Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to re-check appropriateness

1) That the parties to the case reconsider whether an arbcom case is truly appropriate or needed in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The only significant mistake by any party seems to be the out of process speedy, by a well meaning admin with a clean record. All other actions seem to have fair rationale and good faith motive. For more see #General discussion below, and my evidence. I think this question should be asked, at least one time, and ask that the parties read and reconsider. I am aware I am putting myself on the line somewhat by expressing this opinion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I was considering proposing that the case be dismissed without action, myself. I fully understand the concerns that led Thatcher131 to file the case and four arbitrators to vote to accept it. What happened here was not optimal, and all administrators should make an effort to act collegially whenever possible. However, after dialog on this workshop (which has been productive), there seems to be a pretty broad consensus that everyone involved acted in good faith and with at least a colorable basis in policy for their actions, and there is no suggestion that any of the parties has done anything similar in the past, so this would normally be considered thin grist for an arbitration case. I suggest that the case be wrapped up either with no action taken, or perhaps, with an articulation of the relevant principles but without sanctions. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question from KWSN to Georgewilliamherbert

I have a question actually, I just hope this isn't an arbitrator only section. What was going through your head when you decided to restore the BJAODN pages, more specifically, if it wasn't included in your statement. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. The controversy from the last BJADON deletion had finally settled, but I was sure it was all going to flare up as badly as ever.

I am sensitive, as an admin, to how admins are percieved by the rest of the community. I was sure that this would be percieved by some as an abuse of admin power (taking BOLD too far...). My feeling was that the restores would minimize that damage.

As a general rule, it never works to try and short-circuit a large-scale contentious discussion by BOLDly imposing a solution. People on both sides demand the right to have their opinions heard and considered in a consensus decision. Every time I've seen it tried it's blown up in the admins' faces. Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded that perception and sensitivity to perception can matter, that significant discussions shouldn't be short cut by unilateral deletion, and agree that the perception that this might minimize problems is reasonable. Words match his actions, and seem to be supported by the facts cited by others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from KWSN to Alkivar

Same thing as above, what were your thoughts when you deleted the pages, again, more specifically what wasn't included in your statements. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts were complex and evolved from a conversation with Jeffrey O regarding his prior deletion. I saw his initial reason of GFDL compliance issues, and realized while that was one point that still hadnt been solved (2 months after the last round of deletions I might add), there were other issues I felt were more important.

1. WP:DENY. We should not be in the habit of encouraging vandalism, by saving bits of vandalism someone may deem as "funny" we are in fact giving some vandals a goal, to want to make it into BJAODN.
2. Libel, several of the archived vandalisms are in fact libelous towards their subject.
3. WP:BLP, there is content in BJAODN that is strictly an attack on its subject, related to point above.
4. Copyright, this is an issue unrelated to GFDL. I have seen at least one example (which means theres definately more) of the archived vandalisms that are cut and pasted from sites external to wikipedia into an article on wikipedia, then cut and pasted into BJAODN. We delete copyright violations out of article space, why do we then archive it in Wikipedia space?
5. Spam, many of the saved vandal edits include link spam to external websites. Do we really need to encourage and assist vandals in getting more publicity for their sites? We typically expunge linkfarms from within article text see Greek hip hop this diff for an example of what I mean.

and then of course comes the GFDL issue... Yes we could if we truly wanted to provide attribution for the content. But that would involve many man hours of effort that could be better spent...

<shameless request for help>

Category:Cleanup by month which as of 08:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC), 26,166 articles were tagged for cleanup, or 1.34% of the English Wikipedia's 1,956,194 articles. Including some articles going back as far as 2005 (which remain tagged needing cleanup)

</shameless request for help>

...others more informed on GFDL than I, have spoken up and explained what is feasible and what is not. So I dont claim to understand all of the ins and outs of that argument. But I do know its a problem that needs to be looked at and hopefully corrected.

I saw that no progress had been made in the 2+ months since the last MFD to solve the attribution issues, saw that the prior MFDs had all been endless circular debates ending in a stalemate, with one side backing a clear policy, and the other backing WP:ILIKEIT. I felt a deletion 2 months later for different grounds would hold up to scrutiny, and based on the expressed sentiment on WP:AN and on IRC that I had strong support from other administrators for my actions. Was I bold? Yes probably a bit too much, but wikipedia has long held WP:IAR to be one of our central tenets. Common sense says this content should be deleted for numerous reasons... the only reason holding out for keeping such content is "I like it".  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also seconded, at least with the WP:DENY reference and the validity of seeing BJAODN gone. No disagreement on that at all. However, I do disagree that speedy was appropriate, or that GFDL demanded it (especially in light of policies urging keep/fix, and ability to attribute). Popular maybe, right to kill it maybe, but this was bound to lead to drama, just doing it that way, and many many editors have strong views on it. WP:IAR was pointless; it was always going to end up in the same MFD/AFD/DRV venue anyhow and need formal consensus. Can't fault the view on it, or the rationale, or the BLP/copyvio/NPA/SPAM concerns about its contents, or the benefits of removing, or the frustration at the circular debates, but this was one that WP:IAR was never going to slice through, and sidestepping deletion policy to do it was always going to cause backlash  :-/ FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from llywrch to both parties

One point that keeps being brought up in this dispute is that BJAODN violates the terms of GFDL. Last summer when I was at OSCON, I stopped by the Free Software Foundation booth & asked the people there if any of them remembered handling any inquiries over this very issue. No one there could recall having received any phone calls or email about this. I'm puzzled by this, since I believe their opinion would help resolve the matter one way or the other. Which leads me to ask:

1. Has anyone asked the FSF whether they believe BJAODN violates the GFDL (& why)?
2. If not, then why hasn't anyone sought their opinion to help resolve this dispute?
3. Lastly, what is the FSF's opinion on this, & should Wikipedia abide by their statement? -- llywrch 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I have not contacted the FSF.
2. I believe that the compliance issues can be best resolved by the consensus of the community, with guidance and rulings if needed by the foundation and/or our legal department.
3. I don't know, but do not believe that a ruling from a third party would be effective.
4. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Second all of Xaosflux' comments. Georgewilliamherbert 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from FT2 to Georgewilliamherbert

Just one question, and apologies, if it's covered somewhere I haven't seen it. You began reverting the deletions after the DRV was opened, but before noticing the DRV was already opened by someone else. I think that's right, isn't it? I hate to ask possibly leading questions, but I can't think of a way to avoid it. Had there not been a DRV opened, would you have opened it then anyway? Or was your undeletion targetted more at reverting an out of process delete and restore the status quo? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My undeletion was targeted at reverting a likely controversial out of process delete and restore the status quo; I felt that the right medium to continue was MFD (and suggested that, in my first note on Alkivar's talk page [1], shortly after undeleting the main page), not DRV. I wasn't thinking in terms of DRV; I think of that more as another process step (check and balance) for in-process activities. My thinking here was more "this was out of process, let's back it out and suggest the MFD process...". Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Deletion

1) Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Proposed deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion

2) While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Slight misdescription of DRV's proceedings. An article deleted by AfD is restored if there is eventually either consensus it should be, or no consensus as to the appropriateness of AfD's decision (a relisting typically follows the latter). No "strong consensus" is required. Article's deleted by PROD are restored as soon as they are challenged. Articles speedily deleted are sometimes restored quickly in the case of obviousity, other times are kept deleted permanently, irrespective of whether participants wish sight e.g. copyvios.

Undeletion

2.1) The Wikipedia:Undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, but in the case of disagreement, discussion, typically at Wikipedia:Deletion review is a useful precursor to possible action. As a general rule, pages (that were not proposed deletions) under consideration at Deletion Review are left deleted until there is a consensual outcome to either undelete or relist the page on its deletion process. Speedy deletions are handled in a variety of ways, but a key concern should be the avoidance of disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Removing the unnecessary observations regarding temporary undeletion which are irrelevant to the case at hand, and removing incorrect "strong consensus" terminology. Speedy deletion is a slippery creature, and this case is complicated by the involvement of a non-speedy process along the way. Splash - tk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion

2.2) Deletion policy states as a general rule that wrongly deleted pages should be discussed in the first instance with the deleting administrator, or taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review. The same policy also permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, but cautions that this should be done with care, and only with good cause, so that it is not taken as disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Simply summarizes what deletion/undeletion policy actually say, and thereby avoiding problems with assumptive (untested?) wording included in both the above. Temp undeletion for review purposes is split to a separate item 2.3; not quite the same issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion for review purposes

2.3) Pages to be discussed at Deletion review which have been deleted, may at administrator discretion be undeleted for the purpose, so that any member of the community may examine them and participate in the review process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Split from 2.2 ("undeletion") and reworded. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm....this has been turned down as a procedure quite regularly at DRV, and almost exactly this principle has in the past been attempted as a mechanism to try to render the entire process irrelevant ("it's undeleted now, so we can close this and go back to editing the article"). A reduced interference surface would be presented by something along the lines of "...been deleted, are upon request made available for general review so that...". I say "upon request" not to prohibit proactive availability, but to imply that admins can already see it, and have no need of the deployment of this sensitive tool in sensitive times unless there's a good-faith (and legal/non-defamatory/etc) request for them to do so. I say "available for general review" to recognise the fact that they tend to be undeleted behind a temporary blanking+tag with the article available only in its history, and typically sysop protected essentially to prevent the same problems breaking out as already got it deleted and to prevent the gaming I mentioned previously. Splash - tk 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear how DRV can function if those expected to check its basis and decide for themselves if its flaws are capable of remedy, can't see the pages concerned. DRV is not an admin-only decision; any editor can contribute and especially for something like BJAODN, where a "large number but not all" missing attributions on the deleted pages are the main grounds for deletion, many non-admins will actively want to. They have the right to see the material being decided on, will want to, and without this, are disadvantaged in doing so. Anticipating this need (in the BJAODN case) seems self-obvious - no need to wait for a "request".

In general, the point you make with "upon request" I've covered with "administrator discretion" -- in the end if its defamatory or legal both come to the same thing, so we aren't far apart. (In fact admin discretion is more restrictive than "upon request", not less). If the DRV is endorsed the pages will be deleted. But I don't think you can have a DRV process without communal access to the pages, whether they have to ask or its automatic is almost unimportant. Non-admins wishing to contribute (as is their right) will often need that information to form a view.

There may be cases where admin discretion says that it's more important the pages stay deleted during DRV than that non-admins can check their content. But this probably isn't one of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

3) All text on Wikipedia, including project pages, must be compliant with the GFDL which requires, among other things, proper attribution of the original source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in spirit, WP widely violates the GFDL in practice and details. We allow cut/paste of content from one page to another without the ability to trace its origin and original author, we don't have an Authors page per se, etc. These are considered normal and proper, or at least quietly swept under the rug, in article space. And yet BJADON provokes high-level controversy for the same actions. I believe that it's important for us to have a consistent GFDL / credits policy across the project; if the way BJADON violates the letter of the GFDL is a problem, we have a much larger problem in article space. I do not assert that it's either necessary or unnecessary to address the issue - but if addressed, it should be addressed consistently. Attacking BJADON with the GFDL club, and not looking at where else that club would swing, is inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 23:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, emphasis on all. Sean William @ 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Coredesat 21:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, second Sean William's emphasis. Cbrown1023 talk 22:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, mainly because it's a Foundation issue. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This statement is problematic in that is is not at all enforced or enforceable on a lot of Wikipedia pages; in particular it is a major flaw of the deletion process - content is copy-paste merged into a new article, then the original article, and its history, is deleted, a blatant violation of GFDL 4.I:

Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence. (GNU FDL)

Re-creation of an article deleted for BLP problems, using some of the content of the old version which cannot be history-undeleted due to these BLP problems, also violates the GFDL. Evouga 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the GFDL, this is inarguable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Misphrased in terms of images, fair use material, and the terms of the GFDL. "All non-fair-use material on Wikipedia must be used by those who do not own its copyright in a manner consistent with the licensing terms granted by the copyright holder. For original textual contributions, wherever on Wikipedia they occur, these licensing terms are the GFDL. The GFDL requires, among other things, proper attribution of a number of the authors." Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

3.1) All non-fair-use material on Wikipedia must be used by those who do not own its copyright in a manner consistent with the licensing terms granted by the copyright holder. For original textual contributions, wherever on Wikipedia they occur, these licensing terms are the Gnu Free Documentation License (GFDL). The GFDL requires, among other things, proper attribution of a number of the authors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To correct the principle proposed, as I suggested above. Splash - tk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

3.2) Material Original textual contributions submitted to Wikipedia, and copied from their original page to a different page, should comply with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which amongst other terms requires that a number (up to five) of the principal authors are named in the copied text. Wikipedia:Copyright and associated pages give suggestions how principal authors can be identified in most cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

States the issue in this case, and what GFDL requires. Does not impose more, or attempt to cover superfluous grounds. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as this is substantively incorrectAs re-phrased, yes. ['Material' encompasses images which may be under any free license, and fair-use material comes with no attribution-of-5-authors requirement. Replacing "Material" with "Original textual contributions" would do, but not the proposed wording as it stands.] Splash - tk 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - text was meant but I hadn't thought of a better term for it. Changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

4) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. Melsaran 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

With the deletion of the first two sentences. The community may not have a priori the opportunity to indicate strong support, but the admin may act nevertheless. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Splash, except that "slowly" doesn't work for me. A deletion isn't per se "slow", it's a point action, as are most actions. I'd go for this with the first two sentences and the clause "proceed slowly and deliberately;" removed, leaving "should act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain..." Alternatively, see below.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

4.1) Although policies and guidelines generally document the strongly held views of the community, they are not able to cover all contingencies and circumstances. It is therefore understood that there may be times when it is necessary to ignore all rules (IAR) in order to best benefit the project. Those who do so should understand IAR is an exception to address uncommon situations, and is neither the norm, nor a justification for avoiding established consensus. They should consider carefully the necessity and evidence, explain their actions fully, be prepared to meet disagreement gracefully, and act only when informed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contextualize IAR, which also makes clear it is exceptional only, and when those exceptions might be. Also no need to make it deletion specific. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good, although "meet disagreement gracefully" is odd construction. It's meaning ought to be clear enough, though. Might suggest that "widely" recognises consensus more precisely than "strongly", but this isn't a legal treatise. Splash - tk 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1/ Policies are explicitly created more for the "strongly held core" views, rather than perhaps "widely held" ones with less determined buy-in. Unsure that would be an improvement. 2/ Can't find a better wording for the "gracefully" you noted, which I borrowed shamelessly from a previous comment :) Open to suggestions on both if you can spot improvements, though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5) Wheel-warring is a harmful action, and most editors agree that admins should not reverse an administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Majorly (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Most editors agree? I don't know if that's true. Sean William @ 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I adapted it straight from the policy page. Not sure how to rephrase it though. Majorly (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the policy page indicated that an administrator should not repeat an admin action when he or she knows another admin opposes it. This would be an expansion that (not that it's necessarily wrong for that reason, but it goes beyond the current page). This comment applies to the alternatives below, also. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; most editors would go with "repeat". Unless of course, we start calling the actions of "not blocking" and "not deleting" and "not protecting" admin actions, so that anyone who blocks/deletes/protects when they know another admin is opposed has also violated this. An untenable position, which is why WP:WHEEL says "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." Emphasis in original. GRBerry 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for this; the WP:WHEEL is riddled with problems like this. Furthermore, presumably "should not reverse an action ... when another admin opposes it", is vaguely phrased. Opposes what? The action or the reversal? Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5.1) Wheel-warring is a harmful action. Admins should preferably not reverse an administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 5.1, more neutral and it says basically the same thing. Melsaran 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly ambiguous; does the last word "it" refer to the original action, or the reversal? Newyorkbrad 02:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The reversal, of course. Why would reversing an action be discouraged when you know that another admin does also support reversing it :) You're right, though, this may need better wording. Melsaran (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Still wrong, the issue is repetition, not reversal. GRBerry 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was just a rewording of Majorly's proposal. Scrap this one, it's incorrect :) Melsaran (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5.2) Wheel-warring is a harmful action. Admins should preferably not reverse an administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes them doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. One administrator opposing is too little margin. We could, with effort, probably find an admin who opposed any action taken. We can't let the wheel-warring policy paralyze adminstrators' ability to get useful things done. Georgewilliamherbert 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 5.2, is it clearer? Majorly (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin A blocks everyone who has been disagreeing with them in a content dispute. Admin B reverses the blocks - either based on the fact that they are clearly against policy and just plain bad news or because they discussed with Admins C, D, and E and they all agreed the blocks needed to be overturned. Under all of the above wordings, Admin B has taken a "harmful action" that at minimum they 'preferably should not have'. I can't agree with that. Admins should not take actions which are likely to be opposed by MANY other admins... not just one or two. Reversing another admin against their wishes is sometimes necessary and should not be a 'bad thing' IF there isn't likely to be any widespread disagreement with the reversal. --CBD 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Still wrong, the issue is repetition, not reversal. GRBerry 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Repetition is key. It takes >=2 to tango. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5.3) Wheel-warring is a harmful action. Admins should preferably not take an administrative action when they know (or should know) that many other administrators oppose them doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This conflates contentious adminning with wheel-warring, to some degree, but is closer. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

'Wheel-warring' = Two or more admins engaging in 'contentious adminning' on different sides of a single issue. IMO it is 'contentious adminning' which is the root problem we seek to avoid and a 'wheel war' merely the common result of that problem. Without admins taking actions they know are widely opposed there could be no 'wheel wars'. --CBD 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed 5.3. Changed to disagreement by more than one admin per comment in 5.2 above. Also changed it from 'reversing' to 'taking' action because there is no reason to give a pass to an admin who 'strikes first' despite knowing that their action is widely opposed. --CBD 23:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of current for wordings the best one. Otherwise, as CBD said, the "first striker" has the advantage, especially if IAR is cited as reason (even if invalidly so) 84.145.240.58 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Should know": Special:Readmind is not enabled on enwiki. However, "contentious adminning" is a concept worthy of exploration, since one admin can be highly disruptive on their own, to the point of de-sysopping, without it being a 'wheel war', which must necessarily, as a matter of linguistics, have two sides to it. The two halves of this as phrased are indeed an unhelpful conflation, but some principle of this kind may be helpful. I would like to strongly suggest the abandonment of the attempt to give meaning to 'wheel war' since it is an unhelpful jargon and slipperier than an eel. Splash - tk 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5.4) Wheel-warring is a harmful action. Admins should preferably not repeatedly reverse an administrative action without consultation or discussion, especially when they know or should know that other administrators oppose them doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 5.4, as basically 5.3 but takes into account repetition, which is the actual "warring" in "wheel warring". Likewise a content dispute isn't actually an edit war unless repetitive reverts are involved. I also added in "without discussion", as per Wikipedia:Wheel war. --Coredesat 10:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO repetition only comes into play in establishing whether an admin ought to have known the issue was widely disputed. One or two actions on the erroneous assumption that, 'almost everyone will agree this is best' is understandable 'boldness'. After that it gets alot harder to say that you didn't realize the matter would be contentious. However, if an admin is part of a discussion where a dozen admins speak out on either side and they immediately go and do things their way regardless... they obviously already know that it is opposed. The fact that they aren't 'reversing' anyone really shouldn't matter. Nor should it be ok for each of the 24 admins in the example above to revert once (and thus none of them doing so "repeatedly"). Once it is clear that there is a dispute all actions should stop until it can be sorted out... just like protecting a page during edit wars. --CBD 12:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting better, but (should know) is unnecessary, per the absence of Special:Readmind. If no-one pipes up, then we have consensus by default. Decisions are made by those who turn up (just watch this committee in action!). Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Contentious adminning

5.5) Contentious adminning is unhelpful to the smooth running of the project since admins are expected to recognise when the cost of a resulting controversy may be greater than the benefit they perceive. Admins who repeatedly fail this test of judgement may face restrictions on or removal of their admin privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibility. Keen to deprecate the term 'wheel warring', and also to suggest that people invent more localised descriptions of what they see. Splash - tk 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right wording, but I do agree that the focus of the case should be on whether anyone took an inappropriate action—or more proactively, what, if anything, should be done differently next time—rather than on semantically debating whether there was a "wheel war" or not. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I struggled with the wording. My theory, if you can help crystallise it, is this:

1. Admin(s) took action(s) they felt were for the best. Otherwise we're looking at a different kind of case altogether.
2. These actions had a context and consequences, as all actions do.
3. Admin 'discretion' must be informed by admin 'judgement', and that must be predicated on the context and the admin's evaluation of the consequences.
4. The 'judgement' process ought to decide what is best for the project given the pros and cons of what they're about to do: a 'cost-benefit' analysis. However, the 'cost' may not be solely "controversy" as the principle currently implies and that aspect particularly needs work.
5. If they reach the wrong decision following the 'judgement' phase, or fail to discharge a duty of due consideration, and regularly do so (or do so particularly acutely), their services in that regard may be dispensed with.

I'm trying to reach an admin equivalent of "tendentious editing" - editing that is prone to exacerbating situations. Splash - tk 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the focus of it. But it's also about knowing how to work collaboratively and use DR as a first resort, not just about cost/benefit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

5.6) Administrators are expected to keep to a higher standard of collaborative work, and to use dispute resolution and consensus seeking to avoid conflict and dispute in most cases. Actions in which an administrator overrides another administrative action should not occur without good cause, good faith, communication and if necessary, discussion. Repeating an already-reverted administrative action in the face of visible disagreement or reversion by another administrator, is generally considered improper use of administrative tools and harmful by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. More specific, and avoids some of the slippery or less certain phrasing in previous versions eg "preferably not". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ok for the purposes of this case, but is not a complete definition of 'wheel warring', which term is not actually a necessary title for this principle. Incomplete philosophies of 'wheel warring' resulted in this case being brought in the first place, and so this is an opportunity to deprecate the terminology. Something descriptive like "Reversals of administrative actions" would seem to do just fine as a heading, here. Splash - tk 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been problems with the wording of a suitable proposal and definition of wheel war, to the extent that one proposal has actually emerged to say wheel wars are hard to define but that doesn't matter, and another proposal avoided the term completely. So I'm fine with this not being a "complete definition" of WW. As you say, it's enough for this case, it says what is expected, what's okay, what's not, and why, and does so in clear and grounded terms we can all probably agree on. (If you mainly mean that a title change would be good, I'd be fine with that, if others are too.)

For the record I would be fine discussing a move to some more defined term such as "contentious adminning", "disruptive adminning", "overriding of admin actions" or any variation, and saving "wheel war" (like "edit war") for major admin conflicts. But I don't think this is the best venue for that discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

6) Before undoing another administrator's action, it is common courtesy to contact and initiate discussion with that administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sean William @ 17:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, "courtesy". Cbrown1023 talk 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Coredesat 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has a lot of support in practice also, and there discussion follows reversion. GRBerry 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry raises an excellent point here. 84.145.240.58 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucratic. Just fix that copy-paste move they overlooked, and let them know you did it. Or don't, and then if they never realise, who cares? A note might be useful for educational purposes, though. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

6.1 Before undoing another administrator's action, it is common courtesy to contact and initiate discussion with that administrator. Exceptions may occur if an administrator is offline or in apparently urgent cases. In no case should an administrator overturn anothers' action without promptly notifying and initiating discussion afterwards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. We need some wiggle-room, though the underlying idea is important and acknowledged policy. Georgewilliamherbert 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Emergency, yes. Disguising the undeletion of BJAODN as an "emergency" is a false statement; Wikipedia has no deadline. Sean William @ 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not assert this was an emergency. Because of the extremely high level of drama associated with this particular topic, and the near-certainty that a new out-of-process delete would reinitiate drama, I felt that the undeletes while discussion was happening would minimize drama and that there was some urgency to accomplishing that. While this has drawn some negative attention on Alkivar and myself, I believe that it reduced the levels of disruption accompanying the discussions elsewhere about it (DRV, etc). The suggestion that there was no deadline involved is incorrect; people were starting to notice, and getting upset, and that was developing rather rapidly. In contentious issues, timing can be everything. Georgewilliamherbert 00:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence is worse bureaucracy than the previous suggestion, for amplified versions of the reasons I give there. How about simply "When reversing another admins action, it is courteous to let them know that you are doing so, intend to do so, or have done so, especially when the action or its reversal rises above the trivial." Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

6.2) When reversing another admin's action, it is courteous to let them know that this is happening, especially when the action or the reversal rises above the trivial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As suggested above. Stick to the core of a finding; there is little value in multiplication beyond necessity. Splash - tk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, subject to additional short sentence to clarify that this should be done as soon as practical afterwards, if they cannot easily be contacted at the time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Foundation issues

7) Certain policies on Wikipedia are dictated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Unlike other policies, these can not be overruled by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Red-herring. It's both obviously true and not justified here how it necessarily applies to the case. The GFDL policy issue with BJADON is asserted by normal admins and editors, not the foundation or Jimmy or the Board or Mike Godwin. Georgewilliamherbert 23:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Might need better wording; the idea is that community consensus not to follow Foundation policy is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, not sure how to reword it. --Coredesat 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to GWH: That's not the point. There are some people who said "yes, this violates the GFDL, but we can ignore that", and it needs to be made clear that we can't. This is why it needs a rewording; I'm not sure how to not imply that the community has no say in whether the policies are violated. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See my points elsewhere. In a purely legalistic sense, we widely violate the GFDL by allowing cut/paste from articles without tracking source info, by not having a proper Authors page for anything, etc. My position isn't "Yes, this violates the GFDL, but we can ignore that." It's "Yes, this violates the letter of the GFDL, but so do several other normal WP editing practices. If we strengthen our GFDL enforcement, we need to do so consistently, and if we do, large and possibly majority portions of our total content are equally in technical violation." If we use a different standard to justify getting rid of BJADON than we apply to article space, then that's just wrong. If we do apply that standard to article space... woe, we're going to be spending years trying to attribute and clean everything up.

I simply argue for consistency and sanity in the policy we apply. Georgewilliamherbert 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is inconsistent to hold unencyclopedic content to a different standard than encyclopedic content. This is an encyclopedia after all. Until(1 == 2) 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding of the glaringly obvious, but if we must... Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really help at all. Whether the WMF or the community decided GFDL/COPYRIGHT, its still something we (communally) have agreed to comply with. No benefit to ID'ing as a finding who established it and who can change it, as this isn't part of the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

8) The purpose of the Wikipedia project is the creation of an encyclopedia. While certain activities directed towards other purposes may occasionally be tolerated, any such activity that spreads disruption to the rest of the project may be prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts. Kirill 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support, it's very neutral towards the situation yet explains the mission and community consensus/policies addequately. Cbrown1023 talk 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the sentiment, but I don't really like the wording. "Certain activities may occasionally be tolerated" implies to me that we really shouldn't be doing anything but writing the encyclopedia, but some lesser-informed people need other things to draw them in. And that's just not the case; the group of people who are so devoted to creating a neutral encyclopedia that they won't mind if everything else on the site is deleted is small. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentiment "We are an encyclopedia written by a community, not a community writing an encyclopedia" applies here (I don't know who said it). Things like userboxes and coffee lounges that do not contribute directly to the content of the encyclopedia often make contribution more enjoyable. But I agree that when such things become disruptive, it is often better to get rid of them than to fight over them. Thatcher131 17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMMUNITY :) Melsaran (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What spread disruption here? BJAODN, or some of the activity regarding deleting it? And which activity? GRBerry 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Localised disruption won't be tolerated either, but ok. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't like the emphasis on this one. Words like "may occasionally be tolerated" fly in the face of communal views on the importance of a degree of communal activity being useful and valued, not merely "occasionally tolerated". See 8.1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic content

8.1) The purpose of the Wikipedia project is the creation of an encyclopedia, through the collaborative work of a community. While pages and groups directed towards communal interests and curiosities are encouraged to a degree, these are secondary to the main goal of Wikipedia and if deemed by communal consensus to be harmful, disruptive or in breach of policy, may be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Much more to the point, doesn't sideline the community itself, and applicable to all non-encyclopedic content. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Well writ. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all Rules

9) Ignore all Rules does not apply and should not be applied to ignore or circumvent Foundation policies or any other policies which are essential to the existence of Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia, such as the GFDL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Nick 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This somewhat overlaps with point 4, and you might consider changng the heading. SYSS Mouse 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Flurg. It's either all, or nothing. This is for discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. GFDL is a matter of law, and Foundation principles can arguably be set aside if they are a serious inhibition at a particularly acute moment. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlaps 4. See 4.1 (newly added). Again, this is (like 7) a bit of a red herring. IAR was not proposed to have been used to override GFDL; it was mentioned in the context of reinstating an out of process deletion to minimize the ensuing damaging drama. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not wheel warring

10) It is irrelevant whether the actions in this case constitute "wheel warring", because not everybody uses the same definition of that term. What is relevant is whether the actions were disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I note that a substantial amount of discussion has sunk into the meta-debate of "This is a wheel war! Is not! Is too!". That is not helpful to anyone, and misses the actual issue. >Radiant< 09:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing to adopt as a principle in the final decision. This is rather something the participants in this case must consider. Melsaran (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly, and see relatedly my slightly-drafty (5.5). However, as a principle of an arbitration case, it is not actually dealing with any of the facts to hand. The committee can imply this finding by declining to adopt the 'wheel war' jargon and acting principally to determine the final sentence of this proposal, which is what (5.5) is trying to get at. Splash - tk 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Radiant! and Newyorkbrad, arbitration isn't the place for a terminology or semantics debate. Nor is this a good finding itself, it's somehow a bit too 'apologetic' in tone ("we can't define wheel war but it doesn't matter!"). See 5.6 for a preferred approach. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

True, and important to note, but this is really more of a meta-note than something that should be adopted as a principle. -Amarkov moo! 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

BJAODN

1) BJAODN, short for "Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense", is a long-standing series of Wikipedia pages where unencyclopaedic but nevertheless funny content is stored.

1.1) Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is a long-standing depository of vandalism and elaborate hoaxes. Prior to its deletion, Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense had 99 different pages dedicated to these jokes. Concerns were raised by editors who believed that BJAODN did not satisfy the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation Licence.

1.2) Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (or BJAODN) is a long-standing depository of jokes, insults, vandalism and elaborate hoaxes. Prior to its deletion, Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense had 99 different pages dedicated to these jokes. Concerns were raised by editors who believed that BJAODN did not satisfy the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation Licence.

1.3) Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (or "BJAODN") is a long-standing series of pages in Wikipedia space in which editors have copied various types of jokes, insults, vandalism, hoaxes, and other material perceived as having humorous overtones. Whether any or all of this varied material is actually funny is a matter of dispute and taste. Concerns have been raised by editors who believe that because much of the contents of BJAODN was cut-and-pasted from other pages without attribution, requirements of the GNU Free Documentation Licence are violated. Critics of BJAODN also contend that the pages publicize, and thereby encourage, vandalism in violation of WP:DENY and that some of them contain personal attacks or harassment. Proponents of the pages have asserted, among other things, that they are humorous and encourage a sense of community.

1.4) Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense ("BJAODN") is a long standing collection of quotes and deleted material culled from Wikipedia by various editors, for both educational and humor value. It has been proposed for deletion many times, principally due to concerns that it may breach the GNU Free Documentation Licence ("GFDL") due to lack of author creditation, as well as other concerns mainly related to encouragement of vandalism and outliving of usefulness, but so far has not been deleted. Prior to the present case, BJAODN comprised 99 individual pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'd recommend stating this as the first finding of fact, because some may not know what "BJAODN" is. Melsaran 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: User proposed BJADON 1. Cbrown1023 talk 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.1. Sean William @ 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.2. Melsaran 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.3 as a more complete, hopefully NPOV, summary of the background. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support 1.3, seems to be the best summary of the BJAODN situation and seems to touch all bases. --Coredesat 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1.3 is excellent. Melsaran 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, nice neutral way of saying it. Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Support 1.3 - it's important to get out as much of the facts as one can. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1 is fine; the others are tl;dr. BJAODN is almost as onomatopaeic as I am, I'm not sure this needs a FoF. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 1.4 - issue addressed is that the previous wordings took a non-neutral position in characterizing BJAODN, justifying it, or discussing it (pro/con: "whether it is actually funny... critics say..."). None of this is necessary. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN first deletion

2) On May 30, 2007, Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted most of the BJAODN subpages on the grounds that they were copyright violations because they did not carry proper attribution as required by the GFDL. The situation was discussed extensively on the Admins' noticeboard (May 30, May 31, June 1). A deletion review was opened June 2 and closed June 6. The closing administrator Xoloz wrote that "The best compromise consensus to be found below is this: BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations" (emphasis in original). The BJAODN pages were undeleted on June 5, before the DRV closed, by Sj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Did Mr. Gustafson notify editors of BJAODN of this pending deletion, via posting on the BJAODN pages, before he made the deletion? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Best to ask him on his talk page or on IRC to comment here. I am very doubtful that he is watching these pages for his name. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No I did not. Also, support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, but can wording be made smoother? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN is largely unattributed

3) Between June 5 and August 14, the state of attribution of BJAODN was remained largely unchanged. Many items are marked with diffs showing the original source but most are not.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. They had warning and nothing was done. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Most of the sections of BJAODN have titles of the form "From Article". Does that count as attribution? Is an edit like [2], with an edit summary of "Merge from Megaupload", attributed? — PyTom 19:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadly support. (Minor wording change for style, "was" -> "remained": if this is felt to be improper editing of another's text please any editor revert it.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar deleted BJAODN

4) On August 14 between 09:14 and 10:30 (UTC), Administrator Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted BJAODN and all its subpages. He did not discuss the deletion beforehand. He notified the Administrators' noticeboard after beginning the deletions [3]. Between 09:30 and 18:15, comments on the noticeboard were 11 to 3 in favor of deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Delete the votecount at the end. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, and agree with User:Splash's comment on the vote count. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV

5) At 18:22, HisSpaceResearch (talk · contribs) opened a deletion review [4]. He notified Alkivar on his talk page at 18:26 [5].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletions by Georgewilliamherbert

6) Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) began undeleting BJAODN at 18:40. He did not discuss it with Alkivar or comment on the noticeboard beforehand. He posted to Alkivar's talk page at 18:42 [6] and to DRV at 18:43 [7] that he is was then undeleting the pages. He stopsped undeleting pages at 19:50.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Seems accurate, factual and summarizes well. (Minor changes to verb tenses for style - again revert if improper.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Undeletions by Xaosflux

7) At 05:37 on August 15, Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) comments at DRV that the BJAODN pages were incompletely restored and that he will restore the rest of the pages for consistency [8]. He begins at 05:23 and finishes at 05:28.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion by Alkivar showed poor judgement

8) Because the previous deletion of BJAODN was controversial, the committee finds that Alkivar's deletion of BJAODN without going through proper channels (MfD) was an error in judgement and a misuse of admin discretion.

8.0.1) Unilateral deletion of pages is primarily intended for non-controversial matters, and office and oversight style emergencies. For the majority of controversial deletions, some form of consensus check is expected. Alkivar showed poor judgement in unilaterally deleting (without any attempt to check the decision) almost a hundred pages of BJAODN which were already well known and highly discussed, where a recent "keep" decision had been reached and not yet overturned, against the view of Speedy Deletion policy, and where widespread controversy and likely immediate undeletion for review was foreseeable if this was done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Offering several alternative here are these actions could be interpreted in different ways. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Melsaran 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. It was a bit rash to delete without notifying others beforehand. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - especially given the controversy surrounding the previous deletion. Orderinchaos 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The deletions were within his discretion as an administrator and were supported by the speedy deletion criteria. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't. See my comments below. Melsaran (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Was Alkivar aware of the prior conflict on this issue? If there are plausible GFDL issues and Alkivar didn't know about past dispute over the pages then it was appropriate for him to delete them. If he did know that many admins favored keeping these pages (BTW... DO many admins favor keeping them?) then it becomes trickier... are the GFDL issues clear enough that the pages HAVE to be deleted and any admins opposing it are simply wrong? If so then the deletion is still defensible, but it would have been better to lay out the strength of the case and get consensus in advance. Note: I personally think BJAODN should be nuked as a massive violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and common sense. All too often it's a venue for people to mock others to no good purpose. --CBD 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - I am unable to assume that Alkivar did not know about BJAODN's controversial history, nor that Alkivar did not know the specific nuances of the CSD. Despite this Alkivar deleted the pages (most likely, whether knowingly or not) applying IAR. He should have known that such an action would be far from being unopposed, and that it would cause a lot of Wikidrama. Also he should have known that there are processes that can deal with the deletion of high-profile pages without causing more drama than necessary (imagine results speedy deleting Esperanza instead of using the MfD process) - non admin editors are highly allergic to admins using their powers out-of-process to do controversial things (they don't agree with). To sum it up: Much pain and drama could have been avoided if just another MfD had been filed, citing that the propositions of the first MfD (fixing the GFDL issues) had not been fulfilled (and most likely would not been fulfilled in the forseeable future), and that thus BJAODN should be deleted. Instead just speedy deleting the pages caused a major stirrup, and flaring tempers. The speedy deletion was poor judgement. 84.145.240.58 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed per the IP above. It should be obvious to any admin that deleting BJAODN without prior discussion would lead to drama, undeletion, accusations of wheel warring etc. If he wanted BJAODN to be deleted, he should have used process, which is usually faster (5 or 7 days until decision) than speedy deletion (which causes endless amounts of drama) in controversial cases. Admins should use process in controversial cases unless they want to create drama. Kusma (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with updated suggestion of wording 8.0.1. See evidence for reasoning. /Evidence#Administrative actions by Alkivar, Georgewilliamherbert and Xaosflux. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion by Alkivar was appropriate

8.1) Because the previous deletion review had specified that BJAODN was to be kept only if it could be properly attributed, and little additional attribution had been made, the committee finds that Alkivar's deletion of BJAODN was an appropriate use of Admin discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps noteworthy that many additions after the June 6 DRV were still being made without proper attribution, and when lots of people say how important a job is but no one actually steps up to do it, maybe it isn't really important. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagreed. MfD is the proper channel for something so controversial. In that MfD, the argument could have been "The previous deletion review had specified that BJAODN was to be kept only if it could be properly attributed, and little additional attribution has been made", and that would probably have gained a lot of support for the deletions. Melsaran 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed - something on which so many people will have a strong opinion one way or the other should not be decided by a single admin without consultation. Orderinchaos 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - see my comment above. 84.145.240.58 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, see evidence for reasoning. /Evidence#Administrative actions by Alkivar, Georgewilliamherbert and Xaosflux. Even if the matter had not been rectified, it was clear for many reasons - disruption, likely controversy, prior cases and interest, lack of SD criteria, etc - that unilateral deletion was not the way to go. Poor judgement even though I have no doubt it was completely deemed for the best, and in good faith, and that ultimately deletion may well be right. Unilateral deletion was (I feel) poor judgement for this kind of item. But perhaps not vastly so, and Alkivar has a good history of good judgements and intentions. My confidence in him/her is fairly undiminished; there is no track record of other poor judgements on admin tools to refer to that I'm aware of. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion by Georgewilliamherbert was inappropriate

9) Georgewilliamherbert says that at the time he began researching the situation (which took some time), a DRV had not been filed [9]. However, he knew or should have known that DRV was the appropriate venue to discuss the deletion. After undeleting Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense at 18:40, he posted to Alkivar's talk page at 18:42 and to the DRV at 18:43. He then proceeded with approximately 80 further undeletions between 18:51 and 19:50. The committee finds that the undeletion of Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense at 18:40 was an understandable mistake, since the DRV had been open less than 20 minutes at that point, but that the undeletion of 80 additional BJAODN subpages after posting to the DRV was a mistake in judgement and a misuse of administrator discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disagreed - it was not necessary to open a DRV as the original deletion was out of process and had not been a result of consensus, and therefore a DRV in such circumstances would have become a proxy MfD. The correct action would have been to restore the articles then send them to MfD or even an RfC (probably the latter as the last MfD was a mess) to establish a consensus for moving forward. Orderinchaos 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But why was GWH "right" to undelete but Alkivar was "wrong" to delete? The June DRV laid down conditions for keeping BJAODN that had not been met. The problem here is two admins who both did what they thought was right without consultation or discussion. Thatcher131 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO GWH's action was restoring the status quo, whereas Alkivar's was drastically altering the status quo. Orderinchaos 10:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't really 'keep track', my general sense is that I've seen good things from both Alkivar and GWH in the past. Thus, Thatcher131's comment about both 'doing what they thought right' seems likely. Yes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions... but in this case it looks to me like both admins got off at an earlier exit. It would have been better if they'd discussed and gotten consensus first, but as the scope of disagreement became clearer both DID stop and start discussing. That's what admins SHOULD do. We have to strike a balance between 'be bold' and 'do not upset the apple cart'. Both had reasonable basis for taking the actions they did... belief that there were GFDL issues requiring deletion vs belief that prior discussion had found deletion not necessary. If they hadn't been willing to stop... that is something which we would need to take action over. But not the case here. --CBD 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion by Georgewilliamherbert was inappropriate

9.1) Georgewilliamherbert says that at the time he began researching the situation (which took some time), a DRV had not been filed [10]. After undeleting Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense at 18:40, he posted to Alkivar's talk page at 18:42 and to the DRV at 18:43. He then proceeded with approximately 80 further undeletions between 18:51 and 19:50. The committee finds that even though Georgewilliamherbert did not notice the DRV until after the first undeletion at 18:40 (because the DRV had been open less than 20 minutes at the time), all of his undeletions were a mistake in judgement and a misuse of administrator discretion because he knew or should have known that DRV was the appropriate venue to discuss the situation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The undeletion by Georgewilliamherbert was appropriate

9.2) Because the June deletion of BJAODN had been overturned and Alkivar's deletion was without prior discussion, Georgewilliamherbert's undeletion was an appropriate use of admin discretion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. George acted with the wishes of the community when it was last asked, therefore it was an acceptable admin action. Cbrown1023 talk 16:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, other than the ongoing AN discussion which was 11-3 for deletion at the time. Consensus can change, right? Thatcher131 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2 comments - 1, I hadn't seen that and so was unaware of that particular sub-community consensus, and 2, 14 admins on WP:AN in one night is probably not an adequate "community consensus" for something which has previously been up for deletion and been through delete/restore cycles 6(?) times before.

That said, I would have taken that into consideration prior to acting if I'd seen it. I don't know if it would have changed my actions. Georgewilliamherbert 23:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Melsaran (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. He did the right thing - bold, revert, discuss. – Chacor 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. There was nothing out of line with his undeletion (well, he could have handled it a little better, but it was not wheel warring or anything). Melsaran (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. It restored the status quo so that community consensus could be properly obtained. Orderinchaos 10:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war

10) The deletion and undeletion of BJAODN constitutes a wheel war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, for discussion, first we need to see if it is or isn't a wheel war. Cbrown1023 talk 16:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, perhaps something more rational, like "the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN was inappropriate". One deletion and one undeletion isn't strictly a "wheel war". Just like how one edit and one revert in an article isn't an "edit war". Melsaran 16:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It was multiple deletion and undeletion though. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but this particular ArbCom case is about the deletion by Alkivar and the undeletion by Georgewilliamherbert, not about the deletions in May/June, I suppose, because those admins (Jeffrey O. Gustafson etc) aren't listed as parties. Melsaran 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators will take everything into account. Cbrown1023 talk 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think wheel war is not a good term for this case. The problem I see here is that two admins who both thought they were right went ahead and acted without consultation or following process. On one hand I generally don't like "process wonks" and process-the-sake-of-process fetishism. However, if every admin did what they felt was right without discussion, consultation or process, Wikipedia could quickly devolve into anarchy. Admins should not reverse each other without discussion except in emergencies, and admins who do take it upon themselves to reverse another admin without consultation may find their actions under review. Thatcher131 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. >Radiant< 09:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Too vaguely scoped as written. Possibly the actions of the assembled admins between them was. Something being clear that the concert of actions and their plural nature was A Bad Thing would be more useful. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war

10.1) The undeletion of BJAODN constitutes a wheel war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I was unaware that admins are on 0RR, nor that they are disallowed to undo highly controversial speedy (IAR) deletions. 84.145.240.58 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Both or neither, depending on how the June actions/status are considered, but not just one. GRBerry 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One-sided, and also irrelevant. Just like "User:foo's actions constitute edit warring" is one-sided. >Radiant< 09:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exceptionally biased. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - an admin reversing anothers' out-of-process or mistaken block isn't "wheel warring"; neither is an admin reversing anothers' out-of-process or mistaken delete. Its the repeat of an admin action a 2nd time, knowing it is disagreed by another admin, that is the "tipping point" where wheel warring becomes relevant between two admins. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor use of (un)deletion tools

10.2) The set of administrative actions taken with respect to BJAODN by the various administrators in this case together constitute a poor use of the deletion and undeletion tools. Individual actions may have been justifiable in the eyes of the parties, but achieving the right result by the right means in the prevailing context is the ideal to be sought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Something like this. Specific findings that what was actually done was in total ungood. No need for jargon-ised labels such as wheel war or much else. I suppose the first problem with this is the reasonably defensible case for licensing problems with much of BJAODN. But the finding is intended to take the sum of the actions together, acknowledging that they were not made in contextual isolation and conclude that they should all have known a jolly damn sight better. Splash - tk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful. We already have proposals covering "wisdom or otherwise" of both editor's delete/undelete actions (8 + 9). We don't need to repeat these. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's deletion does not fall under WP:CSD

11) WP:DENY is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:BJAODN does not meet any WP:CSD at all actually. Copyright infringement has additional criteria, including "The material was copied from another website", and "The material was introduced at once by a single person". However, WP:DENY was the supplied reason. Prodego ^talk 17:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be self-evident that it is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Not every speedy deletion is performed under a CSD criterion, some ignore all rules or invoke common sense. I'm not saying that in this particular case, the deletion was a legitimate use of IAR (clarification: I think that it was inappropriate, let alone justified by IAR Melsaran (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)), but we shouldn't have to state that WP:DENY isn't a CSD. Melsaran 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is going to controversial (as this would obviously be) then those obviously don't apply. As for the self-evidentness, see points 3, 4, 5 in this section. It doesn't have to be obscure to be a finding of fact, and the proposed remedies must be based on the finding of facts. Prodego ^talk 17:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if we decide the deletion was valid, it's important to note that is despite the lack of a speedy deletion criterion that applies. -Amarkov moo! 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find any of his reasons there.84.145.240.58 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Do not invent new CSDs as convenient. Find some other mechanism, resorting to WP:IAR if you are a fan of it. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Although Alkivar's deletion summary does not fall under WP:CSD, the additional reasoning for the deletions do

11.1) While WP:DENY is not a criterion for speedy deletion, the other reasoning stated by Alkivar at the Administrator's Noticeboard acknowledged the long-standing GFDL and copyright violations, which is grounds for speedy deletion (CSD G-12).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

G12 is for blatant copyright infringement (i.e. textdumps from another website). It says that all (original emphasis) criteria must be met (see here), and one of the criteria is "The material was introduced at once by a single person". That is clearly not the case here. Melsaran (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't say that it "clearly [is] not the case", because that is one of the points disputed in this Arbitration case. Cbrown1023 talk 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN is clearly not a "blatant copyright infringement". Nor was it "introduced at once by a single person", therefore it is not G12. Melsaran (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying that BJAODN doesn't violate the GFDL, I'm saying that it is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G12. Melsaran (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. BJAODN doesn't even meet the first bullet point of G-12. Evouga 21:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not on even a cursory analysis of G12 is this true, and nor was G12 ever intended to be applied internally. That it fails to exclude that fact doesn't change it. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

View reserved. Tending to disagree strongly. Written policy documents consensus; it is not the final judge of rightness (as witness discretion and IAR). On the other hand, if other reasons are invoked, they are not invoked because they fall under WP:CSD, but because they override it. Whatever the answer on that one, WP:DENY and non-fixing of copyright issues do not bring Alkivar's actions within WP:CSD. The wording of WP:CSD and WP:D still explicitly excludes this kind of action. Unilateral deletion would have to be by overriding CSD, which is not the proposed wording. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion". Pretty definitive that anything else would require discussion, excepting of course the cases of obvious consensus, which this clearly is not. Prodego ^talk 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's deletion does not fall under WP:CSD

11.2) Alkivar's deletion of BJAODN wasn't justified by any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is a little better than merely stating "WP:DENY isn't a CSD". Melsaran (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find any of his reasons there.84.145.240.58 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I noticed another FoF saying this somewhere else. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed but not central to the case.

Agreed - and any validity of deletion would of necessity have to have used either admin discretion, IAR or other grounds to override CSD, as noted above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Value of BJAODN

12) BJAODN is entirely unrelated to the process of creating an encyclopedia and has no redeeming value within the context of this process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could perhaps be worded better. Kirill 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

So the Arbcom is going to make statements about the value of BJAODN? I'd say that the Arbcom is limited to resolving disputes, not to determine whether BJAODN should be kept or not. Remember, this case was originally titled "BJAODN Wheel War", not "Should BJAODN be kept? Arbcom, please make a decision for us, we can't reach a consensus!" Melsaran (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This would also apply to userboxes. Despite what some people seem to think, it is important to have a community too... -Amarkov moo! 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely subjective, and moreover not up to ArbCom to decide. Evouga 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - uhoh, let's not step on that kind of thin ice here. 84.145.240.58 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it that those who disagree with this "fact" are deeply mistaken. How about, "the arbitration committee regards BJAODN as a recreational project and does not recognize its value in aiding the goal of creating an encyclopedia." Is the evaluation of content in Category:Wikipedia humor within the arbcom's purview? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - subjective and not really within Arbcom's scope to decide. Orderinchaos 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Arbcom's business. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this superfluous proposal, and all attempts to judge BJAODN. Its role, nature and related issues are described at #Proposed findings of fact. That is all that is germane. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Role of BJAODN

12.1) BJAODN plays no direct role in creating the encyclopedia, nor does it play a role immediately ancillary to creating the encyclopedia, as do Wikipedia-space pages such as policies and noticeboards. BJAODN's value, if any, is the contribution that it makes to community spirit and morale through preserving what some editors perceive as humorous material. Pages in this category are less integral to the project than the more centrally encyclopedic pages, but are not automatically illegitimate or deletable on this ground alone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, along the lines of 12 but more neutral (and proponents of 12 will probably find 12.1 too weak, but here it is for what it's worth). Newyorkbrad 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is accurate, not everyone is a proponent of the philosophy behind finding 12. Whether their concerns should be taken into consideration by the arbcom is another matter, but viewpoints sympathetic to BJAODN do exist. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. I don't like it, but this is accurate and a good neutral way of putting it. --Coredesat 09:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Weakly support as a far preferable alternative to 12. Orderinchaos 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Imprecise, and rather theoretical. Not too bad, though. Phrases like "less integral", "more central[]" and so on are value judgements. Now perhaps it's obvious enough with BJAODN, but I don't see that the point is materially relevant to a case deciding the ins and outs of admin actions related to BJAODN. This isn't MfD, after all. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, oppose this superfluous proposal, and all attempts to judge BJAODN. Its role, nature and related issues are described at #Proposed findings of fact. That is all that is germane. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL and BJADON

13) To date, the Wikimedia Foundation (Board, Counsel, Jimbo Wales, other authorized agent or representative) have not issued a finding or policy directive indicating that the BJAODN pages as used within Wikipedia are in violation of the GNU Free Documentation Licence or that their usage needs to be corrected or removed. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has similarly not issued any such decision or finding to date.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since when do we need the foundation to tell us what is a copyright violation? While the occasional office action does enforce foundation issues, it is also the job of the community to enforce such issues. Until(1 == 2) 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested that BJAODN is a copyvio. It's proposed that it's a license violation on the GFDL license. Very different things. Georgewilliamherbert 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, GFDL is a form of copyright. The original authors own the copyright but have irrevocably allowed use of it to anyone based on certain conditions. If those conditions are not met then it is a violation of the GFDL copyright. Until(1 == 2) 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what about the cut-and-paste summary style pages? (see here) Melsaran (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

True. This by itself is a pointless finding of fact, though. -Amarkov moo! 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather useless, in my opinion. --Coredesat 09:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very obviously loaded in wording. >Radiant< 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think the fact that some entries are in technical violation of GFDL is actually disputed by anyone, what we disagree on is what to do about it (nothing, fix it, delete it) Orderinchaos 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ROFLCOPTERBBQ. "This page is intentionally left blank". Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, oppose this superfluous proposal, The role, nature and related issues of BJAODN and GFDL/Wikipedia, are both described at #Proposed findings of fact. That is all that is germane. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Alkivar cautioned

1) Alkivar is cautioned to seek community consensus for controversial administrative actions in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran 16:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not yet supported by findings of fact / evidence. Sean William @ 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar has said in response to a question above that he knew the pages had previously been deleted and undeleted. If you really need a finding of fact to support this, it is trivial enough to write. GRBerry 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, so long as no sanction or limitation is applied to Alkivar beyond the above. Orderinchaos 10:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This applies to all admins, and I submit as evidence WP:AN and WP:ANI. It's not brilliant phrasing, however. "X is cautioned in future to establish a consensual basis for administrative actions should controversy surrounding them arise". Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. If there must be a case, this is probably the only 'remedy' that's merited, and at that it's not exactly earth shattering -- Alkivar (who seems to have only acted with good intentions and has a clean record) has probably worked this one out for him/herself already :) It was very clear to me that he/she should and could have anticipated that unilateral deletion was not appropriate, and that MFD/AFD was. Again, evidence page sums up in more detail what exactly Alkivar could/should have considered. No point re-rehashing apparent first admin mistake of a good editor :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert reminded

2) Georgewilliamherbert is reminded that under controversial circumstances, it is probably better to utilise the deletion review process than to restore deleted pages unilaterally.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Melsaran 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not yet supported by findings of fact / evidence. Sean William @ 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, trivial enough to write a finding of fact. GRBerry 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Should he restore them multilaterally? Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not yet convinced/supported that this was unreasonable as to warant the finding. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

30 days

3) Editors who normally contribute to BJAODN pages and subpages are given 30 days to find the edits for each individual section. If they are not found within that time, they are to be removed as a GFDL violation.

3.1) Editors who normally contribute to BJAODN pages and subpages are given 30 days to find the edits for each individual section, and to remove any content likely to be in breach of other policies including (but not limited to) WP:BLP and potentially libellous statements. Unattributed or policy-breaching items not rectified within that time, are to be removed as GFDL or policy violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is an in-case measure if the DRV MfD comes back as keep or no-consensus. Though I have a feeling some may view this as content ruling, I feel it half is, half is not. The half not comes from the fact that I figure that arbcom can force people to follow copyright on the project or face further punishment (I think, I may be completely wrong there, sorry if I am). Plus, this way, the editors there have no choice but to follow it. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not yet have an opinion on this, but I feel that when this remedy is adopted, it is most definitely not content ruling. "Content ruling" is when there is a particular content dispute that's got everything to do with different POVs on a matter related to an article. This is merely setting a time limit to remove pages as a copyright infringement. Melsaran 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The ArbCom may not rule on content, but I'd have thought they can on copyright. Moreschi ^Talk 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, although the outsourcing of BJAODN to another website might make it unnecessary (assuming deletion of the BJAODN on Wikipedia takes place). — Rickyrab | Talk 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I said it was an in-case measure. At current glance, looks like it won't be needed. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea - and similar to my own thoughts on the best way to move forward. I would be happy to assist with this process if at all possible. I think it is within Arbcom's discretion as there may well not be a solution possible by consensus as opinion is so divided and so strong. Orderinchaos 10:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. It is questionable that superseding MfD or DRV is even in the committee's discretion, the proposal has nothing to do with the issue seemingly at hand (the propriety of the deletions and undeletions), and the proposed task is unlikely to be completed (if the last three months are any indication). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this is if the pages survive the MfD, not to overturn it. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Unenforceable. SYSS Mouse 12:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is enforceable, but is a bit pointless. I do not think this supersedes MfD et al., as the GFDL supersedes them, but is this really a spending of time the committee wishes to actively mandate? Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial reaction -- yes. Something like this would be excellent. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

3.1) proposed to merge in the intent of proposal 4 and cover removal of problematic policy breaching content that is not GFDL related. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No repetition of personal attacks

4) Should Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense not be deleted, any material that could be considered to be a personal attack or any form of harassment should not be included, and furthermore, no material from outside the main encyclopedia and talk namespaces be included. This should also cover any attempts to ridicule or humiliate any contributor, whether the contributor to BJAODN regards them as a vandal or otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure this is necessary or useful. Arbcom doesn't usually intervene in content per se. We already have policies against true personal attacks and so forth, and I don't think anyone would object to scrubbing same from BJAODN even if it's all otherwise kept. We shouldn't redefine personal attack here for the sake of legalism. Georgewilliamherbert 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Nick 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rope to be hung with. This will lead to edit wars. Standard policies already deal with personal attacks etc. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Too specific, likely to lead to wars per Sp[lash. Prefer proposal (9) below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seek permission

5) As a courtesy, any user wishing to add content to BJAODN that was originally created by another user who remains in good standing with the community should seek permission first. If permission is not forthcoming, the content should not be added to BJAODN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an attempt to prevent good faith editors from being humiliated and ridiculed without their knowledge. Nick 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is "good standing within the community"? Looks quite subjective. Melsaran (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked or banned is the normal definition. Nick 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So if it was created by a now-banned user, who still doesn't want the content to be added to BJAODN, we add it anyway? Melsaran (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is basically nonsense - that it has a obvious logical flaw. (no pun). If something is being added to BJAODN, then it is funny and most likely vandalism - The words "bad jokes" and "deleted" is there for a reason. Then, is the editor in question is really in good standing? SYSS Mouse 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed, in part per SYSS Mouse. It's never been a problem before, and by releasing it under GFDL, the user themselves have made this step entirely unnecessary. Orderinchaos 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the GFDL does that, and the user cannot refuse permission. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Undecided. Per GFDL permission is not needed to quote. But it is perfectly permissible to create a s a community a rule as to what may or may not be added to BJAODN or similar pages, should we wish to. Undecided on value and practicality..... not least since I endorsed the deletion of BJAODN recently. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN deleted

6) In light of its lack of contribution to the encyclopedia-building process and its generation of disruption within the project at large, BJAODN (including all of its sub-pages and related pages) is to be deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is it widely felt that the pages are generating disruption, or is it felt that whether we should have the pages is generating disruption? If the pages are inherently disruptive it's justifyable to simply remove them, but I don't know that that's the case here. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that they are not inherently disruptive, the discussion over the pages is disruptive. If ArbCom were to say (hypothetically) "we're keeping BJAODN, no matter what", it would be the same. Melsaran (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Arbcom would overrule a MFD to delete, but... I oppose this in general, but it may be that Kirill is correct and that there's no other way to resolve the situation short of Arbcom making a ruling one way or another. I've said in several venues that it's possible that Arbcom making such a decision may be the only way to resolve this. Deciding based on the overall disruption is a reasonable choice of aspects to base a decision on. It would make sense for Arbcom to wait until the current MFD is resolved (that might delete it anyways). Georgewilliamherbert 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This would be the optimal solution, if the ArbCom is willing to pass it. Sean William @ 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not within the Arbcom's merit. Melsaran (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom cannot rule on content. This is not a question of content, as it involves projectspace. Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it probably is, since BJAODN is being touted as a diversion for editors, rather than actual encyclopedic content. Nick 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a question of content. Not encyclopedic content, but it is still a content issue with arguments on both sides. Melsaran (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Mersaran. ArbCom intervention is not only against its policy, but also entirely unnecessary, as BJAODN's fate is already being decided, completely within-process, in the ongoing MfD. Evouga 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the ArbCom will pass it...project space is not mainspace, and as such is not part of the encyclopedic content. --Coredesat 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - suboptimal at best, "The Cabal delete my favorite page" at worst. Though I have mixed views on BJAODN, I feel this should be up to the community to decide. Let the MfD run, and emphasize the GFDL issues. Most editors without the bit don't like it if it feels like they are ignored by the "higher ups" (and the losing side will always feel that way) 84.145.240.58 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the Arbcom's business. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... an arbitrator proposed it, somehow I think it is within the bounds (not I'm not going either way here). Kwsn(Ni!) 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators don't always agree with each other. It could very well be that Kirill thinks that it is within the merits of the ArbCom, and that another arbitrator disagrees. Melsaran (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose - community decision if such an item should exist, not arbcom. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No new BJAODN

7) The continual creation of BJAODN should cease as there is considerable controversy about whether or not the collation of vandalism in such a manner is beneficial to the project. There should be no creation of any such project in future which attempts to collate edits to articles some editors may find humorous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Would provide an alternative if there is no consensus to delete BJAODN either at MfD or by the Arbitration Committee but there is consensus that the BJAODN should become "historical". Nick 22:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather not. When BJAODN is deleted/historical, it seems quite obvious to me that a new BJAODN is G4,. And (like I pointed out above) I'd say that the Arbcom is limited to resolving disputes, not to determine whether BJAODN should be kept or not. The community should reach a consensus, we don't need Arbcom to do it for us. Melsaran (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt not have thine fun. Thou shalt be whipped by the cat-o-nine-tails shouldst thou thusly dare. Splash - tk 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The issue is not, and was never, the existence of a page collating funny edits. I mean, people did discuss that, but clearly the GFDL is the main problem. This should be decided by the community, not by fiat from Arbcom. -Amarkov moo! 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose - community decision if such an item should exist, not arbcom. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

General caution

8) The admins involved in this case are collectively reminded in future to establish, in appropriate venues, a consensual basis for administrative actions should controversy surrounding them arise or be likely to arise given the context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To replace the various cautions/reminders. Again, a finding that the total of the actions in their context should have been conducted in a fundamentally more collegiate way. This includes those who claim they were seeking a tidy Wikipedia (nonesuch) or consistency of the kind that just allows hobgoblins to grow. In sum they have combined to result in a divisive arbitration case. There does not seem much value in continuing the legalistic differences between cautions, reminders and admonishments, and I would encourage the committee to set aside the mindset that the verb selected is actually making any difference to the impact of their decisions. Splash - tk 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with this comment (not necessarily the caution); this is not really a divisive arbcom case. There is no significant dispute about the facts, we're all cooperating to answer questions and probe policy and precedent, etc. I haven't seen any personal attacks. It's a fair issue whether both of us did the most collegial things to start this off, though. Georgewilliamherbert 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree and support. --Coredesat 00:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Support this; both sides are somewhat at fault, but there doesn't seem to be anything justifying actual sanctions. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - covered by individual proposals elsewhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This would replace remedies 1 and 2 specifically, and also apply more generally to other admins who acted for whatever reason in a way that furthered rather cooled the dispute. Splash - tk 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On this one, I don't agree or like the wording. "The admins involved in this case" is too open and includes Thatcher. And the editors did not undertake the same role, their actions and possible issues were very different and the same wording of admonition may not apply to all. Depending how it is viewed, some may not need admonition or caution at all. The wording is also very general, it cautions them should any "controversy surrounding them arise or be likely to arise given 'the context'.". I see what you're aiming for, but I think it's doomed; that's incredibly vague and non-specific. We shouldn't be giving warnings of such vague generality, more specific ones directed to their individual actions (if appropriate) may be better. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors reminded that policies apply to all pages

9) The Arbitration Committee reminds all editors that official Wikipedia policies apply to all pages unless otherwise stated. In particular editors are cautioned to remember that policies such as Biographies of Living People, No Personal Attack and No Legal Threats apply to community pages as well as encyclopedia and editorial pages on Wikipedia, as well as unofficial, but popular and generally-accepted vandalism-deterrents such as WP:BEANS and WP:DENY.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as alternative to various "what should happen in future" proposals such as "No repetition of personal attacks" etc above. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The point that comes across to me strongest here is the good faith of all concerned: Alkivar in trying to help by deletion of a GFDL-breaching vandals prowess-board which many have objected to, and whose faults despite much comment remain unfixed after a long time, GWH by trying to correct an out of process deletion to minimize wikidrama fallout from improper deletion of a well-known set of community pages (?and so that others can comment in review) and in taking careful steps to notify all concerned of this, Thatcher131 in trying to nail down on admin correcting admin and wheel warring issues that damage the project and which has been less tightly controlled recently, one suspects, than in the past.

Thatcher is an experienced admin, and I hate critiquing others who put themselves on the line to try and do right by the project. But I just don't agree that the case measures up. I see an out of process speedy delete by someone who probably should have known better or (at the least) anticipated AFD/MFD as more appropriate, or at least checked opinion, and thereafter reasonable handling and fair conduct by all. If not perfect, then nothing worth writing to Arbcom over. Overall I agree with Thatcher's last comment, that a once-off error should be treated ligher. I'd ask for Arbcom to consider that there are lessons, perhaps warnings against repetition, but no sanction is needed here. I would trust completely that each of the well-meaning admins concerned have learned from it already, if they are prepared to affirm this is so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FT2's first paragraph here, but not so much the second one. It (for once) appears in an arbcomm case that everyone was acting in good faith. That there is no consensus for resolution of some potentially fundamental and foundation concerns means arbcomm is a place to collect, analyze and make a decision. --Rocksanddirt 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)