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?
Firstly, its spelled "rouge." Secondly, my first name is "Jeffrey."
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.
Jeffrey O. Gustafson
_________________________________________________________________ Dont miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/
Firstly, its spelled "rouge."
No, it's spelt rogue. "rouge" is a reddish colour and a common misspelling of rogue and is often used to make fun of people that complain about admin abuse without knowing what they're talking about. Regardless of whether we agree with the complainer or not, it was a justifiable complaint.
Jeffrey O. Gustafson wrote:
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.
Actually, yesterday in this thread I posted a link to the Wikipedia database dumps and pointed out that the deleted BJAODN pages were still in them. So unless linking to Wikipedia database dumps is now prohibited, it's not as simple as it seems.
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Actually, yesterday in this thread I posted a link to the Wikipedia database dumps and pointed out that the deleted BJAODN pages were still in them. So unless linking to Wikipedia database dumps is now prohibited, it's not as simple as it seems.
Aside from the obvious issue of copyvios, surely download.wikimedia.org also contains libelous content and intrusive personal information, about either the editors and subjects of Wikipedia, which had not yet been deleted or oversighted at the time of the dump.
Somehow I doubt there's any way to prevent the database dumps from being used for blatant evil, short of taking them offline.
—C.W.
On 6/2/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from the obvious issue of copyvios, surely download.wikimedia.org also contains libelous content and intrusive personal information, about either the editors and subjects of Wikipedia, which had not yet been deleted or oversighted at the time of the dump.
Somehow I doubt there's any way to prevent the database dumps from being used for blatant evil, short of taking them offline.
Does that arguably make it an "attack site"? Or are the problematic portions of a database dump redeemed by the (overwhelmingly massive) amount of benign content they are diluted with? Or maybe the assumption that nobody will find it unless they already know exactly what they are looking for?
—C.W.
Jeffrey O. Gustafson 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?
Firstly, its spelled "rouge." Secondly, my first name is "Jeffrey."
That's funny; "Rogue" is the normal spelling; I think that "rouge" is a kind of BJAODN spelling, but clearly you wouldn't understand that.
I don't know what your complaint about your name is, since it wasn't in the quoted part of the message.
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."
And what makes you an authority on what is and is not a copyright violation? It is even more difficult to determine whether there is a violation on an other site. An ignorant parrotting of policy is not an answer.
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't know what your complaint about your name is, since it wasn't in the quoted part of the message.
You spelt it "Jeffery" in the subject - the 'e' and the 'r' are the wrong way around.
Thanks. This is clearly a side issue, so I've adjusted the subject line, which even he hadn't done when he replied.
Ec
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.