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?
James Farrar 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?
It's also kind of silly considering the database dumps from two weeks ago are still up at http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070402/ and presumably have the complete BJAODN archives to that point in them if someone wants to dig them out and clean them up for restoration. http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070527/ has a current version dump that completed yesterday so I'm not sure whether the very latest edition of BJAODN would be available but for a set of pages this old it's probably not a big deal losing the most recent two weeks.
Wikimedia itself is distributing these supposed "copyvio" pages, it's hardly something that can be suppressed like that.
The idea of uploading BJAODN to a Wikia site is a blatant infringement of the GFDL. I can see why he would remove a thread condoning it, even if it wasn't the best approach.
I don't know how you can vandalize BJAODN. The place is a cesspool of unfunny jokes and is essentially the vandal's hall of fame.
-Sean William
On 6/1/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
James Farrar 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?
It's also kind of silly considering the database dumps from two weeks ago are still up at http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070402/ and presumably have the complete BJAODN archives to that point in them if someone wants to dig them out and clean them up for restoration. http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20070527/ has a current version dump that completed yesterday so I'm not sure whether the very latest edition of BJAODN would be available but for a set of pages this old it's probably not a big deal losing the most recent two weeks.
Wikimedia itself is distributing these supposed "copyvio" pages, it's hardly something that can be suppressed like that.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/2/07, Sean William sean.william.g@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of uploading BJAODN to a Wikia site is a blatant infringement of the GFDL.
I don't agree. By definition BJAODN are bad jokes and nonsense. Not serious contributions to Wikipedia. Not contributions whose owners are going to care rat's arse about what happens to them. There is no sense in spending any time worryng aobut what whether copying "JOSH IS GAY FNORD FNORD" without correct attribution violates GFDL or not. The day that someone shows up claiming that we're violating their copyright by keeping their contribution without correct attribution is the day we should worry about it.
Remember that the content reuse argument doesn't apply: the Wikipedia namespace is not reused by other sites.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/2/07, Sean William sean.william.g@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of uploading BJAODN to a Wikia site is a blatant infringement of the GFDL.
I don't agree. By definition BJAODN are bad jokes and nonsense. Not serious contributions to Wikipedia. Not contributions whose owners are going to care rat's arse about what happens to them. There is no sense in spending any time worryng aobut what whether copying "JOSH IS GAY FNORD FNORD" without correct attribution violates GFDL or not. The day that someone shows up claiming that we're violating their copyright by keeping their contribution without correct attribution is the day we should worry about it.
Remember that the content reuse argument doesn't apply: the Wikipedia namespace is not reused by other sites.
The fourth factor for fair use relates to damaging the copyright owner's sales of the material. If the jokes are as bad as Sean claims whose sales could we possibly be damaging.
Ec
On 6/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The fourth factor for fair use relates to damaging the copyright owner's sales of the material. If the jokes are as bad as Sean claims whose sales could we possibly be damaging.
They're not, BJAODN is actually pretty funny on the whole. Particularly the best ofs...
RIP BJAODN 4 vio GFDL. WTF.
Steve
On 02/06/07, Sean William sean.william.g@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of uploading BJAODN to a Wikia site is a blatant infringement of the GFDL. I can see why he would remove a thread condoning it, even if it wasn't the best approach.
I can't. You simply don't delete others' talk page contributions - ever.
I don't know how you can vandalize BJAODN.
That would be explained by your *opinion* that
The place is a cesspool of unfunny jokes
...which is just your opinion. Deletion of content out-of-process without discussion in such a way that only admins can undelete it is vandalism, pure and simple.
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I can't. You simply don't delete others' talk page contributions - ever.
That's why I think that "talk" should operate like web forums and not "thread mode" wiki pages. Then the only people who could edit/delete comments are the posting users. (or an admin if he has a damn good reason)
Of course that's a limitation of the software.
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You simply don't delete others' talk page contributions - ever.
Never say never. What about:
* vandalism on talk pages * libel in talk page comments * copyvios in talk page comments * etc?
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You simply don't delete others' talk page contributions - ever.
Never say never. What about:
- vandalism on talk pages
- libel in talk page comments
- copyvios in talk page comments
- etc?
I wouldn't exactly call vandalism a contribution.
How are you proposing to determine that a talk page comment is a copyvio?
Ec
On 02/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/2/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You simply don't delete others' talk page contributions - ever.
Never say never. What about:
- vandalism on talk pages
- libel in talk page comments
- copyvios in talk page comments
- etc?
I wouldn't exactly call vandalism a contribution.
How are you proposing to determine that a talk page comment is a copyvio?
"Determine" something is a copyvio? Precedent appears to be that a mere *claim* is sufficient!
Sean William wrote:
The idea of uploading BJAODN to a Wikia site is a blatant infringement of the GFDL. I can see why he would remove a thread condoning it, even if it wasn't the best approach.
That sounds like a vote against free speech. Just because you consider an act to be a blatant infringement is not enough to make it so I regret to shock you with the notion that others may have a different opinion on the matter.
I don't know how you can vandalize BJAODN.
By deleting them before you have the support of the community.
The place is a cesspool of unfunny jokes and is essentially the vandal's hall of fame.
I can easily concede that the pages are full of jokes that are not particularly funny, but that is no reason for censoring them. I can go to the local book store and find all sorts of books full of unfunny jokes, but that would not be enough to convince me that I should picket the store demanding that they no longer sell such books.
Ec