Am 16.05.2011 23:20, schrieb Bryan Tong Minh:
Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte"
<mailto:email@example.com>> het volgende:
action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is offensive against
the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that interferes with
Your analogy is misplaced.
The controversy started because of jimbo acting with his authority.
That analogy would be appropriate if neil would have threatened or had
taken steps against reverting his actions, which he clearly did not.
You seem to think that every action needs to be backed up by a
discussion on beforehand. This is in fact not how a wiki works.
Commons-l mailing list
Any action should have a
valid reasoning. He exchanged the image with a
rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as an equal
topic to anything else. The "wiki" analogy does also not work in this
case. The page was cascade blocked, so that normal users had no chance
to revert his action.