Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Nikon rangefinder d.jpg

That's intransparent bulls***. How can Frank Gosebruch not be the copyright holder if he uploads a hugh bundle of images just minutes after the were taken (based on exif data) and he self presents similar images in on other pages in the internet? --Cepheiden (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been elaborated in that ticket. You can ask for another German-speaking member of the support team to verify that. We are concerned here about copyright but we are not in the business to violate the privacy of other people, even if they violate copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all that, but i'm not quite sure if you really have take all objections into account and that FG has given resonable explanations for them. I will ask some other OTRS members. --Cepheiden (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an OTRS member as well, I disagree that these tickets would provide any evidence that should lead to speedy deletion. Restoring the files seems the only plausible option. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That speedy deletion is a no go, there was no need to hurry. There was more than enough evidence for license revoking than anything else that required a thorough investigation. This user always listed the images as own work, had them as own images in his upload gallery and he even called them "my images" on de wiki. Also the two images mentined in the DR are still available at the fotocommunity page (as ARR), adding further doubts to the uploader's DR motives. --Denniss (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions are appropriate for copyright violations which have been recognized as such. And we do not ignore copyright violations just because a similar copyright violation continues to exist unchallenged elsewhere. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but if someone tries to remove all his images here, investing a lot of energy to acomplish this, but doesn't spend the same energy on his other sites/accounts this is more than fishy. The only conclusion so far is license revocation (most likely because he wants to make money from these images but can't do so if the free versions are still here). This is why they should not have been speedied without having other OTRS agents triple-check the claims made in these mails. The evidence stated in this DR should have at least raised an eyebrow, currently it looks like this was completely ignored. --Denniss (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an OTRS volunteer, nor do I speak German, the story seems extremely unlikely. Having requested deletion of a single image, twice for different reasons, the user suddenly decides it, and every other photo they uploaded, is a copyvio? Including ones where it's clearly bs (File:Teufel Preisliste.png, File:Askania Logo.png)? It stinks. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. according to FG the copyright owner Martin Emmert 70+ and doesn't speak english [1]. Ok, but in an extraordenary way, FG seams to know another Martin Emmert doesn't look like 70+, cf. Google Plus Profiles and "circles" of FG and EM. --Cepheiden (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. If this is all correct, why did FG ask someone else to check the licence [2] before he uses FG's image File:Ciné-Kodak_Special_II_b.jpg ? That's all very mystrious and i think i will never believe this story. But in OTRS we have to trust even in this case of multiple tries to delete or "down grade" the pictures[reply]

OTRS volunteers do not make assumptions of bad faith in the absence of evidence and it is an expected courtesy to avoid using information given in unpublished emails in any case where the OTRS volunteer is directly involved, particularly where an email correspondent has already complained about their actions. This DR failed to respect these boundaries and regardless of whether the files are undeleted or not in the future, for this reason it does not show Jcb using their trusted rights as an admin or an OTRS volunteer in either a mellow or respectful fashion. --Fæ (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are thinking, but I did not reveal any private information from the tickets. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diff --Fæ (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was necessary information for the DR and did not reveal any private information. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider my statement it is an expected courtesy to avoid using information given in unpublished emails in any case where the OTRS volunteer is directly involved, particularly where an email correspondent has already complained about their actions. This level of courtesy should not be an unacceptable burden. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a breach of any sort as one expect the mail(s) to come from this user. --Denniss (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate OTRS tickets. One is from the uploader, the other appears to be from another party. Jcb's comment was in bad faith, making a public assertion that one email is a fake when there has been no accepted evidence that this is the case. Jcb could not have made this assertion without using their trusted rights as an OTRS volunteer to read the correspondence, which is in the middle of a case where one of the parties has made a complaint about their actions as a Commons administrator. Doing this in a public on-wiki discussion is not how OTRS volunteers are expected to respect confidentiality or act in a neutral manner. --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]