Seriously, on BJAODN - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Seriously, on BJAODN

Original research: our secret...

Badsites meets RFA meets... RfC

The Cunctator

2 Jun 2007 2 Jun '07

5:02 p.m.

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

Reply

Show replies by date

geni

2 Jun 2 Jun

5:07 p.m.

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

For inforceing our copyright policies? Arbcom isn't stupid enough to take actions against admins doing that. -- geni

Reply

The Cunctator

5:14 p.m.

On 6/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

For inforceing our copyright policies? Arbcom isn't stupid enough to take actions against admins doing that.

He didn't enforce our copyright policies. He made a massive, unilateral deletion of content and CLAIMED he was enforcing our copyright policies. If you shoot someone and then claim self-defense it doesn't make your claim necessarily true. The claim of copyright enforcement here as a justification for the mass deletion of BJAODN content is laughable. Moreover, it's a terrible precedent to set. Even with the reasonable though highly disruptive project of clearing out badly sourced images there was a real effort to put lots of safeguards on the deletion project. This was done unilaterally and he is wheel warring against restoration.

Reply

geni

5:43 p.m.

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

He didn't enforce our copyright policies. He made a massive, unilateral deletion of content and CLAIMED he was enforcing our copyright policies.

No he was inforceing them to the letter.

If you shoot someone and then claim self-defense it doesn't make your claim necessarily true. The claim of copyright enforcement here as a justification for the mass deletion of BJAODN content is laughable. Moreover, it's a terrible precedent to set.

We've deleted over 100K images under the same set of policies. I think any precedents are likely to have already been set.

Even with the reasonable though highly disruptive project of clearing out badly sourced images there was a real effort to put lots of safeguards on the deletion project.

Not exactly. A8 then G12 always allowed for instant deletion in the case of copyvios.

This was done unilaterally and he is wheel warring against restoration.

Speedies normaly are unilateral and current arbcom precedent is that undeleteing even out of policy deletions is not allowed. -- geni

Reply

The Cunctator

6:25 p.m.

On 6/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

He didn't enforce our copyright policies. He made a massive, unilateral deletion of content and CLAIMED he was enforcing our copyright policies.

No he was enforcing them to the letter.

In your opinion. In mine and several others, he was going rogue. He clearly recognized this would be controversial, but seemed to forget WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T DELETE.

If you shoot someone and then claim self-defense it doesn't make your claim necessarily true. The claim of copyright enforcement here as a justification for the mass deletion of BJAODN content is laughable. Moreover, it's a terrible precedent to set.

We've deleted over 100K images under the same set of policies. I think any precedents are likely to have already been set.

I'm not talking about the act of deletion per se, but the act of doing so unilaterally without any process.

Even with the reasonable though highly disruptive project of clearing out badly sourced images there was a real effort to put lots of safeguards on the deletion project.

Not exactly. A8 then G12 always allowed for instant deletion in the case of copyvios.

This was done unilaterally and he is wheel warring against restoration.

Speedies normaly are unilateral and current arbcom precedent is that undeleteing even out of policy deletions is not allowed.

Which is absurd. And the fact that we're applying main namespace concepts to BJAODN is absurd.

Reply

geni

6:32 p.m.

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

In your opinion. In mine and several others, he was going rogue. He clearly recognized this would be controversial, but seemed to forget WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T DELETE.

That hasn't been policy for some time.

I'm not talking about the act of deletion per se, but the act of doing so unilaterally without any process.

G12 does not require process.

Which is absurd. And the fact that we're applying main namespace concepts to BJAODN is absurd.

G12 covers all namespaces not just main as does our copyright policy (although fair use images are not allowed outside the main namespace). -- geni

Reply

Thomas Dalton

7:24 p.m.

WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T DELETE.

Actually it's "When in doubt, do whatever is least likely to be illegal", which in the case of a possible copyvio, is to delete. The law is not determined by a consensus of the Wikipedia community.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:38 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

He didn't enforce our copyright policies. He made a massive, unilateral deletion of content and CLAIMED he was enforcing our copyright policies.

No he was inforceing them to the letter.

Whose letter?

If you shoot someone and then claim self-defense it doesn't make your claim necessarily true. The claim of copyright enforcement here as a justification for the mass deletion of BJAODN content is laughable. Moreover, it's a terrible precedent to set.

We've deleted over 100K images under the same set of policies. I think any precedents are likely to have already been set.

Someone needs to learn that images and text are different.

Even with the reasonable though highly disruptive project of clearing out badly sourced images there was a real effort to put lots of safeguards on the deletion project.

Not exactly. A8 then G12 always allowed for instant deletion in the case of copyvios.

Whatever cryptic codes you choose to quote there still needs to be a determination that there is in fact a copyvio. We know that there are plenty of busibodies willing to jump to conclusions about someone else's wrongdoing. That's why those safeguards are so important.

This was done unilaterally and he is wheel warring against restoration.

Speedies normaly are unilateral and current arbcom precedent is that undeleteing even out of policy deletions is not allowed.

((fact)), and remember too that any such decision is necessarily driven by its own set of facts. Add to that the quick blocking of any attempt to revue the deletions, and the whole effort smacks of POV pushing. Ec

Reply

Gracenotes

5:20 p.m.

On 6/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

For inforceing our copyright policies? Arbcom isn't stupid enough to take actions against admins doing that. -- geni

The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have half a chance of coming soon. Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I dunno, which one can be done by a bot? --Gracenotes

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:26 p.m.

Gracenotes wrote:

The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have half a chance of coming soon. Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I dunno, which one can be done by a bot?

So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you agree?

Reply

Brock Weller

5:38 p.m.

Because a fair use image is fair use whether theres a rationale listed or not. That's demonstrated by the commentary in the article it's in. We require fair use rationales because we are more restrictive on their use then the law (and rightly so). Un-rationaled fair use images are against our policies, copyright violations are against the law, period. Hence the difference in actions. On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Gracenotes wrote:

The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have half a chance of coming soon. Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I dunno, which one can be done by a bot?

So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you agree? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- -Brock

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:47 p.m.

Brock Weller wrote:

Because a fair use image is fair use whether theres a rationale listed or not. That's demonstrated by the commentary in the article it's in. We require fair use rationales because we are more restrictive on their use then the law (and rightly so). Un-rationaled fair use images are against our policies, copyright violations are against the law, period. Hence the difference in actions.

The excerpts found on BJAODN are arguably fair use as well. I don't see a major difference.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:26 p.m.

How many of these BJAODN pages actually include images? It is far more difficult to establish that the use of an image is fair use than the use of a paragraph of text.. Using image based arguments to establish what we do about text is seriously misleading. Ec Brock Weller wrote:

Because a fair use image is fair use whether theres a rationale listed or not. That's demonstrated by the commentary in the article it's in. We require fair use rationales because we are more restrictive on their use then the law (and rightly so). Un-rationaled fair use images are against our policies, copyright violations are against the law, period. Hence the difference in actions. On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >Gracenotes wrote: > > >>The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not >>fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the >>bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have >>half a chance of coming soon. >> >>Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous >>band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I >>dunno, which one can be done by a bot? >> >> >So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on >making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy >everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free >content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you >agree? >

Reply

geni

5:44 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you agree?

Editors have had several years. -- geni

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:41 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you agree?

Editors have had several years.

Then you should be able to show where the tag was put on each of these articles, and thus establish by the diffs that the tags were indeed there for several years. Ec

Reply

geni

9 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Then you should be able to show where the tag was put on each of these articles, and thus establish by the diffs that the tags were indeed there for several years. Ec

There is a link to the GFDL and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] at the end of every page. -- geni

Reply

Bryan Derksen

9:35 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Then you should be able to show where the tag was put on each of these articles, and thus establish by the diffs that the tags were indeed there for several years.

There is a link to the GFDL and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] at the end of every page.

Then why do we bother putting extra tags on images that are of disputed fair use status? This whole copyright argument is really a non-starter. Even in the cases where there's _blatant_ copyright violation, as in a letter-for-letter copy and paste from a webpage with a clear copyright notice in flaming letters thirty feet high, the standard procedure as described on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is to simply _blank_ the page and replace it with a {{copyvio}} template. The article's history remains intact and accessible for at least 7 days while the listing is on the copyright problems page. The speedy deletion of BJAODN goes way beyond this process even though it should be vastly _easier_ to resolve any potential copyright issues. This is all stuff that was released under the GFDL at some point, all we need to do is confirm its pedigree.

Reply

geni

9:54 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Then why do we bother putting extra tags on images that are of disputed fair use status?

Fair use isn't baltent copyvio

This whole copyright argument is really a non-starter. Even in the cases where there's _blatant_ copyright violation, as in a letter-for-letter copy and paste from a webpage with a clear copyright notice in flaming letters thirty feet high, the standard procedure as described on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is to simply _blank_ the page and replace it with a {{copyvio}} template. The article's history remains intact and accessible for at least 7 days while the listing is on the copyright problems page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G12

The speedy deletion of BJAODN goes way beyond this process even though it should be vastly _easier_ to resolve any potential copyright issues. This is all stuff that was released under the GFDL at some point, all we need to do is confirm its pedigree.

You have acess to deletion logs prior to 2005? -- geni

Reply

Ray Saintonge

10:42 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Then why do we bother putting extra tags on images that are of disputed fair use status?

Fair use isn't blatent copyvio.

Exactly

This whole copyright argument is really a non-starter. Even in the cases where there's _blatant_ copyright violation, as in a letter-for-letter copy and paste from a webpage with a clear copyright notice in flaming letters thirty feet high, the standard procedure as described on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is to simply _blank_ the page and replace it with a {{copyvio}} template. The article's history remains intact and accessible for at least 7 days while the listing is on the copyright problems page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G12

So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given? If you're going to depend on a rule based criterion, at least use the whole thing rather than just relying on those bits that suit your purposes.

The speedy deletion of BJAODN goes way beyond this process even though it should be vastly _easier_ to resolve any potential copyright issues. This is all stuff that was released under the GFDL at some point, all we need to do is confirm its pedigree.

You have acess to deletion logs prior to 2005?

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005. Ec

Reply

Bryan Derksen

10:54 p.m.

Ray Saintonge wrote:

geni wrote:

You have acess to deletion logs prior to 2005?

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.

Plus, a lot of the stuff on BJAODN was taken out of articles that weren't deleted, so the history of the original contribution is still there even if deleted articles from that time period are no longer available. The point is not that _all_ of this stuff is salvageable, just that _much_ of it is. Speedy-deleting and then wheel-warring to keep it deleted is actively obstructing attempts to do so.

Reply

geni

11:03 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given?

Can you show who the creator was?

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.

BJAODN is old. Some of it is taken from stuff deleted before 2005. We do not have deleted revisions that far back. -- geni

Reply

The Cunctator

11:07 p.m.

On 6/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given?

Can you show who the creator was?

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.

BJAODN is old. Some of it is taken from stuff deleted before 2005. We do not have deleted revisions that far back.

Please god, let someone sue Wikipedia for a one-liner that appears on BJAODN for several years. Because the resultant mockery of the case would finally get you (maybe) to realize how completely insane this attitude is.

Reply

Philippe Beaudette

11:12 p.m.

<sigh> This whole debate has me -->THIS<-- close to grabbing a spider man costume and buying a plane ticket to Germany.... Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case. </sigh> Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: The Cunctator To: English Wikipedia Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN On 6/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given?

Can you show who the creator was?

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.

BJAODN is old. Some of it is taken from stuff deleted before 2005. We do not have deleted revisions that far back.

Please god, let someone sue Wikipedia for a one-liner that appears on BJAODN for several years. Because the resultant mockery of the case would finally get you (maybe) to realize how completely insane this attitude is. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

Jeff Raymond

3 Jun 3 Jun

2:39 a.m.

Philippe Beaudette wrote:

Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. you've more than likely hit the nail on the head. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

Reply

Bryan Derksen

2:49 a.m.

Jeff Raymond wrote:

Philippe Beaudette wrote:

Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. you've more than likely hit the nail on the head.

This is the problem with any policy that enables easy-to-make but hard-to-revert changes, it becomes a powerful bludgeon that is oh so tempting to misuse. There was a controversy over the use of BLP in this way just a little while ago. Without more wheel-warring, is there any way to actually dispute these deletions? The DRV got speedy-closed, is that really the only "legal" option here?

Reply

geni

2:57 a.m.

On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Without more wheel-warring, is there any way to actually dispute these deletions? The DRV got speedy-closed, is that really the only "legal" option here?

It may be posible to make a fair use case for a short term undeletion which is the line I'm currently working on. Other than that no. -- geni

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:30 a.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Without more wheel-warring, is there any way to actually dispute these deletions? The DRV got speedy-closed, is that really the only "legal" option here?

It may be posible to make a fair use case for a short term undeletion which is the line I'm currently working on. Other than that no.

Where are you working on this? That's exactly the sort of information I was asking for, a forum other than DRV with the legitimacy to make a decision "stick".

Reply

geni

8:46 a.m.

On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Where are you working on this? That's exactly the sort of information I was asking for, a forum other than DRV with the legitimacy to make a decision "stick".

I'm makeing the argument on DRV. -- geni

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:24 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

> Where are you working on this? That's exactly the sort of information =

I

was asking for, a forum other than DRV with the legitimacy to make a decision "stick".

=20 I'm makeing the argument on DRV.

Ah, last I checked that had been speedy-closed. The new entry is at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_Review#Wikipedia:Bad_Jok= es_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense.27s_father.27s_brother.27s_nephew.27s_cousi= n.27s_former_roommate> (apologies for the extremely long title), much of the discussion on this thread is relevant there so everyone pro and con should pop over there to contribute.

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:26 p.m.

Bryan Derksen wrote:

The new entry is at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_Review#Wikipedia:Bad_Jok= es_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense.27s_father.27s_brother.27s_nephew.27s_cousi= n.27s_former_roommate> (apologies for the extremely long title), much of the discussion on this thread is relevant there so everyone pro and con should pop over there to contribute.

Hrmph. Since Thunderbird shattered the URL into a thousand bleeding pieces, just go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_2> and it's the first non-closed entry on the page.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:42 p.m.

Bryan Derksen wrote:

Jeff Raymond wrote:

Philippe Beaudette wrote:

Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. you've more than likely hit the nail on the head.

This is the problem with any policy that enables easy-to-make but hard-to-revert changes, it becomes a powerful bludgeon that is oh so tempting to misuse. There was a controversy over the use of BLP in this way just a little while ago.

One notable distinction is that the BLP debate involved deletions on a one-article-at-a-time basis. The current situation takes it further into mass deletions. Ec

Reply

David Goodman

8:40 p.m.

Agreed. Copyright was brought in late in the discussion, after a discussion of whether or not the pages were desirable seemed headed for a decision that they were desirable. Personally, I !voted to delete them on general grounds, and would say so again, so I have no bias about this in particular You can delete something as copyvio if you know it to be copyvio, and there isn't much question about that. But you cannot delete something as copyvio because you think it might be copyvio, unless there is consensus on that point. For articles, only obvious and unquestionable copyvio are appropriate for speedy, and there certainly are a large number that do fall in that category. And you cannot delete a group of pages as copyvio because only some of them are, and you cannot delete an entire article because it contains a copyright image, or other discrete piece. The last point is the one that applies here. On 6/3/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Bryan Derksen wrote:

Jeff Raymond wrote:

Philippe Beaudette wrote:

Seriously, I know copyright is critical, but I can't help but think it was used as a means to the desired end in this case.

Thank you for saying what I was thinking. you've more than likely hit the nail on the head.

This is the problem with any policy that enables easy-to-make but hard-to-revert changes, it becomes a powerful bludgeon that is oh so tempting to misuse. There was a controversy over the use of BLP in this way just a little while ago.

One notable distinction is that the BLP debate involved deletions on a one-article-at-a-time basis. The current situation takes it further into mass deletions. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Reply

geni

2 Jun 2 Jun

11:16 p.m.

On 6/3/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Please god, let someone sue Wikipedia for a one-liner that appears on BJAODN for several years.

Can't wikimedia foundation qualifies under DMCA safe harbour.

Because the resultant mockery of the case would finally get you (maybe) to realize how completely insane this attitude is.

While there are many who have argued that copyright law is insane (Lawrence Lessig amoung others) untill someone manages to change it we must deal with it as it is not as we wish it were. -- geni

Reply

Ray Saintonge

3 Jun 3 Jun

6:45 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/3/07, The Cunctator wrote:

Please god, let someone sue Wikipedia for a one-liner that appears on BJAODN for several years.

Can't wikimedia foundation qualifies under DMCA safe harbour.

Of course, but that is moot in the absence of a real takedown order. Have there been any in relation to this material. One of the most important features of takedown notices is that the person issuing the notice must either own the copyright or have a legal right to issue the notice. Anything else would result in idiotic busibodies issuing notices where they have no factual knowledge.

Because the resultant mockery of the case would finally get you (maybe) to realize how completely insane this attitude is.

While there are many who have argued that copyright law is insane (Lawrence Lessig amoung others) untill someone manages to change it we must deal with it as it is not as we wish it were.

One still needs to make a vital distinction between the law and your interpretation of the law. Ec

Reply

James Farrar

2 Jun 2 Jun

11:12 p.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.

BJAODN is old. Some of it is taken from stuff deleted before 2005. We do not have deleted revisions that far back.

So because some cannot be fixed, none must be fixed? Preposterous.

Reply

geni

11:30 p.m.

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So because some cannot be fixed, none must be fixed? Preposterous.

Well if you belive they can be fixed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_2#Wiki… -- geni

Reply

James Farrar

11:33 p.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So because some cannot be fixed, none must be fixed? Preposterous.

Well if you belive they can be fixed:

Two problems here: (1) [minor] There's a non sequitur. (2) [major] I can't apply {{sofixit}} because I'm not an Administrator.

Reply

geni

11:35 p.m.

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Two problems here: (1) [minor] There's a non sequitur. (2) [major] I can't apply {{sofixit}} because I'm not an Administrator.

There was a link there for a reason. If you think you can fix it go where it leads and say you will try to fix it. -- geni

Reply

James Farrar

11:42 p.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Two problems here: (1) [minor] There's a non sequitur. (2) [major] I can't apply {{sofixit}} because I'm not an Administrator.

There was a link there for a reason. If you think you can fix it

I refer you right back to my point (1).

Reply

geni

3 Jun 3 Jun

12:01 a.m.

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I refer you right back to my point (1).

Either you believe they can be fixed or you do not. If not there is little point in further conversation. -- geni

Reply

James Farrar

12:21 a.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I refer you right back to my point (1).

Either you believe they can be fixed or you do not.

Indeed. In case you're still failing to see your non-sequitur, the statement "I believe [some of] them can be fixed" is not the same as saying "I have the time to fix them to meet your arbitrary timescale".

Reply

geni

12:35 a.m.

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed. In case you're still failing to see your non-sequitur, the statement "I believe [some of] them can be fixed" is not the same as saying "I have the time to fix them to meet your arbitrary timescale".

A week is about the reasonable limit and my general experience of wikipedia is that if you want something done best to do it yourself. -- geni

Reply

James Farrar

12:49 a.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed. In case you're still failing to see your non-sequitur, the statement "I believe [some of] them can be fixed" is not the same as saying "I have the time to fix them to meet your arbitrary timescale".

A week is about the reasonable limit

{{fact}}

Reply

geni

12:59 a.m.

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

{{fact}}

It's widely accepted by the community in a wide verity of situations. -- geni

Reply

James Farrar

1:05 a.m.

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

{{fact}}

It's widely accepted by the community in a wide verity of situations.

I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Reply

Brock Weller

1:23 a.m.

And I'll refer you to the numerous processes that specify a time close to a week. PROD, AfD, MfD, TfD, RfA, FAR, FARC, FPC, FLC. Near enough to a week is widely viewed by the community as an appropriate timeframe for crap to get done. Want to throw around some more cute templates, or are you ready to add to the conversation? On 6/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

{{fact}}

It's widely accepted by the community in a wide verity of situations.

I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- -Brock

Reply

James Farrar

1:28 a.m.

On 03/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

And I'll refer you to the numerous processes that specify a time close to a week. PROD, AfD, MfD, TfD, RfA, FAR, FARC, FPC, FLC. Near enough to a week is widely viewed by the community as an appropriate timeframe for crap to get done. Want to throw around some more cute templates, or are you ready to add to the conversation?

Which of those actually apply to this kind of maintenance job? Geni's suggestion of a week specifically came from the relevant time to fix *a single image*, and s/he's run with it because s/he knows s/he's being unreasonable, but it'll help kill of BJAODN once and for all.

Reply

Brock Weller

1:32 a.m.

You have a week to fix articles placed on prod or AfD. If I nominated one of articles youve created, you have the week to fix them up. If I nominate a hundred articles youve created, you still have a week. Both maintenance jobs take a week, because they run concurrently. The amount of data has no bearing. On 6/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

And I'll refer you to the numerous processes that specify a time close

to a

week. PROD, AfD, MfD, TfD, RfA, FAR, FARC, FPC, FLC. Near enough to a

week

is widely viewed by the community as an appropriate timeframe for crap

to

get done. Want to throw around some more cute templates, or are you

ready to

add to the conversation?

Which of those actually apply to this kind of maintenance job? Geni's suggestion of a week specifically came from the relevant time to fix *a single image*, and s/he's run with it because s/he knows s/he's being unreasonable, but it'll help kill of BJAODN once and for all. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- -Brock

Reply

James Farrar

1:38 a.m.

[I've had to snip multi-level quoted text for fairly obvious reasons.] On 03/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You have a week to fix articles placed on prod or AfD. If I nominated one of articles youve created, you have the week to fix them up. If I nominate a hundred articles youve created, you still have a week. Both maintenance jobs take a week, because they run concurrently. The amount of data has no bearing.

OK. Except there's no saying that a week means a week. How much notice has been given to fix any of BJAODN? None, because some admin took it upon himself to junk the lot.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:35 p.m.

James Farrar wrote:

On 03/06/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

And I'll refer you to the numerous processes that specify a time close to a week. PROD, AfD, MfD, TfD, RfA, FAR, FARC, FPC, FLC. Near enough to a week is widely viewed by the community as an appropriate timeframe for crap to get done. Want to throw around some more cute templates, or are you ready to add to the conversation?

Which of those actually apply to this kind of maintenance job? Geni's suggestion of a week specifically came from the relevant time to fix *a single image*, and s/he's run with it because s/he knows s/he's being unreasonable, but it'll help kill of BJAODN once and for all.

We at least need to give Geni credit for moving from no time at all to one week. It's still wholly inadequate. If there is a single mass AfD proposal covering N articles then a time frame of N weeks might be more appropriate. Ec

Reply

Ray Saintonge

7:29 p.m.

I think he was contributing more to the discussion than your desire to have a bigger bowl of alphabet soup. Ec Brock Weller wrote:

And I'll refer you to the numerous processes that specify a time close to a week. PROD, AfD, MfD, TfD, RfA, FAR, FARC, FPC, FLC. Near enough to a week is widely viewed by the community as an appropriate timeframe for crap to get done. Want to throw around some more cute templates, or are you ready to add to the conversation? On 6/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On 6/3/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>{{fact}} >>> >>> >>It's widely accepted by the community in a wide verity of situations. >> >> >I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago. >

Reply

Bryan Derksen

2 Jun 2 Jun

11:27 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given?

Can you show who the creator was?

If you want to apply the letter of the law of that speedy deletion clause, why don't you go and find out who the creator was? It's not Ray's responsibility, he's not doing any deleting.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

10 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Then you should be able to show where the tag was put on each of these articles, and thus establish by the diffs that the tags were indeed there for several years.

There is a link to the GFDL and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] at the end of every page.

This was deleted when the pages were deleted. Ec

Reply

geni

10:13 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

This was deleted when the pages were deleted.

Yes but then they are replaced by the links in [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]]. -- geni

Reply

Charlotte Webb

6:12 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done.

So restore each page for which you are able to completely fulfill this requirement (but only if it's actually amusing). The problem here is a widespread but unstated belief that users implicitly waive this requirement if their edits are below a certain level of quality and above a certain level of humor. They do no such thing. —C.W.

Reply

The Cunctator

6:22 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Gracenotes wrote:

The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have half a chance of coming soon. Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I dunno, which one can be done by a bot?

So why not tag BJAODN and give it that week for editors to work on making it compliant? Since simply attributing the material would satisfy everyone, this can be done. The result would be to produce more free content, which is more of a "win" than a deleted wasteland, wouldn't you agree?

Some points to recognize: A) BJAODN is not in the main namespace but in the Wikipedia namespace. B) BJAODN is fracking huge. We should be very reasonable in our expectations of time and effort that editors need to exert to improve it. In other words, editors should be given plenty of time and not have to put in much effort. It's fair to improve guidelines for submission, but it's absurd to say "OKAY YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO FIX SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR SIX YEARS".

Reply

Bryan Derksen

6:42 p.m.

The Cunctator wrote:

It's fair to improve guidelines for submission, but it's absurd to say "OKAY YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO FIX SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR SIX YEARS".

I know, but even that would be more time than what they actually _got._

Reply

geni

5:46 p.m.

On 6/2/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The way admins like to deal with copyright issues is delete, not fix. This preferred solution means that free content wins the bloody battle in The End. The only thing is, The End doesn't have half a chance of coming soon. Write out a fair use rationale for a well-known album by a famous band, or tag it with {{subst:dfu}} and thumb-twiddle for a week? I dunno, which one can be done by a bot? --Gracenotes

Actualy I think I went for option C. Some months before this happened explain to the people who normally do stuff in that area that they needed to sort out their fair use issues. I believe I got told I was being disruptive and should go away. -- geni

Reply

Bryan Derksen

5:21 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

For inforceing our copyright policies? Arbcom isn't stupid enough to take actions against admins doing that.

For enforcing _his interpretation_ of copyright policies. Other editors have plausible differing interpretations, and even some of those who agree with his would like the opportunity to clean up the archives and keep the ones that can be made to conform.

Reply

Tony Sidaway

3 Jun 3 Jun

12:12 a.m.

On 6/2/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

It probably seemed like a good idea long ago when the Wikipedians were scarce among nations and they all knew one another. The culture has changed and in-jokes aren't a good idea any more. We have to accommodate the world in some areas and set boundaries in others. Let it die with grace.

Reply

Jeff Raymond

2:34 a.m.

The Cunctator wrote:

Jeffrey O Gufstason's unilateral action to delete nearly all of WP:BJAODN was an extreme act of admin abuse. I find it bizarre that he is not being sanctioned.

Welcome to wikipedia. Cold cuts in the back. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

Reply

6185

days inactive

6186

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

60 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Brock Weller
Bryan Derksen
Charlotte Webb
David Goodman
geni
Gracenotes
James Farrar
Jeff Raymond
Philippe Beaudette
Ray Saintonge
The Cunctator
Thomas Dalton
Tony Sidaway