Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

The nature of the dispute is Rama's unique personal interpretation of fair-use policy. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC are, as we all recognize, foundation-derived policy. However, Rama presents a unique perspective on those policies which does not appear to be shared by many users at all. He is allowed to have that perspective, and we should welcome alternative viewpoints and opinions that challenge community norms. That is fine. The issue is that Rama uses his administrator tools to delete images out of process, often short circuiting the standard waiting periods. He also deletes images even when consensus exists that they are not in violation of policy, and edit wars over tagging images for deletion, to the point of WP:FORUMSHOP. So far, no less than two ANI discussions and an MCQ discussion have failed to produce any change in behavior from Rama. (see below for relevent links). He seems to feel that a low-quality, hand-drawn copy of any image is of the "same encyclopedic purpose" as nearly any fair-use image, and this does not appear to be the consensus at any of the specific discussions linked below.-- Jayron  32  19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Rama/Fair use is also informative as it seems to sum up Rama's views on fair use. This page is fine, and Rama should feel secure in holding and expressing these opinions on fair use.  It's not the holding of these opinions, its the use of these opinions to justify his deletions.  -- Jayron  32  21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And his lack of good faith inresponse to what he perceives as Fair Use violations Fair Use images are never admissible as a way to simply cheat and grab, snatch, steal, whatever you prefer, the copyrighted works of others does not help the situation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cause of concern
''{Add summary here, 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.}''


 * This history of the file File:Chicago Spire.jpg shows repeated edit warring between Rama and multiple users over deletion of the image.
 * Another edit war
 * another edit war

The last two examples occurred on December 17, after several discussions were attempted with Rama. Even if he believes his interpretation of policy to be sound, he should at least recognize that others dispute his interpretation, and should refrain from forcing the issue while there is an active dispute going on. This shows a clear disdain for the principles of consensus building, and is clearly against the nature of WP:BRD and other relevent behavioral guidelines. Edit warring over deleting files while engaged in an ANI discussion over said behavior shows utter disregard for the objections of the other editors also engaged in those discussions.-- Jayron  32  19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll summarise the main policy interpretations that seem to be an issue, to save everyone wading thru the dialogues. Rama interprets policy in what appears to be an erroneous or non consensus way as follows:- Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If there is more than one non-free version of the same image taken or made at the same time, this means that the image is replaceable and therefore cannot be used. (second comment in this diff)
 * 2) A non free image may only be used if the article contains substantive commentary about the image, not if the article only contains commentary about the subject of the image even if the user's understanding is significantly increased by the use of the image
 * 3) s120 of the US copyright legislation permits the creation of images which are copies of architectural drawings of buildings which have not been constructed yet
 * 4) If no free image exists of a deceased person, it is not acceptable to use a non-free photograph, as it would be possible to create a drawing of the deceased.
 * 5) Only iconic non free images may be used. (This seems to be a misunderstanding of NFCI item 4 An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)).

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * WP:CSD
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:ADMIN
 * WP:NFC
 * WP:NFCC
 * WP:IUP
 * WP:EDITWAR

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

The desired outcome is that:
 * Rama stops deleting images out of process
 * Rama stops deleting images when consensus is not with his decision
 * Rama refrains from deleting images that he himself tagged for deletion (second opinions are valuable)
 * Rama recuses from deleting images where the fair-use/non-free use status is disputed
 * Rama does not continue to replace existing fair-use images with much poorer quality images under the guise that a poorly drawn picture serves the same encyclopedic purpose as a high-quality photograph
 * (Amended)Rama does not continue to replace existing fair-use images with much poorer quality images under the guise that a poorly drawn picture serves the same encyclopedic purpose as a high-quality photograph, nor to template existing historical images which - due to their uncertain status under US law - are used under Fair Use criteria, requesting replacement by images with known free status that do not specifically address the same period or location as the original.
 * Rama ceases using the template di-replaceable fair use on images.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(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.)
 * current ANI discussion at time of filing of this RFC (please replace with appropriate link to archive when needed)
 * current MCQ discussion at the time of filing of this RFC (please replace with appropriate link to archive when needed)
 * prior ANI discussion on the matter
 * several admins and editors who had not commented at the ANI or MCQ discussions also attempted to talk him down here on his talk page

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * This one and the one below this are the same two edit wars over image tagging I noted above, both occured well after Rama was aware of objections, and right in the middle of the most recent ANI discussion.
 * 

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


 * Jayron  32  19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * –xenotalk 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC) ( however per, this may be largely moot) - cmt added at 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I rephrased every way I could think of, under the (I now believe) mistaken belief that this was a 'lost in translation' problem (Rama is a native French speaker) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DR04 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like arguing with a brick wall. Parrot of Doom 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz Humbug! 08:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * Nathan  T 02:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  So Why  08:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Modernist (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Abecedare (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  At am a  頭 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  F ASTILY  ( T ALK ) 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ray Talk 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about Rama's tagging of Holocaust images for deletion yesterday. That seems an odd thing to do, especially after this RfC. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen this one around deleting images, and I don't agree with the deletions. Before this RfC I thought I was just mistaken about when admins should delete images... I guess I'm wrong. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 02:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q. One of the arguments agains Rama is that a drawing can not replace a photo. If you look at Oral sex you will see that there is drawings instead of photos. If drawings really are no good I wonder why that article does not show some photos of oral sex. Just look on the article on dawiki. So could the problem be that noone wanted to take the time and make a drawing? --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44. The oral sex is a bit of a red herring, and a whole other can of worms. –xenotalk 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I take your answer regarding oral sex as you agree that drawings can be used in some situations. And as I see that link (it is just a discussion and not an official statement) it is clear that images COULD replace images if they are of an acceptable quality.
 * NFCI says "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". If we are to follow the policy it is not relevant if there IS a good replacement but if it is possible to MAKE one. I'm sure there must be someone out there that can make good drawings that could be used. Is there an official policy/statement somewhere that says that photos is accepted even if drawins could be made? --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the RFC I linked where the 'argument-from-drawability' was roundly rejected. Any drawing created would either be original research or it would be too close to the original and thus be a derivative work. As I said, your example of oral sex is entirely a red herring. –xenotalk 19:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment on oral sex was to underline that drawings CAN be relevant. That can not be irrelevant in a discussion regarding the subject if drawings can replace fair use images.
 * Your argument is that it will never be possible to make a free drawing. I find that very hard to accept. To prove you wrong I or someone else just have to find one example where a free drawing excists. Do I really have to look?
 * Next question could be if Rama's drawings are free. But that is not really relevant since the question as pointed out is if it is possible to MAKE one (if policy is right). --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. For a moment there I thought you were saying that a non-free picture of oral sex could not be replaceable, but I rather thought this not correct... all you need is two willing parties. :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, just look at the RFC. This position received zero support. –xenotalk 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you specify where in regards to this RfC it has been said that "a drawing can not replace a photo"? In the opening complaint, I see specifically the concern that Rama "...seems to feel that a low-quality, hand-drawn copy of any image is of the 'same encyclopedic purpose' as nearly any fair-use image, and this does not appear to be the consensus at any of the specific discussions linked below." I see the phrase "poorly drawn" used several times further down. I don't know that anybody has said in conjunction with this that it is never possible to replace a photograph with a drawing; I do see arguments that low-quality drawings are insufficient. It might be helpful if you could demonstrate precisely where the more general argument has been made. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Q. Below are arguments regarding The Holocaust. How can images of The Holocaust be fair use when Commons has a category with a lot of free images Commons:Category:The Holocaust? If you look at NFCI, dot 4, you can see that "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).". Does that not mean that you can not just take any image of The Holocaust to illustrate that when there are free alternatives. You have to provide a good reason why this specific image is not replacable (example if the person in the image is very important and in an important situation that can not be replaces by a free media). --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A.The images are of specific events and are not used just to "illustrate the holocaust", but in relation to descriptions of those events. Also, in a number of cases, the images appear to be in the public domain, but there is some uncertainty of this due to the circumstances in which either they were taken or they were released to Wikipedia (it appears that no-one holds the copyright, but if that is the case the releasing body cannot have released them). Fair use in this case represents a belt and braces approach.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Holocaust123.JPG is used to illustrate "Victims of the Holocaust." in The Holocaust and Ernst Nolte. We have other images of victims so how can rationale be ok there? --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read any of the collateral relating to this issue?Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. But it would be interessting to hear your answer to this image I mention here (if you can give one). It is used as an example that Rama has a wrong understanding of fair use so I find it relevant to hear the arguments why it can be allowed. --MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps to try reading it again. Can you explain in what way File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg, which Rama won't discuss, is replaceable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg - it might very well be possible that this picture can't be replaced (but you have to try very hard to find other images of human experimentation (I take it it has to be nazi even if arguments does not say that) and you have to give good arguments.). I was talking about File:Holocaust123.JPG. If you can not argue that this ok to use as fair use please just say so. There is no need arguing on an image if we agree that Rama was right on this one. Complaints has been made regarding Rama and I have been asking a few questions to make sure that there is good arguments and so far I have only been met with a red fish and "oh go look somewhere". That is NOT very good arguments. --MGA73 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I simply had to look a little further on the File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg. The purpose is "To illustrate practices of human experimentation". It is not said that it has to be nazi experiments but we do have Commons:Category:Nazi medical experiments. There is no arguments that only this image can illustrate experiments. File:Buchenwald Medical Experiments 80622.jpg shows "jars containing human organs removed from prisoners in Buchenwald". I think that this image can illustrate that nazi did experiments on prisoners. It is not as "direct" as the other one but 1) does it have to? and 2) can we really claim fair use just because the image is better that the free ones? --MGA73 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This RfC was initiated to resolve issues regarding Rama's use of admin privileges to impose their viewpoint, and subsequently about their disregard of consensus (or at least the majorities understanding of it) relating to Fair Use images. It is not about Fair Use criteria, and those images so licensed. That discussion should be held elsewhere (as I believe it has previously). As Rama continues not to respond to this process directly (albeit having stopped using the flags as complained of) I have commented on the talkpage that I agree this RfC should be closed and the matter taken onto the next step in dispute resoluation - if appropiate. This discussion relating to FU images should also be transferred elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Below are suggestions that Rama should be banned from FU images. If my question can show that Rama was right that images DID NOT qualify as fair use or that the fair use rationale was not good enough then I think it would be relevant for this RFC. I have never said that Rama does not make mistakes - I think everyone does. If your comment should be understanded as "Rama can dispute fair use - he just have to add a relevant template and not delete at sight" then I agree. --MGA73 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have to be "all relevant templates." I noted below that I believe it is possible that some of the images tagged may be replaceable, but I remain concerned that Rama's tags are out of process. Earlier, he was deleting immediately instead of waiting the requisite period explicitly encoded at WP:CSD. With the recent tags mentioned here, he has not notified the uploaders of images or tagged the images as instructed by the template, which deprives other users of the opportunity to dispute the deletion. This is disruptive to the consensus process, even if consensus would go with him had he followed process. Other contributors deserve an opportunity to voice their opinions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment/answer. Rama explained below why he speedied images and that he has not done that since this RFC was made. So far so good. As for informing users I agree that users should be informed. But as far as I know there is a bot that does that (or should do that). If it is not working for some reason it should be fixed or in the mean time I'm sure he will do it manually if he is informed that the bot does not work. --MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I had not noticed that a user talk template was required, and I assumed that it was done automatically by a bot. I would have put it had I realised. Rama (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect it's a bit irregular to conduct an actual threaded conversation here; apologies, if so. A template is not just required at user talk, but in the image caption of each article that uses the image (Deletable image-caption). There are a good many bots on Wikipedia, so I could easily have missed it, but I am not aware of a bot that does either of these things (except if it is also the bot that tags the image). I believe they must be done manually; the instructions on the speedy template instruct its users to do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response
''{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.''}

Response to concerns

 * I do not believe that my reading of WP:NFC is particular in any way. I believe that a number of users who have intervened on this page misconstruct, deform and sometimes go diametrically against WP:NFC. Furthermore, a number of these users have expressed amazement at some Free images (for instance User:Elen of the Roads: "Never thought of a CGI render - that Swissair one is quite remarkable" ). I think that these people are not good judges of what is replaceable or not.
 * Regarding use of administrator tools to delete images out of process:
 * I believed that summarily deleting frivolous Fair Use images was within policy, and I believe that if it is not, then Criteria for speedy deletion is ambiguous and needs amending. Indeed, the head starts with "cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (emphasis added).
 * I have had a uniteral policy not to speedily delete images since before this RfC was even started, and this was made explicit on 17 December, three hours after this request was started . I therefore deem this to be a non-issue.
 * Regarding WP:FORUMSHOP, I believe that
 * reconsidering a discussion between three people, several years ago, is not WP:FORUMSHOP
 * updating templates at the light of new facts is not WP:FORUMSHOP
 * Regarding drawings, "feel that a low-quality, hand-drawn copy of any image is of the "same encyclopedic purpose" as nearly any fair-use image" is a strawman. What I feel is that the WP:NFC policy states "Non-free media may be used in articles only if (...) 2. It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)" (emph. added). The existence of a drawing, whatever its quality, proves beyond any discussion that Free material can be created; for instance, the article Susan Boyle has long been illustrated by an original and resembling painting which fullfilled encyclopedic purposes adequately. Outside Wikipedia, drawings are widely used for courthouses illustrations.
 * Regarding the examples provided above: "25 December 2009 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Pink Floyd 68.jpg" ‎ (F7: Invalid fair-use rationale)" . Apparently somebody thinks I was right.

Regarding the summary of my views as written by User:Elen of the Roads, what I actually think is:
 * 1) Existence of several non-Free images all equally good is a strong indice that none can be claimed at all. There might be freak cases where this is not verified. They will probably be oddities, though.
 * 2) Yes. The policy explicitely states "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.", "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." and "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.".
 * 3) Yes, as I believe interpreting s120 would yield absurd consequences, such as forbidding photographs of the construction site since the building is not yet constructed. That being said, this is a legal matter, and law can yield counter-intuitive results.
 * 4) Correct. The view that it is acceptable to use a non-free photograph to illustrate a biography of a dead is based on a misunderstanding of "Unacceptable use: (...) Images: (...) 12. Pictures of people still alive". This does not mean that the reverse is acceptable, and indeed there are known occurrences of Free photographs turning up after someone died (see Bruce Edwards Ivins and talk page for instance). I stress the point, this proves beyond any possible discussion that it had never been impossible to find an image, the non-Free one had thus been unacceptable even before the Free one turned up.
 * 5) In practice and as a consequence of the above, essentially only iconic images that are the subject of the article or of a secion are eligible for Fair Use. There are other cases like book covers etc. which are cited in the policy or guidelines. Rama (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.


 * WP:NFC

Users endorsing this response

 * I have believed ever since I started editing on Wikipedia that not-yet-created free drawings should be used instead of fair-use images, under WP:NFC. And yes, I do endorse the view that you can speedy-delete images under CSD F7 if it is replaceable by not-yet-created free drawings. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 03:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

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.

Outside view by LessHeard vanU
Administrators are (supposed to be) vehicles by which Community consensus, be it via discussion or agreed policy or guideline, is enacted and not its interpretors. I have been able to review the ANI discussion as an observer only, and have come to the conclusion that Rama does not understand the admin remit with regard to his actions relating to Fair Use images. As an editor, and as an admin, Rama is permitted to hold a minority viewpoint - and sincerely believe that only they are interpreting policy and consensus correctly - but has no authority to substitute their understanding over that of the community. The argument that consensus (or ones understanding of it) over-rules majority opinion is only relevant where there is evidence that policy or guideline is being ignored or abused by that majority - not where there are other good faith interpretations. In short, Rama cannot argue that the agreed consensus is incorrect and then act upon their interpretation. Rama should withdraw from using the tools in pursuance of their own interpretation of policy where it is the minority viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Jayron  32  21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) DR04 (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) No more, no less. –xeno<sup style="color:black;">talk  21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Jheald (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  At am a  頭  22:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) If he cannot admin in accordance with policy and consensus, he needs to take a step back.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) this is a correct statement of a principle applicable in all situations, not just this. It's the only way admins with independent authority can possibly work together.    DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Modernist (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Very well put. This seems to be a problem with Rama and others where images are concerned.  Ty  15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Brilliant explanation.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) --Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Tarc (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Core of the matter. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Eastshire (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) As DGG says this is a core principle for how admins sould act. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Yes. --NellieBly (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 22)  F ASTILY  ( T ALK ) 23:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) It is a serious abuse of the tools for an admin to use them to enforce his/her's own extremist view contrary to established consensus.   JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Can't add more to this clear description ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) per DGG. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) I don't believe user conduct RfC's solve a great many problems, but in this case the issue needs to be addressed. My hope is that Rama takes the concerns regarding his approach to deleting images to heart and makes more of an effort to follow what the community decides is best.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 29)  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC).
 * 31) Cirt (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Samwb123T (R)-C-E 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Jheald
The policy positions attributed to Rama as 1-5 above by Elen of the Roads, which Rama does appear to hold, are indeed all demonstrably incorrect. Jheald (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Modernist (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I believe this to be true, although Rama's conduct would be problematic even if some of his interpretations were more reasonable. As LessHeard vanU has highlighted above, the main issue is that Rama let his interpretation overrule consensus, policy and recommended practice, repeatedly - and used his admin tools to do so. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Jayron  32  00:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by SoWhy
I think the most problematic behavior Rama showed in this particular case was at. An admin should not edit-war over their viewpoint with others and certainly should not do re-add speedy deletion tags after multiple admins have declined to delete it. This kind of attempted admin shopping directly conflicts with "[being] expected to lead by example" in WP:ADMIN. It's irrelevant whose viewpoint is correct in this particular case or with such images in general; what's important is how you behave in dealing with others who share a different viewpoint.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Modernist (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 16:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Following discussion on talkpage, yes this is the problematic behaviour that led directly to the RfC --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Don't know whether this is the most problematic, but it is certainly exemplifies the problem. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Jayron  32  00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7)  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10)  F ASTILY  ( T ALK ) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Cirt (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Xeno
Rama appears to have returned to acting on his extremist views on replaceability, and tagged several historical and obviously irreplaceable Holocaust images for deletion as "replaceable". Furthermore, per my comments here, it doesn't even appear that he is reviewing the fair use claim before tagging the image. A topic ban may be necessary to curb further disruption.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Troubling, in that while they are not using the flags to force their interpretation - not yet - the editor appears to have disregarded the concerns raised in this rfc but may appear to have waited for attention to have decreased before returning to similar behaviours as before. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Definitive evidence of using his peculiar interpretations in an attempt to harm the encyclopedic coverage of a very important and sensitive topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) While I think it's possible that some images even related to such an historically important event may actually be replaceable by free images covering the same thing, I agree with Xeno's view that some of the images recently tagged seem clearly irreplaceable. Also, I'm troubled that User:Rama did not follow through with notifying uploaders or tagging images as instructed after placing the speedy tags. For example, after this tag, he should have left notice at User talk:Fastfission, but did not. He should have put deletable image-caption on the picture at The Holocaust and Nazi human experimentation. (Instructions are on the template that he himself placed.) Such behavior is out of process and diminishes the opportunity for other contributors to respond. Those speedy tags were badly handled. In conjunction with earlier deletion out of process and Rama's evident unique interpretation of replaceable, I agree that a restriction from deleting under this criteria or tagging for speedy deletion under this criteria may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Unilaterally making obviously incorrect decisions in a collaborative project and defying consensus with very little rationale except for his own judgment that has been brought into question time and time again is unacceptable...Modernist (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Cirt (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Tbsdy lives
I have noticed that he has been adding di-replaceable fair use to a whole raft of Holocaust and POW images. These include File:Holocaust123.JPG, File:Soviet Prisoners of War.jpg, File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg and File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. When I asked him about File:Holocaust123.JPG ,File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg he wrote "Obviously not. I would not have made the edit then".

This is a serious concern - unless Rama in some way is going to reenact the Holocaust, which is unlikely, then there is no way that these images are replaceable.

It seems to me that he should immediately stop adding this template to all images, because he clearly cannot show reasonable discernment over fair use.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. Rama obviously does not want to accept or does not know that "replaceable" means that one could theoretically go and make a new photograph of a certain subject. It does not mean that every file should be deleted where a free image could exist but where we have no indication that this is the case. Tagging images of the Holocaust und POW as replaceable fair-use is certainly not covered by the WP:NFCC policy. Regards  So Why  17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. In the case of File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg he tagged it di-replaceable fair use even after this image had already been nom'd at FfD on 6 April 2009 and overwhelming consensus was Keep. The image's talk page showed its oldffdfull tag/link to the archived FfD discussion. This kind of disruptive activity and extremist view pushing against clear consensus and NFC policy is very un-sysop like and should result in a ban on his/her handling of Fair Use images.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  17:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per JGHowes' excellent argument. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I can't help thinking that if a non-admin had done this kind of action (obviously, I mean by nominating or tagging obviously non-replaceable images for deletion), they would already have been banned. I agree completely with JGHowes here. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree although I find the phrasing about restarting the Holocaust to be needlessly inflammatory. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken - I've modified. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. I was particularly concerned to see that he tagged this one for deletion, one of a series of photographs taken by the Sondercommando inside Auschwitz, mostly Jewish and Russian prisoners, and smuggled out by the Polish underground. The image is PD in its country of origin, but because the WP servers are in the U.S. and the copyright status is unclear there, we have to claim fair use. This is such an iconic image of Auschwitz that, if it were not legitimate fair use, then arguably nothing would be. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse. I find this edit summary to be unacceptable as well, and not compatible with the standards that we expect from administrators.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment I was very tempted (when I saw that summary) to leave a message on Rama's talk page - I think that he needs to be desysopped and/or blocked as soon as possible - his behaviour is getting worse. At least with the images where he provided his own pictures, he could argue "Oh, I can provide a replacement - look here...", but in these cases, where does he think we can get FUCKING REPLACEMENTS from (to use his language)? We shouldn't just continue with this RfC, as he can't even be bothered to come here to defend his behaviour - he is just showing contempt for this RfC, the process of deletion, and the community. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree - The nature of the proposed deletions and/or replacements of these images brings to mind the question of why these images - and of motivation - and exhibits seriously poor judgment...Modernist (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The reason he is doing this is because there is more than one image taken at the same time showing the same thing. In Rama's twisted interpretation of the guidelines, this means that any of the images are replaceable by any of the other images, therefore the images are 'replaceable' as in the fair use policy.  This is not a language issue as in he understands what the words mean, but I'm damned if I know what has led him to think this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Cirt (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for immediate enforcement
It appears that Rama is still adding the tag to images, as of the 7th February. It was, of course, immediately reverted and he was told to take to FFD. I am asking that if he readds the tag that he be blocked from editing for a 24 hour period. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken this to WP:AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Endorse. Some of the images Rama deleted were acceptable under CSD F7, but some are not. Therefore, he/she should be blocked if they continue this. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 03:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse, Rama's main areas of contention seem to be with images related to controversial Western wars and atrocities - as per my own summary below, that includes the War on Terror, and the Holocaust. WP has no room for "ideological" editors advancing and censoring worldviews, we are a collaborative project. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Rama
Tbsdy is not competent to judge whether images are replaceable or not and should refrain from giving uneducated opinions.

Tbsdy has already provided the most egregious example of deficient handling of the rfu tag that I know of, when he speedily removed the tag from File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg; another version of the exact same image turned out to be available under a Free licence on Commons, in a better quality.

He is now complaining that I put a rfu tag on File:Canonde138mmMle1929.jpg, a simple archive image with no notability whatsoever. Replacements for this file are readily available from Commons, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg (cropped from an image available from Commons at the time). This is a proof that in spite of my coments following his spectacular failure with File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg, Tbsdy has still not found his way to Wikimedia Commons. He failed to make the most minute effort to check whether Free media were in fact available (I am not even talking of whether Free media could be available, but whether they are).

Tbsdy should recognise his shortcomings and refrain from casting judgement as to whether images are replaceable or not, until he acquire the necessary skills and makes at least token efforts to check whether this statements are true or not.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Rama (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the guidelines for posting in this section. '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.'. You are directly involved in this dispute. This bad faith analysis should be removed or at least moved to the appropriate location, if such a thing exists. Weakopedia (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it up and move it before closing (seeing we're so near to the end anyway). In the meantime, all participants need to seriously reflect on the usefulness of this RfC/U continuing and respond accordingly to the proposal to close on the talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Sherurcij
I opened the first ever Request for Removal of Admin Rights on Wikimedia Commons in November, over Rama's out-of-process and against-consensus deletions. He refused to even acquiesce to demands he not delete images without informing uploaders, and went so far as to ignore other administrators who closed AfDs as "Keep" by just deleting the image himself. Sometimes he appealed on copyright grounds, other times he seemed to rely on a very shadowy idea that (pp) "Images taken by al-Qaeda supporters, even if explicitly released into the public domain by the copyright holders, have no right to be on our project" which is a very slippery slope. I spent nearly a year fighting Rama over literally hundreds of deletions on Commons - almost all of them seemingly ideologically motivated - rather than any concern for the integrity of the project. As one admin pointed out, he had not processed any images for deletion unrelated to the War on Terror in months, but deleted dozens of such images which portrayed "Coalition" troops as the aggressors - despite clear copyright release. Good faith was extended, time and again, and he continued, even during that process (and apparently during this one) to continue on with his ideological "cleansing" of our collaborative project to meet his moral expectations.

For a brief example, look at his deletions from September 2009, over half of them were overturned and restored by other admins - and on NONE of them did he offer template notices, inform the uploaders or initiate AFDs. On several of them he actually ignored closed AFDs to just delete them anyways.

While I could see the value of arguments that his disruptions could be worthy enough, or not worthy enough, for an actual ban - it is absolutely clear to me that his adminship and participation in image deletion is misplaced and should be redirected to more constructive forms of community involvement.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I was aware of previous issues on Commons, including the action Sherurcij refers to Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Geo Swan
I have had multiple images I uploaded summarily deleted by User:Rama, and, it seemed to me that he was unwilling to exercise his administrator authority in a responsible manner. I requested clarification of his deletion of File:Alleged bomb-maker instructing recruits.jpg. It is an image I uploaded before I was aware that the CBS news logo on a screen-shot was itself copyright. But it is trivial to place a black box over such logos. Here is Rama's comment in a long discussion -- one in which I thought at the time and continue to think Rama was trying to act unaccountably. The highlights are:
 * 1) Thirty-three days passed between when I left this request for clarification, and this reminder he had not responded. I simply don't think this is responsible.
 * 2) In my opinion some of the statements Rama made are not supportable:
 * 3) *"As far as I am concerned, an absurd consensus has no value."
 * 4) *"Consensus on Wikipedia is not relevant in itself, we do not vote reality out of existence."
 * 5) *"Commons typically does not endorse plundering and looting of intellectual property on political grounds" -- this in response to a reminder that there are regions of the world, like Afghanistan, where images are not protected by either International or domestic copyright protection.
 * 6) *"I would like to stress that images on other subjects that cause a fraction of the headaches that these ones do are deleted dayly without a second though, and that I do not understand why images that show Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani guerrillas are so fiercely defended against all odds." -- this seems to be a complaint at being asked to offer a policy based justification for his deletion.
 * 7) *"I simply want things done without irrelevant red tape. Filling in requests for obvious cases is an obvious waste of time ... As for warning the user, I actually see little reason to pollute people's talk pages about uploads that they might have made years ago and whose case is not open to debate" -- Rama's explanation for making deletions, without warning, and without advising the uploader afterwards, and, IMO, being balky and uncooperative when asked to offer a meaningful, policy-based justification. Note: Rama says he regards his speedy deletion decisions as "not being open to debate".

I participated in the discussion to remove Rama's mop Sherurcij mentioned above. My impression is that some participants there assumed that the questionable actions and statements there could be seen as merely the occasional lapses of a busy and productive contributor. I am very sorry to say I don't think those who had been willing to give Rama the benefit of the doubt in the discussion Sherurcij initiated were correct. I think his behavior shows a consistent pattern of what I can only call "brinksmanship" -- that rather than the kind of strict compliance with both the spirit and letter of our policies we should be able to count on from our contributors, and particularly from our administrators, he has been knowingly choosing to sail right up to boundary of behavior that would get his mop removed. I see him routinely get called for this kind of boundary pushing, get admonished for it, not apologize or own up, take advantage of good faith people extending him the benefit of the doubt -- then he has bided his time for a month or so, and returned to out of process, stealth deletions.

I will note that Rama has contributed some extremely valuable images, and, barring the idiosyncratic extreme interpretation of when he should use his deletion powers, he has been a very valuable contributor. I will also note that I am not aware of him making any out of process deletions in the last month or so.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Geo Swan (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Banned from the di-replaceable fair use template
1) I propose that Rama has misused the di-replaceable fair use template, and therefore should be banned from using it on any more images. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In the example of the images used on Holocaust, I have used di-replaceable fair use quite liberally and I could have been more cautious; for instance with File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg, which notable on its own right and used appropriately in another article (note that the resolution of this file, 760 × 821 is inadequate for Fair Use material). Indeed I should have been more cautious in the context.
 * Nevertheless I do not think that I used di-replaceable fair use inappropriately. This template asks whether the image replaceable or not. I think that it is not illegitimate to ask this question for files used in an article which as a corresponding category on Commons, where a rich iconography is available.
 * The perception that my use of di-replaceable fair use was improper could stem from the fact that all the files were almost immediately decided irreplaceable by Tbsdy and User:Chillum. However, of these, several appear to have replacement readily available on Commons, as has been noted by several third parties. Most notably, one image that was summarily decided to be "irreplaceable by a Free alternative", File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg, turned out to be available on Commons, in a much better quality, courtesy of the German Federal archive (this image is now held on en:, where it is a veritable licensing Chernobyl: unfit to be moved on Commons except that it is already there, Free licence but also claimed as Fair use -- but in a resolution that is not fit for that, ...). To sum up, I think that at least several of these closures are blatantly faulty. They illustrate that
 * non-Free material is being used while contradicting even the laxest possible interpretation of WP:NFC
 * that some people do not know how and where to search for available Free material (for instance one image of starved Russion prisoners of war attracted the comment "exactly what is the plan to replace this image? WTF is the logic here?", while there are two categories of Commons devoted to the subject ); some of these people also give judgement as to what is replaceable or not, and close reviews and discussions on Fair Use status of images. Clearly, they lack the knowledge and intuition to do so, and should know their limits better.
 * that image licensing is not given the attention that it deserves, even in very blatant cases. Rama (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I do not believe this proposal addresses the original statement of this request; that User:Rama is misusing sysop flags in furtherance of their individual interpretation of Fair Use policy. It may be that an addendum to the original statement is required, or a separate RfC, or a referal to ANI noting the change in the editors modus operandi. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if this was one of several resolutions. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An addition to, or after, #5 on the desired outcome section - requiring the cessation of the inappropriate use of a template suggesting availability of a replacement of a historical image without providing same? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to say in addition to in this case, because he doesn't delete images now, he just adds inappropriate tags. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we get another respondee, we should proceed on the basis of consensus then. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I Agree it would seem a step in the right direction. Codf1977 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (undent) As the originator of the RFC, I would agree that his current action, while it does feature a subtle change in behavior (from deleting to tagging) still shows a general lack of concern for established standards and norms at Wikipedia, both with regards to the deletion policy, and with regards to adequate communication over his actions. If he's shifted from deleting to tagging, it looks like he's just WP:GAMEing the whole thing, and perhaps a discussion needs to be started at WP:ANI to discuss banning from deletion work and tagging (broadly construed) altogether.  This RFC has been up for a month and a half, and despite widespread participation, has had ZERO effect on Rama's behavior.  -- Jayron  32  13:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not participated in this RfC despite agreeing that the deletions were a bad idea because the deletions seemed to have stopped. I'm not sure that the RfC (and community input at ANI) have had zero effect on Rama's behavior. I agree that this tagging is a bad idea, but I think it's a step forward from unilateral deletion. At least he was putting them up to another admin for review to see if the other admin agreed. I agree that the current tagging and the former deletions are related and this RfC should serve both, and I do agree that it's a good idea for Rama to stop tagging images for speedy deletion under this rationale. Under the circumstances, more communication seems essential. But I'm not sure that it's a good idea to consider banning from all deletion work and tagging. Rama's ideas of replaceability don't seem to mesh with the community's, but is there evidence that Rama is similarly perceiving other criteria differently? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he has now stated that he will not discuss issues around tagging Holocaust images. This sounds disruptive and against Wikipedia norms. I think that if Rama cannot be trusted to properly use or discuss his usage of the di-replaceable fair use template then he should be banned from using it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have not stated that, and I have in fact discussed these images at length. What is said is "I refuse to discuss editorial issues regarding the Holocaust"; I mean that I have not contributed to the core of Holocaust, that I do not intend to; and that considering that my questions on the licence status of the images stemmed immediate remarks as to whether I was or not a Holocaust negationist, I don't see why I should find the idea appealing. Rama (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is: with what is that image replaceable with? You have added a note disputing the fair use rationale, it seems to me a bit obtuse of you to now be stating that you will not discuss why this isn't replaceable because you "refuse to discuss editorial issues regarding the Holocaust". So I again ask you to answer what you believe could replace this image. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the fifth time, it is not up to me to provide a replacement, but to you to prove that your image in not replaceable. See WP:NFC, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." It is in the policy.
 * Answering to your question is not an abstract question about the image, but an editorial question about Holocaust. I refuse to engage into discussion of the sort. There is a Commons category "Nazi medical experiments" that you can search for replacements. Rama (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already proven this above. Your non-acceptance of this and refusal to explain why it isn't replaceable is not really my problem. This image will not be deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have proven nothing. A proof can be found on File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg: we know who the copyright holder is, that he is not willing to release the image under a Free licence, we know why this precise image is indispensable to Wikipedia and could not be replaced by any other Free photograph of US grunts flying the US colours on a Pacific island. For File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg, we have "No copyright status noted in the original article. The copyright holder was probably someone working at Dachau". Absolutely no mention of the notability of this image is made. The article Holocaust states "A cold water immersion experiment at Dachau concentration camp presided over by Professor Holzlohner (left) and Dr. Rascher (right)", without mentioning anything about the image itself. There is absolutely no indication that this image has not simply be taken for mere convenience and could be replaced by any equivalent photograph. This Fair use rational is not a rational, but merely an excuse. That is substandard. The image will, indeed, probably not be deleted, but that will be in violation of the policy, and only because there are so many people like you who find it oh so convenient to simply grab copyrighted material around and oppose the implementation of Wikipedia policies. Rama (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Better examples, better arguments for fair use claim, better arguments when disputed and patience
2) I suggest this:
 * 1) Non-free content and Non-free content criteria is improved. For example is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created..." a little unclear. What does "could be created" mean? That part is very important so I think the best would to have an official statement on that.
 * 2) Better arguments should be used when claiming fair use. For example an argument to illustrate "Victims of the Holocaust." is not clear enough when free images of Holocaust does exists. If it is important to illustrate a specific event then that should be made very clear in the fair use rationale.
 * 3) Better arguments when disputing fair use. Hopefully users tried really hard to give good arguments to why fair use could be claimed. Therefore just adding a template is not enough. Good arguments to what is missing should be given and if possible also suggestions for replacement.
 * 4) If a bot does not inform uploaders then do it manually.
 * 5) Avoid speedy deletion. Be patient. In worst cases one admin could nominate and another could delete. --MGA73 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not sure MGA73 understands how we came by the existing criteria - an "official statement" would indeed be useful but is extremely unlikely. Other than that, while I agree with the sentiments, I'm not sure how much further it takes us.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Understanding the role of Wikipedia's approach to fair use
3) (Grateful to Dragons flight for pointing this out. Wikipedia's policies on non-free content are not in fact related to the US copyright legislation's rules on fair use. US law makes no mention of alternatives being available or possible, it simply creates a legal rule for what a user must do to make use of copyright images. The Wikipedia policies are much stricter, and arise from an expressed ideal of the founders that all content on Wikipedia should be free for commercial as well as private reuse.

All admins policing non-free content should therefore (a)make themselves fully aware of this

(b)avoid at all costs viewing it as breaching copyright, as provided proper accreditation is given, there is almost no circumstance in which such usage would breach US copyright

(c)following (b), avoid all emotive language such as 'snatching' or 'stealing', and avoid any reference to violating the rights of the copyright holder, as - in virtually all cases - proper accreditation is all that is required to avoid this

(d)make every effort to assist users who wish to use images under fair use, as the chances are that the user will not initially understand that the Wikipedia policy differs substantially from US Fair Use

(e)recognise that the primary goal of the organisation is to create an encyclopaedia, and not lean out of all proportion on Wikipedia policies that were created by consensus in response to the vision of the founders.


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Must ask another admin to use di-replaceable fair use
4) I propose that Rama must ask another administrator independent of this RfC to use di-replaceable fair use. If they don't ask another admin, they should get blocked for a short amount of time for disruption. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Summary
During the course of this RfC/U, Rama was sanctioned by the community following this discussion: he is banned him from using the di-replaceable fair use tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)