On 3/2/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: The email conversation contained numerous emails. You have not seen them all. Stop making gratuitously false accusations.

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(a)gmail.com> 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(a)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(a)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: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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.

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(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 3/3/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: 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

On 3/3/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: 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 3/3/06, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: 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

On 3/2/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: And I have tired of reading your repeated false, baseless, malicious accusations. I have no more to say on the matter.

Tony Sidaway 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. 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.

Justin Cormack wrote: 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.