User talk:IronGargoyle

IronGargoyle is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1

File:王育德像.jpg

Hello. Was File:王育德像.jpg meant to be deleted or not? Thanks in advance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Now deleted. Must have glitched out. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black Metal, Literature and Mythology. The Case of Cornelius Jakhelln Image 25.png

@IronGargoyle: Please restore the file, it has been extracted from File:Black Metal, Literature and Mythology. The Case of Cornelius Jakhelln.pdf which is a document release through creative commons into the public domain. The file has been here for seven years, and I would expect to see a stronger argument put forward for deletion than the one presented, and have an expectation that a consensus be reached. Thanks. Please let me know when it is undeleted as I will need to fix the impacted work at English Wikisource.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: You are welcome to undelete the image if you want or upload it again as long as you fix the source. There is new information. There was nothing wrong with the close though. The image linked to a website that claimed to be all rights reserved in Icelandic and no one commented with evidence that the image was free. Stuff gets deleted when there is no objection all the time. There does not need to be consensus, just a reasonable suspicion that something is a copyright violation. With the new information you have given me, I can see that it might be free. I am a bit concerned by this journal though. The license statement on the journal itself is kind of wishy-washy and says that stuff may be CC, but not definitely. The photos in the journal also look dubious from a licensing perspective. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle: Mate, you can do better than that. I am not expecting perfection, though I am expecting you to take responsibility for your actions when they are right or less than right. There is no problem reviewing a decision when something is brought to your attention, and there is no expectation of perfection in these administrative roles.

• https://nome.unak.is/wordpress/
• statement of cc-by-sa => https://doaj.org/toc/1670-6242?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22terms%22%3A%7B%22index.issn.exact%22%3A%5B%221670-6242%22%5D%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22size%22%3A100%2C%22sort%22%3A%5B%7B%22created_date%22%3A%7B%22order%22%3A%22desc%22%7D%7D%5D%2C%22_source%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22track_total_hits%22%3Atrue%7D

The file was in use at enWS. and that is a publication in line with enWS's works released by cc-by-sa, and the image is part of the published work. So please undelete it, and let me know when it is undeleted so I can revert the edit at enWS

There is no ready and convenient way for enWS to know that a work has been nominated for deletion, and be able to track it, so please don't use that argument. Especially when a work has been there for 7 years. And please do not start the wikilawyering about the images in the journal being uncertain, that is a long bow to take, and is not part of our role. The work has been released and we are able to host it. We have an adequate defence about a 14 year old work that is online with a suitable licence and can respond to DCMA notices if they come.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I am aware of those links now, but none of them were linked in the original file description. It was only the all-rights-reserved link that was present. As I said, you are absolutely welcome to undelete the image yourself. You are an administrator on Commons too. The links above are an improvement to what was on the file description when it was deleted, though as I mentioned I still have concerns and COM:PRP outweighs the fact that we "can respond to [DMCA] notices if they come”. I have no problem with my actions being questioned. I make as many mistakes as the next person and own up to them when I do. After reflection, however, I still believe that I was 100% in the right given the information that was available to me at the time. You are welcome to rake me over the coals at some noticeboard if you want. I am not sure what else there is to say here. I feel like I have mostly been repeating myself. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I know well that I can undelete it. I am here asking you to undelete it as you deleted it, and presented the evidence for you to make that assessment and act. My request with evidence should be treated based on the facts and the argument, not on my role. I am not hauling you over coals, I am not ripping you a new orifice, nor taking you to a noticeboard. I am simply asking for you to undelete it. I am not sure how else to make such a request giving you the opportunity to do it.

Please reread PRP as your interpretation has not given sufficient weight to the fact that the work is published under a suitable licence. The PRP says significant doubt and that simply cannot the case with a 2009 published work with cc-by-sa licence. If you have significant doubt then why not seek another opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I took the tone of your request to indicate that you wanted me to admit I had done something wrong in how I closed the discussion supposedly without consensus and/or without adequate reason (reinforced by the fact that you edited an archived closed deletion request (!) instead of leaving a pleasant note on my talk page). You could have just said "Oh, hey, I didn't notice this deletion request before the file got deleted. Here's some more evidence that wasn't on the file description page". I also would have been fine if you just undeleted it without asking me (as long as you fixed the inadequate evidence of permission). That's not reversing my action as far as I'm concerned. It's just fixing the encyclopedia. I was trying to be gracious in saying "you are welcome to undelete the image". I then explained my further concerns (because I do have them). I'll undelete the image because it seems important to you that I be the one to push the button, though I'm not sure why. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Samer787

Hi, You closed only half of the DR. Is this intentional? Yann (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Not intentional. I was just skimming through the daily log page and I didn't notice the header above had the same title. I just closed the other discussion too since the issue is similar. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I add this DR to the "Deletion requests/kept" category?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_©_Cynthia_van_Elk @IronGargoyle Can I add this DR to the "Deletion requests/kept" category? -- Ooligan (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure. You don't need to ask me to add a category. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please review for deletion

Greetings: As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Wagner Group.svg, please review these images for deletion:

• File:Flag of the Wagner Group (variant 2).svg
• File:Flag_of_the_Wagner_Group_(variant_2).svg

Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I am a bit confused about what you are asking, sorry. They were just posted to DR. Are you asking me if I think they should be speedily deleted? Are you asking something else? I did close a Wagner Group image DR in the past, but I trust that anyone else in the admin corps could deal with these images too. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I suspect someone deleted them between when I saw them and when you looked? They were actual images, copies of some you had previously deleted and thus, I believe eligible for speedy. Best. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete please

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coprophilia Scatophilia - Jacky V.jpg is about scat porn uploaded by a blocked sock puppet and has a unanimous deletion agreement. I’m really shocked it hasn’t been closed yet— could you delete it? Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blessmon.jpg

hello you deleted the picture of blessmon, because of copyryght but he is my musical artist that's why I have permission to post the picture Blessmon365 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blessmon365: Permission isn't the only issue. The musician also does not seem to be within project scope of Wikimedia Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MALS-malayan tiger

Hi, Thanks for looking into this. These may be in the public domain, but they still have the wrong date, author, source, and license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

re-nomination of Schoolgirls in Dorking, London (6258299657) (cropped).jpg for deletion

Hi, I think File:Schoolgirls in Dorking, London (6258299657) (cropped).jpg should be re-nominated for deletion. You closed the deletion for two stated reasons, one of which is no longer true, and the other, I think, is plausibly in doubt. The first was that it was COM:INUSE by another project, Wikipedia. This is now no longer true. Its only use is on Brianjd's page, and it's only there as a result of the nomination for deletion. The second stated reason was that was that it did not violate COM:INUSE, specifically COM:DIGNITY. Opinions on that in the original discussion were decidedly mixed, but my reading of the discussion was that the use of the image on Wikipedia was a confounding factor for determining the relevance of COM:DIGNITY. Now that it is no longer in use I believe a second vote for deletion would clarify the issue.

Considering all the above I'm letting you know I'm thinking of renominating it. I've never actually submitted a nomination for deletion before so I also have a query about how to properly submit the request. This image is a cropped version of another image File:Schoolgirls in Dorking, London (6258299657).jpg. Would a nomination for one be taken to refer to both, assuming the cropping itself does not constitute a meaningfully different image in terms of guidelines? And should I nominate the original, or the cropped version as that's where the discussion has been thus far? Or does it not matter much? --Cyllel (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage you from doing so. The image is not removed from project scope simply because it was removed from the article(s). This is particularly true when an image was used in good faith for a significant period of time. I should note that violating COM:IDENT would indeed be sufficient justification to delete the image even if it was in use or otherwise in scope, but the file did not violate the COM:IDENT policy. Firstly, the subjects are not identifiable, the photograph was not taken in a jurisdiction where the subjects would need to consent even if they were identifiable in a public place, and the concerns regarding COM:DIGNITY in the discussion largely surrounded the inappropriate captions and these concerns were dealt with via ordinary editing of the description. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I disagree that my original concerns regarding COM:DIGNITY were dealt with by merely removing the description, as the link to the original Flickr source remains, which makes clear its "creepshot" provenance. That was always my original concern. All we have done is hidden offending material which makes clear that provenance - an argument could be made that this is worse, because it suggests that we know we're doing something wrong by using the image. I also disagree that the discussion in the previous request for deletion came to the conclusion that the concerns had been dealt with by editing the description. As Rhododendrites put it (emphasis mine):

There's no legal problem (taken in public in the UK), but it's a tough call as far as the moral question. ... Where it gets tricky is in the information we have. In some cases, we can simply rename, change the description, and so on, but here no matter what we do we'll always have to link to the Flickr source, where (a) the exact location of the photo is documented, eroding part of the unidentifiable claim, and (b) his intention is made clear: he wanted a photo of the young girls' legs. As COM:DIGNITY says, we don't need to see the face to refuse to host creepshots. I wouldn't be voting to delete based just on the photo, but Weak Delete based on the provenance/context.

So clearly some users were of the opinion that it's not the text per se, but the source itself, and I don't believe this issue was ever resolved. We can't delete the source. I must admit I'm a little confused as to why you bring up the notion of identity or legality, so I'll try to be clearer as to why I don't think this is relevant. It is COM:DIGNITY specifically that I'm referencing, which makes clear that neither the subjects being unidentifiable nor the image being legal are in and of themselves a reason to keep an image (emphasis mine):

...Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law. The extent to which an image might be regarded as "unfairly obtained" or to be "intrusive", for example, is a matter of degree and may depend on the nature of the shot, the location, and the notability of the subject.

The provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. A "downblouse" or "creepshot" photograph is not made ethically acceptable just because the subject's face is cropped out A paparazzi telephoto shot of a naked sunbather does not become acceptable merely by pixelating the face.

In the same way as quality newspapers may apply a "public interest" test to doubtful images, the degree to which an image meets our educational project scope may also be considered. When in doubt, there is no requirement for Commons to host any image of a person.

I think that with the image now removed from Wikipedia we should resolve the original argument for deletion advanced by myself, Rhododendrites, and others, that its provenance is, to use the wording of COM:DIGNITY, irredeemably tainted. This makes another nomination justifiable. Cyllel (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the ping, but don't really have anything to add beyond what I said in the DR (as quoted above). INUSE/SCOPE are irrelevant to this particular case. It's just a matter of COM:DIGNITY:
(1) to what extent are they identifiable thanks to the exact location being provided?
(2) Regardless of whether they're identifiable, to what extent is the image itself similar to an upskirt/downblouse/creepshot, which doesn't require the subject to be identifiable?
(3) Regardless of whether it looks like a "creepshot", the language of the photographer betrays that it is one. Even if we remove that language from Commons, we're required to link to it on Flickr. To what extent should knowledge of the provenance influence our determination of a tainted provenance, and to what extent should we consider language on the sites we link to in contextualizing an image?
For me, I find this case to be 90% about #3. The fact that we know it's a creepshot, and link to that fact, means it should be deleted. Changing the description on Commons isn't good enough. I admit it's a difficult case, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it. --Cyllel (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)