ABF write: the only way i see is to file charges. Because of fraud, maybe? The problem is to show the damage done.

let us see first whether the images in question can be deleted without prejudice for our projects. Chances are that in the vast majority of the cases, they are worthless. -- Rama

I would like to add as well, as Mike Godwin pointed out to me by instant message regarding another discussion, that in most jurisdictions, persons under 18 are unable to sign a contract without parental consent. Anyone under 18 can therefore demand his/her pictures be removed without prejudice.

2008/9/17 Platonides I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18. - geni

2008/9/17 Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> I believe all the contemporary photographs which focus on the penis that we currently host are of individuals over 18.

2008/9/17 ABF <wikipediabaeren(a)gmx.de>de>: When it's someone who's just decided they don't want to play any more, and where it's just them storming off and demanding we delete everything as they go, we can justify a somewhat blunt response (though I might not go as far as Stan's approach!). Compare enwp's response to "delete all my contributions, I don't like this project any more" requests. I think we do need to be careful not to assume such a request is *always* bad faith, and should *always* be blocked and refused - there are entirely legitimate circumstances where someone could discover that they don't actually own the copyrights to a set of images they thought they did, and in such cases, I think we'd have to be helpful and (if at all possible) not punish them for an honest error! Consider if someone stands up and says something like "I took these whilst working, and I didn't realise until today that under my contract, my employer owns the rights"; or perhaps "My grandfather took these pictures, and I thought I inherited the rights, but it turns out someone else did". These cases aren't the same as storming off in a pique, but they could easily look like it, especially if the person making the request is upset over it or if there are language difficulties. A more marginal case would be someone who hasn't suddenly decided they don't want to play any more (like our original, *but* has just realised that the GFDL or a Creative Commons license wasn't quite what they thought it was. I'm sure most of us would delete a single image for those reasons if the uploader came to us fifteen minutes after uploading and said "oh, look, I'm really sorry, but I didn't quite think this through..." - would we do it after a day? a week? a year? How about if it was two images, ten images, a hundred? Does the quality or rarity of them influence our decision? At some point in this, it goes from being reasonable to unreasonable, and I don't think we can draw a general line very easily - it really does boil down to whether or not the person seems like they're being silly. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

2008/9/17 Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com>om>: This is a real-life circumstance. Such cases always have to be dealt with individually, and not being a dick about it is important. People just don't get these licenses. We've had people reach admin on en:wp without understanding that they're supposed to have licensed the work irrevocably for the whole world and not just Wikimedia.