Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
2014-04-03 21:07 GMT+05:30 Yael Meron yael@wikimedia.org.il:
After a discussion[1] in Commons regarding this subject, a decision was made, stating that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.
We consider this a good solution for this situation, considering there is currently no foreseeable change in US law, for example, to accept the "rule of the shorter term".
Following our letter[1] and this decision, we would like to thank everyone who supported this, including the WMF BoT, the legal department (specifically Yana), WMES, WMAR, WMVE, the administrators in Commons and the participants in the discussion.
Regards,
Yael Meron Board of Wikimedia Israel
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Israel/Letter_to_the_BoT_regarding... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say?
--R
Hi,
Sorry, sent too fast. ;o)
I think I need to explain the whole history of the issue.
1. On 22 February 2014, Alan started the Request for comment (RfC) on whether we should host URAA-affected files, and restored previously deleted ones (around 4,300 of them). [1]
2. On 28 February 2014, TeleComNasSprVen proposed a moratorium on deletion of images under URAA.
3. On 18 March 2014, the initial proposal has received a huge support, with some people opposing it, including some active admins. On that date, I made a proposal for a compromise: only allowing a subset of affected files. This has received only a few comments, and no opposition. The discussion seems to be stalled around that date.
4. On 24 March 2014, I made a proposal for closuring the RfC as Yes. This received 21 supports, and one opposition. None of the admins who initially opposed the RfC cared to add any input. I mentioned that closure will be done after one week.
5. On 2 April 2014, I close the RfC according to my proposal.
6. On 3 April 2014, Russavia unilaterally reverted my closure, and the changes I made to the relevant policy pages, without any discussion.
Regards,
Yann
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_im...
2014-04-04 2:02 GMT+05:30 Robinson Tryon bishop.robinson@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say?
--R
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do you need to take responsibility by yourself.
As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to illustrate the issue.
As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
I just realised how packed with jargon my email was. Here's a bit of unpacking and links for those who do not regularly use this vocabulary:
*UDR: A Wikimedia Commons undeletion request (DR = deletion request)* See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests
*URAA: Uruguay Round Agreements Act* This is a US law that restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights. For the global projects of Wikimedia, this was controversial as it has the potential for public domain works in their home country, to be newly claimed as copyright in the USA.
*DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act* This is another US law that, among other things, better defined penalties for internet copyright theft and made it clearer for internet service providers their duties to block access to copyright infringing material when they were notified of a credible copyright claim. These claims of copyright are called "DMCA notices". Within the Wikimedia projects, the Foundation may takes action to remove material subject to DMCA notices, though there have been cases where some claim were not found legally credible. A number of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons is at < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices%3E (As far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for copyright.)
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do you need to take responsibility by yourself.
As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash some of the DRs for marginal cases. I would not criticise anyone for applying a DR so specific cases can have further discussion. If there have been any DMCA related incidents these would be great to illustrate the issue.
As mentioned on IRC, if a number of the Commons admins remain concerned as to who would be liable for damages/claims in the case of restoring material on Commons, then we (Commonsists) should seek independent advice (considering our small number of active admins, it is fair that we should seek to protect their interests). To date, the WMF have not given admins or uploaders any comfort that they are not liable for the consequences of their actions in uploading or undeleting media that they know to be suspect against the URAA, I do not believe they ever will receive comfort. This is an area worth development on-wiki, better to understand the risk, and to have specific advice on record to refer back to should anything go wrong.
In the meantime, don't sweat too much over individual restorations or re-deletions, instead use these as cases for the bigger picture.
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:00, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the
huge
majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language
issue.
Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community,
no
matter what. One admin even says that the
I am open for suggestions how to go forwards.
Regards,
Yann
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On 4 April 2014 00:43, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
If you post things to the Internet, you've posted them to the Internet. e.g. that by posting to any Wikimedia list, you're automatically storing your message in at least three web archives, two of which Wikimedia has no control over whatsoever.
It is exceedingly important to remember this, and everyone should keep it in mind before hitting "send".
- d.
If you guys are going to Wikimania, you might be interested in attending this: http://wikimania2014.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_URAA,_Copyright_Te...
Ryan Kaldari
On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:22 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 April 2014 00:43, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
If you post things to the Internet, you've posted them to the Internet. e.g. that by posting to any Wikimedia list, you're automatically storing your message in at least three web archives, two of which Wikimedia has no control over whatsoever.
It is exceedingly important to remember this, and everyone should keep it in mind before hitting "send".
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l