Commons:Deletion requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons.

This file was initially tagged by VoidseekerNZ as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason for removal goes here
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Image was uploaded by VoidseekerNZ under a CC license > 3 weeks ago. CC licenses are considered to be non-revokable. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

why is this still up? i have wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia has zero rights or license to host my images and i request, for the third time, that my image no longer be hosted against my wishes on your website. please promptly delete it and stop denying my requests! you are stealing my personal work. i have never given permission for my images to be hosted on your website and you are currently committing direct copyright violation! the image isn't even being used anywhere so stop being difficult. this is ridiculous! first you change the website and then you steal my photos! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia are not hosting your image, Wikimedia Commons is. Sorry if i'm being pedantic but there's little the folks at Wikipedia can do other than removing your photograph from the Wikipedia article it's used on Trade (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. On December 26, 2022, you, User:VoidseekerNZ, uploaded this image under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license [1]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

that was not me and deny this action taking place. if it did happen, it occurred without my knowledge and was obtained without my consent. i formally request a takedown of this image that i own full intellectual rights over. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Log-entry: [2]. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

what? i dont understand. please rectify this shortly i will add another speedy deletion request as this directly deals with a copyright violation and this isn't helpful. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The log-entry shows that this image was uploaded from your user-account. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

does the log entry show my fingerprint and DNA too? anyone could have done that. i have never knowingly given my permission for a creative commons attribution to be added to this photo and have stated *multiple times* that this is my own personal copyrighted material. i actively use this work for a commercial purpose. perhaps someone else with access to my network uploaded it by mistake; i do not know. but i do know for a fact that i, as the legal copyright holder for this image, never approved any outside usage of my own hard work (which took literally hundreds of hours of research, travel and exploring to capture, by the way) and that this is outright theft of my intellectual property! please immediately cease and desist from the theft of my copyrighted material! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would someone steal your account just to upload your pictures? Trade (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

im assuming this was done in mistake by someone else with access to my computer. my son loves my snail photos, i may have left wiki open. im not sure, this happened around christmas and there were a lot of people around. i had no knowledge of these photos being online in ANY capacity until i signed in to change the vector 2022 skin. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: Have you discussed this matter with your son? Has he reached the age of majority?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm not sure why we care about that; I don't think anyone here believes that the son is the copyright holder, so whether or not the son is legally competent to issue a license shouldn't matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Also, even if it were somehow relevant, it’s not the sort of thing we should be asking about on a public forum. Brianjd (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete (see below for why this has changed). Keep pending investigation of the alleged compromise of VNZ's account. If VNZ's intellectual property has been stolen, it's not Wikimedia's fault that VNZ did not secure their account and computer systems from unauthorized access. But since we currently have no proof of identity from VNZ, we'll need to assume that things are as they seem. Elizium23 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  just to be clear, you're asserting that you want wikimedia to assert ownership of my legal intellectual property? are you speaking as a representative of wikipedia right now? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you ask? Are you preparing to issue further legal threats? Elizium23 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  i don't recall threatening anything, you're the one who is attempting to deny my legal ownership of this photo and making block requests against me... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ: The majority of people you encounter on Wikimedia sites (such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) are unpaid volunteers. We operate by following policies and guidelines and resolve problems by discussion. While I can understand that you are feeling strong emotions at the moment, it is important to remember that the people you are dealing with are volunteers. Making comments that other volunteers are trying to steal your copyright or are otherwise acting inappropriately is likely to escalate the emotional tension and make resolution of this harder. In terms of blocking there are 3 scenarios here.

  1. Your account has been compromised and we are currently talking to the hacker/malicious actor - a block and investigation in this situation would protect the original account holder.
  2. Your account has been compromised and we are talking to the true account holder - a block to prevent access by the malicious actor while the situation is investigated and you secure your account will protect both you and Wikimedia.
  3. The file was uploaded by you and the claim that your account has been compromised is untrue. While this is a possibility we must (prior to any investigation) operate on the assumption that your previous statement about using a compromised account is correct. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     i dont really care, block me if you must, but please remove the copyright violation then you can do whatever you like. thanks for the more thoughtful response. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     also, why is hacker/malicious actor the only option? i dont know how it got there. perhaps there was some bug on wikipedias end. we dont know currently. all i know is i certainly didn't knowingly provide said creative commons license and it has been erroneously provided and is clearly a mistake. there is no way i would ever knowingly give this image away for free, and it's ludicrous that i have to even be questioned on that. what happened to the wikipedia stance of assuming what a user says is true? i uploaded the image and i am directly informing you that wikipedia does not have the legal right to use this image. anything else isn't that relevant, wikipedia is currently hosting a copyrighted commercial image that i am directly telling everyone about, once again, is all rights reserved. i cannot be any clearer on these statements. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     For this to have been a bug, Wikipedia must have been accessed on a system where your file was saved. Your account must have been logged in. The bug must have chosen this specific file, added a relevant description, supporting details and licence and then confirmed the upload. Our system does not have that level of AI or automation, so a human must have been involved in the upload. That leaves either the original account holder or a hacker/malicious actor. Assuming all of your statements are true, you are operating a compromised account where you don't know how the compromise took place (we must assume that the malicious actor still has access to your account and any comment made by you could in fact be by the malicious actor). From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     i cant help but feel what should be a quick and simple speedy deletion is being needlessly hindered, i see hundreds of other examples of copyright violations being dealt with expediently with no hassle but every step i take is met with obstacles simply because i am unfamiliar with the website! this is a clear cut simple case of copyright violation and i have been extremely clear in that, it's all the other stuff being pulled into this that is making it exceedingly difficult. why are we discussing blocks when a simple removal of this copyrighted work would have saved us all a lot of typing already? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

     The issue of a potentially compromised account is likely to slow down the process more than anything. We first need to decide if we are talking to the original account holder or the malicious actor. If the malicious actor is asking for deletion of the file then rushing to delete will cause harm to the copyright holder. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per everyone but VoidseekerNZ. I have made sure that the WMF's Compromised Account Team is aware of the situation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

someone i believe to be an admin said delete here...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#user:VoidseekerNZ VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info @VoidseekerNZ: Andy Dingley is not an administrator. Usually administrators have a {{User admin}} box on their user page and you can find a list of all current admins on the page "Commons:Administrators". TilmannR (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep as image originally uploaded contains acceptable (and irrevocable) sharing licence (CC-BY-SA). Unfortunately, this attempt to delete the image file comes three weeks after the original upload and only 8 minutes after protesting the new Vector 2022 implementation on en:WP. Loopy30 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

i dont see how the two are related. that is true, and if i will be blocked for that, so be it. but i only noticed the illegal copyright works on here when i was forced to log in to this account to get back to my old skin. the two matters are not related and it feels rather punitive to hold my copyright hostage over it. that doesn't sound like the spirit of wikipedia to me. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind letting me in on what Vector 2022 is? Trade (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

it's the new default skin on Wikipedia. A lot of people dislike it. DS (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Beautiful snail, beautiful image. Free licenses are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep the file and block this user to avoid any further “mistakes”. Protesting the new Vector 2022 implementation on en:WP is an example of a stopped clock being right, and refusal to use capital letters is once more a red flag. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

its kinda shocking how many people here are willing to actively support flagrant copyright. as stated, there was never a free license granted in the first place. it being irrevocable is relevant, as there is nothing to revoke. i am the copyright owner and i have all documentation as the original photographer that this photo is all rights reserved, actively for sale, and has been for years. any licensing you have seen on here is false and is a flagrant violation of my copyright. i have made this perfectly clear so there can be no ambiguity, i took this photo but i never granted a free licence to anybody.

also, the image is mislabelled, so it is of no use to wikipedia anyway! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

this current discussion breaches numerous codes of copyright conduct i can find as a brand new user, such as some of the ones relating to "non-free content";

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2

"The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.

images:

... 10. An image with an unknown or unverifiable origin. This does not apply to historical images, where sometimes only secondary sources are known, as the ultimate source of some historical images may never be known with certainty.

... 12. A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ: Wikipedia's policies for non-free content are not applicable for two reasons:

1. This are the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia
2. The image seems to be under a free license, not non-free

TilmannR (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

as i have stated multipele times the image IS NOT UNDER A FREE LICENCE. just writing FREE LICENCE on something doesn't give you a free licence! that is theft! even if i accidentally did it (something i wholeheartedly deny having a memory of) i never KNOWINGLY did it, so you never had my consent to create a lincese. ergo, when you say it is a free licence, you are lying and stealing my work! i am trying my best to be civil here but some of you are being extremely disrespectful an difficult over and extremely simple matter of deleting a stupid picture of a stupid snail that no one is *ever* going to look at. what are we even doing here?

this website is an absolute monstrosity, how is it so difficult to do something so basically simple like delete my own photos off my profile! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"just writing FREE LICENCE on something" doesn't apply here since no=one ahs done tat. th lcience was agreed to it was uplaoded by your account. You can't delete the image, because the licence is irrevocable, as stated on the screen where the licence was agreed to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mislabelled, heh. I guess we'll require a bona fide entomologist to tell us what manner of snail this depicts now. I think Category:Streisand effect will be applicable here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

small point of clarification - a malacologist studies snails, whereas entomologists would study insects (and other arthropods). Loopy30 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

good luck finding one, i am one of the only two people in NZ qualified to comment on this extremely rare specimen. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we've found a copy of the photo in question. It's licensed CC-BY-NC from March 2022. This is a license incompatible with Commons.

Three different accounts on inaturalist.org independently identified this photo as the species it is labelled as, including someone whose profile matches @VoidseekerNZ. No commenter has contradicted this or criticized the alleged identifications.

The "observations" posted on inaturalist.org total 65 and each one comes with at least 1 photo attached and licensed as CC-BY-NC.

Since we have confirmed a prior upload of this photo by incompatible license, I think the policies lead us to delete our copy. We're unable to consider this a valid relicense by the copyright holder without a COM:VRT confirmation of identity. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

there is no copy of the photo in question. those are all different photos from a similar area of different snails, and are corroborating evidence of this photo being a stolen piece of my copyright. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there were three photos when we looked at that website a few minutes ago, so I'm forced to conclude that our chains are being yanked and the third photo (which was an exact match) has been deleted within the past few minutes. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The "original size" photo on inaturalist.org is 2048x1365. The copy on Commons is 5184x3456, so about twice the resolution. It is highly unusual, but not impossible, for a pirate to upscale an image and put it in a higher-resolution format than the one posted by void1's account in March 2022. Quite a remarkable situation, I must say! Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

could you elaborate? what does this mean? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It menas that the (larger) version of the image on Commons did not come from iNaturaist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ your unique qualifications will surely help you pass the notability guideline for scholars on Wikipedia. Then we can write biographical articles about you and your colleague. Wouldn't that be interesting? Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per photographer request (it's over 7 days, but not a month yet), COM:PRP and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#user:VoidseekerNZ Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for sharing this vital piece of info. if there are continuing policy violations how do i escalate this so admins can look at the policy violators? sorry, i dont know how the conduct works here, but i see anyone can raise block requests against me? does it work both ways? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please send an email to copyvio-commonswikimedia.org and explain your situation. This team (read: the email) are dedicated to handle copyright violations and as such would they would by far be the ones most likely to be able to help you.

If that doesn't work and you wish to deal with this through judicial means you have the option to issue a DMCA takedowns as a last resort Trade (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

how do i contact this org other than email? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I no longer request deletion of this. It was uploaded by the VoidseekerNZ account and CC licences are irrevocable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: VoidseekerNZ is now pleading on en:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Linked here from WP. The author clearly didn't read the TOS, and their claims of compromised account don't pass the sniff test. But it's only been a few weeks with an intervening holiday, and we shouldn't play gotcha with the licensing - that doesn't feel like we're doing the right thing here. VQuakr (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC) - Make that Keep per the admitted trolling. VQuakr (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Surely any checkuser could take a look and see whether or not his account truly has been used by someone else (accessed from a different device, IP adress, yadayada) Trade (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. But what I'm saying is that that's not really relevant to my !vote here. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm mostly just baffle why we spend so much time arguing with him about it Trade (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  you and i both.... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  thank you very very much i really appreciate the voice of reason this has been quite an upsetting experience VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Weak delete The claim of a compromised computer does not pass the sniff test; if the upload was made knowingly, then the file would be validly licensed. However, while high quality, the file is unused in any project and the file was uploaded relatively recently. I agree that the speedy was not correct, as this is well past the time limit, but I don't see any re-use of the photo on external websites under CC-BY-SA when using google tineye (the photo is on inaturalist, and has been since October 2022, but it is under CC-BY-NC). While this is entirely optional on our end (I think it's more likely than not that there exists a valid CC-BY-SA license here; one cannot validly assert taking back my copyright, only photos of Powelliphanta patrickensis belong to me as a reason to void a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license), and while the uploader is being somewhat aggressive in tone and language, I think that we should delete the file as a courtesy to the uploader. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  if you check that photo now, you will see it is set to "all rights reserved". as it always was, despite what this misleading and anti-user system was trying to portray.

  that being said, thank you very much. i apologise if i came across as aggressive, but that is not my intention, i am simply trying to protect something that is very valuable to me that i put a lot of work and research into, and it feels like it is currently being stolen from me. i feel indignant at some of the flagrant disrespect for my work here and have been quite upset at the process, not to mention my endless frustrations trying to navigate the labyrinth that i never knew runs underneath wikipedia articles. i'm sure people who edit wikipedia articles can sympathise somewhat with that? i apologise nonetheless, as i never meant to offend, but i also feel i am somewhat owed apologies myself and feel rather aggrieved at how particularly unhelpful most contributors have been thus far.

  on the other hand, thank you very much for your words, i appreciate that people are seeing sense, even if i disagree with parts of your reasoning. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ who cares how you relicense it now? This behavior of yours, to manipulate the external website as we discuss it here, is actually giving us valuable circumstantial evidence. We now have evidence that you are in control of your account here, and also that you are simultaneously in control of the account we've identified on inaturalist.org. The account holder on that website would not otherwise have ability or motive to move the goalposts in this particular way.

  So go ahead and plow through all 65 of your photos on the third-party website and relicense them to your heart's content. We've downloaded them and we can prove they were released and licensed CC-BY-NC by your inaturalist account.

  At this point I am satisfied that @VoidseekerNZ is the owner and controller of the identified account at inaturalist, and therefore we don't really have a policy-based decision to delete the file here.

  Courtesy deletion I wouldn't fight. I'm also not going to share my opinion on the courtesy, out of courtesy to everyone here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  "The account holder on that website would not otherwise have ability or motive to move the goalposts in this particular way."

  MOTIVE OR GOALPOST?! i have been EXPLICITLY clear since the outset this is ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. any other licenses you are digging out are also clear misattributions. hence why i am FIXING them to display their correct status! Something you are trying to overrule and deny me my legal right as i have never knowingly given CC licenses to the image in question! you are acting like an information pirate and i am getting close to requesting mediation! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you are trying to protect the value of the photograph for you and your livelihood, though you may find that people on Commons are a lot more likely to accommodate courtesy deletions at COM:DR if you ask politely (even if you're right, people are nicer when one is polite).

  For what it's worth, the photo has been under CC-BY-NC since 2021, but that license contains a noncommercial restriction. That's not a revocable license, and what it allows is for people to use the image for noncommercial purposes so long as they credit you for it. We're technically complying with that license by hosting on Commons (this is an educational project and we're giving credit; there isn't a sharealike component so I think Commons meets the letter), but we actively choose not to re-host those images because we believe in making things free for commercial re-use. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  The file is unused because of a few factors: there are only two Wikipedias where this consensus-identified species has an article: en:Powelliphanta patrickensis and ceb:Powelliphanta patrickensis. The uploader (or someone using their account) has been edit-warring to keep it removed from the English article. I initially placed it in the Cebuano article, but in light of the prior incompatible license and my delete stance, I removed it from that article as well.

  That being said, this photo does have educational value, and is fairly unique. There appears to be only one other photo of this consensus-identified species on Commons, and this is the only one that displays the animal out of its shell. If kept, this would be a valuable high-quality addition to the articles on this species. Plus it would adorn any future BLP article about the uploader too, scholar that they are. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the photo has educational value and is unique, and it saddens me to support deletion, but I do think that it's still in the range where we should extend courtesy deletion to uploaders. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  in future, perhaps dealing with me more cordially would have been a better way to go about it. all my good will for wikipedia to use my high quality images (which i have a lot more of by the way) has disappeared. so if you want to use them, think about how to ask for them next time. sorry. if you check the photo on inaturalist now you will see it is all rights reserved and any upload on here is a flagrant violation of copyright - as i have already expressly communicated multiple times through direct communication despite what appears to be multiple people attempting to steal my work.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  The 3 same photos have been picked up by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). GBIF Terms of Use. CC-BY-NC 4.0, by the same user who seeks to void their license. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  hey redtail, if you check the image now you will see inaturalist has recognised my copyright claim and taken down the illegitimate CC license and accompanying photo many here are wrongly arguing for.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Though it seems that VoidseekerNZ has uploaded this photo elsewhere as CC-BY-NC, they uploaded it here more recently with a new license of CC-BY-SA. The uploader expressed their desire to "retract all creative commons attributions", but such licenses are irrevocable. Elizium23 has pointed out the photo's rarity and educational value, so it's within the project's scope. Barring investigative evidence of an actual compromised account by Commons contributors with such abilities, we should keep the photo. Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  that was not a definitive statement of my beliefs, i didn't know that was a public setting, i thought i just clicked that button and typed some nonsense and poof my photo would be gone. i didn't know i needed trial by court martial or else i would have considered my earlier statements more carefully, i didn't care to explain myself because i didn't think anyone really gave a shit to be perfectly frank, mind my french. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  FYI, you are currently advocating that an "all rights reserved" image hosted on another website be hosted on wikimedia against the owners wishers. is that correct? bear in mind the CC license you keep referring to is fraudulent and false and never had my knowledge or blessing.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  The more you change your license terms, the more different ways there are for anyone to use your work. Have you read Terms of Use at iNaturalist.org?

  By submitting Content to iNaturalist for inclusion on the Platform, You grant iNaturalist a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt, and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing, and promoting Your observations and journal via iNaturalist, and for the purpose of displaying or promoting the Content or iNaturalist itself in other venues, such as social media or software distribution platforms. We may repackage publicly available information associated with the Content in a machine-readable format for a handful of partners, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (“GBIF”) and the Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) Open Data Sponsorship Program, and others. You represent and warrant that (a) You own and control all of the rights to the Content that You post or You otherwise have the right to post such Content to the Site; (b) the Content is accurate and not misleading; and (c) use and posting of the Content You supply does not violate these Terms of Use and will not violate any rights of or cause injury to any person or entity. If You delete Content, iNaturalist will use reasonable efforts to remove it from the Platform, but You acknowledge that caching or references to the Content may not be made unavailable immediately.

  So every time you relicense, you just add a link to the chain. I am not a lawyer, but it does not appear that any license is revocable by your say-so in a chat forum.

  1. CC-BY-NC upon upload to iNaturalist
  2. World-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to iNaturalist per TOS
  3. CC-BY-SA 4.0 at Wikimedia Commons
  4. "All rights reserved" standard copyright as you slowly, one-by-one relicense the files we point out.

  Your two accounts claim to be the author of these photos and the owner of their copyright. Irrevocable licensing means that anyone can pick-and-choose from among the licenses your accounts have published. Anyone but you, of course. You can't pick-and-choose to revoke Wikimedia's license (or iNaturalist's licenses, or Elizium23's license) to use your content: it's the host's choice, and user's choice, we're the licensees. Sorry about that. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any other licenses. They were not communicated to me, they are fraudulent, and they exist without my knowledge. I am the owner of the image and this image has ALWAYS been all rights reserved and anything else is a deliberate lie and a misrepresentation of my hard work, sweat and tears!

  this is a disgrace! i am in shock right now VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ "I am not aware of any other licenses". You were not aware of iNaturalist's license terms of CC-BY-NC when you uploaded your pictures there? David10244 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  hey Elizium, id like to remind you that said image is a copyright violation and the current CC license you hold for it is illegitimate and illegal. as the owner of the copyright, i dont mind if you keep the photo for personal use or admiration, but i would appreciate it if you did not share, post or in any way disclose this photo to any other party.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245?size=original VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not an "all rights reserved" photo. It was uploaded under a CC-BY-NC license in 2021, [3], and only recently changed to say "all rights reserved". But CC licenses are irrevocable. It would be much more palatable to be supporting your request if you acknowledged that you are asking for a courtesy to be done here rather than writing some horrible wrong. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr: While I understand that VoidseekerNZ might not be the most sympathetic here, do we really want to withhold a courtesy deletion based on them not being polite? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: No. My !vote is further up. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd missed that; sorry. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect. there was never a legitimate issuance of a CC licence and your flagrant disregard for my wishes is highly insulting. you are sponsoring fraudulent licensing and actively engaging in license laundering. i am considering making a report to admins on a number of users. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You've uploaded the file on multiple sites under various Creative Commons licenses; it's really, really hard for me to accept that these were all done by some malicious actor, especially when you demonstrated your control of the iNaturalist account by changing the file licensing status. The only reason we are probably going to delete this is as a courtesy to you, VoidseekerNZ, and I think we would appreciate if you didn't bludgeon everyone here who slightly disagrees with you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

the photo in question has also been removed from inaturalist for copyright violation. im afraid you should be accepting that, as all evidence is clearly pointing to the CC license being fraudulent.

https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245?size=original VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Thanks to Red-tailed hawk's sleuthing, the file was clearly released elsewhere first under an incompatible licence.[4] Standard practice in these situations is to ask the uploader to submit evidence to the Commons:VRT to show that they have the authority to release the image under a more permissible licence. Given the discussions so far, it is safe to assume that the uploader will not be sending VRT any such evidence and we must delete the file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Further to King of Hearts' interpretation below, I would point out that I would support a courtesy deletion even if the closing admin finds my initial reasoning flawed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   Keep We have gone way beyond the realms of courtesy deletion at this point. The user claimed to not understand what had happened, then claimed to maybe having forgotten about the upload, then claimed to have been away from their device for a week when the upload happened (this being uploaded the day after Christmas, suddenly remembering they were away for a week is implausible). What we can prove is that the uploader has control (either directly or by a third party) of an account on an external website where a lower resolution version of the same file was present for over a year. The user (now blocked) claims to be a minor (despite previously claiming to be a father parent) in an attempt to invoke precedent of deletion in a previous case where a minor uploaded a file under CC licence and then asked for deletion. A key difference in that case though was the image was clearly out of project scope (a collage of random images to present a nonsense picture). The amount of lies and baseless claims, together with the sheer disruption, make the prospect of courtesy deletion untenable. We must retain the image in order to prevent a precedent being set for future outrageous behaviour of this ilk. If the copyright holder wishes to delete this file then they should submit a DMCA notice to WMF, as suggested by many others. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanking you greatly. glad to see these latest comments, i am hesitant to ever release any of my valuable photographs to a field like this ever again now, im afraid. these are not even close to my most special works, thankfully, but it has been a very upsetting process nonetheless. appreciate your calm demeanour and logical outlook. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean with 'to a field like this'? Trade (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  well wikipedia or encyclopaedias in general, my appetite to contribute has greatly diminished today. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  also, let it be know inaturalist have respected my copyright claim and withdrawn the stolen image from their website also. i hope wiki will follow suit

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak  Delete (changed to neutral below). Contrary to From Hill To Shore's reasoning, I say that we in fact do have enough evidence to conclude that the user is the same person on iNaturalist, and would otherwise be keeping the image without the need for VRT: 1) the Commons image was uploaded at full resolution, a version not previously available online; 2) the iNaturalist user has a very similar username; 3) the iNaturalist user suddenly changed the licensing from CC-BY-NC to ARR which is very suspicious timing (in particular, they took actions after and in apparent response to things happening to the Commons account), which together put my confidence that they are the same user beyond the "significant doubt" standard of COM:PRP. However, I think we should just grant the courtesy deletion as a one-off, as long as we make sure this never happens again. One way to accomplish that is to block their account indefinitely, but alternatively they can state their understanding that everything they contribute to Wikimedia will be automatically released under a free license, and this courtesy will not be granted in the future even if they actually got hacked (boy who cried wolf...). If they are unwilling or unable to do whatever it takes to commit to never requesting revocation again (whether that consists of securing their computer or reading the terms of use carefully), then their account will need to remain blocked in order to protect their copyrights as well as the interests of reusers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i will agree to whatever you like as long as you help me in removing these flagrant copyright violations from Commons. i will happily accept a block if you like, i don't really care provided any of the users above don't start reuploading any of the images they downloaded.

  and here is also a promise that i have no intention to ever upload any of my IP to wikimedia *ever* again. also, i have secured my account today with 2fa on my email etc and am currently looking into "boot disc encryption". VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  As long as all those downloaded images are only CC-BY-NC and not CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, then Commons will not allow for their upload. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  "are only CC-BY-NC and not CC-BY or CC-BY-SA"

  i dont really know what those words mean. they're "all rights reserved", i have never given consent for any of these images to be used on wikimedia. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Do we have a policy that justifies blocks in cases like this? Trade (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  This courtesy deletion request, per policy, should not be granted. Therefore we can impose conditions on granting this policy exception; they are free at any time to not accept the conditions and withdraw the request. There was a previous case of a user who wanted revoke a license and actually had legal justification (he was a minor at the time of upload and considered legally incompetent). The image was deleted and he was indefinitely blocked until he demonstrated his understanding of copyright licenses and agreed to never do this again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  also, i would like to request any evidence that shows that i, Voidseeker the person who goes by that alias, was the person actually at the account. considering i wasn't even home the week of december 26th it's very odd to me that you allege i magically gave a consent in that time period. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  You can ask any of the five CheckUsers to check your account Trade (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is that if we allowed anyone to use the excuse "I got hacked", then it would mean that free licenses on Wikimedia Commons are, in practice, revocable at any time. And that's something we want to avoid at all cost because it goes against the principles of the free-content movement, which state that free content should be usable by anyone anywhere for any purpose for any period of time. You are free to not contribute to the free-content pool, but you are not free to change your mind. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  You dont think the hacking claim should be investigated? Trade (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Remember: No full-resolution copy of this image existed on the internet prior to its upload to Commons. So if there was a hacker, they would most likely have used the uploader's own computer, probably on the uploader's own network, which would be indistinguishable from actual activity from the legitimate account owner. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it should - but we're not the people to do it. The complainant is at liberty to contact their local law enfocement agency and request such an investigation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  "You are free to not contribute to the free-content pool, but you are not free to change your mind"

  that is perfectly fine, and i respect that entirely. but i have stated, multiple, multiple times that i categorically never gave consent for this license as the owner, and am just being accused of lying pretty much. i was not even at my home at the time this took place. so i want the evidence. if i am a liar, please show me why you believe so. the principles of assume good faith are being held very inconsistently in this thread in my opinion. can someone just delete my photo already, i could have been gone 8 hours ago! which one of you has the ability? just push that delete button and we can all just move on with our lives instead of fighting over my photographs like they're a rotten carcass shared between dogs! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, i dont see much in keeping this discussion open any longer not that the issue has been settled Trade (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  well where else can i discuss this? no one wants to talk to me on discord either and i cant find a customer support line for wiki. im sorry if this is the wrong place for this discussion but i don't know how else to get my point across. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you're telling the truth, then the most plausible explanation is that someone you know got onto your computer and made the upload. In that case even 2FA or a strong password would not be sufficient. To defend against unauthorized in-person use of an existing login session, you should never click the "Keep me logged in" box when logging in and make sure you exit out of every browser window each time you finish using the computer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  and im telling the truth too, that's why i'm so frustrated. have you ever been right and nobody believed you? and did you have an important piece of commercial data other people are relying on hanging in the balance? i never approved this license, i never ticked that box, i never uploaded that photo, i swear on my life. i wholeheartedly apologise for how angry i am getting but i am stressed and upset about this whole situation and i just want someone to fix it, this is so much more complicated than it needs to be from my perspective... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  im sorry that comment still didn't come off how i meant to im just really bitter, that was meant to be an apology. im sorry. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I literally said i supported the deletion because there is no point in keep debating that it's a copyright violation Trade (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ Did you ask your son if he did this? David10244 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  And I'm not against a courtesy deletion. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @David10244 Like I said above, I don’t think we should be discussing the user’s (presumably underage) child in a public forum. Brianjd (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Brianjd I didn't get that impression, but ok. David10244 (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  i would like to point out that inaturalist has recognised by assertion of the false attribution and has removed the photo in question from their website for copyright violation. i hope wikimedia finds the way to a similar conclusion promptly.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245 VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain why the account that flagged the photo is the same account that uploaded the photo? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  the photo has been flagged for copyright violation and inaturalist has respected the wishes of the request, as it is clearly *my* IP. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming the account void1 does belong to you, there are two possibilities here. If the photo has been uploaded by your account to iNaturalist in 2021 without your authorization, how can you not have noticed for two years? On the other hand, if it was you who uploaded it to iNaturalist, then the answer is simple: Most websites allow the uploader to remove an image for any reason whatsoever. We don't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  the image wasn't removed. it was flagged and removed for copyright violation as the CC license was misattributed. i have confirmed multiple times there is no CC license for this work and i have never been aware of one. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  So you acknowledge that you were the one that uploaded it to iNaturalist? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  ongoing disputes with other organisations are confidential and commercially sensitive. all i see as relevant at this juncture is that the photo has been upheld a violation of copyright by a neutral 3rd party. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  This should be a very simple factual question: Did you or did you not take a specific action in 2021? This is why people don't believe you. None of the evidence makes any sense, so you're going to have to give us a very good explanation for us to believe you. I'm sure you understand why we can't simply accept, without proof, every claim of copyright infringement that comes our way. I'm happy to grant your request whatever your real reason is, but if you fail to provide a satisfactory explanation then you can't expect people to respect you afterwards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i am not aware of how this photo was given CC licensing as i have stated many many times. it happened on a date when i was not home. i was not able to access the only device that had access to said high resolution copies.

  i am the only person who knows the true origin of these photos, and as such, if im an unreliable witness how can you know if you can believe anything i say? why do people pick and choose how to apply the "assume good faith" principle? either you believe that i am the author of the photo, or you believe that im a liar. which is it?

  this entire process is exceedingly frustrating and i am rapidly approaching a situation where it would be easier to just lie and claim i never took the photos and falsely uploaded them in 2021 without permission and told you these are all stolen. then, to the best of my knowledge, the licenses would be proven false and the images would be removed due to the illegitimate licenses, someone who didnt take the photo cannot give CC license. is that what you guys would like? im sorry but this is just insanity to me, it seems like so much kerfuffle over such a simple thing... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here are some facts: 1) The photo was uploaded to Commons in December 2022 using your account VoidseekerNZ (evidence). 2) The photo was uploaded to iNaturalist using the account void1 some time before September 2021 (evidence). 3) The photo was flagged for copyright infringement on iNaturalist using the account void1 just now (evidence). Your explanation of 1 about unauthorized use of your account, while unproven, is at least believable. However, you have not given any plausible explanation of how 2 and 3 could have happened. Let me ask you again: Is the user void1 a) you; b) someone you know; or c) someone random you don't know? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  and i do not wish to answer for i do not trust what you want to do with that information. this feels like a trick question. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Since the answer must be one of the three, I will analyze each case. a) That means your iNaturalist account uploaded the image in 2021. If you were in control of the account, then just admit that you changed your mind or simply didn't know what you were doing / read the terms carefully when uploading. (Or are you accusing iNaturalist of randomly applying a CC license to your work without your consent?) If you weren't in control of the account, I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't notice all this unauthorized activity going on for 2 years; this is not the same as Commons where it's been under a month. b) This is a massive stretch, but it would go like this: Your friend uploaded them to iNaturalist without your permission, and now you asked them to take them down. Still doesn't explain why void1 reported the image instead of simply deleting it. c) There's no way I'll believe this is true, unless iNaturalist is lying about the identity of the reporter. This would require me to believe that some random person who stole your images in 2021 is coincidentally reporting their own upload just now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i am concerned that if i reply i will provide some sort of damning information out of ignorance that will paint the CC licence to be correct and override my legal copyright. so i am declining to answer this specific question out of fear of incorrectly applied legal reprisal. i do not know how this image we are discussing on wikipedia received a CC attribution. that is the relevant factor. that photo is ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. thanks for understanding. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  User deleted his account and images on inaturalist which unfortunately works against him now, he could have easily tagged his image for DR citing he didn't realise Wikipedia didn't allow "non-commercial' images and then linked his inaturalist image to prove he owns the rights for the image and it would have been courtesy deleted, why did he have to make such a story, could have sought help of one of the admins, We all have uhm, regrettably 'drunk-posted' things we should not have, I personally do feel the image should have been deleted as he originally added it to inaturalist under the CC-by-NC licence, as someone who has dealt with a lot of flickr users/uploaders here not understanding the basic creative commons licences and how it applies to wikimedia, I feel him but alas, he did it the wrong way.. this has now gone that famous Monkey Selfie route as to who now owns the right for this image if not the person who owns the camera...if the image is kept after this DR, might be a good idea to nominate it for "Quality Image" and later for featured Image, its a pretty farking good image (pardon my irish) IMO, quality wise and picture wise.. Stemoc 13:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is another reason that the Upload Wizard should have no default license. It actually has a default of CC BY-SA 4.0 – the same license as this file. Brianjd (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete This is not worth the trouble to keep. The closing admin can use whatever reason they desire to delete this photo. --Trade (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Keep If the claims are true, then it's a Foundation issue. If the claim is false, then allowing this to be deleted, despite logs showing the same user who claims copyright uploaded the photo would improperly open up any user who downloaded the file in good faith this past month to a claims of copyright infringement. There's good reason the license is irrevocable. Should circumstances change around who uploaded, feel free to ping as I would support a courtesy deletion that at least provides a record of the circumstances. Slywriter (talk)

  Would it help if we were to include a note in the closing summary or the deletion summary that there is a consensus that the file was validly uploaded by the copyright holder under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but we deleted it as a courtesy to the author? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I find this "slippery slope" argument quite weak. Most images have been on commons a lot longer than a few weeks, and most images are not contested in this way. Our deletion of one photo does not commit us to repeating the favor if a similar circumstance were to recur. VQuakr (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  im sorry but that's unacceptable and i would have to appeal that decision. i don't want to be difficult but i am not going to surrender my copyright. that is not something i am willing to compromise on. thanks for understanding. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Weak delete as a courtesy per King of Hearts. Graham11 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• I just read the entire thread. VoidseekerNZ should be blocked for their behavior, and the file should be kept unless there's any legal necessity to delete it. Under no circumstances should abusive users get the special favor of courtesy deletions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  with all due respect, i have not been in anyway been abusive and im sorry but i have to reject that allegation. i am only defending my legal intellectual property rights as the author of said photo. i never issued a CC license for this photo and any license on my work on this website is here expressly against my will. i apologise for getting emotional at points but this has been an extremely stressful and upsetting ordeal and i am terribly disappointed with my experience here. i simply want a simple solution that respects my legal rights to this work. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i just want to add some context here. this is not some trivial photograph i just found in my garden. this is a nationally endangered species, restricted to a very precise area that is not knowledge available to the general public, and took a great deal of research on my part to track down. then i had to travel hundreds of kilometres to the locality. i camped out for 6 days in a rainy mountain. then it took numerous excursions over multiple weeks during the night (they're nocturnal) from 10pm-4am, crawling through mud and rain (they dont like dry weather). i did all this on a shoestring budget and a selftaught knowledge on NZ ecology. local ecologists have previously recruited me in PhD research to assist in locating similar species in grid surveys for example. and this particular species is unidentified, and probably not even P. patrickensis and is from a currently unknown to science locality. hence why i am very upset about this very critical and vital piece of my portfolio being stolen by some unknown actor and posted on this site without my knowledge or permission!

  it's only a stroke of pure fortune i managed to discover this false CC license, as i never use wiki accounts! i only clicked around in this when i was looking to change from vector. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Weak delete as a courtesy. The image was Uploaded while editing "Powelliphanta patrickensis" on en.wikipedia.org, but no such edit shows up in the article's history. Independent of whether the uploader was VoidseekerNZ themself or an unauthorized family member, they ultimately decided against putting the image in the article and probably would have COM:CSD#G7'd the image in time, if they had been a more active or experienced user. TilmannR (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep: Changing my vote for the same reasons as Marchjuly and From Hill To Shore. TilmannR (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per "courtesy", "not worth the trouble" and "as a one-off" arguments. This is not a terribly important file, it was uploaded not that long ago (meaning, as TilmannR writes, if they requested deletion earlier than 7 days after the upload, we would have courtesy deleted the image without any fuss per CSD G7), and if the owner of the account insists that dramatically on deleting it, even though the given reasons and story change, I think that in this case, we shouldn't cling to the photo. It is, after all, also likely that the apparent uploader (who denies having uploaded the image) would try to go after good-faith external reusers of that photo in some way, as VoidseekerNZ now that strongly denies having ever agreed to the CC licence, so if we keep the photo, others might get into trouble. There aren't any other uploads by this account on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you for your reasonable consideration VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Delete the only relevant statement (and surely all they actually needed to say..) is "I'm assuming this was done in mistake by someone else with access to my computer. my son loves my snail photos, I may have left wiki open." Which is actually a reasonable and plausible explanation. If the file was not uploaded by the copyright holder, then it is not correctly licensed. JeffUK (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

i really appreciate that Jeff. thanks. at times it feels to me like this copyright discussion became a lot less about whether there is a verifiable copyright or it was felt that i was using the proper words to explain my position. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

could i possibly request someone to do an early closure of this deletion? i dont want to do it myself because i dont think thats how its meant to work from what ive read. but i feel this is the fastest and cleanest way to deal with it for everyone. if an admin could just close this request now and delete the illegally hosted images then i could leave and this entire thread would be over. i think that sounds like an outcome everyone would be relieved with. i hope people may find my compromise agreeable. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Compromise Why has no-one suggested that the image be replaced by a low-resolution (and possibly cropped) version, with earlier versions rev-deleted? That way, VoidseekerNZ's ability to generate income would be retained while Wikipedia would benefit by having the images included in articles. Indeed, their use here might encourage potential commercial purchasers to seek out the photographer. Other professional photographers (e.g. Ed Gold) have taken this approach.

Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

i may have been willing to discuss this earlier but im afraid my good will has entirely evaporated and i have no wish for any of my copyrighted materials to be on this website in any form. i may have been open to something like this earlier, but i have no wish to participate in wikipedia any longer. im sorry, i am not deliberately trying to be difficult and there is no malice here. if you think of any relevant points to my comment or any other fruitful compromises i am open to discussion. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Delete A fairly weak delete vote however the "courtesy" arguments above seem pertinent. I find it a little odd that the EXIF copyright fields were not completed if someone wished to express copyright but that may well be me. I think all the chatter is quite remarkable but what ever has happened I failed to see that anything very much is being gained by enforcing the licensing of this file (and it is so licensed and we could do that but is it really worth it...). Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Struck out per Xover etc. Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

i wish to remind everyone that the license is fraudulent and contested and i disagree there is a valid license. also, im not good with tags, and struggle with editing them, especially with large amounts of files. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ Contested, yes; fraudulent, no. As I said earlier, a courtesy delete is fine. David10244 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

people keep saying that but the picture is still up 😭 in FULL resolution with no watermark! with how many dozens or hundreds of people being linked to it via this thread. its not fair VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete While the user is clearly not being truthful about much of anything, and is behaving atrociously here now, the account requesting deletion and the account that uploaded the image are (obviously) the same. Whether they changed their mind or did not understand the full ramifications of what they were doing at the time of the upload is immaterial. It is also more than sufficiently plausible that the uploader and photographer are the same for our purposes in this context (it wouldn't be in other contexts, but...). In other words, it is a very recent (relatively speaking) upload where the uploader is requesting a courtesy deletion. It is technically past the time limit for a courtesy deletion, but that is just that: a technicality. So while their lies and other disgraceful behaviour disinclines me to lift a finger for them, from a community practices point of view I don't think "Gotcha!" licensing is a good idea or a sustainable practice. So I say we delete this file motivated primarily by a desire to cultivate a sound and predictable practice for our community and our reusers, and then indef the uploader for their pretty blatant lies, attempts at manipulation, and carelessness with copyright. --Xover (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Keep According to the uploading account they never desired deletion of the image and have just been trolling this whole time. The claim is no more credible than any of their other contradictory claims, but it means I no longer consider there any grounds for caution regarding an uploader that may have not fully understood the implications of the their upload and associated choice of license. Absent a credible request from someone that can show themselves to be the copyright holder (with actual evidence) I now !vote we should keep the photo as properly released under an irrevocable license. --Xover (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    actually what he said on that post is completely untrue, he was trying reverse psychology, unfortunately he forgot where he was..the one thing that gives away his lies is that quality and size of the image, this image was infact the original image taken off the photographer's camera/computer and as someone who is very familiar with flickr, this specific image is not on it, the highest quality of this image online is the one he posted on inaturalist which was a much smaller resolution than the one he posted here cause Inaturalist only allowed 2048x1365px max which ergo means the person who uploaded the image here is the real photographer, is a shame though, he could have shared all his images in HQ and gained a good reputation here and with a proper attribution licencse, his images could have been used around the world... Stemoc 16:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  i really disagree with that portrayal of the situation, im sorry. that feels quite harsh when i am merely defending what is legally mine. this photo was never released into CC by myself on wikipedia and the framing of this doesn't feel that fair to my view of the situation. i dont feel all the attacks on my character are necessary or relevant. that said, i do begrudgingly thank you for your delete vote.

  isn't the point of a block meant to be prohibitive rather than punitive? i dont see how this action would prevent any further harm to wikipedia. i have no future intent of posting anything here and am currently taking steps to make sure my sensitive data is stored on encrypted drives. i humbly point out that once the copyright violation has been rectified and my photographs that are hosted here against my wishes are finally taken down i will no longer be posting here. i myself feel i am due apologies for some of the things that have been said to me today. this has been a stressful ordeal made much more complex than it needs to be by all these needless allegations and insinuations against my character and vendettas to get me blocked for punitive reasons. personally, i am hoping for a cordial and quick resolution so we can all just get on to more productive things. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  You may have no intention of contributing further, yes. But as you yourself have argued many times, what you intend and what your account actually does are not the same thing. A block would prevent your account from being used for unauthorized purposes in the future. You cannot guarantee that your account will not try to pull this stunt again, so a block is needed to enforce that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i just want to say, i now can guarantee that, as all sensitive files are now stored on an encrypted drive and i will be taking much higher security in future to avoid a repeat of anything like this happening again. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  also i want to clarify i have never requested courtesy deletion, i originally tried to make this copyvio but failed. this is a copyright claim for a fraudulent license that was issued without my knowledge or consent. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have never before seen someone spend so much time and as many keystrokes on telling us how little engagement they're going to have with Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  provided my intellectual property is respected, yes. that is the main concern that is keeping me here. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  could you enlighten me on why you are so suspicious of my motives? i genuinely don't get it. this isn't a 2 week old account from some dude who has been banned a dozen times. i have made edits over the years this account has been active. not many. but im not a bad faith user. and all these attempts to paint me as such are rather disheartening. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't going to give you unsolicited advice, but as you asked: I assume people are less willing to assume good faith because most are inherently applying the principle of non-repudiation as it applies to actions carried out by a username, in other words, VoidSeekerNZ absolutely did upload this file, and absolutely assigned it a free license, here and on other websites. When VoidSeekerNZ comes along and says something to the effect of "You're all a bunch of thieves. I never uploaded this file." People will assume (maybe incorrectly) that both "VoidSeekerNZ"s are the same person and at least one of them is being disingenuous. If the file was uploaded by someone else, it is them, the person who incorrectly claimed that they were the copyright holder is the 'thief', not anyone on here. JeffUK (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  from my perspective all i see is wikimedia hosting my content against my wishes and i am met by wall upon wall of people trying to deflect me having my control over my IP. while i respect that interepretation i have to say that's ridiculously unfair, i never asked for this situation and the only reason this thread ever became difficult is because wikipedia just hands out legal licenses willy nilly with no real verification. i am the legal owner of this photo, it's that simple, if you want my photos just ask. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Some questions, if I may. Consensus (and lack of evidence otherwise) is that VoidseekerNZ uploaded the file in question, and they licensed it CC-BY-SA, as is their right. We have now hosted this file, with VoidseekerNZ's license, for 25 days, during which any number of people and institutions may have downloaded the photo and reused it in accordance with the license. If we delete the image as a courtesy to VoidseekerNZ, then: (a) Where will those reusers have provenance for the license under which they're using the photo? (b) What's to stop its reupload here with the valid license of {{cc-by-sa-4.0|User:VoidseekerNZ}}, by anyone wishing to use it on any other WM projects? Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fact-check: at this moment Google-Lens has no external uses of this image[5] (it was removed from inaturalist). --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we're talking about downstream use, how up-to-date and comprehensive is that? It doesn't take into account offline users. Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i never uploaded the photo to wikipmedia and if you;'re going to stick by that baseless assumption i want to see your evidence please. no, logs are not evidence that it was me who was sitting at the pc. this website is an absolute monstrosity and the system is clearly gamed against me in this instance to try cover wikimedias ass, and that's what has caused all my difficulty. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Do you remember trying to edit the Wikipedia page for this snail? XxakixX (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, i never edited that page on dec 26. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's right, you did not edit that page, but that is not what I asked. You can add an image while using the Visual Editor on Wikipedia, which uploads the image to Commons, and then not publish the edit. The Summary in the log says exactly that happened. [6] XxakixX (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  no, i have no recollection of that series of events whatsoever. i was not home at the time of said edit and was at a beach party, other people were at my home but i was not. the only device that has copies of this photo in this resolution is in my living room at home. i did not upload this image to wikimedia and it was done without my knowledge or consent. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  it annoys me to no end how people continue on this ludicrous assumption that i just freely gave away a 5000* resolution full depth highly commercially sensitive one of a kind landmark photo with not even a god damn WATERMARK. why would i ever do that. please just think for five seconds and stop repeating these lies. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  And yet, there you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i didnt do that. that is a stolen photo. i never new this was how wikimedia operated, by playing legal games in shady internet corners looking for way to license launder and assist wikimedia in stealing others property. i hope everyone here feels proud of themself. it's rather shameful behavior i have to say VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  i never expected this level of contempt and disrespect from an org like wiki. it feels like ive been betrayed by an old friend somewhat. can't trust anybody i guess. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  But you are the only one who had access to the file and was able to upload it. XxakixX (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  that is a factually incorrect statement. i dont know who had access to the file at the time, clearly. i wasnt even home. i know now that i will be the only one who has access, once i xfer everything to this new hdd i got. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  can someone please give me a message on discord or something about the correct procedure for engaging in mediation and/or requesting ANI board assistance? these constant allegations of lying are in clear violation of wiki policy and are highly detrimental to the discussion. im at the point i think mediation and outside intervention is needed as some of these users are just factually wrong and making things up. thank you, im a bit out of my depth VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Their account uploaded it. And their account uploaded a lower resolution version of it to another site a couple of years ago under a distinct free license. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  the image you are discussing has been removed from inaturalist for copyright violation. there is no recognised CC license that was ever legitimately generated for this specific photo.

  https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/115638245?size=original VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ: It is not unusual for people to give away images with high commercial value for free on Commons. I do it myself: File:Stanford Oval May 2011 panorama.jpg is widely used by external reusers. Now, I understand that it was not your intent to do so. But since it is common practice to give away high-value images on Commons, you can't blame people for believing that when an account claims to be the copyright holder of an image and uploads a full-resolution image with a CC license with no obvious evidence of being stolen, that that is the actual intent of the legitimate account holder, since 99% of the time it is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  sure, i have no problem with that being the default. my issue is when i categorically tell people i have never issued a license for this work and people tell me im lying because it's simpler for them to deal with that way.

  let it be known i have requested mediation on the Disputes Resolution Noticeboard. im not sure if i did it correctly. but let it be known that i am requesting it.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg VoidseekerNZ (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a separate community and is not going to weigh in on a Commons issue.

  Let's forget about the current case for a minute, and consider the case where the facts are not in dispute: a user uploads their own work under a free license, and now wants it removed. All parties agree that the user is in fact the creator and copyright holder of the image, and they did click the "Upload" button. There are a few ways this can go: 1) The request is made within the 7-day grace period, so per COM:CSD#G7 the uploader can request deletion for any reason whatsoever. There is no actual legal basis for this, and the file is still considered validly licensed (if someone were to download a copy during that time); it is just a blanket courtesy we offer to all uploaders. 2) It is slightly past the grace period, but the user says "I'm relatively new and didn't read the terms, can you delete it?" People are generally pretty flexible and often quite sympathetic to such requests. Of course, they will not be allowed to do this a second time. 3) It's been 10 years since the upload, and it's on use on dozens of Wikipedias. If now the user tries to take back their license, it likely won't be granted; we'll say "sorry but you should have known better". The reason we do this is not out of cruelty, but because a body of free content needs stability to grow, and in the meantime people may have made derivatives and adaptations that are dependent on the original work, which would have to be deleted if the original is deleted. (The risk is even greater for software, which is where the free-content movement got started: imagine if the developer of some low-level Linux kernel code decided to revoke their copyright and now suddenly every Android phone is running on unauthorized code.) This is why we have a rock-solid commitment to not allow revocation of free licenses, with a healthy bit of common-sense leniency around the issue at times. (This leniency is why most people have agreed to courtesy-delete your image here, while at the same time giving you an unfavorable reception because of your attitude and constant insistence of having been wronged.)

  Contrary to our hypothetical example, you have asserted that the original upload, made using your own account, was unauthorized. You have not offered any evidence of this; despite your suggestion that the iNaturalist takedown bolsters your claims, it actually makes you look worse in light of your refusal to offer basic details of what looks like a highly unusual situation of an iNaturalist user reporting their own upload as a copyright violation instead of simply removing it (which users are allowed to do on almost every platform aside from Wikimedia). Consider it from our position if we were to accept this easily without resistance: I am not saying you are lying, but since you have not offered any evidence that makes your observable actions distinguishable from lying, it sets a precedent that the next time a user wants to revoke their license, they just have to say "I got hacked". You are free to not explain what happened with iNaturalist, but doing so will make people here more likely to trust you if you are in fact telling the truth. Most of us have already agreed to grant your request despite not believing you, so by asking for an explanation there we're not trying to play "gotcha" and find some technicality to keep the image against your will. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  point 2) "People are generally pretty flexible and often quite sympathetic to such requests"

  im sorry but i dont trust people to just do the right thing when they have no legal obligation to do so. there is no need to lie and say i granted this license and give up my legal copyright when i have all legal rights to this image and never granted a license for wikipedia to use my IP. im sorry, that is just not going to happen.

  1) and 3) i understand perfectly and did before i joined this thread. regarding 1, it's still so early after upload that it barely matters and any downstream usages of the image shall be minimal, as this was never even attached to an article to my understanding and had limited public scope excluding the illegal distribution wikimedia has been participating in since informed of the copyright issues. that being said, if i find any unauthorised usages of this image with this false license, i want it to be known that i shall be asserting my legal rights in those cases too.

  so far, that's all quite logical. the issue is this license was never legally granted in the first place. whoever the uploader was did not have my permission to share this website. so while i understand that these systems are usually quite efficient, in this case they are extremely laborious and could amount to license laundering and theft, depending on your view. wikimedia has no permission or right to be hosting my photos right now and despite having the power, multiple admins in this thread are doing nothing to help my situation or to prevent further violations of copyright law. please expediently close the thread and delete my illegally hosted IP off of wikimedia commons.

  "it actually makes you look worse in light of your refusal to offer basic details of what looks like a highly unusual situation of an iNaturalist user reporting their own upload as a copyright violation instead of simply removing it "

  with all due respect, as a victim of intellectual theft my main prerogrative is not helping you understand my motivations. the relevant factor is that this photo is a copyright violation, i have informed you all multiple times that i have never approved this license and it didn't have my knowledge or consent, and other neutral 3rd parties have recognised the dubious nature of the photo and removed it for obvious violation of copyright. any other circumstantial evidence you pull in isn't really that relevant. i don't care if you understand my motivations or why the user on inaturalist flagged said photo. none of that is your business, to be frank. the only thing you should be concerned about is that the Commons host is flagrantly violating my copyright.

  " it sets a precedent that the next time a user wants to revoke their license, they just have to say "I got hacked". "

  with all due respect, that is not my concern. if you want to grant this as an exceptional one off, thats your prerogative. if you think there's a gap in wiki policy for dealing with these matters, then go figure it out. i dont mean to be terribly rude or abrasive, but that isn't actually my concern. my concern is the theft of my intellectual property. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we don't understand your motivations and you don't offer to help us understand, then we have no choice but to believe that you are lying, given that the hard evidence strongly points to that and to counter that, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You're essentially saying "just trust me bro". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  what evidence? you have no evidence of who uploaded the picture whatsoever!

  i don't need to prove anything, I AM LEGALLY IN THE RIGHT. THIS IS MY PHOTO!!! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  how else would i have access to the account that posted it? this is just insanity, there is clearly a massive flaw in wiki policy for dealing with this issue. i cant prove anything to you because i do not know how this license was uploaded. so now wiki can just steal peoples IP? this is absolutely outrageous and a disgrace to be honest. im sorry but i never expected this! wikipedia is meant to be about trust and honesty and openness and sharing and knowledge! not trickery and loopholes and stealing valuable photos off people who worked hard and dearly for them! im sorry for my outburst but this is extremely upsetting and frankly just unacceptable treatment of a simple copyright case.

  meanwhile, all i have to do is tell you that i never took the photos and you would take them down. you have no idea what the source of the info is. if i'm a liar, how can you trust i took the photo? why do you pick and choose where you can apply my trustworthiness based on whatever allows you to keep illegally violating my copyright? if im a liar, then you have no idea what the origins are and must delete the images anyway as you have no knowledge if the CC is legitimate! wikimedia is directly hosting dubious unsourced content! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  id like to remind everyone of an important piece of wiki policy, the precautionary principle.

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle

  (haha i remembered to use commons this time)

  im sure you're aware of what it is, but just so we're on the same page,

  "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted."

  there is clearly significant doubt on the origins of this image and nobody but i, an allegedly unreliable narrator, is able to corroborate the origins of the photo. in light of this clear doubt on the origins of the photo, only having one existing appearance on another website which was also unsourced, can anyone prove to me what the source of this image is? VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  after receiving legal advice i can now confirm the person in control of the void1 inaturalist account at the time of the uploads did not have my permission to upload said photo VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. It's absurd to go to these lengths to keep a single image that the uploader also wants removed. Given the discussions so far, we must assume the editor is compromised and thus the image itself is compromised. Get rid of it and move on. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  hi there, sorry to bother you but i see you're an admin. can i request you just close the thread now due to the controversiality and now near-consensus that this image should be deleted and just pre-emptively delete it now as a one off to save everyone further headache? the moment this photo is gone i can leave. that's all i'm requesting, is that this fraudulently hosted piece of my intellectual property is taken down. once wikimedia stops violating my copyright then i have no qualms. so perhaps we could just reach this compromise and solve the problem expediently and in a manner that serves everyones interests... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't helping matters that you are repeatedly accusing everyone here of stealing your work and committing fraud. The way the process normally works here is like a town meeting. Someone brings a problem to the meeting, we discuss the issue, give everyone an opportunity to make a point, then reach a conclusion and take action. Extending the analogy, the situation here is like the complainant calling the people in the meeting thieves, running out into the town to get more people to attend the meeting, then calling them thieves as well. The complainant then tries to drown out the discussion by shouting down anyone who tries to make a point.

  As I have advised you on your talk page, you need to calm down a little and let the discussion progress. The more you try to escalate matters, the more complicated you are making the discussion. The administrator closing this discussion will probably have to spend an hour reading through all of the comments here before summarising the situation and enacting the decision. The more you drag out this debate by repeating the same points, the more effort it will require the administrator (who is another unpaid volunteer giving up their free time) to read, summarise and close. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  sorry, when i use "you" i dont mean personal you, im speaking about commons. ive been trying not to do that but i keep forgetting.

  what isn't helping matters in my eyes is the 7 day time for this thread to close. that time frame is unacceptable to me i am afraid. hence why i keep stating i am aiming for an urgent and prompt solution. i understand this may usually work like a town, but i don't really live in the town. im just some guy who visits now and then. and it feels to me like the town, as an organisation, is trying to steal my work and illegally host it for another week against my wishes. i understand that consensus is currently reaching my favour, and that is nice, but when the people who have the ability and permissions to directly solve my problems instantaneously choose to ignore my problems and default to paragraphs of technicalities and loopholes instead of just fixing the problem for everybody it is extremely frustrating. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ: if you want fast, then the copyvio contact info I gave you earlier may be more likely to work. [email protected] or here. The latter includes contact methods other than email. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  i am awaiting legal advice on DMCA takedowns VoidseekerNZ (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  for what it's worth i was trying to have discussions in other threads as not to flood this page but i was told off for that VoidseekerNZ (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  also, if there's a crazy guy in your village, sometimes its easier to just pay the crazy guy what he is owed so he will go away. just my 2c. sorry ill stop spamming. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  i just want to remind everyone that while we sit around twiddling our thumbs my high resolution copyrighted works are still here in clear violation of wiki policies so i really hope an urgent and prompt solution can be found! i cannot stress how important it is to me that my IP is respected in this instance so i hope we can reach a resolution soon. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  At minimum, deletion discussions usually last for one (1) week. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  hence why i requested a speedy deletion and for an admin to make a one off exception to this policy in the interests of everyone! i see no purpose in leaving it up longer in this, multiple people have testified that the amount of hassle for this picture of a snail is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. i don't think a week of this nonsense would help develop any clearer consensus or improve anyones understanding of the situation. what if this was an illegal piece of content such as an explicit photo of a minor? i hardly doubt we would be sitting around chatting for a week. the mechanisms certainly exist to promptly delete images, and i want someone to enact them please! VoidseekerNZ (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Typically closing deletion discussions are done by an admin who haven't participated in it.

  You might have luck asking an admin who haven't posted here Trade (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  oh, okay. i didn't know that. would it be bad form to find an admin somewhere who hasn't participated who could close it? if that is unacceptable obviously i wont do that. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, that would be perfectly fine Trade (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete The author wants it deleted, and has gone to great lengths to argue for its deletion. Who cares about the other stuff? JPxG (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Info: there has been an offsite discussion:  [7] regarding this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete: Even though CC licenses aren't revocable and I'm finding it hard to believe the uploader's assertion that some unknown person actually decided it was worth their time and energy to hack the uploader's computer just to upload this particular image to Commons under a CC license, I don't think trying to keep this file any longer is worth the hassle doing so has become (not only on Commons but also English Wikipedia), and the file should be deleted as a "courtesy deletion" so that everyone should go back to doing more productive things. However, I think the uploader should be willing to have their identify verified by COM:VRT just to make sure this is also not a case of someone else pretending to be the uploader. For the uploader's reference, this would mean emailing [email protected] and requesting that their identity be verified. VRT will respond via email and let the uploader know what they what they need to do to make that happen. Once the account has been verified, a VRT volunteer will add Template:Verified account to uploader's user page, and then the file should be deleted. If the uploader wants to then vanish, never to be seen or heard from again, then that's their choice. If someday they decide to come back and start using the account again, then almost certainly someone will notice and watch to make sure this type of thing doesn't happen again. Now, if the uploader doesn't want to have their identity verified by VRT, then I think their only option is to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent as explained in en:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and let the WMF sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Please note I'm changing my !vote to  Keep. VoidseekerNZ was given a number of options such as VRT and DMCA to (1) have their account verified and (2) have the file deleted. They gave a number of reasons for not wanting to give either a try and instead kept going on and on about how unfairly Commons was treating them. One of the last posts made at AN/U before VoidseekerNZ was blocked was this one where they stated they aren't allowed to sign forms like a DMCA takedown request. At that point, it became clear to me that there was no real justification for deleting this image and that VoidseekerNZ was most likely not serious about have this image deleted. My opinion was further reinforced by the fact that almost immediately after VoidseekerNZ was indefinitely blocked, they seem to have resorted to sock puppetry to try and keep the drama going. I think this DR should now be speedily closed as keep since there's really no way to sincerely believe anything that VoidseekerNZ has posted in this thread and all the !votes in favour of deletion were just based on those posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, but reduce maximum image resolution to one that the image creator might have wished they had uploaded at the start. Doing so would continue their legitimate release of an image under CC-BY-SA, but also enables their commercial use of the full-sized image which can't then be obtained direct from Commons. So it serves as an advert for their work by being used in the relevant article. A lower resolution for screen display is all that this encyclopaedia really needs.

Had someone meekly said, "sorry guys, I uploaded the wrong size of image" or "I was hung over on Boxing Day and wasn't paying proper attention" or simply, "I messed up" I'd have sided with their request. But caving in to belligerent and widespread claims of account hacking, copyright theft and so on across multiple platforms with no evidence is both disruptive and, more importantly, just sets a precedent that if anyone makes enough of a fuss about an image that they've had second thoughts about the wisdom of uploading, then it opens the floodgates to more and more antagonistic claims from users who subsequently have second thoughts of their own about the wisdom of what they've irrevocably released. CAVEAT: This recommendation is dependant upon someone explaining how [8] this edit] shows the user making a legitimate upload on 26 December, whereas no such edit appears in the user's contribution history or log of deleted edits. Global contributions don't tally with that Commons edit summary, so what am I failing to understand with these edits? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I’m not sure what you are talking about at the end: the edit you linked, which is the initial upload of the nominated file, does appear in the user’s contributions.

Regarding the image resolution, it doesn’t matter whether the full-sized image can be obtained from Commons. It only matters whether it is CC BY-SA. And Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Resolution restricted-by-sa suggests that it is (if the low-resolution version is). Brianjd (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd I guess I'm getting too old & doddery! I couldn't see a 26 Dec 2022 edit in the Global Contributions or on en.wiki. I foolishly didn't look at the full list of contributions here on Commons, and thought a low-activity editor would have all their contributions shown globally. I was clearly wrong in that assumption. I'll strike through my caveat and retain my 'keep. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Doing so would continue their legitimate release of an image under CC-BY-SA"

there was never a legitimate release of the image under CC-BY-SA and all known copies of the image have been removed from 3rd party hosts for copyright violation VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

after receiving legal advice i can now confirm the person in control of the void1 inaturalist account at the time of the uploads did not have my permission to upload said photo VoidseekerNZ (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep Licence is irrevokable, and prior to claiming that they did not upload the image, the uploader had already tried to revoke the licence without mentining such a claim. Also: are we seriously exected to believe that the uploader decided to withdraw this image disocvered the alleged copyvio just after the disputative posts on their en.Wikipedia talk page by coincdence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with the Wikipedias, but I believe that the time on cebwiki is displayed in UTC 8. https://ceb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powelliphanta_patrickensis&action=history indicates a use of the image at 10:29 "ceb-time" = 02:29 UTC, which is before the vandalism and first deletion attempts around 07:00 UTC. VoidseekerNZ probably received a notification about this use of the file, which explains the timing. TilmannR (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The sequence of events were, User:Elizium23 made their first comment here at 10:26 UTC on 19 January[9] and then added the file to Cebwiki at 10:29 UTC on 19 January.[10] To the best of my knowledge, the file was not in use anywhere when I made my first comment at the Village pump at 10:08 UTC on 19 January.[11] @TilmannR: Can you please strike your comment as an incorrect interpretation of events? The last thing we want to do here is sow more confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Forgot to ping @Pigsonthewing.) TilmannR (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What does ceb wiki have to do with my coment, whcih was about en.Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

i just want to correct that i have no idea what ceb wiki is nor do i use notifications, i am refreshing pages and looking for comments. the only reason i found these photos was when i logged in to make edits about vector 2022 which i fully admit to. it was only after which when trying to find out how to see my edits again and clicking around mytalk page or something i somehow found that illegal photo on the profile. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

and this is another thing thats going to make everyone think im lying i just know it look its just a coincidence okay coincidences DO happen :( i already know people aren't going to believe me but whatever usages of this photo 5 hours before or whatever are exactly that and i had no idea about them. i only logged into wikipedia to change from the vector 2022 which im sure you can see i was quite displeased with (and still am but that is not the subject here) VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

how did whoever uploaded the picture to ceb wiki even find it is what i dont understand perhaps they are the uploader who is trying to falsely get a license for my work? i dont mean to create false aspersions and i am not saying that is what happened but is that something that has been considered VoidseekerNZ (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. I believe this is just a case of a user getting confused about the sequence of events. The file was not used at Cebwiki until after this discussion started. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

okay that makes a lot more sense and thats what i thought but everyone knows more than me apparently so i never know, people are trying to gaslight me out of all sorts of things i know to be correct VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@VoidseekerNZ This discussion and related discussions are already far too long for anyone to read properly, so mistakes are inevitable (which is why users have had to create timelines). Calling that ‘gaslighting’ is not helpful. Please stop commenting here unless you have something substantial to add. Brianjd (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

im sorry but that is true, and i have requested mediation over it multiple times and ignored... VoidseekerNZ (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep VoidseekerNZ uploaded this file as their own work under a CC license. CC licenses are irrevokable, meaning VoidseekerNZ can't just use the rationale "i retract all creative commons attributions and assert full legal ownership over this photo. wikipedia is illegally hosting my IP right now as this photo is against my permission, hence why i requested deletion" (quote taken from ANU discussion). --SHB2000 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  this is incorrect and i request you read the full text as i fully reject this assertation as being factually incorrect and delibierately lacking context. i request this vote is disregarded in the final tally as this user clearly has taken no steps to familiarise themselves with the conversation. thank you VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  SHB please retract your statement or elaborate or i will request mediation as i don't find this portrayal acceptable. one should not be allowed to make drive by character assassinations like this without properly defending them. thank you VoidseekerNZ (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ Some users, which apparently include SHB2000, think that all the stuff about your account being compromised and the license being invalid is just an excuse to revoke the license. In the absence of evidence, that is a reasonable opinion. Characterizing it as a ‘drive by character assassination[]’ just further alienates other users. Brianjd (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  (

  VoidseekerNZ (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @VoidseekerNZ: nope – I won't, and stand by everything I said. Also, I've familiarised myself with how Commons DR's work for two years now; your claim, "this user clearly has taken no steps to familiarise themselves with the conversation.", is unsubstantiated. SHB2000 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. User request (G7) allows a speedy deletion within seven days, and a delete discussion if more than seven days. As there are no articles using the image, and Commons has had it for less than a month so it is unlikely if someone has already used it for commercial purposes, then I'm seeing no viable reason for us not to comply with the request. We do allow people to change their mind; and while we also wish to prevent disruption if an uploader changes their mind on a whim so would prefer to hold onto images in use, if there is no use being made of the image then there is no disruption. Currently the only disruption being caused is this request itself. Grant the request, and the disruption is over. The uploader's rationales for wanting the image removed are, for me, largely insignificant - it was a mistake, it is a protest, it is frustration at the new skin on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter. The uploader is very unhappy the image is newly uploaded and unused, so deletion would make the uploader happy, and Commons loses nothing. We will be in the same position as we were a month ago when the image was not uploaded. If we keep the image we are sending out bad signals. SilkTork (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @SilkTork At the English Wikipedia, the uploader’s account (now blocked there) edit-warred to keep the image out of the article. If that were all, it would still significantly weaken your argument. But there is more: the image is currently used in a Wikipedia article:

  The following other wikis use this file:

  • Usage on ceb.wikipedia.org
    • Powelliphanta patrickensis
  • Usage on www.wikidata.org
    • Q7236135

Brianjd (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

These uses started well after this DR was opened and it looks to me like the image was added there to make a point / influence the discussion, so I think we should rather discount these. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You know what, @Gestumblindi, in fact I did recognize the encyclopedic value of this photo, and its uniqueness, which I have already explained. So perhaps you're jumping to conclusions and need to assume good faith about my motives and intentions. Furthermore, the editor who added this photo to the Wikidata item is not me, but @Pigsonthewing, who is an administrator on Wikispecies, so if anyone has a clue about the freely-licensed, high-resolution, rare species photo's value to Wikimedia projects, it's Andy. Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

this is a complete shame. as stated multiple times this is an unidentified species of snail. so not only is wikmedia stealing my work and directly using it in articles expressly against my wishes, they are using it incorrectly and spreading misinformation and misinforming users in the process. adding such flagrant misinformation to other wiki pages feels like it was done to spite me rather than to create any constructive use of information. i humbly request that someone remove that photo as it clearly goes against the authorsa wishes, was never meant to be uploaded, has no valid license, is misinformation, and was likely added simply to spite me and try make me angry, as it serves little valid purpose as multiple people have stated. i request an investigation into the user and mediation as they are trying to escalate the issue and spreae information. it's simply unacceptable to me that my multiple requests for mediation and assistance have gone completely ignored and i want it noted that the only reason i got banned from wikipedia was for accidentally publishing an arbitration request because no one would ever help me with proper procedure VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

for what it's worth, consider this an open and frank request for mediation or arbitrtation with the user elysium whose conduct i found highly antagonistic and unnecessary. if that person and turelio had been a bit friendlier at the start, and simply explaine the situation to me (i was confused and angry and upset and didnt know what was happening, i didnt know i was talking to vlunteers) this entire mess likely could have been avoided. as was stated if at this point someone had asked me for a compromise and calmly esxplained things to me instead of bluntly saying things like "no. you are wrong. you do not have rights to this image. why are you being so insane? lets blocks this guy" and clearly escalating and atagnosing the situation then it likely could have all been avoided. so i want it to at least be known that the frank and unpolite nature of these moderators is also at least partly to blame and if i had been treate with more good faith and listened to early in the process much of this could have been avoided!

yes i am too blame, but i certainly am not the ONLY one too blame, and i want investigations into certain users. and i dont mean turelio there, he didnt REALLY do anything wrong. but i feel ELYZIUM CERTAINLY DID. i feel wronged by that user. thank you. VoidseekerNZ (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment VoidseekerNZ is blocked. Hopefully the discussion can continue serenely. Yann (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I took some time to read everything, and seeing the attacks, I am not sure the user @VoidseekerNZ is not a troll just here to Disrupt the encyclopedia. We should not accept this type of behaviour. Also, if it was, uploaded wrongly, bad luck. Be more careful next time. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone who acts disruptive is a troll or otherwise acting out malice. Let's not jump to such conclusions. Trade (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but if we begin to accept this behavour, it is not said that, in the future, political institutions or companies will not use these kind of behaviours to create loopholes to largely modify their perception on the encyclopedia. I can understand the user's frustration, but it can damage the encyclopedia in the future. For this case, I tend to think the user is not a troll, but is behaviour can be assimiled to one. I am also surpised it took so long for him to be blocked, even for a short period, to ease the discussion. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and this has obvious encyclopedic use. Abzeronow (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A newly-created sock was also blocked, whose edits here have been removed, has also been blocked. Brianjd (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep - Your snailz iz now belong to us.--Stemoc 11:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note: Among VoidseekerNZ's recent caims on their talk page are "I am not of legal age to enter into contracts" and "i was lying. i dont have a son at all lol". Clealy we can't take their claims about not having uploaded the image themself at face value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep as per others. Uploader's changed several times, so nothing they said is reliable. We are way past a courtesy deletion. Yann (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Logically, would the claim about them owning the rights to the picture not also be unreliable? Trade (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. The EXIF shows the image was taken in March 2021 and the inaturalist account (as evidenced by Way Back Machine) shows the image was present there by September 2021, at the latest. We have evidence demonstrated in this discussion that the uploader here had control of the inaturalist account (either directly or by a third party). The uploader here also had access to a version of the file with a much higher resolution than we have located elsewhere. The subsequent troll accounts claim that the image was found on Flikr (presumably between March and September 2021 for the upload to inaturalist) but we have yet to locate that file. This is likely yet another non-credible statement by the uploader to cast doubt on the file and secure deletion. If we locate the file on Flikr with an earlier release date, we can revisit this case as a potential copyvio. Alternatively, if the copyright owner approaches us with evidence of their copyright (as verified by VRT) we can have a credible discussion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Have you looked after the file on Flickr? Trade (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Have you? Several of us have looked for this snail (in any image) in several places, including Flickr, and as yet there are no copies found. Accordingly, there is little or no credence being given to that claim.

And yet, there is no straw that you will not wave in front of our easily-led uploader. Your advice "remember not to do any socking" went down particularly well. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To be more specific:

• Flickr has one image of "Powelliphanta Patrickensis", but it's not this one.
• Flickr has more than a hundred photos of "Powelliphanta", but not this one.
• Flickr has one user called "voidseeker", but they have zero public photos.

TilmannR (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep per Andy Mabbett. I've found the uploader's story to be hard to believe from the start. The photo clearly has encyclopedic use and otherwise belongs on Commons, with the only apparent reason to delete being a dubious story of questionable validity. I at present do not believe in the uploader's story at all, especially given their incredibly disruptive behaviour on both enwiki, Commons, and the Wikimedia Discord server. And since I don't believe in the uploader's story, there is no reason to delete this file. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete, because we simply cannot rely on anything stated by the uploading account, which includes the upload of said image under a free license.
  After this lengthy discussion and all the statements by the uploader, this photo is burdened with a legal uncertainty that would make it IMO highly irresponsible to offer it under said free license to external users, who are usually not protected against copyright-litigation as the foundation is by their overflowing purse. Though we are convinced (and often repeat) CC’s stance about the non-revokability of CC-licenses, likely any judge would take it for granted that the uploader now has clearly stated his will not to release it under a free license.
  In addition to the deletion, the uploader’s account should be indef-blocked (or banned) for obvious reasons. ‒Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The uploader has gone to great lengths to deliberately discredit their veracity. Yet, like the paradoxical Cretan and the two doorkeepers, some information leaks through despite. We cannot believe any statement that the uploader makes. Yet the crucial fact isn't their statement, it's the audit trail we have here [12]: their account uploaded it, they licensed it under an irrevocable free licence. That's what we need. We don't know if they have a kid, we don't appreciate the subtleties of their species identification, but none of that matters. From Hill To Shore has already addressed the question of the non-existent Flickr copy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Neutral Given his recent behavior, I see no reason to offer any courtesy anymore. All that matters is whether this image has a valid free license from the copyright holder. I find the arguments of From Hill To Shore and Túrelio both quite compelling, so I don't have a clear inclination at this time. I will note one additional piece of evidence: the photo of a leaf he uploaded to cover up the original upload was also taken with a Canon EOS 3000D and has no matches online. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: Proponents of deletion have generally based their positions on a) a desire to end disruption by the uploader and b) Commons practice of granting courtesy deletions. The former has no basis in policy and would be dangerous precedent (encouragement, or even mere acceptance, of misbehaviour as a mechanism to unwind a binding agreement is so plainly ill-conceived so as not to require elaboration). The latter, however, is a point well-taken (it is helpful both to have a baseline--7 days--and an ability to deviate therefrom based on consideration of specific facts and circumstances.) Commons:Courtesy deletions has not been accepted as either policy or guideline; actual policy, however, provides "Even when not required to do so for legal or other policy reasons, Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake." Accordingly, we are required to examine whether a mistake has been made. Available evidence suggests this upload was not a mistake; for example:

1. The owner of the VoidseekerNZ account is the owner of the inaturalist.org account:
   • VoidseekerNZ was created 17 October 2018;
   • The "void1" inaturalist.org account (with the name "Void Seeker") was created 19 July 2019;
   • The "void1" inaturalist.org account uploaded a variant of the image in or about 2021;
   • VoidseekerNZ uploaded the image to the Commons 26 December 2022 in a higher resolution than available on inaturalist.org;
   • While the relationship is not contested, even if it were: VoidseekerNZ, having chosen that name October 2018, did not clairvoyantly know an unrelated account "void1" (with the name "Void Seeker") would emerge July 2019 on inaturalist.org, and did not by mere serendipity find the latter's image. Further, EXIF data in the most recent profile image of the inaturalist.org account report the same camera model (Canon EOS 3000D) of this image, and the take down request of the "void1" inaturalist.org image was made a) only during this DR and b) by "void1" itself.
2. Timing and content of VoidseekerNZ edits suggests this is not a genuine copyright concern. All edits on all projects following the upload are as follows:
   • 07:01, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ vandalizes en.wiki protesting the Vector 2022 skin (the first edit to any project since the upload);
   • 07:08, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ overwrites the Commons image with the comment "taking back my copyright" (underline added);
   • 07:09, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ adds "{{reason for removal goes here}}" to the image;
   • 07:17, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ reverts the reversion of their en.wiki vandalism;
   • 07:20, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ responds to an en.wiki vandalism warning with "this isn't vandalism, this is protest. ban (sic) me all you like, you've lost a donator today [...]" (underline added)
   • 07:27, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ objects on en.wiki that a proposed Vector 2022 fix is not permenant;
   • 07:54, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ comments on en.wiki "i'm (sic) not feeling very cordial towards wikipedia as an org right now. decades (sic) of good will is (sic) currently being burnt up."
   • 08:07, 19 January 2023 - The Commons overwrite and speedy template are undone;
   • 08:19, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ re-adds the speedydelete template with "this is my photo and i (sic) own the copyright for it and i (sic) am informing you that i (sic) retract all creative commons attributions" (underline added);
   • 08:21, 19 January 2023 - VoidseekerNZ adds a copyvio template saying "creative commons tags be damned";

   It is abundantly clear from this progression that this is nothing but an attempt to take one's ball and go home in protest of Vector 2022. That this was uploaded without approval by someone with access to both VoidseekerNZ's account and photography files, far fetched as that itself is, would have been the very first thing referenced if legitimate. After adding the speedydelete template on the Commons (07:09, 19 January 2023), with no reference to foul play, VoidseekerNZ contented themselves with whining about Vector 2022 on en.wiki for over an hour (also with no reference to foul play regarding the image) before returning to Commons to reinstate a declined speedy request, again, with no reference to foul play. Alternatively stated, no reasonable person, and no proficient English speaker, especially in the surrounding circumstance, would have not only failed to assert foul play, but used the phrasing "[I'm] taking back my copyright" and "i (sic) retract all creative commons attributions" if they believed their work had been uploaded without their knowledge and approval. Verily, when caught in the lie, VoidseekerNZ gave up the charade and returned to Vector 22.

3. VoidseekerNZ is the copyright holder, and the upload has not been demonstrated a mistake;
   • The foregoing sections, especially in aggregate, support this finding. VoidseekerNZ had possession of a very high resolution version, with intact EXIF matching other photos of theirs, and repeatedly use possessive adjectives ("my photo", etc.) before changing from tactics that were not succeeding. (When one is positing what may have occurred, one tends to give best estimates first. VoidseekerNZ's early suggestion was that this could have been uploaded by their son. That was, of course, a lie per above.) The change, only after being caught in that lie, to this being a random NETCOPYVIO from Flickr is entirely without support. Tellingly, no link has been provided. Similarly, others above have stated they've checked, as have I (which, at least, produced a non-controversial alternative).

Verily, VoidseekerNZ is now a liar. There is no evidence, however, that they were previously a liar until it suited them. Context demonstrates this to be a tantrum and trolling to facilitate a desired outcome (deletion). VoidseekerNZ comments, the change over time, must be weighed according. Again, as per above, the history suggests doubt, if even significant, is merely manufactured and by design. There is inadequate demonstration that this was a mistake, and thus courtesy deletion is not supported. Эlcobbola _talk 19:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Powelliphantapatrickensis2.jpg

I found the picture on flickr, uploaded there in December 2022. The image is not under free licence. Please correct me, but should it not be deletet by that? https://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesnewton27/52702349958/ Lukas Beck (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

•  KeepThe metadata appears to confirm a 2021 creation- and despite the Flickr posting claiming to date the photo to 2017, the metadata is private and the photo was seemingly uploaded the same day as image was uploaded to Wikipedia- I'm afraid I can't tell which came first.

Judging from the talk page of the uploader and the previous deletion request, it looks like the uploader threw a massive temper tantrum in 2023, quit the project, and then tried to retroactively change the licensing on all their pictures, both on Wikipedia and other sites. If they own the Flickr page, they probably changed the licensing there too. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And, anyway, from the above discussion, the photo existed on iNat in 2021, apparently. That predates the Flickr upload, and I think the fact that the uploaded owner the iNat account has been pretty well established. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed that both images were published on the same day. But wasn't there a guideline at Commons that said that if we have reasonable doubts, we should rather delete too many images than too few? Lukas Beck (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, typically. But this is rendered moot by the fact that we have no way of proving the twitter user didn't nick a photo from the iNaturalist account, but I don't think anybody has any reasonable doubts that the owner of the iNaturalist account is the same person who uploaded the file here. And, as far as the Twitter account goes, we have metadata and the iNaturalist entry telling us the photo was taken in 2021- directly contradicting the 2017 claim they made there. And, again, under a license the iNaturalist account had definitively not licensed the photo under.

But, while we're here: courtesy ping @Elcobbola: as closer of the previous discussion. And, fun fact- it seems somebody found the Flickr photo at last! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Kept: This Flickr account is well known to us. This issue was raised in ticket:2023022310001079 and is settled. I've closed this for that reason and because this involves non-public information (VRT) and thus cannot be addressed on-site. Please consider that the Commons version is a higher resolution than both the Flickr version and inaturalist version. The Commons version also has camera EXIF, the Flickr version does not. This demonstrates Flickr cannot have been the origin of the Commons version. Эlcobbola _talk 09:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)