Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Thatcher131[edit]

Timeline

The deletion (all times UTC)
Undeletions
Notes


Multiple deletions

Evidence presented by Xaosflux[edit]

Timeline addendum

Evidence presented by Shalom[edit]

BJAODN has been nominated for deletion many times in the past

User:Jreferee has compiled a list of deletion discussions relating to BJAODN, going back to 2004, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (6th nomination). I will copy his list, word for word:

March 25, 2004. Miscellany for deletion #1. Results: Keep.
March 24, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #2. Results: Speedy close.
March 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #3. Results: Withdrawn, procedural keep.
May 31, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #4. Results: Nomination withdrawn.
May 31, 2007. Deletion review. Results: Deletion endorsed.
June 2, 2007. Deletion review (of subpages). Results: BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations.
August 14, 2007. Miscellany for deletion #5. Results: Speedy close.
August 14, 2007. Deletion review. Results: Overturn and list on MfD.

For prior discussions on BJAODN subpages, see:

July 19, 2005. Articles for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
August 26, 2005. Non-main namespace pages for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
May 20, 2006. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Delete
March 21, 2007. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: Nomination withdrawn
August 16, 2007. Miscellany for deletion (of a BJAODN subpage). Results: pending

-- Jreferee (Talk) 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I shall provide links to the Administrators' noticeboard archive for the 30 May 2007 and 14 August 2007 deletions:

Wikipedia talk:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense has been quiet

The BJAODN talk page had just one comment added between 3 July 2007 and 15 August 2007. See page history. Shalom Hello 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert[edit]

Response to Thatcher131's questions

Thatcher131 asks:

Comment by Thatcher Did Georgewilliamherbert see that consensus on the noticeboard supported deletion prior to undeleting the articles? Also, Georgewilliamherbert undeleted only one BJAODN page before posting to the DRV, then he undeleted another 80 pages.

Timing and motivations comments

If I am reading all the logs and timeline right, I only restored 2 more articles after Mackensen's first comment that I should stop on my talk page (timezone-confused history: that left at 1244, last restores at 1250). That was the first suggestion I recall seeing that I should stop the restores. I don't know whether the last two restores were before or after reading the talk page comment he left; I suspect but can't recall precisely that seeing the new talk page messages header and reading his comment prompted me to recheck DRV again and lead me to stop restoring.

I was trying to be sensitive of abusing process in my admittedly BOLD admin-discretion restores. That's why I stopped partway through. I still believe that the restores were the appropriate thing to do, but BOLD should not override process, and the DRV clearly became the outlet for process discussions in short order. Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by AnonEMouse[edit]

Wheel-warring definition

This is in reference, and hopefully rebuttal, to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN#Statement by Thatcher131 opening this case, "By reverting the deletions without consulting Alkivar or going through deletion review, Georgewilliamherbert wheel-warred."

The definition section of the Wikipedia:Wheel war policy, also known as WP:WHEEL, reads:

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.

The action in question here is the deletion of a series of articles, and the undeletion of that series. A re-deletion would have made it a wheel-war, a repetition of an administrative action in the face of opposition. Merely the undeletion was not a wheel-war.

Just as Wikipedia:Wheel war presents itself as a parallel to Wikipedia:Edit war, the general permission to undo another administrator's actions -- once -- without it being considered a wheel war, can be seen as a parallel to WP:1RR or Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That doesn't necessarily mean it's desirable or recommended to revert another admin's actions without preliminary discussion ... I personally usually try to discuss first, in a parallel to WP:0RR ... but it should not be sanctionable, any more than 0RR should be made a requirement on editing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by BenB4[edit]

Vandalism isn't subject to attribution requirments

Here is what the GFDL says about preserving attribution:

Apart from the "title page" part, BJAODN clearly meets the requirement, as the person copying the vandalism into BJAODN is an author by virtue of their cleaning up the mess and putting it on display with a header of their own authorship. As long as five such authors are attributed, the requirements are met. For those who wish to split hairs about new BJAODN pages created before they have five entries, it would be simple to create them from the last five on the previous entry.

Also, for the purposes of the GFDL, all of Wikipedia can be treated as a whole document, in which case attribution requirements are met from the history of the vandalized page missing material moved to BJAODN.

Perhaps more importantly there is the practical matter than no vandal is going to take any kind of legal action for having their vandalism moved from an article to BJAODN. There should be room for common sense. ←BenB4 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals get a copyright too. The very fact that people are trying to use the information demonstrates that the information has value. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cyde Weys[edit]

A fisking of BenB4's evidence

Consider this a fisking (that is, a point-by-point refutation) of BenB4's evidence. The first part about what the GFDL says is true, so I'll start by criticizing his first words after that.

Apart from the "title page" part, BJAODN clearly meets the requirement, as the person copying the vandalism into BJAODN is an author by virtue of their cleaning up the mess and putting it on display with a header of their own authorship.

This is nonsense. You don't gain copyright over something merely by copying it (and if you did, piracy wouldn't be illegal). There is no editorial discretion involved in copy-pasting something, and even if you do substantially edit it, all you are doing is gaining your own additional copyright; you aren't usurping the copyright of the original author.

As long as five such authors are attributed, the requirements are met.

This argument is absurd on its face. The first five authors that were credited would have to be the ones that wrote the work that was copied, not the people who merely copied it, thus gaining no copyright over it. This is wikilawyering to the finest degree.

For those who wish to split hairs about new BJAODN pages created before they have five entries, it would be simple to create them from the last five on the previous entry.

You're right, this is needless hair-splitting, and it's a non sequitur to boot. On Wikipedia we like crediting all authors of a work, not merely the top five. It's a good policy for us. Many people who work on popular articles probably won't break the top five on it but still want recognition, and since recognition is free, we reward all contributors. We don't want to discourage people from editing by not recognizing them unless they put in days of work.

Also, for the purposes of the GFDL, all of Wikipedia can be treated as a whole document, in which case attribution requirements are met from the history of the vandalized page missing material moved to BJAODN.

All of Wikipedia is one document? Where did you get that idea? Each article stands on its own as a separate document. I've never before seen anyone make the argument that all of the gigabytes of text on Wikipedia comprise a single document. It just doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia already has explicit policies against cut-and-paste moves because we want to maintain a separate list of authors for each article. Merely having the original author somewhere out there in over 100,000,000 revisions, with no way of finding the correct one to boot, isn't nearly good enough.

Perhaps more importantly there is the practical matter than no vandal is going to take any kind of legal action for having their vandalism moved from an article to BJAODN.

"I don't think they'll sue us for it" is terrible legal "strategy" that has gotten many, many people in trouble in the past. Heck, just ask McDonalds (regarding coffee). Just because it may be unlikely for something to get us in legal trouble doesn't mean we get a free pass on doing it. Also, we are more concerned with the principle of it. We uphold copyright (and copyleft) because we think it's the right thing to do and because it's what makes Wikipedia possible. We don't turn around and ignore it whenever it's a minor inconvenience. Also, don't forget, Wikipedia has many detractors. I wouldn't put it past any of them to troll for a lawsuit by intentionally writing vandalism with high creative content and then suing once it is used in an unattributed manner. We simply don't need to leave ourselves open to this kind of abuse.

There should be room for common sense.

Indeed, there is room for common sense, which you will find in the unindented sections above. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" is the multi-gigabyte publication obtained from the database dumps. Certainly every other encyclopedia is treated as a single document. Articles are just parts of the whole. The GFDL talks about "sections" with subject headings very much like our articles. Each article begins with a level-2 header, not a top-level header. Is there any actual evidence that each article must be treated as a legally separate document, or that the encyclopedia as a whole may not be? ←BenB4 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by FT2[edit]

(Personal disclosure: I endorsed deletion in the DRV)

Mischaracterizations in case statements

Overall, I share Thatcher's concerns over any growth in disregard for policy and poor actions (especially by administrators) wholeheartedly.

However, in this case, the case statement is slightly in error. As stated:

By reverting the deletions without consulting Alkivar or going through deletion review, Georgewilliamherbert wheel-warred. This had led to the predictable escalation of wiki-drama:

In fact the undeletion did not "lead" to wiki-drama on DRV, predictable or otherwise. The undeletion was subsequent to the opening of the DRV, which had separately and quite properly been already opened by user:HisSpaceResearch some 20 mins earlier on the grounds of "deletion out of process". It discussed popular long-standing pages which non-admins were unable to fully comment on, due to their deletion.

The undeletions also did not "lead" to wiki-drama on MFD either; this was due to another editor opening a page on MFD after the DRV (there being dispute over the correct venue) and this was closed after an undramatic discussion, in favor of the existing DRV.

There was drama (ie, much active opinion and discussion) but this is inevitable for a set of popular pages which had gone through several xFDs recently and then (likely out of process) been SPEEDY'ed without discussion after the latest "keep" followed by a relisting at DRV. It was not especially due to the undeletion.

and the conclusion:

It seems that the community of administrators will not take admonishments to avoid wheel-warring seriously until some admins get spanked .... Any temporary desysopping of Alkivar should be of a shorter duration as single instances of bad judgements are generally not punished."

"Punishment to deter others" should not override fairness to the participants. Arbcom isn't about undue punishment because the community needs an example. In fact both admins have clean block logs and both admins acted in good faith in a "single instance", so the second part of this could apply to GWH or Alkivar. If there were prior instances where GWH undeleted or otherwise overrode other admins which would explain this disparate treatment, they haven't yet been presented.

Wheel warring

AnonEMouse speaks my mind. In general, admin actions are frequently (though never lightly) reviewed and/or may be reverted if there is good cause. For example, a block set by one may be reversed or altered by another, who in good faith considers it inappropriate, improper, contrary to policy, or mistaken. There's consensus that discussion with the original admin is not always needed for this (although a courtesy note may be good sometimes), if the action is self-explanatory. Administrators are expected to be aware of policy and use it (and their enhanced access) wisely and in good faith, and with forethought. As AnonEMouse says, it's the refusal to do so, and the disregard and decision to re-instate an admin action despite the evidence that another admin has sufficient concerns to have undone it first time around, that constitutes WP:WHEEL. Although mutual respect is expected and required, and reversion should not occur without good cause, I'm not aware of a 0RR precedent for administrative actions, and a single good-faith revert of another admin's action isn't usually considered wheel warring.

GFDL and deletion policy issues

Wikipedia:Deletion policy has historically been extremely clear and explicit: copyvio's are not a basis for deletion, unless the article is substantively all copyvio (and there is little or nothing else). If there is significant material beyond copyvio's, then deletion has not been historically recognized by WP:D as the preferred response (removal of copyvios and/or reversion to a non-copyvio version being the preferred option, and raising on the copyright problems page if there is doubt). For example, as recently as June 2007 (before refactoring) WP:D stated that copyvio problems should usually be solved by "list[ing] on Wikipedia:Copyright problems", and WP:SD criterion G12 still states that "all" criteria must be met for SPEEDY to be appropriate, including "There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving" and "The material was introduced at once by a single person". WP:SD also states in the introduction that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." [emphasis added]

Rightly or wrongly, GFDL clause 4B (requirement for attribution of up to five "principal authors", repeated in various copyright FAQ's) has rarely been enforced internally for editor-created text, on any mainspace pages; it is often the case that editor-created text is taken from one talk page or article and used in another article, and the "up to five principal authors" are not credited in the edit summary or otherwise. Critiquing the GFDL and Wikipedia's use of it is far outside the scope of this arbitration, but (without in any way condoning copyvio's) I would be reluctant to seem to support some kind of double standard of stringent application of GFDL or copyright law to delete BJAODN, whilst unattributed editor's contributions being copied between most other mainspace pages are almost always (rightly or wrongly) tacitly accepted without any hint of GFDL/deletion issues raised.

Deletion on a GFDL basis seems an over reaction for a second reason - attribution could in principle be added for a large number of BJAODN items if this was the real perceived problem, thus negating much of the GFDL problem. All attribution information is still accessible, the source text is GFDL published, and the hiding of the original from public viewing (so-called page deletion) or its actual deletion, does not make the deletion of subsequent republications of deleted text a necessity under the GFDL.

Whilst other pages (WP:NOT, WP:DENY, WP:BEANS, WP:CONSENSUS, repeated failure to rectify copyright issues, etc) may be good grounds for deletion of BJAODN, I don't believe that WP:GFDL or deletion policy require or demand deletion of these pages, or that WP:SD allows them, as some comments in the debate have suggested. They don't provide a compelling reason to delete, on their own.

Administrative actions by Alkivar, Georgewilliamherbert and Xaosflux

Returning to the actual deletions and reinstatements, commonsense and good faith speak for a lot in admin actions. These pages were clearly not trivial to the community; many had added to them (implicitly suggesting support), many had linked to them, and uncounted many others almost certainly gained enjoyment from them. Previous discussion had also not actually led to their deletion (3 keeps, a deletion + endorsement, then a "keep but clean up copyvios"). There was clearly significant feeling by the community about BJAODN on both sides, and much prior discussion. Their present unilateral deletion was on the basis of WP:SD (policy) citing WP:DENY (essay), but whilst the deletion and reinstatement were clearly in good faith and (to me) not breaching WP:WHEEL, I do have concerns that outright deletion was a poor use of administrative judgement, and a lapse. It also contradicted WP:D and WP:SD. Regardless, whether or not they should have been deleted or had copyvio's removed, whether or not they do "promote slander, copyright violation, spam, and vandalism", their deletion (especially in the light of the most recent view, "keep") should have been recognized as non-trivial, too much for WP:BOLD (considering this was deletion not just editing), and some form of consensus or double check sought first, for fuller discussion.

Undeletion was probably appropriate; if for no other reason that the editors commenting (or seeking to comment) on the concurrent DRV (opened 20 mins earlier) were likely to include members from the entirety of the Wikipedia community, many of whom could not see these popular but deleted pages and would therefore be deprived of the ability to form their own opinions if the pages were inaccessible in the thick of the DRV discussion. Since the deletion was likely poorly judged and non-compliant with WP:SD, the deletor was (apparently) not logged in, and non-administrators had urgent need to view since a DRV was imminent, I don't have a problem with this judgement, and note that Georgewilliamherbert and Xaosflux seemed to act respectfully to the community and limited their administrative actions to simply restoring the missing pages needed to allow full community participation in the ensuing DRV.

Administrators have discretion over their administrative actions; the reverse side of that is that they should consider these actions and reach generally good judgements as well. As witness prior BJAODN xFD cases, widespread community interest in the pages and deletion discussions, conflict with deletion/speedy deletion policy, and the inevitable DRV demand for further discussion, with undeletion to support it -- the failure to anticipate this and to go directly to the delete button (even if DENY may seem reasonable) seems a bit of a lapse of judgement, albeit in undoubted good faith.

Response to BenB4

I note user:BenB4's comment on Wikipedia, and it's very persuasive. Do we in fact have an opinion what users have contributed their text to? Did they contribute it to "Wikipedia", or to a distinct subproject called "Article X of Wikipedia"? I am inclined to agree the former; adding text to page 200 of a book does not mean one has intended purely to add the text to page 200 alone, and that separate additional permission is needed to consider it added to the book in general or compliance with copying requirements is needed to move the new addition 20 pages earlier to page 180.

We need this clarified legally I think, which is out of the context of this arbitration; if so then all the GFDL issues on BJAODN could turn out to be users' misunderstanding of the copyright issue. As yet it's persuasive but unchecked. Checking is a Good Idea. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by DHowell[edit]

BJAODN is mostly GFDL compliant

See my comments at WT:BJAODN#GFDL violation? I think not., where I showed that a randomly selected page contained a majority of material which was GFDL compliant, at least to the standard that we hold other reusers of Wikipedia content.

Many problems with GFDL compliance are easily fixed

One of the items which appeared to be noncompliant I was able to get fixed by simply asking the admin who put it there in the first place to provide the proper attribution, which he did. DHowell 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


More