On 02/06/07, Jeffrey O. Gustafson psicopjeffg@hotmail.com wrote:
Someone wrote:
Not only has he gone around vandalising BJAODN, he's also been deleting comments off talk pages, which is utterly reprehensible. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Other...
Can we reel in this rogue admin now, before he does any more damage?
First:
Firstly, its spelled "rouge." Secondly, my first name is "Jeffrey."
If the best you can do is to jump on a typo, your argument lacks substance.
Secondly, to see if your argument has substance:
To the point of your hyperbolic complaint, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking ... "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."
'Nuff said.
Indeed, no substance, merely a re-statement of your opinion and your refusal to entertain discussion. Notwithstanding that the linked policy does not apply in the current debate - we're considering the status of material submitted directly to Wikipedia, not links to external sites - your position appears to be that any Administrator who believes a copyright violation has occurred has the right to unilaterally delete such material without discussion or debate and without such deletion being subject to review or criticism.
I must consider the possibility that this is within policy, but if it is, then such policy is ridiculous. This is not, for want of better terminology, a question of a presumption of "guilt" or a presumption of "innocence", but instead is about the suggestion that a single Administrator can act as informant, judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye without any pretence at a trial, still less an appeal system. Such judicial processes have existed from time to time in human history, rarely with happy results.