-------------- Original message --------------
> Rick wrote:
> >Oh, please.
> >Why is it every time an admin does something that
> >somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the
> >hounds and the torches and go raging after them with
> >the rest of the mob?
> Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]]
> for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability
> for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
> That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the
> world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN
> SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.
And the world won't end if they are removed from the admin office. Those
that are truly called to serve are not necessarily REDUCED to EDITING,
there are plenty of opportunities to serve without admin privileges, and with
less temptations to use their power personally or vindictively that they were
apparently unable to resist. Of course there are temptations at the editing
level too. Moves without discussing it on the talk page, violations of 3RR,
etc. Adminship should be easier to get, perhaps allow it to anyone with
a minimum edit experience, no 3RR or other violations for 3 months and
a willingness to agree to the terms.
There needs to be an easier way to take away admin status. Perhaps anytime
time there are allegations of abuse as part of an arbcom case, there should
be a separate vote to accept on the abuse charge, where if that charge is
ACCEPTED, presumably after an initial look at the evidence, the admin privilege
is suspended, until the case is formally decided. Of course, it is possible for
the admin abuse charge to not be accepted while the more normal charges
go forward. It should be clear that there is zero tolerance for the abuse
of the admistrator privilege of serving, and that action will be quick,
and fortunately mild, they must serve in some other capacity if they
want to serve.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> Another thing to keep in mind is the three-year limitation for
>>> taking action on a copyright violation. If something has been on
>>> the site for at least three years it is probably safe to keep. The
>>> argument that continuing availability may result in new limitation
>>> periods can probably be countered by invoking the doctrine of laches.
>> However, republishing in another medium, such as publishing a print
>> edition of Wikipedia, probably would easily restart the limitation
> That's debateable. With GFDL the history of the material should be
> traceable. A fairly recent case involving laches went against the
> Church of Scientology because they had delayed the enforcement of
> their rights. This was despite the fact that the limitation period
> had not yet expired when they started their action.
Two points are worth noting here. First of all, in case it's not clear,
the doctrine of laches can only apply if the plaintiff knows about the
infringement and fails to complain. If, as is very likely, a copyright
holder did not know about infringing material on Wikipedia, then laches
would not prevent a claim based on the continuing availability of the
material within the statute of limitations.
Second of all, if the Scientology case Ec alludes to is the New Era
Publications v. Henry Holt case that I've read, I should mention that
laches was only applied to deny an injunction against publication. It
did not prevent a remedy for monetary damages.
So the notion he suggests, that anything that's been on Wikipedia for at
least three years is safe to keep forevermore, probably should not be
used as a "rule of thumb" for copyright problems.
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
> Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an
> alternative main page, linked from the main page? "Click here to see
> our April Fool's Page."
I think that is a great idea. :)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
A few people have hoped that I would weigh in with an opinion.
I'm torn. I think it's really fun, but we're also a very serious
project. So I gave it some thought and I have this idea...
Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an
alternative main page, linked from the main page? "Click here to see
our April Fool's Page."
And on that page, we have fun with ourselves... nothing mean spirited
against each other, but gently having some fun with our quirks. So
yes, the feature article can be the european toilet paper page. But
we also could have an article about Gdansk
In this way, we get to have a little fun with the holiday, but we also
don't abandon our seriousness for the day. And at the end of the day,
everything can be locked and archived and deleted, and we can do it
once a year.
Maybe if a developer can be persuaded, we could set the whole thing up
at AprilFools.wikipedia.org or something like that.
"Pianosa is een Italie" - first words of 50,000th article on nl.wikipedia.org
Yes, we are way ahead of Britannica in many areas, but, to be realistic,
just as we have many excellent articles that they simply don't have, they also
have many articles that we don't. Of course, we are in a better situation,
because we can easily fill in the gaps.
I therefore encourage people to take a look at [[Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia
topics]]. Make redirects if we have the articles, and see what articles they
have that you can fill in. Start with a sub, or even a substub. It is bound
to grow. Let's make sure we have everything they have and more.
--- Viajero <viajero(a)quilombo.nl> wrote:
> Although I realize this isn't the proper channel for doing so, I'd like
> to nominate the following for Featured Article this coming Friday:
That is not a featured article. In fact it is not even an article - it is a
hoax. It will be removed as would any other sneaky vandalism masquerading as
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
If you've seen a wonderful new article this past month, which should
be more widely recognized, please submit it to the writing contest.
This contest is being held in parallel with the German, Japanese,
Dutch, and Ukranian wikipedias. Please contribute to this bit of
peaceful international collaboration :-)
> I agree with Pete's point - I'd very much like to avoid the major fight which seems brewing
> over this (quite frankly, I regret ever taking this to a poll in the first place)
I think we would all like to avoid that! And when I say "we," I
include the 15 or so admins who voted for featuring the article on the
Main Page tomorrow. Raul's categorization of this as a disagreement
between a mob and a group of respected editors is wishful thinking.
The current proposal, to pretend the whole discussion didn't happen,
doesn't currently seem to be avoiding a fight... So here is my
Let's put up a Featured Article blurb about the European toilet paper
holder for the first half of the day tomorrow. The
previously-scheduled FA blurb (which, as many have noted, has nothing
to do with April Fools) can replace it at midday. The former blurb
can have "recent featured articles" links to other bizarre featured
articles, with the text "featured articles" linking to
[[nihilartikel]]. Can someone come up with a suitable banner saying
"Featured Article for '''April 1, 2005''' " to put at the top and
Aside from that banner, and the "See also" section linking to
[[nihilartikel]] (and other relevant links?), the hoax article could
stay in Bishonen's namespace, as another minor clue for the observant.
PS - I was in the library yesterday and to my surprise, found a
historical sketch including a toilet paper holder from a da Vinci
blueprint for a flush toilet; a sign that the community chose an
appropriate topic? I have a photocopy to upload... it is remarkably
clear that Leonardo's raised valve design was meant to double as a
toilet paper holder.
Phil Sandifer a.k.a. Snowspinner wrote:
> A lot of people still see us as Fox News.
Does anyone else find this a deeply disturbing suggestion? I for one
would disassociate myself from this undertaking sooner rather than later
if I thought this assertion was true. Can Mr Sandifer cite any evidence
to support this exceedingly provocative statement?