JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Need to open SPI case on 1xbet

Hi. Take a look here please and notice that Keith renewed sockpuppets network on Afd 1xbet Indiana's Football (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong name

For your JamesAWatson user account, could you change it to say that it is an alternate account of JBW instead of an alternate account of JamesBWatson? Loymdayddaud (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Loymdayddaud:  Done. I don't really think it matters much, because it's an old account which last edited over 8 years ago and will never edit again, and anyone who tried to follow the links to JamesBWatson would have been redirected to JBW anyway, but we may as well have it updated. JBW (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks! Loymdayddaud (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Image

Not saying I disagree with your decline(I placed the other notice giving a week, which I'm still content with) but the user at issue has freely admitted he did not take the photo. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes, I have seen that, but I hadn't at the time when I saw and reviewed the speedy deletion nomination. It isn't reasonable for someone who makes a speedy deletion nomination to expect a reviewing administrator to search all through the editing history of the editor who created the page (or file) to see whether there's relevant evidence; if the issue isn't readily visible to anyone looking at the page, then it's necessary to give an explanation or a link to an explanation, whether by including it in the speedy deletion template, putting it in an edit summary, or posting on the talk page.

Apart from all that, even now that I have seen the talk page discussion, I am not convinced that there is proof of copyright infringement. The talk page discussion includes comments based on the belief that the photographer owns the copyright. That may certainly be true, but it is very likely that it isn't. From what has been said it seems quite likely that the photograph was taken on behalf of its subject, and then given to the subject, unambiguously with the intention that it would then be the property of that subject, and they they would be able to use it as they saw fit, including posting it on Wikipedia. If so, the photographer has transferred the copyright to the subject, whether or not they have gone through a formal procees of documenting the fact. I therefore don't think that there is an unambiguous copyright infringement, as required for either a G12 or an F9 deletion, though there is perhaps enough doubt about copyright for the image to be subject to a delayed F4 deletion.

My final comment is that all this is probably fairly irrelevant anyway, as the editor is probably getting close to an NH indef block. JBW (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I dare say you're probably right. Thanks for giving your clarification. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice you gave to Kalinators

Recognising that Commons and enwWiki are different, the speedy deletion rationale I used is almost always acknowledged there by deletion, on the balance of probabilities that the uploader, >99% of the time, will not be licenced by the photographer to licence it to Commons. There, it is anticipated that any legitimate claim to VRT will resurrect the file. I think it is not unreasonable to take the same view here.

I'm not quarrelling with your decision, far from it. I have a firm belief that any deletion should be a 'double key process' as a safeguard against 'judge, jury, and executioner' folk. I just felt you might be interested in what may be extra information for you.

My nomination had a happy side effect - your well thought out advice.

The picture will take its chances. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have only now noticed the section above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fiddle Faddle: Actually, I think it may have had a very unhappy side effect - my wasting my time on composing a message offering advice which I knew damned well was unlikely to achieve anything, instead of just giving the block which was obviously on its way anyway. I do that kind of thing fairly often; I really don't know why. 😕 JBW (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

But you can save it for future use.

We have a similar approach, I think, which is to start with kindness and to discover how that might be received. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I am quietly working on an essay - User:Timtrent/Kindness as a Standard Operating Procedure which is in its very early stages. I think you would have an excellent influence on it, should you choose. Please ignore that fact that it is in notionally private user space and edit to your heart's content. I intend to open it to a wider catchment of editors in due course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fiddle Faddle: A couple more thoughts. Commons and en.wiki have very different copyright policies, with the Commons policy much more strict. I think Wikipedia's copyright policy is probably the worst of all our policies; it's an absolute mess, and if I were to act according to what I would like the policy to be, rather than according to my understanding of what it actually is, there are many images which I would delete. Also, quite apart from any copyright consideration, personally I see no good reason why both images and drafts of this kind shouldn't be speedy-deletable for the same reason that similar self-promotional material can be G11-deleted if it's posted as a user page. However, WP:CSD says it can't. ☹️ JBW (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Enwiki's policies are certainly a mess. Commons is almost black and white. They don't allow Fair Use, and I doubt enWiki is correct in allowing it. Commons has c:COM:PCP and enWiki seems not to have it.

I agree totally on G-11-ing self promotional material. But some we can and some we can't. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Whether allowing "fair use" is legally right or not, my opinion is that it is morally wrong. If I create something, I should own it, and it should be up to me to decide who can use it; I don't regard it as "fair" to allow other people to use it without my permission, even under restricted conditions. My original draft of this message contained a fairly extended account of why I think U.S. copyright law is appalling, but I have decided to just abbreviate it to the following few comments. United States copyright law, unlike the copyright laws of most countries, was founded not in order to protect the right of the creator of a work to decide who can use it, but in order to protect the right of a business to make a profit by publishing the work; the essential idea behind "fair use" is that if by using your work without your permission I'm not preventing someone from making a profit, then there's no problem, because that's the only right that matters. 🤮 JBW (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

To me it seems farce about ace, does that. I dislike Fair Use, it abbreviates to FU for a reason! Even so in another life I make use of it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)