The foundation appears to be of the impression that Jimbo is merely attempting to encourage scrutiny, and removing clear cases. This is not true. Jimbo has speedy deleted, without discussion, historical artworks and diagrams, often edit warring with admins to keep them deleted, and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the problem. Examples: Artworks from the 19th century, by notable artists: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=… Wheelwarred with three different admins to try and keep it deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=… Wheelwarred with two admins this time. ---- Diagrams intended to illustrate articles on sexual subjects, in wide use on Wikipedia projects for that purpose: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=… Edit warred with three admins http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=… ---- Further, when challeged on these, he said that he refused to engage in any discussion on the deletion of artwork *until he was done deleting all of them* From http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&… "I have redeleted the image for the duration of the cleanup project. We will have a solid discussion about whether Commons should ever host pornography and under what circumstances at a later day - June 1st will be a fine time to start.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)" How are such images to be found, after's he's gone and deleted them all? Are we really to sift through every single deletion several months later, to find the things that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, and which, thanks to the Commons Delinker bot, have been automatically removed from the articles they were used in? Out of Jimbo's deletions, at the very least a third of the deletions related to diagrams and historical artwork in wide use on Wikipedia projects. This despite his initial claim ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&…) that he'd only be dealing with things that violated the law that started the controversy. If the board are not aware, there was, about a year ago, a controversy related to images of Muhammed, in which Muslim readers - for whom such are horribly offensive, due to rules against depiction of the prophet - were politely informed that we could not delete material simply because it offended someone, as Wikipedia sought to show all of the world's knowledge. Jimbo's actions make that consensus deeply problematic. There is a petition for Wales' founder flag to be removed, which has gained widespread support since his actions. ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag ) -A. C. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the problem.