[WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
> >> > It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful
> >> > are professionals instead of New York Times editors.  If it was the New
> >> > York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a
> >> > WP:OFFICE.
> >> Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent
> >> significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not
> >> likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
> >
> > If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have
> > deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance*
> > to spend a significant amount of time defending it.  You don't get editors
> > investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot
> > of time has passed.
> Jimbo isn't a commons admin.

Huh?  Did I ever say he was?

The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using
normal user editing abilities.  (Which did not prevent it from becoming a
fait accompli.)