Risker, James' question is about legal standing. There are also questions about license compliance. I believe that those are both within the scope of WMF Legal to analyze, and are sepatate from questions about compliance with community policy. The community and WMF can look into this situation in parallel and make separate determinations of what action, if any, to take. WMF might decide to take no action or wait for community actions to take place first, or they might decide to be more energetic. There is no harm, and potentially much good, in asking WMF what they can do about a situation like this.
Pine On Jul 26, 2015 3:04 PM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pine, why are you pinging WMF Legal on this? It is considerably premature > to expect them to do anything much more than read the relevant > discussions, maybe, if they have an intern to spare. What action do you > expect them to take, when the community has yet to determine whether or not > its own standards have been met, whether there is actually an issue, here, > whether what the user in question is doing is actually wrong or is well > within the acceptable parameters of that project. Should the community > involved believe that they need assistance on this matter, they will then > be able to decide if it is necessary to discuss with WMF Legal. Looking at > this user's talk page at dewp and Commons, nobody seems to have raised the > issue directly with him on-wiki. > > Calling upon WMF staff and expecting them to deal with all kinds of issues > that are not ripe for their attention, are still being addressed within the > relevant community, or (as in this case) are not being discussed in the > relevant community at all, is not really appropriate, and I for one would > appreciate if you'd stop doing that. > > Risker/Anne > > On 26 July 2015 at 17:45, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Pinging WMF Legal to ask about what WMF can do about this entire > situation. > > > > Pine > > On Jul 26, 2015 1:06 PM, "James Salsman" <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If Harald Bischoff has defrauded Commons reusers by requiring stricter > > > attribution than the community requires, does the Foundation have > > standing > > > in Germany to require him to return the money to his victims in > > proportion > > > to the extent that their attribution was improper? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
