The whole autobiography thing is an EXAMPLE.
Read all the words. It may hurt to read Jimbo's dribblings, but do it anyway.
Here's some quotes:
this is official policy, and reverting a WP:OFFICE may be grounds for blocking.
The Wikimedia Foundation receives an increasingly large number of phone calls and emails from people who are upset about various things on the site.
When such people call the office, it can be the best approach all around for us to simply speedy the article, blank the deletion discussion, and all get on with our lives.
I have created this page for Danny to use to signify why he is deleting or blanking something per my authorization. This does not signify any authoritarian top-down action without approval, but rather signifies a temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the encyclopedic way forward.
If this works out, I may authorize other people to use it as well (people handling OTRS email queues, people on the legal team, etc.)--Jimbo Wales 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The "disclaimer" part in bold is "This quick action is in no way meant to override or replace the process of community consensus. There is still plenty of time, and there are still plenty of places, for the community to discuss and replace articles in due course."
- However as Jimbo stated, the deletion discussion would be deleted, and the article (as well as it's talk page) deleted. The whole debate would be unable to be viewed by anyone but administrators, and people would not even know the article existed unless they were involved or informed by another user (and even that may get censored from talk pages too presumably, if it qualifies as "upsetting" to whoever the complainant to Wikimedia is)
So yes, it's a grounds for wiping of debate and articles when Jimbo/Wikimedia Foundation (no input from the community asked nor thought to be required it seems) thinks it's necessary. Note again that it's "There may at times be legal reasons for this."
- Deletions would not be JUST for legal reasons. Just anything Minitru.. Err, Wikimedia agrees with the complainant that it's "upsetting".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...e_Actions#Funny by The Cunctator 23:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC):
" This does not signify any authoritarian top-down action without approval." I just love it when top authorities describe their actions that way. I hear the Bush administration lawyers have determined that all of the Bush administration policies are legal and don't need to be authorized by Congress or reviewed by the Supreme Court, too.
In other words, Jimbo should let the community decide whether it's an authoritarian action or not.