On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 01:47:52PM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 5/8/10 12:12 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > > 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. > > To the contrary, I have been very active in discussions both on the > wiki, in email, and in irc. Pretending that I'm not a reasonable person > open to discussion and debate is not going to be very persuasive to > anyone who knows me. :-)
This does not compute: I actually back-checked that with the commons community, with exact times and dates. You failed to take into account specific key concerns (to wit: in-use images), _after_ you were informed of them. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Jimbo_the_vandal specifically: " Did these actions happen before, or after I talked with [Jimbo Wales] on irc today? (this was at 12:50) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) After kim, way after. TheDJ (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC) " Before 12:50, I could have said you "pulled an Ed Poor" [1]. After 12:50, I would say that yes, you were demonstrably unreasonable. I do understand how high profile actions can go wrong in the heat of the moment. I've made mistakes too in the past (and have enemies to show for it). One of the things one needs to do to turn mistakes into lessons is to listen carefully to key concerns, once they are raised. As long as one demonstrably learns from mistakes, community support is (mostly) assured, and one can carry on to achieve ones objectives. Failure to learn is potentially fatal to the project at hand, if not one's wiki-career. The correct course of action -once you were informed- would have been to either leave in-use images alone for a 2nd pass, or mark them with a PROD(like) tag. Sj is currently doing damage control on Commons, bless him! :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning [1] I have often defended Ed Poors actions, and I admired the way he dealt with mistakes. Of course, after a while he got a little too cocky, and thought he could sweet-talk his way out of *anything* (oops), but other than that, he's a good model to learn from. For those of us who don't know who Ed Poor is/ was: This is the man who ALMOST got away with deleting "Votes For Deletion" on a whim one day. -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
