"The recent fuss over Office actions demonstrates amply that even quite well established administrators feel that they can challenge and disregard the interests of the Foundation." Unfortunately it demonstrates nothing even remotely resembling the dark senario you choose to paint. No party involved *has* challenged, let alone felt entitled to challenge, the interests of the foundation. I believe it is a unanimous consensus among wikipedia community (disregarding vandals of course) that the interests of the foundation are foremost because without it the project can not exist. One of the parties has challenged what he could be reasonably certain were the interests of another party as an individual editor having nothing to do with any real-life Foundation affairs. By challenging an out-of-policy action he did the irght thing and the interests of the Foundation had nothing to do with it. It seems some people do not find it unreasonable to expect an editor to act on information he did not have. Reverting once the actions of another editor, especially when that action was in direct violation of wikipedia policies established through community consensus, is part of the normal wiki editing process and such actions are encouraged by [[WP:BOLD]] because they serve to advance the interests of the encyclopaedia better than spending endless hours (and because of the nature of talk page communication, holding even a short dialougue can take days) discussing an edit even when that edit is not very likely to cause controversies and edit wars. It is surprising how some people go on claiming that Erik should have emplyed some hidden precognitive abilities to deduce that an action explicitly labeled by Danny as a normal editorial action was actually performed in the interests of the Foundation and thereby refrained from exercising the editorial powers gifted to him by the *wiki*pedia. Molu Message: 1 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:54:42 +0100 From: "Tony Sidaway" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why the uproar over wikitruth To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID: <605709b90604221254l3f7c6da1uf7bed1d214415ee0(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge wrote: I use the term loosely. If someone entrusted with the ability to see unpublished content then uses that ability to cause it to be published, then the organisation's task of showing that it took reasonable steps to prevent publication is made more difficult, for it most demonstrate that it reasonably believed that this person would not do so. If our admins are chosen through a popularity contest in which their loyalty to the aims and interests of the Foundation, rather than the community, is not examined, I think it would be very difficult to argue that such a belief was reasonable. Basically we let any mutt off the street act as an administrator, irrespective of his views on, or knowledge of liability, copyright, or anything else relevant, or his commitment to act in the interests of the Foundation. The recent fuss over Office actions demonstrates amply that even quite well established administrators feel that they can challenge and disregard the interests of the Foundation. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.