[Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
99 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Fæ
After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk
page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant
me free speech there), I think this may be the link,[1] but we agree
it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and
tangential; quote:"... I continue to make the case to the board that
greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for
James' removal."

None of the discussion seems to be anything that reads as much more
than hearsay with plausibly deniability, and we are left hanging on a
promise of something eventually where all the other trustees, not
Jimmy, must be at fault for dragging their feet and failing to be
transparent about an email that Jimmy wrote to James, that nobody else
could have any legal or ethical reason to think they had a right to
veto publishing; considering it has already been suggested that
anything that might give the board of trustees a legal problem could
be redacted in a minimal fashion.

It's a shame that WMF trustees are not subject to the type of legal
constraints which most European charities operate under, forcing the
organization to release records given a subject access request within
a limited time... unless they sadly have an unexpected "administrative
error" and delete the important/embarrassing records they should have
archived.

It's not quite reached a month since publication was first requested
and agreed to by James to avoid any issue with respecting
confidentiality,[2] so readers of this list may have unrealistic
expectations that this will be clarified in a timely way.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=711235706&oldid=711235176
2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html

Fae

On 23 March 2016 at 23:32, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jimmy,
>
> Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
> your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>
>> Diff, please.
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett-2
On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>
> Diff, please.

Answer came there none...

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Fæ
If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
his own steam?

His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.

If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.

P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?

Fae

On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>
>> Diff, please.
>
> Answer came there none...

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Trillium Corsage
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.

I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.

Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom?

Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.

Trillium Corsage

16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" <email clipped>:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped>
> wrote:
>
>>  On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <email clipped> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped>
>>  > wrote:
>>  >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>  >> release an email?
>>  >
>>  > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>>  > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>  >
>>  > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>>  > James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>  >
>>  > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>  >
>>  > Sarah
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>>  > [2]
>>  >
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>>
>>  Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
>>  priority. It has gone on too long.
>>  If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
>>  other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
>>  was redacted.
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Risker
On 15 April 2016 at 17:42, Trillium Corsage <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on
> the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the
> minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the
> executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
>
> I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but
> these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.
>
> Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am
> interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only
> supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay,
> but then whom?
>
> Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to
> hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed
> his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for
> violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
>
I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting
stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it.  It
doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the
Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the
identity of the mover is more process than substance.

The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I
certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be
published.  I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously
believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would
probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention
the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency,
it's prurience.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Fæ
Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as personal.

What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was
instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that
served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he
is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho.
As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and
as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.

My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace
Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do
equally well. They do not.
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> his own steam?
>
> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>
> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>
> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Diff, please.
> >
> > Answer came there none...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Trillium Corsage
In reply to this post by Risker
Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling (and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email.

Similarly, your assertion that "Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it" equates to official board minutes, and no more is needed, leaves me a bit lost for words. What I asked for is a document like the dozens posted here (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings), and as I've written here before those things are so sparse of detail to barely qualify as "minutes" but they *do* typically say who raised a motion, who seconded it, and the result. Which is all I asked for.

Now, what you also did is place the resignation ball firmly in Lila's court "Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it." This is at odds with the common perception that the board issued the call for her resignation, and she had little choice as a professional but to comply. Is that not what you thought? Or you thought the resignation came spontaneously from Lila? At least GorillaWarfare didn't see it that way. She said " It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own."

Anyhow, it's a simple request for transparency. The board should publish the minutes or let it be known otherwise which trustee initiated (and which seconded) (and which opposed if any) the call for the ED's resignation.

Trillium Corsage

16.04.2016, 02:23, "Risker" <email clipped>:

> I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting
> stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It
> doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the
> Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the
> identity of the mover is more process than substance.
>
> The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I
> certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be
> published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously
> believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would
> probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention
> the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency,
> it's prurience.
>
> Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Derek V.Giroulle
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I second that Gerard

On 16-04-16 08:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
> have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
> benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
> over as personal.
>
> What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was
> instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that
> served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he
> is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho.
> As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and
> as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.
>
> My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace
> Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do
> equally well. They do not.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
>> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
>> his own steam?
>>
>> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
>> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
>> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
>> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
>> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>>
>> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>>
>> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
>> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
>> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
>> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
>> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>>>> Diff, please.
>>> Answer came there none...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.
Treasurer
Troonstraat 51 Rue du Trône, BE-1050 Brussels
M: [hidden email]
T: +32 494 134134
F: +32 3666 2700
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
against James.[1]

James replied twice:

<quote>

Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
2016 (UTC)

<end of quote>

Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.

So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
selective quoting?


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> his own steam?
>
> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>
> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>
> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Diff, please.
> >
> > Answer came there none...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing
before most other people would agree with you.

The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about
what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but
for me it failed.

The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone
who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
a meaningful contribution.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
> against James.[1]
>
> James replied twice:
>
> <quote>
>
> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
>
> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
> 2016 (UTC)
>
> <end of quote>
>
> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
>
> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> selective quoting?
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> > his own steam?
> >
> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >
> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >
> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> > >>
> > >> Diff, please.
> > >
> > > Answer came there none...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Oliver Keyes-5
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes out,
> the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend on
> sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of convincing
> before most other people would agree with you.
>
> The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
> anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer about
> what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk but
> for me it failed.

From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.

>
> The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
> you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
> is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is noone
> who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
> crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
> a meaningful contribution.

Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.

> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
>> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
>> against James.[1]
>>
>> James replied twice:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
>> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
>> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
>> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
>> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
>> 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> <end of quote>
>>
>> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
>>
>> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
>> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
>> selective quoting?
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
>> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
>> > his own steam?
>> >
>> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
>> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
>> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
>> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
>> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>> >
>> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>> >
>> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
>> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
>> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
>> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
>> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>> >
>> > Fae
>> >
>> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
>> > >>
>> > >> Diff, please.
>> > >
>> > > Answer came there none...
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>  Arguably the latest
> crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to make
> a meaningful contribution.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM


In particular?

Gordo


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

jmh649
If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not
decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.

What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for
life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
movement.

James

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >  Arguably the latest
> > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> make
> > a meaningful contribution.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
>
>
> In particular?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you
really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve
that label?

Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you
consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and
there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a
high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".

What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for
experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that
make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think.
It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not
recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it
is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my
strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content
and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled
that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even
though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small
conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.

I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy"
is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power
game.that is being played.

Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his
ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and
forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is
secondary.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will not
> decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
> stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
>
> What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
> accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board for
> life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
> movement.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > >  Arguably the latest
> > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > make
> > > a meaningful contribution.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> >
> >
> > In particular?
> >
> > Gordo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Oliver Keyes-5
Yes, Jimmy is effective in his board role - unfortunately, well, have you
seen the threads about his behaviour in that role? If you instead mean he
is only valuable as an icon or media figure because of it you'll need a
better argument than a statement as if the claim is fact.

Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior
movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for
madness.

But thank you for making the good faith claim that anyone who disagrees
with you on this is just making a power play. What was it you were saying
about taking an approach that achieves turmoil, again? ;)

On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Do you really think that democratic processes produce a best result? Do you
> really think that the Wikimedia Foundation or the United States deserve
> that label?
>
> Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
> transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
> people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When you
> consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
> results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects and
> there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
> movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and make a
> high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
>
> What our movement needs is more recognition for what works. More room for
> experimentation helps. More trust in the good intentions of the people that
> make things work helps.We need less Wikipedia think and more result think.
> It is a travesty for instance that the great work in Wikisource is not
> recognised as a generator of traffic. That is what they do in India and it
> is why I as a non elected member of a committee have a deviant idea: in my
> strong opinion we need both more wikisources as a tool to generate content
> and a platform to bring that content to a world audience. I am thrilled
> that Wikidata will improve the functionality of red links in Wikipedia even
> though it is only a subset of what is possible. There will be a small
> conference on sources and quality and that is something I applaud.
>
> I have found that consistently this noisy crowd clamoring for "democracy"
> is not really interested in results. It feels too much like a power
> game.that is being played.
>
> Finally; Jimmy is effective. Removing him from the board will disable his
> ability to function. Think about it in terms of what we aim to achieve and
> forget all the self serving rhetoric about democracy. Democracy is
> secondary.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 18 April 2016 at 20:28, James Heilman <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > If Jimmy was to stand for community election and not be elected it will
> not
> > decrease his ability to be an ambassador for the movement one bit. If he
> > stands for election and wins it will increase his legitimacy.
> >
> > What I think many are requesting is democratic processes and
> > accountability. Our movement does not need anyone sitting on the board
> for
> > life. Our current situation is a disheartening for many within the
> > movement.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gordon Joly <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 17/04/16 20:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > >  Arguably the latest
> > > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > > make
> > > > a meaningful contribution.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >        GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > In particular?
> > >
> > > Gordo
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Nathan Awrich
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic.
> And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a
> dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life. Senior
> movement figures with zero substantive accountability is a recipe for
> madness.
>

This "republic" vs "democracy" business is a fallacy I wish people would
stop repeating as if it means something - it doesn't. No one anywhere on
earth hears "democracy" and thinks "ancient Athenian direct democracy" is
what is meant.


>
> On Monday, 18 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Many may request democratic processes but I prefer a greater deal of
> > transparency. When you talk about accountability, it is not so much to
> > people but more related to the extend we achieve what we aim for. When
> you
> > consider where people are and where we have our audience, I find that our
> > results are lukewarm, maybe improving. There are some stellar projects
> and
> > there are some that are in need of an overhaul. The good thing of our
> > movement is that up to a point people can work towards solutions and
> make a
> > high impact without getting sidetracked by "democracy".
> >
>

What people have demanded is transparency. Failing transparency they turn
to democracy as the only way to rein in the non-transparent exercise of
control and influence. The principle of affording the participants of a
group or effort the power to select their leaders is one that transcends
government and is meaningful in most contexts, including Wikimedia.

While I have said for years that Wikimedia is not a governance experiment,
having an accountable leadership is not experimental. If you support
transparency, and can see that folks asking for it have been given the
silent treatment for months on end, then I fail to see why you argue
against using the one lever of control that remains to demand that the
desire for transparency be heard.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Ruslan Takayev
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Andreas, et al

On 23 March, Jimmy stated:[1]

"Still waiting to see if the board allows another board member to
publish something that will then allow me to publish further.  But I
did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant."

We are now exactly one month down the track and there is still no
response from Jimmy.

At this juncture the following need to be addressed:

1) Can the board confirm whether Jimmy has in fact made such enquiry?
When? And with whom?

2) In the instance of enquiry by Jimmy being made, can that enquiry
from Jimmy be published? Assuming of course that the enquiry itself
doesn't contain "sensitive" information that needs to be withheld.

3) Can the board explain why one month after Jimmy says he is "still
waiting" for direction that direction has not been forthcoming.

For the community to move forward these issues can NOT simply be
allowed to fade into distant memory. This is moreso needed given the
disgraceful email Jimmy sent to James and Pete Forsyth, and Jimmy's
equally disgraceful "utter fucking bullshit" attack on James.

At this point any response which doesn't answer these questions
satisfactorily needs to be taken as Jimmy and/or the Board hoping the
issue will simply go away; in which case the whole lot of you should
resign in order for real community healing to take place.

Warm regards,


Ruslan Takayev

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimedia-l@.../msg23472.html


On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had with
> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further allegations
> against James.[1]
>
> James replied twice:
>
> <quote>
>
> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall discussion.
> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
>
> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you quoted
> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31 March
> 2016 (UTC)
>
> <end of quote>
>
> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
>
> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> selective quoting?
>
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> > his own steam?
> >
> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >
> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >
> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> > >>
> > >> Diff, please.
> > >
> > > Answer came there none...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Oliver Keyes-5
Hoi,
Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.

But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.

This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> out,
> > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he is
> > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> on
> > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> convincing
> > before most other people would agree with you.
> >
> > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil than
> > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> about
> > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> but
> > for me it failed.
>
> From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
>
> >
> > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood that
> > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community. He
> > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> noone
> > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the latest
> > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> make
> > a meaningful contribution.
>
> Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
>
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> with
> >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> allegations
> >> against James.[1]
> >>
> >> James replied twice:
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> discussion.
> >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> quoted
> >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> March
> >> 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> <end of quote>
> >>
> >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> >>
> >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so that
> >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> >> selective quoting?
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> >> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> >> > his own steam?
> >> >
> >> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> >> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> >> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> >> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> >> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> >> >
> >> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> >> >
> >> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> >> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> >> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> >> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> >> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> >> >
> >> > Fae
> >> >
> >> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Diff, please.
> >> > >
> >> > > Answer came there none...
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Oliver Keyes-5
On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.


Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.

>
> But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
>
>
I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'

I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
own sanity :p


> This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does hinder
> and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > out,
> > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think he
> is
> > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still intend
> > on
> > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > convincing
> > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > >
> > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> than
> > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > about
> > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful talk
> > but
> > > for me it failed.
> >
> > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> > participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> > other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
> >
> > >
> > > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
> that
> > > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our community.
> He
> > > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> > noone
> > > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
> latest
> > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > make
> > > a meaningful contribution.
> >
> > Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> > mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> > founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> > IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> > founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> > to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> > decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd had
> > with
> > >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> > allegations
> > >> against James.[1]
> > >>
> > >> James replied twice:
> > >>
> > >> <quote>
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> > >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> > discussion.
> > >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have any
> > >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> > quoted
> > >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 31
> > March
> > >> 2016 (UTC)
> > >>
> > >> <end of quote>
> > >>
> > >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was archived.
> > >>
> > >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
> that
> > >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by Jimmy's
> > >> selective quoting?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> > >> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board
> under
> > >> > his own steam?
> > >> >
> > >> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> > >> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with
> his
> > >> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> > >> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> > >> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> > >> >
> > >> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> > >> >
> > >> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with
> WMF
> > >> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> > >> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks
> ago
> > >> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit"
> if
> > >> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> > >> >
> > >> > Fae
> > >> >
> > >> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is
> relevant.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Diff, please.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Answer came there none...
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

Anthony Cole
This is getting ridiculous.

Jimmy, you quoted from an email exchange with James. James claims this
selective quoting distorted the nature of the exchange. You have been asked
to publish the entire exchange. The only other party to that exchange
(James) wants it published. As Fae and others have repeatedly pointed out,
you may simply redact any confidential board information. Your explanations
for not releasing the whole exchange are an insult to our intelligence and
your refusal to do so is a display of contempt.

James is a genuine leader and spokesperson, elected by the community.

What are you?

You happened to be there when your failed encyclopaedia, thanks to Larry's
idea to use a wiki and thanks to the energy and determination of the
community, exploded before your eyes into this amazing thing.

Now, you pretend to be the genius behind Wikipedia. Now, you pose as the
humanitarian who gave away the encyclopaedia because "it was the right
thing to do" (when, in reality, you relinquished it because the community
wouldn't allow you to monetise it). Now, you make a nice living off this
charade.

You can take that story with you and, I'm sure, for a while at least,
you'll still be able to dine out on it. But you're in the way here. It's
time to move on from the board and from your self-appointed role as
"spokesperson for the community".

We need honest, hard working people who genuinely represent us in a
public-facing role, not a deceitful, self-aggrandising, opportunistic
squatter.


Anthony Cole


On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Saturday, 23 April 2016, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Governance worth a damn... <grin> Did you know that I introduced Jan Bart
> > to Jimmy </grin> the rest is also history.
>
>
> Yes Gerard, you're very very important. Much more so than me. Well done.
>
> >
> > But honestly. In the final analysis the more importance is given to the
> > board, the more it shows a dysfunctional movement. When governance is so
> > relevant, the first thing to do is not to micro-manage. That is what the
> > board is not supposed to do and when something did not go right, remember
> > that they are people. Ask yourself how we as a movement suffer instead or
> > when you find that a certain behaviour did not win the beauty contest.
> >
> >
> I know the board are people. I also know the people their actions affect
> are people. I am agreed that the board is too prominent - see also the
> spinoff thread - and given too much importance. But when the board sets
> direction on almost everything that costs money, it's function or
> dysfunction is absolutely an 'important thing'
>
> I'm going to drop this thread because it is relatively clear we are not
> making any progress, in either direction, on convincing the other one we're
> right. But hey, at least neither of us demanded the other question their
> own sanity :p
>
>
> > This whole affair is backward. It does not help us forward, it does
> hinder
> > and it takes energy away from those things that really matter.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> > On 17 April 2016 at 22:13, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So when as a result of your yihad the worst of what you imagine comes
> > > out,
> > > > the most you have achieved is that you can say "this is why I think
> he
> > is
> > > > an asshole". Then what. It does not change a thing. We are still
> intend
> > > on
> > > > sharing the sum of all knowledge. You still have to do a lot of
> > > convincing
> > > > before most other people would agree with you.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with your single issue approach is achieves more turmoil
> > than
> > > > anything else. I fail to understand people like you. It is no longer
> > > about
> > > > what we hope to achieve. I have tried to engage you in meaningful
> talk
> > > but
> > > > for me it failed.
> > >
> > > From what I can see, "what we hope to achieve" is governance worth a
> > > damn. It's people in key positions not using those positions as
> > > weapons. It's people taking empathy and consideration and fiduciary
> > > duties seriously. Now, if the absence of these doesn't affect you, I'm
> > > profoundly jealous, but the fact that you do not understand why
> > > Jimmy's behaviour makes it difficult to claim he's a suitable
> > > participant in Wikimedia's governance does not change that a lot of
> > > other people do have concerns - not just me, not just Andreas.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The one question that I have. In all your hiha I have not understood
> > that
> > > > you understand what it is what Jimmy uniquely brings to our
> community.
> > He
> > > > is really effective as an ambassador for what we do. In this there is
> > > noone
> > > > who can replace him. How do you want to replace him. Arguably the
> > latest
> > > > crop of board members have shown how hard it is in the first place to
> > > make
> > > > a meaningful contribution.
> > >
> > > Who said anything about replacing him as an ambassador? When Jimmy is
> > > mentioned in the media it's in the context of being Wikipedia's
> > > founder, not one of a dozen-odd board members, and unless there's an
> > > IEG for the invention of a TARDIS I don't think anyone is removing his
> > > founder status. The question is simply whether he is a suitable person
> > > to indefinitely sit on the Board of Trustees, making governance
> > > decisions, given the behaviour he has shown.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >        GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 17 April 2016 at 20:20, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On March 21, Jimmy posted excerpts from an email conversation he'd
> had
> > > with
> > > >> James Heilman on his Wikipedia user talk page, making further
> > > allegations
> > > >> against James.[1]
> > > >>
> > > >> James replied twice:
> > > >>
> > > >> <quote>
> > > >>
> > > >> Jimmy Wales' summary above of our email correspondence is far from
> > > >> complete, and is not an accurate representation of the overall
> > > discussion.
> > > >> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
> > > >>
> > > >> Jimbo, you quoted some passages of our mails above. Would you have
> any
> > > >> objection to my posting the complete exchange, so that the parts you
> > > quoted
> > > >> can be seen in context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09,
> 31
> > > March
> > > >> 2016 (UTC)
> > > >>
> > > >> <end of quote>
> > > >>
> > > >> Jimmy Wales ignored the latter question until the thread was
> archived.
> > > >>
> > > >> So – will the community get to see the complete exchange or not, so
> > that
> > > >> everyone can judge for themselves how it was misrepresented by
> Jimmy's
> > > >> selective quoting?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_206#What_James_said_publicly_.282.29
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy
> to
> > > >> > account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board
> > under
> > > >> > his own steam?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> > > >> > politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with
> > his
> > > >> > repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> > > >> > member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> > > >> > Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with
> > WMF
> > > >> > employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to
> act
> > > >> > for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks
> > ago
> > > >> > that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit"
> > if
> > > >> > it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Fae
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett <
> [hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <
> [hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is
> > relevant.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Diff, please.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Answer came there none...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >> >
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345