phoebe ayers wrote:
c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing, which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the contents;
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright. Material that has already been there for three years cannot be subject. There is a five year limitation for criminal wilful infringement, but it would be extremely difficult to establish wilfullness when the actual copyright of the material is seriously diswputed.
d) the former danger (that it is a clear copyright and thus legal violation) does not exist if a) is true; and the latter danger (that someone will sue or be harmed) pretty clearly also doesn't exist, since the majority of stuff in BJAODN is silly vandalism which I suspect no-one will ever come back to claim or otherwise be bothered by ("hi, I vandalized Wikipedia in 2004, and I'd like credit for it, plz!" or "your bad jokes and outrageous claims were so bad they adversely affected my health, and I'm suing!");
In such circumstances the legal obligation is likely not there. Nevertheless, it would be good public relations to accomodate in that way any idiot who is willing to publically admit that he is one.
Thank you for your comments in general on this. The fact that they are coming from a person who does not habitually participate in wikicatfights makes them all the more cogent.
Ec