[Foundation-l] Motives?

[Excirial]

How many more threads are you going to create on the exact same issue? There
are currently 9 threads created by you in my in box and they all detail the
same thing. I would also point out that what you are stating is nothing new
whatsoever; I believe that Jimbo said very early on that he was removing
borderline images as well arguing that they could be brought back trough
deletion discussions. Half the debate surrounding Jimbo has been about this,
so i doubt you are telling anyone anything new.

Besides, you might want to consider dropping the
stick<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stick>,
since i have a slight idea that your horde looks like
this<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Man_sitting_on_a_dead_horse_%281876_-_1884%29.jpg>by
now. Jimmy apologized, his founder flags rights are lessened and more
talk will help no one.

~Excirial

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Adam Cuerden <cuerden at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just realised: Every single one of Wales' actions make sense if
> Jimbo was trying to completely purge Commons of anything the least bit
> controversial to kill the story, figuring it could be brought back in
> a couple months. His statements lend strong support to this theory.
> Consider:
>
> *"[
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=38806204
> Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all
> images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal
> solely to prurient interests have my full support. <b>This includes
> immediate deletion of all pornographic images.</b>]"
>
> *"[
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ASexual_content&action=historysubmit&diff=38893040&oldid=38891318
> This portion of policy against sexually explicit images applies to
> both actual photographs as well as drawings.]" (change made by him to
> [[Commons:Sexual content]], which other editors had edited to forbade
> from applying to artworks - in other words, an expansion based on
> media focus)
>
> *"[
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891882&oldid=38891748
> We can have a long discussion and work out a new set of parameters
> after the cleanup project is completed. It is not acceptable to host
> pornography in the meantime.]"
>
> *"[
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=38891882&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.]"
>
> *"[
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=39075883#Next_steps
> I had thought that a good process would be to engage in a very strong
> series of deletions, including of some historical images, and then to
> have a careful discussion about rebuilding. That proved to be very
> unpopular and so I regret it. It also may have had the effect of
> confusing people about my own position on what to keep and what to get
> rid of.]"
>
> *"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058086.html
> There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting
> the crisis.  In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am
> sorry.]"
>
> *"[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html
> We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore
> pornography and doing nothing about it.  Now, the correct storyline is
> that we are cleaning up.  I'm proud to have made sure that storyline
> broke the way it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make
> it happen.]"
>
>
> A complete panicked purge of all potentially objectionable material,
> followed by its reinstatement when media focus is off of us is....
>
> I don't even know where to begin. It treats editors as pawns in some
> big chess game, and, I will point out again: Wales never revealed this
> was about the Media until after his deletion spree.
>
> ...I'll leave it to others to comment. I'm too shocked.
>
> -Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>