Frankly, you've not shown anything to contradict or even introduce an element of doubt into even one of my claims, so I find it hard to believe. You're asking me to take on faith that you know better than me, despite all evidence to the contrary. Sorry, that's not how I do things on Wikipedia or in my professional life.
I don't think I'm asking for too much.
Here are my claims simplified: 1. TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use" as being copyvios. 2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked them since then). 3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as copyvios in a private e-mail. 4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images, or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
That's it. Show me where I'm wrong on any of those counts, and I'll happily agree with you and be part of those seeking to smooth this over. Until then, please don't expect me to just agree that I am wrong in the face of no evidence. I find it hard to believe that you'd do the same thing in a similar situation, though even if you would, it changes very little.
This is, of course, a case of transparency at its heart. "Evidence" as a standard for proof and accountability in science, law, and politics is based on the principle of open and free examination (Cf. Yaron Ezrahi, "The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy"). Appeals to secret evidence can only be taken on faith. I've seen no evidence to warrant such a leap of faith in this instance, given the evidence against it. Of course, I know that evidence can be problematic, requires interpretation to make sense of, and other important epistemological points. So feel free to indicate where I've gone astray in your eyes, if it is just a matter of interpretation, and I'll be happy to think about it.
On the issue of "faith" -- I have a lot of faith in Jimbo, and even if I didn't, I know this is largely his show and what he says goes. If he wants to go outside of policy on something, it doesn't bug me too much. It does bother me if others do so, though, without any explicit allowance for that made by Jimbo. And I didn't see that in this case.
But I don't want to be told by you, TBSDY, or anyone else that I don't have the right to ask perfectly reasonable questions. There is no provisions either in Wikipedia's terms of use, or in general ethical conduct, which prohibits the good faith asking of questions.
Frankly, I don't think I'm the one who needs to "show some self control." I think you have been unfathomably rude to me and others on this issue. You've treated me like I was some sort of common troll.
FF
P.S. I've decided to CC the list on this. I didn't judge it to contain anything compromising, and I think this is still completely in line with the discussion on transparency. Hope that isn't too irritating, but I'd really rather you communicated with me on this subject via the list, because I do, in the end, believe in openness.
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
And I think I was aware of the facts
Please accept that you were not, are not, and probably will not ever be aware of the facts of this case. Your criticism of Ta bu shi da yu was woefully misplaced, and your statement that I bent the fact was completely without foundation. Please show some self control.
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 11:58 -0500, Fastfission wrote:
Here are my claims simplified:
- TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use"
as being copyvios. 2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked them since then). 3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as copyvios in a private e-mail. 4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images, or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
Seems like an amount of misunderstanding.
Can we see the email?
Justinc
The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@....com> Mailed-By: wikia.com To: Arbitration Committee mailing list arbcom-l@wikipedia.org Cc: ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com, Tony Sidaway Date: Feb 19, 2006 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] ta_bu_shi_da_yu believes over 200 Time magazine covers pose a serious liability and bad PR threat
I'd like to see a bulk AfD on these things. And if the answer is wrong, then I'll personally delete them anyway and use this as a good example of what's broken about AfD.
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
I think my interpretation is correct that this did not give TBSDY authority to speedy the images. As we know, AFD is about the polar opposite of speedying, for better or worse.
FF
On 3/2/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 11:58 -0500, Fastfission wrote:
Here are my claims simplified:
- TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use"
as being copyvios. 2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked them since then). 3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as copyvios in a private e-mail. 4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images, or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
Seems like an amount of misunderstanding.
Can we see the email?
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
The email conversation contained numerous emails. You have not seen them all. Stop making gratuitously false accusations.
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
The email conversation contained numerous emails. You have not seen them all. Stop making gratuitously false accusations.
Well, I cannot disprove such a possibility, of course, but I *can* say that this particular e-mail is the one which TBSDY produced to show that he had been given the authority. Do you deny that it is insufficient in this function?
FF
BTW -- here is the link to the posting of the e-mail at the RFC, just to be clear about what I am referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_...
FF
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
The email conversation contained numerous emails. You have not seen them all. Stop making gratuitously false accusations.
Well, I cannot disprove such a possibility, of course, but I *can* say that this particular e-mail is the one which TBSDY produced to show that he had been given the authority. Do you deny that it is insufficient in this function?
FF
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
The email conversation contained numerous emails. You have not seen them all. Stop making gratuitously false accusations.
From a practical point of view, email I haven't seen does not help me develop or enforce policy. If the existing policy has been changed on the basis of this email conversation, then I think it's reasonable to expect someone in the know to update the appropriate policy pages. Is the new policy to delete all non-free-licensed images? I'm not keen on it, but as an admin I'll do my duty and help enforce it.
I think what troubles people is that there are all these hints of a major policy change that seems to have been decided upon, and yet nobody has changed any of the relevant policy pages. Has policy been changed, or not?
Stan
Stop wikilawyering.
It was clear that these images were going to go. That's the important thing.
Ok, TBSDY cut to the chase - but he got the job done. "Process" is not some god to be bowed down to. Now, ok, if TBSDY deleted images wholesale where there was a realistic possibility that after going through a fuller process they would have stayed, then there would be some point in asking him not to do the same thing in the future - and even then you shouldn't rake him over the coals for actions clearly conducted in good faith. However, in this case, noting this email, there is no doubt - the images were doomed and the only action worth doing in response is thanking TBSDY for carry out the administrative chore.
Jon
Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
From: Jimmy Wales Mailed-By: wikia.com To: Arbitration Committee mailing list Cc: ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com, Tony Sidaway Date: Feb 19, 2006 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] ta_bu_shi_da_yu believes over 200 Time magazine covers pose a serious liability and bad PR threat
I'd like to see a bulk AfD on these things. And if the answer is wrong, then I'll personally delete them anyway and use this as a good example of what's broken about AfD.
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
I think my interpretation is correct that this did not give TBSDY authority to speedy the images. As we know, AFD is about the polar opposite of speedying, for better or worse.
FF
On 3/2/06, Justin Cormack wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 11:58 -0500, Fastfission wrote:
Here are my claims simplified:
- TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use"
as being copyvios. 2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked them since then). 3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as copyvios in a private e-mail. 4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images, or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
Seems like an amount of misunderstanding.
Can we see the email?
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 17:36 +0000, Jon wrote:
Stop wikilawyering.
It was clear that these images were going to go. That's the important thing.
Ok, TBSDY cut to the chase - but he got the job done. "Process" is not some god to be bowed down to. Now, ok, if TBSDY deleted images wholesale where there was a realistic possibility that after going through a fuller process they would have stayed, then there would be some point in asking him not to do the same thing in the future - and even then you shouldn't rake him over the coals for actions clearly conducted in good faith. However, in this case, noting this email, there is no doubt - the images were doomed and the only action worth doing in response is thanking TBSDY for carry out the administrative chore.
We need a policy because there is far too much of this "fair use" rubbish for one person to delete - tens of thousands of images need to go so we can get back on track making a free encyclopaedia. At least this action suggests that Jimbo has finally decided to move to the next stage.
Anyone fancy deleting all the Pokemon images next?
Justinc
The point of this is not to enshrine process. I merely said that he acted completely contrary to policy, relied upon backchannel authority for it (which turned out to be false), and said that the reprobation of users who inquired about such authority was ill-founded.
And in response I have gotten nothing but abuse -- and not just disagreement, which I always welcome, but name calling and crude attacks on my intelligence -- from people who should know better. In my opinion, if our processes or policies are wrong, we should try to fix them first before deciding to dump it. It is a better long term solution.
And I was, and remain, correct, so far as anything presented here as shown. I will continue not to suspend my natural skepticism in the absence of compelling reason.
And just as a parting shot or two: I didn't bring this issue up here first. I'll admit, after the RFC provoked so many ridiculous defenses of TBSDY's actions, I was tempted to post to the list. But I decided not to. Why get involved in a big argument about it here? It's a violation of policy, but it was not the end of the world, and I'm happy to leave it at that.
But after it was lauded by Tony Sidaway as an example about the merits of backchannel dealings and "suspicions" such as mine were declared to be meritless and counter-productive, I thought some clarification was needed, for those who had not followed the goings-on at WP. This, to my surprise, provoked nothing but ire, demands that I stop, accusations about accusations (I never accused TBSDY, Tony Sidaway, or anyone else of "lying" in the slightest, and attempted at many points to clarify exactly what I was alleging), name-calling, and, in the end, absolutely not one shred of reasonable argumentation against my assessment.
Now you can say that you happen to agree with the outcome, that ends justify the means, what have you. To me, that is beside the point of the whole dialogue. I have no love for fair use images. I have no love for stifling processes.
But I do think that this sort of activity is more counter-productive than it is productive. Some images were deleted, but at what cost? In terms of time, resources, trust, morale, feelings, and future progress -- I think much more than was necessary for the job at hand. It would have been easier to change the policy, and in the end it would have taken up less time than these discussions have. The deletion was expedited, but the overall case was not expedient.
It is this sort of thing which provokes a good, reliable editor -- of which I count myself, generally speaking, if it is not too vain to do so -- to want to throw a fit of self-pity, say "I'll never edit here again," or "I'll never work on policy again," or "I'll never participate in this list again," or "I've got better thing to do than hang out with these unappreciative louts, who are unable to take responsibility errors of others or themselves." (OK -- the last one might be a bit specific to this instance.)
I'm not going to do or say any of those things -- I only once succumbed to the urge, saying I might not work on fair use again, and afterwards I regretted being so melodramatic -- but it's the sort of urge one feels. One gets the feeling, that one is trying to be reasonable with a hoard of barbarians, one gets the feeling that one is alone in one's reason in a sea of irrationality. It's not an entirely justified feeling, I recognize -- a few people have written to the list in agreement with me, one even wrote a much-appreciated note of thanks -- but it is an unpleasant and very real feeling nonetheless.
I say all this not to be melodramatic (but maybe I am, anyway), and not to drag this on more than it needs to be (but perhaps I have already done so), but only to hopefully derive some positive use from the whole exchange: it illustrates perfectly the problems of relying on backchannel discussions for justifying policy decisions, and if anything positive were to come out of it, perhaps admins in the future, if they felt that Jimbo had given them personal authority to violate policy, would secure an open statement of such beforehand. Just a suggestion.
Feel free to misinterpret this message however you please.
FF
On 3/2/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Stop wikilawyering.
It was clear that these images were going to go. That's the important thing.
Ok, TBSDY cut to the chase - but he got the job done. "Process" is not some god to be bowed down to. Now, ok, if TBSDY deleted images wholesale where there was a realistic possibility that after going through a fuller process they would have stayed, then there would be some point in asking him not to do the same thing in the future - and even then you shouldn't rake him over the coals for actions clearly conducted in good faith. However, in this case, noting this email, there is no doubt - the images were doomed and the only action worth doing in response is thanking TBSDY for carry out the administrative chore.
Jon
Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: The TBSDY e-mail has been posted at the RFC with Jimbo's permission, so I don't think it's wrong to repost it here.
From: Jimmy Wales Mailed-By: wikia.com To: Arbitration Committee mailing list Cc: ta.bu.shi.da.yu@gmail.com, Tony Sidaway Date: Feb 19, 2006 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] ta_bu_shi_da_yu believes over 200 Time magazine covers pose a serious liability and bad PR threat
I'd like to see a bulk AfD on these things. And if the answer is wrong, then I'll personally delete them anyway and use this as a good example of what's broken about AfD.
-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
I think my interpretation is correct that this did not give TBSDY authority to speedy the images. As we know, AFD is about the polar opposite of speedying, for better or worse.
FF
On 3/2/06, Justin Cormack wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 11:58 -0500, Fastfission wrote:
Here are my claims simplified:
- TBSDY was speedying large amounts of images labeled as "fair use"
as being copyvios. 2. There are no CSD provisions for speedying images as copyvios (or at least, were not any at the time he was doing this; I haven't checked them since then). 3. TBSDY claimed that Jimbo gave him the right to speedy images as copyvios in a private e-mail. 4. TBSDY produced the e-mail, and it said that TBSDY could nominate the images for deletion (the proper policy), and if that failed, Jimbo might decide to speedy them. It did not say TBSDY could speedy images, or any other admin, as copyvios.
My conclusions: TBSDY did not, in fact, have the authority to speedy images as copyvios, and was acting against policy. I'm perfectly happy to assume good faith on this and assume he misunderstood Jimbo's e-mail or something like that -- nothing dishonest is posited.
Seems like an amount of misunderstanding.
Can we see the email?
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
But how will you feel about it if that's the result anyway?
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work. And then it should be changed, modified, have exceptions added to it, etc. in order to fix whatever wasn't working. I don't think that's a very radical idea.
One clarification: I am fine with enshrining the idea that process as a rule is a better way of managing behavior on a large scale. I am not fine with enshrining any particular processes (i.e., our current fair use policy, our current speedy deletion policy), but rather the idea of processes in general. In this sense, the only individual process which needs to be guaranteed is the possibility of changing other processes if needed.
In the end, I am more worried about the collateral damage which results from making big changes against policy without open discussion -- leading to accusations, suspicion, curt language, frustrated users, angry posts, etc. -- than I am about the idea that asking questions about policy violations will cause more people to look to policy before acting unilaterally.
If we are not free to inquire in good faith about violations of policies then we might as well not even have them. And I don't think that's an approach which has shown itself to work too well, personally, either on the Wiki or elsewhere.
FF
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [060304 09:15]:
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
But how will you feel about it if that's the result anyway?
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work.
How clear is clear?
- d.
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [060304 09:15]:
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
But how will you feel about it if that's the result anyway?
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work.
How clear is clear?
If the discussion closely resembles the last panel of [[The Garden of Earthly Delights]], it might be a sign that process has failed ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
On 3/4/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [060304 09:15]:
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
But how will you feel about it if that's the result anyway?
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work.
How clear is clear?
Indeed. We have an entire forum, Wikipedia:Deletion_review, which eschews consensus in favor of numerical quotas and in general sees itself as solely concerned with determining--not whether the right end was achieved by the deletion process, but whether the end--right or wrong--was achieved according to process. In short, a big thumbs up for means, and who cares if they end up resurrecting tripe or deleting good stuff.
We're far gone down the path where process is reified and product is neglected. Time to draw back.
On 3/3/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Process should be followed until it is clear that it does not work.
How clear is clear?
Surely there's no generalizable or exact answer for this. What's your point, in this? To point out that some aspects of this can be difficult, hard to put a finger on, or complicated? I agree completely, if so.
FF
Jon wrote:
Stop wikilawyering.
It was clear that these images were going to go. That's the important thing.
Ok, TBSDY cut to the chase - but he got the job done. "Process" is not some god to be bowed down to. Now, ok, if TBSDY deleted images wholesale where there was a realistic possibility that after going through a fuller process they would have stayed, then there would be some point in asking him not to do the same thing in the future - and even then you shouldn't rake him over the coals for actions clearly conducted in good faith. However, in this case, noting this email, there is no doubt - the images were doomed and the only action worth doing in response is thanking TBSDY for carry out the administrative chore.
Actually, it's not clear at all. TBSDY even asked about fair use rationales for TIME covers on the fair use project, and I answered with some ideas for what might constitute fair use, but instead of continuing with the discussion, seems to have gone ahead and acted to delete anyway. If that's going to be the extent of "discussion", then please just stop with the charade and delete all fair use images right now - the fait accompli will make some people happy and save me wasting my time on this whole issue (not necessarily a bad idea, since I have a personal backlog of at least 2,000 images to add to commons).
Stan
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
You're asking me to take on faith that you know better than me,
Yes. I cannot discuss the contents of email communications with you, but I can say that Ta bu shi da yu's actions had the full support of Jimbo Wales.
despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence to the contrary. You're being unbelievably obtuse and grossly offensive, but you have absolutely no grounds to attack Ta bu shi da yu in this way and no grounds for your repeated false claim that I have misrepresented the facts.
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I cannot discuss the contents of email communications with you, but I can say that Ta bu shi da yu's actions had the full support of Jimbo Wales.
Well, then I guess this is just a great case in point about transparency and the sort of attitudes it breeds on both sides of the line of secrecy.
It breeds mistrust outside it, and elitism inside it.
despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence to the contrary. You're being unbelievably obtuse and grossly offensive, but you have absolutely no grounds to attack Ta bu shi da yu in this way and no grounds for your repeated false claim that I have misrepresented the facts.
Well, I've tired in presenting my claims. Feel free to target any of them, show me they are wrong in any way. Please do. I implore you. It should be very easy to at least confront them directly. I've tried to make them as straightforward as possible.
If you cannot, or will not, I'm not sure what a reasonable person is supposed to conclude.
I somewhat resent being called "obtuse," but I'm happy with letting that slide. I don't really see where I've been "grossly offensive" under any definition, but okay, whatever, sure. I'm obtuse and offensive -- just point out where I'm *wrong* and I'll be satisfied and leave the whole issue alone.
FF
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. I cannot discuss the contents of email communications with you, but I can say that Ta bu shi da yu's actions had the full support of Jimbo Wales.
Well, then I guess this is just a great case in point about transparency and the sort of attitudes it breeds on both sides of the line of secrecy.
It breeds mistrust outside it, and elitism inside it.
despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence to the contrary. You're being unbelievably obtuse and grossly offensive, but you have absolutely no grounds to attack Ta bu shi da yu in this way and no grounds for your repeated false claim that I have misrepresented the facts.
Well, I've tired in presenting my claims.
And I have tired of reading your repeated false, baseless, malicious accusations. I have no more to say on the matter.
On 3/2/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
And I have tired of reading your repeated false, baseless, malicious accusations. I have no more to say on the matter.
I'm thoroughly surprised -- I thought you had more integrity. Guess I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
FF
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 3/2/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
You're asking me to take on faith that you know better than me,
Yes. I cannot discuss the contents of email communications with you, but I can say that Ta bu shi da yu's actions had the full support of Jimbo Wales.
I hate to jump in on a conversation that seems to have ended acrimoniously, but it's kind of important considering image deletion isn't revertible. If Jimbo has decided that a class of images that are otherwise acceptable on Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies are instead to be deleted wholesale, then why in heaven's name won't he just _say_ so in a public place? It's within his authority, after all, and would make things so much easier for everyone. Secrecy just doesn't make any sense.
despite all evidence to the contrary.
There is no evidence to the contrary. You're being unbelievably obtuse and grossly offensive, but you have absolutely no grounds to attack Ta bu shi da yu in this way and no grounds for your repeated false claim that I have misrepresented the facts.
As an outside observer who hasn't seen anything except what's been posted on this thread, I must say that I just can't see this. "Misinterpretation" is a far cry from "misrepresentation." It can be completely innocent, and can happen to anyone.
And in the end, it doesn't really matter who misinterpreted what or who insulted who in this particular case. The end result of relying on private emails that can't be made public is that new editors coming along (like me) won't have any idea what the correct action in this situation is. I think it's quite reasonable to point out this problem.
On 3 Mar 2006, at 01:31, Bryan Derksen wrote:
I hate to jump in on a conversation that seems to have ended acrimoniously, but it's kind of important considering image deletion isn't revertible. If Jimbo has decided that a class of images that are otherwise acceptable on Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies are instead to be deleted wholesale, then why in heaven's name won't he just _say_ so in a public place? It's within his authority, after all, and would make things so much easier for everyone. Secrecy just doesn't make any sense.
Image deletion of images that are simply copied off other web sites is easily reversible. Especially as if they dont have a source URL they should have been speedied in the first place.
A few of the "fair use"/copyvio images have been scanned but not many.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, at 01:31, Bryan Derksen wrote:
I hate to jump in on a conversation that seems to have ended acrimoniously, but it's kind of important considering image deletion isn't revertible. If Jimbo has decided that a class of images that are otherwise acceptable on Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's policies are instead to be deleted wholesale, then why in heaven's name won't he just _say_ so in a public place? It's within his authority, after all, and would make things so much easier for everyone. Secrecy just doesn't make any sense.
Image deletion of images that are simply copied off other web sites is easily reversible. Especially as if they dont have a source URL they should have been speedied in the first place.
This doesn't change the underlying point, though, it was just an explanation for why I was jumping in right away rather than waiting to let heated tempers cool down first. Why should any sort of policy change or directive like this be _secret_?
Has Jimbo weighed in on this discussion at any point? Just a few words from him here on this public mailing list would solve everything.