On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
this discussion appears to be missing some information specifically a link to what is being discussed
I checked http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stal... doesnt reflect what Tim is referring to neither does http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limbau... are the only discussion that have been linked in the email I've recieved thru commons-l,
If this discussion is going to start throwing around solutions that include Commons admins having their tools removed by the foundation, and changes to way in which commons chooses its admin and the skill requirements of these people then we should have access to the discussion that triggered it.
As for not reading OTRS tickets unless you have access you cant read them, OTRS agents dont normally(privacy requirements) release the information on the ticket so Commons Admins must "assume good faith" in what we are being told. The Stalin discussion stated that "*OTRS confirmation* - We have received an email from the son of Margaret Bourke-White who is the current copyright holder giving permission for the photograph to be used" at that point every commons admin would close the discussion on the assumption of good faith in the OTRS agents comment.
When images are transferred from Flickr the only decision is verification of license, permissions arent something that can be considered if the uploader askes the author they then forward the permission to OTRS so again Commons Admins need to AGF to accuse admins of "*Part of the solution, ..... If the community is unable to do it, the office should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here for example*:" when they dont have access to the information is disgusting these people are volunteers the Stalin discussion followed Commons policy the decision being made were based on available information there was no collusion there was no incompetence intentional or otherwise. When other information was presented to dispute the decisons the discussion reopened and closed according to the new information that is fine example of how Commons discussions work
The solution here isnt to alter how Commons admins work, nor how they are chosen the issue here is ensuring OTRS agents have the knowledge to process permission tickets so that admins can act on requests. When I started on OTRS there was no training, or guidence on how to use the system I was left to my own devices to learn to answer tickets In the time I was there the OTRS wiki was started up, I was dropped off the OTRS list for not being active so I cant comment on whats changed since nor how the OTRS wiki works now.
Trolling is problem on all wiki's as are witch hunts the system we have works very well, yes it has flaws including AGF and Trust but we cant work without those, we cant work without admins either yes Commons needs more but doesnt every wiki. Whats needed is to drop the creation of policy thru witchhunt proccesses because we are always going to have issue with images. the current processes work well in most cases, but future changes to way we get images from flickr are going to stretch those processess both on Commons and thru OTRS we need ways to deal with the effect of these changes.
You must've missed SJ's earlier e-mail, where he linked this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_...
Tim's descriptions of the deletion discussions referred specifically to the ObiWolf images. Reading those discussions and posts to this list, I don't think you can conclude "the system we have works very well" - at least not in those cases.