the community - the editor has only responded in the manner of their "disruption" and thus the RfC has not resolved the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I had not realised that I was expected to provide answers on this page, hence my late reply. I am particularly sorry that it should have occurred soon after you suggested closing the page. Please do so if you deem it opportune. Rama (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Rama just responded, it should probably stay open for a bit. Nathan ^T 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The community ban enacted at ANI largely preempts this RFC. I think it can be closed any time now. –xeno^talk 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rama's Response

I've got two things I'd like to say, but I'm not sure where to put 'em.

The first is - Rama is an admin. How can Rama not know how RfC works?

The second is that in this RfC (and in other places) Rama has quoted my expression of admiration for the technical skill of the person who made a wholly rendered image of an aircraft as some kind of evidence that I support the idea that fair use photos should never be used because the possibility exists that drawings could be made. I would like to state categorically that the one does not follow from the other, and I am beginning to seriously resent Rama using my words in this way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that Rama has agreed with me that I have correctly represented his 4 interpretations of policy and 1 of US copyright law that I believe are wrong. This at least removes one element of concern for me - the possibility that he was being misrepresented. This vastly increases the area of concern for the RfC, because I do not think that consensus has supported him wherever he has aired his views. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin. That does not mean that I spend my time in disciplinary work. Actually, I dislike this and I try to stay well away from it. I have never had an RfC before, and I have neglected to look into the process in this instance because I had little taste for it.

You misunderstand me. I quote this line of yours as an example of people giving opinions about what can or cannot be replaced when they have little technical expertise to support their judgement. Similar examples can be cited when people fail to look up for replacement in obvious places like Commons. Rama (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this be technical expertise similar to that displayed in the sketches you present as alternatives to fair use images? My remarks about the aircraft were based on (a) the artist showed considerable technical skill and (b) you do realise, don't you, that "renders" are produced by taking a photograph and putting it through a series of transformations in Photoshop or some similar program. This processing does not remove copyright - I thought at the time you were affirming that it would do, but further research has confirmed in my mind that it does not - and in fact the artist did not "render" the image, but created the image wholly in Photoshop, hence the admiration for his/her skills --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Elen, that sort of rendering has absolutely nothing to do with Photoshop. It is done by building a 3D mesh and by applying a 2D image, called a texture, on the mesh. Rendering, in this sense, is the series of computations performed by the computer to determine the colour of each point of the final image, depending on the mesh, texture, illumination, position of the camera, etc. There is absolutely nothing in this process that comes from "taking a photograph".

I am sorry to insist, but you have again illustrated that you lack the basic skills to emit judgements in these matters. Rama (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Now dear, I know how to create computer graphics. We were referring to a still image - and most of those that I have seen, no matter how sophisticated the production, have a photographic base. I'll accept that your Swissair doesn't, since you tell me it doesn't (how does one prove this?) but pretty much anything that's a depiction of an individual done in this manner starts out life as a photograph. Which brings us back to no matter how sophisticated the copy, it's still a copy. You could produce a "render" of the bow of the Titanic on the seabed and it would still be a copy of Bob Ballard's image. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No it would not. You would have to entirely reconstruct the scene, and create the textures yourself. There is nothing in the original image that you could simply copy-paste, everything should be interpreted by a Human first. The final scene could yield an image from any angle and with a variety of lightenings, it would thus be easy to render the bow of Titanic in a way that would not look remotely like Bob Ballard's image. Look at the "File History" of your Swissair plane, File:Md-11hb-iwf.png: all these images were made from the same mesh/texture set. Simply using Bob Ballard's image for documentation, like "how many chimneys did Titanic have again?" does not entail copyright.

And the same process is possible using 3D software to model a Human head (see [3]), or with good old paints of brushes like done on File:SusanBoyle 2.jpg. None of these is a direct reproduction contaminated by the copyright of the images used for documentation. Rama (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction

Rama has been banned from using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag by the community. [4] Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)