Op 16 mei 2011 22:53 schreef "Tobias Oelgarte" <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com>
het volgende:
>
> Any
> action done without consent (like Jimbo did before) is
offensive against
> the community, making her mistrusting the WMF, that
interferes with
> community decissions.
>
Your analogy is misplaced.
The controversy started because of jimbo acting with his
authority. That analogy would be appropriate if neil would have
threatened or had taken steps against reverting his actions,
which he clearly did not.
You seem to think that every action needs to be backed up by a
discussion on beforehand. This is in fact not how a wiki works.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Any action should have a valid reasoning. He exchanged the image
with a rather offending comment to everyone that sees sexuality as
an equal topic to anything else. The "wiki" analogy does also not
work in this case. The page was cascade blocked, so that normal
users had no chance to revert his action.