[WikiEN-l] The admin problem

[Fastfission]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Fastfission <fastfission at 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.
>