On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
I started undeleting them, but JOG's redeleting them, and this is too absurd to wheelwar over.
What on earth is his problem?
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations. There was a huge thread over at ANI when they were deleted, and the thread came to acceptance. You should not have restored.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I started undeleting them, but JOG's redeleting them, and this is too absurd to wheelwar over.
What on earth is his problem?
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What thread are you talking about? THis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
That's neither a huge thread nor one that came to acceptance, so I assume you're talking about another one.
Please recognize that not all admins hang out on ANI.
This is pretty frackin hilarious, though.
On 6/2/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations. There was a huge thread over at ANI when they were deleted, and the thread came to acceptance. You should not have restored.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I started undeleting them, but JOG's redeleting them, and this is too absurd to wheelwar over.
What on earth is his problem?
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry, meant AN, not ANI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#BJAODN_Deleted
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What thread are you talking about? THis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
That's neither a huge thread nor one that came to acceptance, so I assume you're talking about another one.
Please recognize that not all admins hang out on ANI.
This is pretty frackin hilarious, though.
On 6/2/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations. There was a huge
thread
over at ANI when they were deleted, and the thread came to acceptance.
You
should not have restored.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I started undeleting them, but JOG's redeleting them, and this is too absurd to wheelwar over.
What on earth is his problem?
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Saturday 02 June 2007 11:47, Brock Weller wrote:
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations.
Except they're not, as has been explained several times already on this list.
The "GFDL violation" thingy was just a crock he invented so he could put forth a justification of what was really a blatant power-trip.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:09:27 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The "GFDL violation" thingy was just a crock he invented so he could put forth a justification of what was really a blatant power-trip.
Nice example of the assumption of bad faith. Well done.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:09:27 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
The "GFDL violation" thingy was just a crock he invented so he could put
forth
a justification of what was really a blatant power-trip.
Nice example of the assumption of bad faith. Well done.
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
The Cunctator wrote:
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
Especially since the standard approach to dealing with copyvios doesn't involve speedy deletion and wheel-warring to keep them gone, but rather a week-long deliberative process. Even for the obvious stuff.
A few months back I came across a user who had uploaded a couple of biographies of musicians that had been taken directly from their record label's homepage. I did the proper thing; I blanked the pages, put up copyvio notices, and alerted him to what I'd done on his userpage. He reverted me and explained that he was actually the owner of the record label in question - it wasn't a big one - and held the copyright to that material. Rather than fighting to ensure that the pages died and stayed dead and process was followed to the letter, I did some emailing to confirm it, and hooray! Wikipedia now has a couple of nicely done biographies it wouldn't otherwise have.
This is how assumption of good faith is _supposed_ to work.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:08:40 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
Three substantive problems with BJAODN as-is:
* egregious BLP violations ("Jimmy Doe is a retard") * GFDL violations * glorification of juvenile vandalism.
The fourth, lesser problem is that approximately 90% of it is so unfunny or so unoriginal that reading anything much after the original BJAODN page will quickly cause you to lose the will to live.
As long as everything that goes in is GFDL and BLP compliant, and can be removed without edit war by any editor who gives a half-decent reason, there shouldn't be an issue.
But, as with the "Sandboxians", there is an underlying worry that some people are more concerned with this kind of meta-crap than with the encyclopaedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/06/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:08:40 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
Or possibly per the reason stated.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG schreef:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
Or possibly per the reason stated.
No, apart from [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:FU]] and [[WP:NOT]], there was not a single reason for deletion of these pages, and it's a scandal that they have not been undeleted already.
Eugene
On 6/3/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG schreef:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
Or possibly per the reason stated.
No, apart from [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:FU]] and [[WP:NOT]], there was not a single reason for deletion of these pages, and it's a scandal that they have not been undeleted already.
The failure to recognize that BJAODN deliberately violates the norms of the rest of Wikipedia in order to make the culture healthier and the encyclopedia better (similar to how people can experiment in the Sandbox, but not the mainspace) is extraordinarily disappointing.
It's called Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense for a reason.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:04:33 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The failure to recognize that BJAODN deliberately violates the norms of the rest of Wikipedia in order to make the culture healthier and the encyclopedia better (similar to how people can experiment in the Sandbox, but not the mainspace) is extraordinarily disappointing.
Norms is fine, policies is not. "Jimmy Doe is a retard" should not be kept /anywhere/, and the indiscriminate archiving of childish vandalism is also not something we should seek to encourage. Genuinely funny nonsense I will defend and help to make GFDL compliant. There have been some genius edits along these lines, although not so many I think since Uncyclopedia came along - most long-term Wikipedians are now responsible enough to put real nonsense in uncyclopedia.
Most of what's in BJAODN would be speedily deleted from Uncyclopedia citing http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UN:HTBFANJS
Of course it is well known that I am vehemently opposed to the inclusion of humour in any form in project space, and if BJAODN is undeleted I will be donning my Spider-Man suit and climbing the Reichstag in protest, in clear defiance of policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NCR).
Guy (JzG)
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:27, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar"
james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
Or possibly per the reason stated.
Guy (JzG)
There is absolutely no reason to think that, given his failure to perform this action through proper channels and his refusal to countenance any discussion or reconsideration afterwards.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:36:34 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to think that, given his failure to perform this action through proper channels and his refusal to countenance any discussion or reconsideration afterwards.
Seems to me that he is discussing it just fine. Just not in three hundred places at once.
Guy (JzG)
On 04/06/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:36:34 -0500, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to think that, given his failure to perform this action through proper channels and his refusal to countenance any discussion or reconsideration afterwards.
Seems to me that he is discussing it just fine. Just not in three hundred places at once.
Deleting talk page comments that criticise him is "discussing it just fine"?
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:13:59 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me that he is discussing it just fine. Just not in three hundred places at once.
Deleting talk page comments that criticise him is "discussing it just fine"?
See second sentence. Discussing it does not require rising to the bait when trolled (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&a...) - one debate is probably sufficient, and an admin's talk page is not the right place for the debate when it has already been raised on the admin noticeboards by that admin.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Deleting talk page comments that criticise him is "discussing it just
fine"?
See second sentence. Discussing it does not require rising to the bait when trolled (e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&a... )
- one debate is probably sufficient, and an admin's talk page is not
the right place for the debate when it has already been raised on the admin noticeboards by that admin.
I'm thinking the reference was to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Other...
from WT:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Deleting Thwinchester's drivel from his user talk page is perfectly justifiable. Hacking away IvanKnight69's comments from WT:BJAODN rather than responding to them and telling him what was wrong with what he was saying is not quite as clearly the right thing to do.
-- Jonel
Again, I'm quite serious that JOG is repeatedly exceeding the bounds of Wikipedia civility.
On 6/4/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Deleting talk page comments that criticise him is "discussing it just
fine"?
See second sentence. Discussing it does not require rising to the bait when trolled (e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&a...
)
- one debate is probably sufficient, and an admin's talk page is not
the right place for the debate when it has already been raised on the admin noticeboards by that admin.
I'm thinking the reference was to this edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Other...
from WT:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Deleting Thwinchester's drivel from his user talk page is perfectly justifiable. Hacking away IvanKnight69's comments from WT:BJAODN rather than responding to them and telling him what was wrong with what he was saying is not quite as clearly the right thing to do.
-- Jonel _______________________________________________ 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 04/06/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:13:59 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me that he is discussing it just fine. Just not in three hundred places at once.
Deleting talk page comments that criticise him is "discussing it just fine"?
See second sentence. Discussing it does not require rising to the bait when trolled (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffrey_O._Gustafson&a...)
- one debate is probably sufficient, and an admin's talk page is not
the right place for the debate when it has already been raised on the admin noticeboards by that admin.
In which case, the correct response is to point the user who posted on the admin's talk page to the place where the discussion is taking place.
That wasn't the example I was thinking of, though.
On 03/06/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 19:22:17 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail.
Yes, per [[IDONTLIKEIT]].
Or possibly per the reason stated.
I considered that possibility, but it failed the [[duck test]].
On 6/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:08:40 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
Just out of curiosity, how many attempts were there made within the last year or two? If this information is someplace obvious, I missed it, sorry.
-- phoebe
On 6/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
Personally, I think the vast majority of arguments on both sides are "I like it" or "I don't like it" with some attempts to find a policy excuse to get their way.
I don't think it's fair to say that only the people in favor of keeping the thing are at base motivated by personal preference and not policy.
-Matt
On 6/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:08:40 -0400, "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Whether or not the justification was a crock, his unilateral action was a blatant power trip.
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
This "shit"? Good to see you're willing to admit your extreme bias.
The Cunctator wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
This "shit"? Good to see you're willing to admit your extreme bias.
Perhaps I'm just more familiar with Guy's style, but this struck me as colorfully expressed opinion rather than indication of bias. I know a lot of people find his approach, er, bracing when they first encounter it. But I'd rather have people honest about (and aware of) their opinions.
Indeed, I think a few of the recent blow-ups would have gone better if participants were more frank with others and more honest with themselves about their motivations. When I'm trying to get teams and companies to behave sensibly, the thorniest problems don't come from people acting out of self-interest. They come from people who refuse to admit, even to themselves, what they really want.
William
On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You missed the only five principle authors need to be credited bit. A complete nuisance most of the time but it can come in handy.
Read section 4.I.
David
On 05/06/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
You think. Me, I think it might have been exactly as stated: OK, let's finally grab this tiger by the tail. I applaud the effort, because all attempts to MfD this shit get [[WP:ILIKEIT]] snowballs, however good the rationale.
This "shit"? Good to see you're willing to admit your extreme bias.
Perhaps I'm just more familiar with Guy's style, but this struck me as colorfully expressed opinion rather than indication of bias. I know a lot of people find his approach, er, bracing when they first encounter it. But I'd rather have people honest about (and aware of) their opinions.
Indeed, I think a few of the recent blow-ups would have gone better if participants were more frank with others and more honest with themselves about their motivations. When I'm trying to get teams and companies to behave sensibly, the thorniest problems don't come from people acting out of self-interest. They come from people who refuse to admit, even to themselves, what they really want.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Kurt,
On Saturday 02 June 2007 11:47, Brock Weller wrote:
[BJAODN]
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations.
Except they're not, as has been explained several times already on this list.
The "GFDL violation" thingy was just a crock he invented so he could put forth a justification of what was really a blatant power-trip.
You already know this, so I'm really pointing it out for the benefit of other readers who may not fully understand the true horror that is Wikipedia.
The vast majority of admins, with the obvious exception of The Cunctator and MarkGallagher, both of whom are good chaps, do very little but plot and scheme for ways to abuse their power. In fact, just the other day I overheard Stephen Bain plotting on IRC to make article creation banned for all users who aren't Bureaucrats, just because he thought he could get away with it. John Lee asked him not to, because the increased scrutiny it would bring would interfere with his plan to force all en-wiki editors to switch to Malaysian English. This was just minutes after David Gerard murdered Jimbo Wales' appointed successor with an icepick.
And does anyone remember SlimVirgin's dastardly plan to hand the keys to Wikipedia over to the animal rights lobby?
With all this skulduggery, it's a wonder admins get any time to actually work on the encyclopaedia. Oh, wait ... isn't that a common complaint, that admins never get time to edit? I ... I see it all so clearly ... and now ... I think my life may be in danger.
By the time you read this, I may well be dead. If my bloated corpse turns up in the Molongolo River, somebody please block Jeff Raymond for me for no good reason. And for heaven's sake, Kurt, get yourself to a place of safety. You could be next!
Cheers,
Heh, it's great to see some humour and common sense in amongst all this paranoia and finger pointing.
On 14/06/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Kurt,
On Saturday 02 June 2007 11:47, Brock Weller wrote:
[BJAODN]
The problem is these are massive GFDL violations.
Except they're not, as has been explained several times already on this
list.
The "GFDL violation" thingy was just a crock he invented so he could put
forth
a justification of what was really a blatant power-trip.
You already know this, so I'm really pointing it out for the benefit of other readers who may not fully understand the true horror that is Wikipedia.
The vast majority of admins, with the obvious exception of The Cunctator and MarkGallagher, both of whom are good chaps, do very little but plot and scheme for ways to abuse their power. In fact, just the other day I overheard Stephen Bain plotting on IRC to make article creation banned for all users who aren't Bureaucrats, just because he thought he could get away with it. John Lee asked him not to, because the increased scrutiny it would bring would interfere with his plan to force all en-wiki editors to switch to Malaysian English. This was just minutes after David Gerard murdered Jimbo Wales' appointed successor with an icepick.
And does anyone remember SlimVirgin's dastardly plan to hand the keys to Wikipedia over to the animal rights lobby?
With all this skulduggery, it's a wonder admins get any time to actually work on the encyclopaedia. Oh, wait ... isn't that a common complaint, that admins never get time to edit? I ... I see it all so clearly ... and now ... I think my life may be in danger.
By the time you read this, I may well be dead. If my bloated corpse turns up in the Molongolo River, somebody please block Jeff Raymond for me for no good reason. And for heaven's sake, Kurt, get yourself to a place of safety. You could be next!
Cheers,
-- Mark Gallagher "'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
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 6/14/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, it's great to see some humour and common sense in amongst all this paranoia and finger pointing.
I'm willing to guess that 50% of it is serious, or at least plausible.
—C.W.
On 6/14/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, it's great to see some humour and common sense in amongst all this paranoia and finger pointing.
I'm willing to guess that 50% of it is serious, or at least plausible.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I'm pretty sure most of this has been speculated in apparent seriousness by the nuttier fringe of our discontents and haters, especially on WR.
-Matt
the Wheel wars already started, restored by Cunctator, deleted again by Jeff, restored by Cunctator, deleted again by Jeff. These need to just stay down.
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What needs to stay down?
BTW, JOG's definitely winning the wheel war. I'm not undeleting any BJAODN stuff anymore.
Hooray for Gufstason!
On 6/2/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
the Wheel wars already started, restored by Cunctator, deleted again by Jeff, restored by Cunctator, deleted again by Jeff. These need to just stay down.
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/06/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
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."
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.
And I see that The Cunctator just undeleted them all.
If there's a wheel war over this, I swear I'm adding it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ALAME#Wheel_wars .
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock _______________________________________________ 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, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What needs to stay down?
All the test there that is under the GFDL but does not credit the author.
On 6/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
What needs to stay down?
All the test there that is under the GFDL but does not credit the author.
test == text?
C'mon. You can look through the article histories to see who made the submission in the original article.
A reasonable interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikipedia is that it covers the entire corpus, not a single article.
It's also psychotic wikilawyering to take this seriously, since 95% of BJAODN are deliberately anonymous contributions.
This is perhaps the best example of copyright paranoia I've ever seen.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
test == text?
yes.
C'mon. You can look through the article histories to see who made the submission in the original article.
Not where there is no link back or the article has been deleted.
A reasonable interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikipedia is that it covers the entire corpus, not a single article.
For various reasons we don't accept that interpritation (mostly because it creates issues with CC and FAL images).
It's also psychotic wikilawyering to take this seriously, since 95% of BJAODN are deliberately anonymous contributions.
GDFL requires credit. It doesn't state that credit must be to real name.
This is perhaps the best example of copyright paranoia I've ever seen.
Not paranoia. The GFDL has certian requirements. We should meet them.
heh of course the page is also illegal under any law which includes moral rights but we generaly don't worry about that.
I can't believe I just read through this whole thread...
OK, so BJAODN violates the GFDL because it doesn't credit authors.
Is this a reason to delete the whole thing?
Wouldn't a better reaction be to put in the missing sourcing information?
On 6/2/07, Chris Lüer chris@zandria.net wrote:
I can't believe I just read through this whole thread...
OK, so BJAODN violates the GFDL because it doesn't credit authors.
Is this a reason to delete the whole thing?
Wouldn't a better reaction be to put in the missing sourcing information?
You'd think, wouldn't you?
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't a better reaction be to put in the missing sourcing information?
You'd think, wouldn't you?
You and all those objecting to the deletion are free to do so. however that will require considerable resources that could better be used for other things.
geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't a better reaction be to put in the missing sourcing information?
You'd think, wouldn't you?
You and all those objecting to the deletion are free to do so. however that will require considerable resources that could better be used for other things.
You don't get to decide that for other volunteers.
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
You don't get to decide that for other volunteers.
Not quite true but eh the exceptions are minor. As I said I'm not stopping you.
geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
You don't get to decide that for other volunteers.
Not quite true but eh the exceptions are minor. As I said I'm not stopping you.
You're not personally doing so, perhaps, but Jeffery's wheel-warred to prevent Cunctator from undeleting the material so that work could be done on that. That _is_ stopping people from spending their time on it.
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: You're not personally doing so, perhaps, but Jeffery's wheel-warred to prevent Cunctator from undeleting the material so that work could be done on that. That _is_ stopping people from spending their time on it.
Not really. The only people who can pull up the deleted revisions are admins.
On Saturday 02 June 2007 16:52, geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: You're not personally doing so, perhaps, but Jeffery's wheel-warred to prevent Cunctator from undeleting the material so that work could be done on that. That _is_ stopping people from spending their time on it.
Not really. The only people who can pull up the deleted revisions are admins.
When did admins cease to be "people"?
On 6/2/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 16:52, geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: You're not personally doing so, perhaps, but Jeffery's wheel-warred to prevent Cunctator from undeleting the material so that work could be done on that. That _is_ stopping people from spending their time on it.
Not really. The only people who can pull up the deleted revisions are admins.
When did admins cease to be "people"?
Long time ago. ~~~~
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
geni wrote: You're not personally doing so, perhaps, but Jeffery's wheel-warred to prevent Cunctator from undeleting the material so that work could be done on that. That _is_ stopping people from spending their time on it.
Not really. The only people who can pull up the deleted revisions are admins.
Exactly my point. Non-admins are completely unable to work on fixing BJAODN material.
You seem to be claiming that everything on BJAODN came from articles that have since been deleted. This is simply false. Much of it came from articles that are still alive and well today, with intact histories that non-admins are capable of accessing.
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Exactly my point. Non-admins are completely unable to work on fixing BJAODN material.
You seem to be claiming that everything on BJAODN came from articles that have since been deleted. This is simply false. Much of it came from articles that are still alive and well today, with intact histories that non-admins are capable of accessing.
Then I suggest you comment at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_2#Wikip...
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Exactly my point. Non-admins are completely unable to work on fixing BJAODN material.
You seem to be claiming that everything on BJAODN came from articles that have since been deleted. This is simply false. Much of it came from articles that are still alive and well today, with intact histories that non-admins are capable of accessing.
Then I suggest you comment at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_2#Wikip...
-- geni
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 6/3/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
No process for GFDL vios is instant deletion. Just with any other clear copyvio.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
No process for GFDL vios is instant deletion. Just with any other clear copyvio.
I assume you're missing a comma or semi-colon after the word "no", which changes the sense of your sentence entirely!
What you are saying is, to reference my message of 2007-06-02 23:19:17 UTC (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/073761.html): it is right and proper that a single Administrator act as informant, judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye without any pretence at a trial, still less an appeal system.
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
What you are saying is, to reference my message of 2007-06-02 23:19:17 UTC (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/073761.html): it is right and proper that a single Administrator act as informant, judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye without any pretence at a trial, still less an appeal system.
Pretty much only there is an appeal system. Think Judge Dredd without the mercy and half measures.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
What you are saying is, to reference my message of 2007-06-02 23:19:17 UTC (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/073761.html): it is right and proper that a single Administrator act as informant, judge, jury and executioner in the blink of an eye without any pretence at a trial, still less an appeal system.
Pretty much only there is an appeal system.
Really? What is it, since DRV sure doesn't seem to fit the bill?
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Really? What is it, since DRV sure doesn't seem to fit the bill?
DRV for individual actions arbcom for admin behaviour.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Really? What is it, since DRV sure doesn't seem to fit the bill?
DRV for individual actions arbcom for admin behaviour.
Hey, it's besides the point anyway. You've advocated a single person's opinion (without that person neading any reason more than IDONTLIKEIT) being sufficient to change the requirement for inclusion from "consensus to delete" to "overwhelming consensus to keep, and even that might not be enough".
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, it's besides the point anyway. You've advocated a single person's opinion (without that person neading any reason more than IDONTLIKEIT) being sufficient to change the requirement for inclusion from "consensus to delete" to "overwhelming consensus to keep, and even that might not be enough".
I describe the situation as is. If you have a problem with it I suggest you find a way to change it. Incidentally complaining on the mailing list has been tried. It doesn't work.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Hey, it's besides the point anyway. You've advocated a single person's opinion (without that person neading any reason more than IDONTLIKEIT) being sufficient to change the requirement for inclusion from "consensus to delete" to "overwhelming consensus to keep, and even that might not be enough".
I describe the situation as is. If you have a problem with it I suggest you find a way to change it.
That would require not having any power-tripped admins. I'll settle for reducing the number.
On Sunday 03 June 2007 10:12, geni wrote:
On 6/3/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
No process for GFDL vios is instant deletion. Just with any other clear copyvio.
It's not clear. That's the whole point.
geni wrote:
On 6/3/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
No process for GFDL vios is instant deletion. Just with any other clear copyvio.
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
When deletion is disputed, as this one is, it should be taken to AfD or [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] or one of the other fora for dealing with such disputes.
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
Your problem appears to be that you don't know the GFDL that well. Therefor you missed the relivant loophole.
When deletion is disputed, as this one is, it should be taken to AfD or [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] or one of the other fora for dealing with such disputes.
First to DRV.
On 03/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
Your problem appears to be that you don't know the GFDL that well.
In your opinion.
geni wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
Your problem appears to be that you don't know the GFDL that well. Therefor you missed the relivant loophole.
Excuse me, but I've been a quiet but steady campaigner against "merge and delete" AfDs for years now. I am well aware of the GFDL problems inherent in copy and pasting things from one page to another. In this case:
*The excerpts are generally short enough that fair use can be plausibly claimed. *For many of them the original authorship can still be recovered.
So no, it is definitely not clear. The fact that I'm disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily imply that I'm ignorant, that's a pretty basic logical fallacy.
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Excuse me, but I've been a quiet but steady campaigner against "merge and delete" AfDs for years now. I am well aware of the GFDL problems inherent in copy and pasting things from one page to another. In this case:
*The excerpts are generally short enough that fair use can be plausibly claimed. *For many of them the original authorship can still be recovered.
So no, it is definitely not clear. The fact that I'm disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily imply that I'm ignorant, that's a pretty basic logical fallacy.
You missed the only five principle authors need to be credited bit. A complete nuisance most of the time but it can come in handy.
On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You missed the only five principle authors need to be credited bit. A complete nuisance most of the time but it can come in handy.
A point I mentioned a few days ago, if not quite as directly.
-Matt
On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
Your problem appears to be that you don't know the GFDL that well. Therefor you missed the relivant loophole.
You appear not to know the English language that well, but I'd rather not get into that. Since insults rarely move a conversation in a positive direction.
Maybe your interpretations of the GFDL are incorrect. Please search within yourself for a modicum of humility.
On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The pages were deleted out of process. They should be undeleted.
No process for GFDL vios is instant deletion. Just with any other clear copyvio.
That may be the process for individual elements, but it is absurd to claim that the entire pages were GFDL violations.
On 02/06/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, Chris Lüer chris@zandria.net wrote:
I can't believe I just read through this whole thread...
OK, so BJAODN violates the GFDL because it doesn't credit authors.
Is this a reason to delete the whole thing?
Wouldn't a better reaction be to put in the missing sourcing information?
You'd think, wouldn't you?
It does kind of assume that GFDL is the real reason, rather than a pretext for deletion-per-IDONTLIKEIT.
On 6/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
test == text?
yes.
C'mon. You can look through the article histories to see who made the submission in the original article.
Not where there is no link back or the article has been deleted.
Actually, you *can* look through the article histories of deleted content. You're an admin, ain't you?
Also, massive number of BJAODN entries are clearly short enough to fall under any reasonable interpreation of fair use.
A reasonable interpretation of the GFDL as it applies to Wikipedia is that it covers the entire corpus, not a single article.
For various reasons we don't accept that interpretation (mostly because it creates issues with CC and FAL images).
One can be flexible in their interpretation of the GFDL; that is, our policy towards images can and should be different than that towards text.
It's also psychotic wikilawyering to take this seriously, since 95% of BJAODN are deliberately anonymous contributions.
GDFL requires credit. It doesn't state that credit must be to real name.
Again, that's psychotic wikilawyering.
This is perhaps the best example of copyright paranoia I've ever seen.
Not paranoia. The GFDL has certain requirements. We should meet them.
We should. But this is absurd.
You can go back to the early days and see how I pressed Larry Sanger to have us do a better job of adhering to the GFDL, so this is particularly antagonizing.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, you *can* look through the article histories of deleted content. You're an admin, ain't you?
You forget the age of BJAODN. For the early stuff the deletion logs are gone. Additionally the credit needs to be public rather than admin only.
Also, massive number of BJAODN entries are clearly short enough to fall under any reasonable interpreation of fair use.
Since in many cases we use the complete work probably not.
One can be flexible in their interpretation of the GFDL; that is, our policy towards images can and should be different than that towards text.
That just sets up another set of problems. See in order to use such images we have to in effect argue that individual articles are aggregates.
Again, that's psychotic wikilawyering.
No we are talking about legally enforceable licences. Not wikilawyering.
We should. But this is absurd.
You can go back to the early days and see how I pressed Larry Sanger to have us do a better job of adhering to the GFDL, so this is particularly antagonizing.
The modern copyright person is somewhat different. Experience has taught them that anything less than zero tolerance tends towards zero enforcement at worrying speed.
To start with we are hoping to move towards the GSFDL which should have a lower degree of suck.
On 6/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
You can go back to the early days and see how I pressed Larry Sanger to have us do a better job of adhering to the GFDL, so this is particularly antagonizing.
The modern copyright person is somewhat different. Experience has taught them that anything less than zero tolerance tends towards zero enforcement at worrying speed.
The "modern copyright person"?
You mean, "geni".
You have a tiresome pattern of believing that your concepts of the world are the only correct ones.
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The "modern copyright person"?
You mean, "geni".
Nah. Take the album covers issue. While I agree it needs sorting out there are other methods that I think should have been used first (even tired one of them didn't appear to work but eh not evrything does).
No there are a group who deal with wikipedia's copyright issues on a day to day basis who appear to have much the same aproach.
You have a tiresome pattern of believing that your concepts of the world are the only correct ones.
And you don't?
geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
test == text?
yes.
C'mon. You can look through the article histories to see who made the submission in the original article.
Not where there is no link back or the article has been deleted.
This doesn't account for all of them, a lot of editors have expressed willingness to go through the archives and remove those that can't be attributed. But they need to be undeleted in order for this to be done.
This is perhaps the best example of copyright paranoia I've ever seen.
Not paranoia. The GFDL has certian requirements. We should meet them.
Perhaps, but wouldn't it be better to focus one's efforts on Wikipedia's more important failings regarding the GFDL? I've occasionally spent a bit of time going through old AfDs and undeleting articles that got merged or redirected, for example. Far more important than a joke page that most mirrors don't actually copy.