Misplaced Pages

Image closure

May I respectfully suggest that you are personally in no position to make controversial closures in contentious NFCC IFD cases like the Conqueror one ? I could accept a keep (or rather: "no consensus") closure from a competent admin with a serious track record on image deletion issues. But, sorry, I can't accept it from you. You have no substantial experience in IfD closure work. You have only done two or three cases that I can find; in both the previous ones you suddenly popped up at IfD to save scouting-related images that were being defended by your friends. Now you close this one that I nominated, after me scrutinizing your own image uploads and calling you on a few bad cases. This reeks of retaliation.

Moreover, your own track record at non-free image uploads indicates you are either not competent to correctly judge copyright and NFC issues, or unwilling to follow the policies. Just the other day I caught you at a blatant case of copyvio, the fraudulent pd-self claim of Image:DSSword.jpg. That alone would have been enough to get you desysopped. Today I find there's another of the same kind: Image:2001question.jpg, where at least two components, as well as the overall idea of the composition, are quite obviously copied from this motive, together with Image:Hal-9000.jpg. I first thought it possible that your claim here ("None of these items are copied from any 2001: A space odyssey film frame or other related artwork. I created each aspect of this image by hand in a graphics program") was just an error of judgment, and that you honestly believed that by just re-tracing the contours after the original in your graphics program you could avoid committing copyright violation. If it was just that, it would still document a degree of cluelessness that would make you unfit for being an administrator at this site, and very definitely unfit for venturing into closing IfD debates. But on checking the images again, I can no longer extend even that degree of AGF. The images are pixel-by-pixel identical. Your claim was just a lie.

(By the way, I've also tagged your replacement Image:DSSword.jpg on commons, as it is evidently again based on some photograph and fails to declare its source.)

Can I please ask you to revert your closure and let this be handled by somebody else with a better standing on image matters.

Also, on having verified the nature of the copyvio, I have to ask you at this point: what are your criteria for recall? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I drew the original sword drawing about 20 years ago, but I agree that it was too derivative of the original and did not dispute the deletion. When I uploaded it, as well as the others I drew or created, I certainly wasn't attempting to put in a fraudulent pd-self claim. The second sword drawing is completely my own work, with an image of my own creation - it does not appear to be derivative that would violate copyright - but if it does, I'll certainly delete it. As for the Image:2001question.jpg, my "claim" is not a lie, I did indeed draw that interpretative image by hand, tracing nothing, per the article's subject matter - Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure it has its similarities, but that's a necessary part of the interpretation. Again, if it's too derivative from the originals, I'm not disputing it's deletion. Believe me, I've become far more familiar with the image policies since those were uploaded.

If you believe my closure of the Conqueror IFD was faulty, then please open a WP:DRV, the closure certainly had nothing to do with you or any "retaliation" on my part, but I must say that your own actions here truly reek of that. My recall criteria are on file, but I do not see how that comes into play since there has been no misuse of the admin tools - indeed they were not used at all here. Dreadstar † 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. I guess you just missed the last chance of coming clean without it becoming a real big embarassment. But you chose to continue digging yourself deeper. Please review Image:Dreadstar comparison.jpg, and then tell me how I should believe you drew all details of Image:2001question.jpg yourself, and made Image:DSSword.jpg twenty years ago. You have one more chance of responding before this goes to WP:ANI (and from there, if necessary, to Arbcom). – By the way, as far as "retaliation" goes, if we hadn't just been involved in that dispute, I would have simply blocked you as a serial copyvio offender by now, and for a good long time. Now I obviously can't do that, so I have to escalate it through other channels. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think ANI would be pretty enlightening FutPer. The fact that anyone who disagrees appears to have their image history trawled for some little retaliation strike, that multiple people appear to have come to this conclusion, deserves a discussion. I came here to thank Dreadstar for closing the image review and instead find this little section full of browbeating. Sorry FutPer, but if anyones actions here proove their unsuitability for the tools, it is yours. Narson (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I never made it a secret that when I see people defend bad images on IfD, I regularly check their own upload logs. Normally I just find a few dodgy fair use rationales; those are routine and get dealt with by the usual process. In this case, I find a systematic pattern of abusive, intentional copyright violations, with a substantial amount of sustained effort invested to conceal it. In an admin. This is grounds for desysopping. The project cannot afford having copyright and NFCC policies judged and enforced by people who systematically undermine and sabotage these same policies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a disagreement with someone and then trawling for another fight through their history is pretty confrontational, FutPer, and equally worrying to me. I am not going to defend Dreadstar's previous actions as an editor, but wouldn't going to DRV have been a more constructive approach than the one you took here? I am sure some would say that a overly strict enforcement of policy is just as damaging as a lax one, in real terms. I apologise for the ton of my last message but this is a pattern of confrontation you seem to have gotten into and it will not, in my view, go anywhere good. Narson (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review comes after discussion with the closing admin. In this case, as the main argument to be discussed in the deletion review is such a personal deficiency in the closing admin, it's a bit awkward any way you approach it. I guess ANI still comes before DRV in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't trawl for a "fight". I trawl for things that need cleaning up, and in some cases I'm looking to understand where people are coming from when they defend the indefensible. In this case, there is clearly nothing to "fight" over. It's just a matter of making sure an abusive editor is prevented from causing more damage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I’ve already admitted that the first sword drawing was far too derivative of the original and didn't dispute its deletion. I specifically created it to be as exact an image of the sword as possible. Since I’m the one who scanned and uploaded both the Vanth Dreadstar and DSword images, they’re certainly going to be almost identical. It’s deleted now, so no further action is necessary.

As for the 2001 image, I worked on it back in January, over six months ago. At the time, I put together several dozen different versions of that image, some of them hand-drawn, imaged, and run through Photoshop; others were modified copies of other images put together in an interpretative collage - attempting to get the right look for the article. I uploaded at least two different versions. So, yes, it looks like the version you deleted is one of those latter ones, it sure looks like it now that I've had a chance to review it. But in the end it doesn’t matter, even if it’s one of the ones I drew by hand and scanned in, it’s still a derivative of the original and a copyright violation. It’s deleted and gone, I don’t see an issue. I agree with the deletion.

Believe me, I won’t be uploading such material ever again - I’m far older and wiser about images and copyrights now. I probably should have gone through all my old image uploads myself, so good job in finding those copyright vios for me and deleting them; however, your own behavior has been less than exemplary.

Not sure what you’re expecting here, but the Conqueror IFD close stays on its own merits. Dreadstar † 01:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are still lying. The 2001 image I deleted yesterday was the latest version of your collage, the one you made after you were told at PUI that you couldn't use collages of original elements. You made this one specifically on the promise not to use copyrighted elements. There is no other version that is any more original than this one. The previous ones were even more obviously copied; you were told you couln't do that, so you just went and took a slightly different frame of the same baby motive, copied it again, and then triumphantly compared the result with the earlier version as "proof" it was no longer a copy . This was a sustained, systematic effort at deception. And that was in May .

And as for the DSSword image, the similarity on the pixel level is so obvious it is entirely impossible these were made from two separate scans of two separate paper sources that were independently drawn on paper. Who do you think you're kidding?

And you still haven't answered what the photographic source for the commons version of DSSword was. Don't tell there wasn't one.

What I expect now? I want you desysopped. Or at least I want assurance you will never again act in an an admin function on image-related matters. You are a liar and serial copyright offender, you can't be trusted to act in the project's best interests.Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect.Your language is highly offensive. Liar and serial copyright offender are abusive. Whatever the outcome of this, your comments are inappropriate at this point or at any point on this project. This kind of aggressive name calling is not behaviour befitting an admin. or any editor here. I am not judging Dreadstar here, I don't know enough about it yet, but I am judging you as an admin., and I consider your language and behaviour to be highly objectionable...and adding "liar" to an edit summary is name calling and absurd behavior.(olive (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

Now at WP:AN#User:Dreadstar, a serial copyright offender. As for "liar", there is no more polite way of putting it. Lying is what I charge him with, lying is what he did to lose his trustworthiness. Would you feel better if I called it "intentionally saying things that aren't true"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:CBW.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CBW.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I had been in touch with the subject's family and just got off the phone with them again. They authorized the use of this image and will be responding to me with either an OTRS request or with another PD image. I'll update then. Dreadstar † 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)