[Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit

[Ziko van Dijk]

Adam,

As long as you do comments like this [1] ("Fuck you") I would like you
to abstain from discussing until your mood has changed.

Ziko


[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Sexual_content&diff=next&oldid=38893870


2010/5/8 Adam Cuerden <cuerden at gmail.com>:
> 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=File%3AF%C3%A9licien_Rops_-_Sainte-Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se.png<-
> Wheelwarred with three different admins to try and keep it deleted.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AFranz_von_Bayros_016.jpg<-
> 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=File%3AWiki-fisting.png<-
> Edit warred with three admins
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AWiki-facial.svg
>
> ----
>
> 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&action=historysubmit&diff=38891861&oldid=38891748
>
> "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&action=historysubmit&diff=38820363&oldid=38819608)
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde