OK thanks for the link, yes that discussion is a good example of how Commons does fail with flickr licensing issues, part of that problem is that Flickr doesnt explain that cc licenses are irrevokable and that we dont check personality rights when uploading from flickr.
What was linked in this discussion has been a witchhunt and stand by that and my review of the Stalin photo discussions.
Question why with a number of Foundation people on this list havent these photos just been deleted as an "office action", I know its big stick action but at least it resolves the immediate issue that these should have been deleted.
in the Obiwolf discussions one closure was a coi and it was also the discussion that raised the personality rights. IMHO that sufficient reason to reopen the discussion
As a side issue maybe we need a spedy criteria for OTRS agents to tag images where its outside the normal reasonshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. though point 5 " Missing essential information." should have caught these ones
On 11 April 2012 07:25, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/04/12 00:38, Nathan wrote:
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.
Yes, I was talking about the ObiWolf images.
Admins have to deal with a ton of crap every day, and decisions need to be made quickly if there is to be any hope of keeping up with demand. I didn't mean to lay blame, I just think that the DRs should be reopened, with more care taken in the opening paragraph of the DR to guide the admins in the right direction.
-- Tim Starling
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l