Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lupo

Discussion from accusation

 * I hate to butt in here, and move this comment somewhere else if necessary, but I don't see anything in the protection policy about "edition [sic] of a protected MediaWiki:Licenses page to its [sic] own self interests and without serous [sic] evidence". And, in fact, as stated below, he gave significant evidence and reasoning, including the advice of a WikiMedia foundation lawyer, that the template was wrong. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But did he notify the people who use this tag and who he knows that their artciles will be directely affected by it? No he did not bother doing that? Did he post a notice after the first time he failed to have the tag delted on any portals and did he in the WP:FAITH invite us to the discussion? No, he simply thought that he would be able to sneakely get away with it. Also WP:NOR is a another thing that he did.--Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Our original research policy applies to articles, not discussions. I also don't think that you needed to be invited into the discussion. Do you have policy evidence that this was necessary. Your comment "No, he simply thought that he would be able to sneakely [sic] get away with [deprecating the template]." is also unsettling. Do you have any evidence that he was actually trying sneakily get away with deprecating the template? Believe it or not, he's not actually out to get you and on a personal vendetta to have that template deleted, which you should probably understand. You should also read my outside view below. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOR is important. Is Lupo a lawyer? Judging from what I see, probably not. Is he a judge? No. Is he a Russian photograph who would like to get royalties on a shot? No. What we have is just some guy who, based on its own interpretations of obscure legalese texts, decided that he retained the Universal Truth about copyright and started to wreck havoc just for the fun of it. In short, he's just a guy who would like to completely screw up an entire section of Wikipedia just like that, while there is no clear legislation and, most important, no court case showing pre-1973 Soviet images are not PD. Find me one, please, then we talk. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, No Original Research is an article policy. This means that it does not apply to discussions, period. You also need to source your assertations. Do you have any evidence that Lupo decided to "wreck [sic] havoc just for the fun of it."? I highly doubt it. Additionally, you're looking at this issue the wrong way. The burden of proof is on the uploader of a photograph to demonstrate that the photograph is licensed appropriately. So you need to find your own court case where it has been proven that pre-1973 soviet images ARE Public Domain. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 18:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And did Lupo thought about having us asking Russian lawyers and Russian courts prior to deciding on the issue. I believe that in a western court the saying is that The defendent is innocent until proven guilty So, what is this double standard that you have with our images? --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some explanations of the two last sentences would not hurt anybody. In the meantime, the situation is pretty simple. USSR did not recognize international copyright conventions, therefore anything published in URSS before 1973 is PD.
 * If someone will sue a guy that uploaded a pre-1973 image, we will see... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read this summary of why the template is wrong, or did you completely ignore it. You have not provided any coherent rebuttal to this summary that explains exactly why the images are NOT Public Domain. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 18:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if we got a chance to form an opposition to the deletion to look through Russian laws to talk to Russian lawyers, to have a strong discussion and then to have a third party have a view on it. No. I found out yesterday the scope that this user went and of course realising that all our work that we have done over the past few years stands on the edge of falling into a rubbish bin would have sent anybody into a frenzy. That is INSULTING. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly this is a case when we all of a sudden find out that this person has been working behind our backs to find rules that suit himself. Had he kept us informed it would have never escalated to this, but did he? No --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times do I need to tell you to ASSUME GOOD FAITH ON LUPO'S PART UNLESS YOU FIND COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!? You have no evidence to prove that Lupo has been "working behind [your] backs to find rules that suit himself." Therefore you must assume that he was not. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to deliberately disrupt work of hundreds of editors behind their backs in a sneaky way is bad faith, there is no other words... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "deliberately" in this response demonstrates that you are not assuming good faith. I ask, for the third time, for you to provide evidence to support your claims that his disruption of your work on Wikipedia is deliberate and sneaky. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just say this, if we were aware of Lupo's work, would we have mounted a whole bloody RfC against him, because we found after he made the decision. --Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 11:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. Do you think I'm a moron or what <_< ? All of Lupo's "research" hangs on one fragile thread, which is the following:
 * "In 1993, Russia adopted a new copyright law. That law stipulated a copyright term of 50 years p.m.a and was retroactive for 50 years"
 * But is (Retroactivity in Russia) + (Copyright convention) = (Retroactivity outside Russia) ???
 * I'm not so sure, and in any case, Lupo did not prove or disprove this.
 * Retroactivity is an exception rather than a rule in Anglo-Saxon and Latin laws. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you're claiming that the advice of a Wikimedia-associated lawyer, who is an expert in International Copyright law, is wrong, and that your opinion is better than his. I find this exceptionally arrogant. Werdna T c  @  b C m Lt 19:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because:
 * 1) The only reference to Jean Baptiste Souffron (the lawyer) is in point 4 which is about CIS's successor states, not in the point discussing retroactivity.
 * 2) Lupo only said he consulted him. Where is the proof? Where is the official statement from Wikimedia foundation. Claims, claims anywhere but not a single drop to drink...-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF)  19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure I understand. Are you saying that Lupo is lying? Consider carefully before you reply.--Gmaxwell 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I would much like to see an official statement of Wikimedia's lawyer regarding all this legalese dispute (and not just the section related to point 4). Lupo is not a lawyer and as such could misinterpretate - even in good faith - what Jean-Baptiste Souffron told him. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Souffron is quite able to edit the wiki and register any protests. This sort of "prove it" demand creates a hostile enviroment here. --Gmaxwell 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alex Bakharev summed it up quite well on the RFC : "Any actions to completely depreciate the tag or remove the images should be adopted by the WikiBoard due to the shear volume of the images involved.". I second that. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that you (and Alex) just new here and aren't trying to actively obstruct anything, and fill you in: With no offense intended to my friends on the board, suggesting we wait for a specific board action is approximately equal to suggesting we wait for proof that hell has frozen over. Souffron is a legal officer for Wikimedia and can speak with the authority of the board. Requesting a statement from Souffron would be reasonable, but expecting action from the board is not. --Gmaxwell 19:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then let's hear his opinion :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)