Florence Devouard wrote:
Well, I do believe it is a bit stupid though. There is not even a legal problem really.
Agreed. The problem is not with the law; it's with extremist interpretations of internal rules.
I doubt the copyright holders of that picture (hmm, parents ?) would complain. They know their son loved Wikipedia, they were happy that he left a legacy there and the picture is at the same time acceptable but of poor quality. If I were just a anthere, I would try to suggest new rules so that every user is allowed ONE non free image of himself on his user page :-) It seems to me there should be room for negotiation on such matters.
But a new policy proposed by the chair would cause all sorts of problems and messes I am not willing to get in. Accusation of favoritism or abuse of authority or all that kinda crap. Forget it.
Your delicate approach to potential conflicts of interest is duly noted and appreciated. Would it were not the exception.
Wc