Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Although I don't know the cause of Tony's problems, when I tried to get an automated email sent from the listserver just now, Gmail automatically transferred them into the social category so that they weren't visible, which initially led me to assume that they weren't making it through. Some email services treat automated email as spam, or (as Gmail now does), hides it by automatically putting it into something other than the inbox. It would be tricky to diagnose any problems from here, but the problems could have been technical, rather than deliberate. Adam On 16 March 2014 04:35, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, Charles and John, This obviously needs to be answered. If Tony has had his subscription cancelled/killed as he claims, this is a serious issue. As much as I think Tony is an a-grade twit, he has every right to his opinions on matters which relate to Wikimedia in Australia, no matter how much we disagree with them. I don't see John or Charles doing this, and I hope I am right in that, so it could only be Stephen Zhang as supposed by Tony. I hope I am wrong in this assertion, and am willing to be corrected on anything I am writing here. But Stephen, if this is correct, this is not only going to have ramifications for you as President of WMAU, but it is seriously going to affect your desire to become an admin on English Wikipedia, which is something that we all know you greatly desire. To have someone who is willing to use such a hammer on someone they disagree with as has occurred here, can not and should not be trusted with any tools on any project in which they have the ability to block editors. And I am sure that this will be referenced in any such request for adminship. This is an absolute disgrace, and some explanation is going to be required from those who have the ability to make such actions on this list. Cheers Scotty On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Dear subscribers I realised in early March that I'd been receiving no automatic email notifications from this public mailing list for some time. Curious, I made a post; it didn't get through. Then I went to the subscribe page and tried to join using my existing address, thinking there'd been some technical glitch that had unsubscribed me. Nope: every attempt to subscribe using the same email failed. I tried my alternate email, and that failed too. When a friend did it for me at a remote location, the alternate email was subscribed immediately. It is under that alternate address that I'm now posting. Through the marvel of human intuition, I think I've worked out that one of the three administrators, Steven Zhang, has placed my long-standing subscription on what is known as a kill list. I was never informed, and I can't imagine either Charles Gregory or John Vandenberg - the other two administrators - would have agreed to this undercover banning. I believe that both consulting the other administrators and informing the person being banned are standard protocol. I remind subscribers that the chapter doesn't own this mailing list: the WMF does. And I should also point out that under the by-laws I'm still a member of the chapter. I'd like an explanation. Tony Souter Normal email address: to...@iinet.net.au ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Yeah, Hanlon's razor perhaps should be remembered here! :-) Not that I mean to imply any incompetence on the part of the list administrators, but I do imagine that it's more likely that someone's made a mistake here and is not being actively mean. And Toby, I do recall reading an email from you in which you resigned your membership. Doesn't that make to not-a-member now? — sam. On 03/16/2014 02:41 PM, Adam Jenkins wrote: Although I don't know the cause of Tony's problems, when I tried to get an automated email sent from the listserver just now, Gmail automatically transferred them into the social category so that they weren't visible, which initially led me to assume that they weren't making it through. Some email services treat automated email as spam, or (as Gmail now does), hides it by automatically putting it into something other than the inbox. It would be tricky to diagnose any problems from here, but the problems could have been technical, rather than deliberate. Adam On 16 March 2014 04:35, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com mailto:russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen, Charles and John, This obviously needs to be answered. If Tony has had his subscription cancelled/killed as he claims, this is a serious issue. As much as I think Tony is an a-grade twit, he has every right to his opinions on matters which relate to Wikimedia in Australia, no matter how much we disagree with them. I don't see John or Charles doing this, and I hope I am right in that, so it could only be Stephen Zhang as supposed by Tony. I hope I am wrong in this assertion, and am willing to be corrected on anything I am writing here. But Stephen, if this is correct, this is not only going to have ramifications for you as President of WMAU, but it is seriously going to affect your desire to become an admin on English Wikipedia, which is something that we all know you greatly desire. To have someone who is willing to use such a hammer on someone they disagree with as has occurred here, can not and should not be trusted with any tools on any project in which they have the ability to block editors. And I am sure that this will be referenced in any such request for adminship. This is an absolute disgrace, and some explanation is going to be required from those who have the ability to make such actions on this list. Cheers Scotty On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:01 PM, to...@iinet.net.au mailto:to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Dear subscribers I realised in early March that I’d been receiving no automatic email notifications from this public mailing list for some time. Curious, I made a post; it didn’t get through. Then I went to the subscribe page and tried to join using my existing address, thinking there’d been some technical glitch that had unsubscribed me. Nope: every attempt to subscribe using the same email failed. I tried my alternate email, and that failed too. When a friend did it for me at a remote location, the alternate email was subscribed immediately. It is under that alternate address that I’m now posting. Through the marvel of human intuition, I think I’ve worked out that one of the three administrators, Steven Zhang, has placed my long-standing subscription on what is known as a “kill list”. I was never informed, and I can’t imagine either Charles Gregory or John Vandenberg – the other two administrators – would have agreed to this undercover banning. I believe that both consulting the other administrators and informing the person being banned are standard protocol. I remind subscribers that the chapter doesn’t own this mailing list: the WMF does. And I should also point out that under the by-laws I’m still a member of the chapter. I’d like an explanation. Tony Souter Normal email address: to...@iinet.net.au mailto:to...@iinet.net.au ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Sam Wilson s...@samwilson.id.au wrote: Yeah, Hanlon's razor perhaps should be remembered here! :-) Not that I mean to imply any incompetence on the part of the list administrators, but I do imagine that it's more likely that someone's made a mistake here and is not being actively mean. Unfortunately Tony's allegations are spot on. For background, Nathan Carter handed over the list admin to me in January 2013 when he needed to shift his load around. I added Charles Gregory as list admin in October 2013. Without consultation with me, Steven Zhang was added as list admin. I dont know when. Charles, did you add Steven as list admin, or was the WMF involved in that? I've quickly spoken with Steven about Tony being put on the kill list, and received confirmation both him and from Charles. They acted as a majority of list admins, without informing me, but with approval from the Wikimedia Australia committee and after discussion with a Wikimedia Foundation staff member. It seems it happened in January, in response to the emails Tony sent to the list in that month: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2014-January/003979.html Steven Zhang was the person responsible for performing the kill list addition. I dont think that Tony's emails warranted this type of response. Putting a respected member of our community on a kill list will neither be particularly successful at silencing criticism, nor is the kill list the appropriate tool - moderation would have been the tool to use if Tony was being disruptive, and direct private discussion between Tony and moderators didn't result in a better path forward. Typically the kill list is used for spammers and people who are banned from Wikimedia projects and are being disruptive on the mailing lists. That does not apply to Tony. It is rude to take these types of moderator actions without informing the person involved, and informing other list admins even after the fact if the action needed to be taken quickly to maintain decorum on the list. Steven and Charles are a bit vague on the details of how this happened, so it is possible that not everyone who was consulted did actually agree to Tony being put on a kill list, and I hope most of them had envisaged that it was going to be implemented with with utmost care for a volunteer that they strive to serve and support. I hope the WMAU committee will give a more detailed explanation of their involvement in this. To everyone who did knowingly agree to Tony being put on a kill list: whether for incompetence, bad communication, or some other excuse - I dont care why - you _should_ be ashamed of yourselves. This is a good time to have someone else, outside of the current committee, step up to be list admin again so that this list does not become effectively controlled by Wikimedia Australia, as we've now seen the organisation will stoop to censorship of this list. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Hi all, Just to confirm, this was a deliberate removal and not a technical error. Two brief points here: 1. This was not a unilateral action that I took - it was a discussion that the committee had in its January meeting, and decided on as a whole, in addition to being a decision that was made between another list administrator and myself. WMF staff have also been consulted and had no issues with the action taken. 2. We welcome discussion about the organisation, and having differing opinions is perfectly fine, but actively disrupting the list is against both the rules and spirit of the list, and always has been. The former member concerned has engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number of individuals, and it had reached a point where we were receiving complaints from members, along with other members resigning from the organisation due to the conduct on the mailing list. This list amongst other things is intended for use as a method for Australian community members (including but not limited to Wikimedia Australia members) to collaborate and communicate. In practice most of that has been regarding activities of the chapter. In order for it to be used for those purposes, it needs to be a safe and constructive space. Admin action was taken only to ensure that this continued to be the case. As always, the committee encourages feedback and input wherever possible if it can be of benefit to the organisation, and if you as members have any questions or concerns we encourage you to discuss them with us. As an organisation over the past few years we have too often engaged in conflict with each other rather than work with each other, and it's something that we as a committee hope to change. Regards, -- Steven Zhang President - Wikimedia Australia steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au On 16 March 2014 18:45, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Sam Wilson s...@samwilson.id.au wrote: Yeah, Hanlon's razor perhaps should be remembered here! :-) Not that I mean to imply any incompetence on the part of the list administrators, but I do imagine that it's more likely that someone's made a mistake here and is not being actively mean. Unfortunately Tony's allegations are spot on. For background, Nathan Carter handed over the list admin to me in January 2013 when he needed to shift his load around. I added Charles Gregory as list admin in October 2013. Without consultation with me, Steven Zhang was added as list admin. I dont know when. Charles, did you add Steven as list admin, or was the WMF involved in that? I've quickly spoken with Steven about Tony being put on the kill list, and received confirmation both him and from Charles. They acted as a majority of list admins, without informing me, but with approval from the Wikimedia Australia committee and after discussion with a Wikimedia Foundation staff member. It seems it happened in January, in response to the emails Tony sent to the list in that month: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2014-January/003979.html Steven Zhang was the person responsible for performing the kill list addition. I dont think that Tony's emails warranted this type of response. Putting a respected member of our community on a kill list will neither be particularly successful at silencing criticism, nor is the kill list the appropriate tool - moderation would have been the tool to use if Tony was being disruptive, and direct private discussion between Tony and moderators didn't result in a better path forward. Typically the kill list is used for spammers and people who are banned from Wikimedia projects and are being disruptive on the mailing lists. That does not apply to Tony. It is rude to take these types of moderator actions without informing the person involved, and informing other list admins even after the fact if the action needed to be taken quickly to maintain decorum on the list. Steven and Charles are a bit vague on the details of how this happened, so it is possible that not everyone who was consulted did actually agree to Tony being put on a kill list, and I hope most of them had envisaged that it was going to be implemented with with utmost care for a volunteer that they strive to serve and support. I hope the WMAU committee will give a more detailed explanation of their involvement in this. To everyone who did knowingly agree to Tony being put on a kill list: whether for incompetence, bad communication, or some other excuse - I dont care why - you _should_ be ashamed of yourselves. This is a good time to have someone else, outside of the current committee, step up to be list admin again so that this list does not become effectively controlled by Wikimedia Australia, as we've now seen the organisation will stoop to censorship of this list. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
On 16 March 2014 17:50, Steven Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: 2. … but actively disrupting the list is against both the rules and spirit of the list, and always has been. … [Citation Needed], I see no rules http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Mailing_list or https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l. And what and which foundation staff members where involved in this? ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists Please respect Wikiquettehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquetteand avoid personal attackshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attackson the mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to be repeated by those replying. It's in black and white. kindest regards Andrew On 16 March 2014 17:18, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 March 2014 17:50, Steven Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.auwrote: 2. ... but actively disrupting the list is against both the rules and spirit of the list, and always has been. ... [Citation Needed], I see no rules http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Mailing_list or https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l. And what and which foundation staff members where involved in this? ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Drama
On 16 March 2014 19:18, wikimediaau-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: John, given that you were not involved in this and you have integrity, would you care to undo what Steven and Charles done to Tony. Cheers Scotty I trust that John has the good sense not to do the mailing list equivalent of getting involved in a wheel war. Cheers, Craig ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
On 16 March 2014 15:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: So I would suggest for the future (1) when kicking someone, say so and why (unless there's a really good reason not to) (2) have a mix of list admins. I'll note also we have occasionally put people on moderation when they're getting particularly obnoxious or verging on legal threats, generally without public notice of such to avoid the appearance of public shaming, though only on a temporary basis. It's all a tricky one and you'll never satisfy every querulous blowhard. - d. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Warning, Russavia: you are coming perilously close to being sued. Keep repeating your behaviour and I'll have no choice to be file a case. If the list administrators are prepared to accuse me without basis of making personal attacks while letting other members personally attack me, they will probably be involved in the litigation too. Tony - Original Message - From: Wikimedia Australia Chapter To:Wikimedia Australia Chapter Cc: Sent:Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:17:01 +0800 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list Tony, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and I will call people out on it whenever I see it. Seriously, if you feel belittled and hurt by me calling you an a-grade twit, then might I suggest you stop acting like, well, an a-grade twit. If you can't do that, then I have nothing more to say to you but toughen up princess! Oh Tony, by the way, the case you mentioned involved a student who posted comments on facebook about a music teacher at Orange High School, accusing her of being responsible for her father leaving the school -- his father used to be the music teacher. There is a vast difference between me expressing my personal opinion of you being a twit, and the student essentially accusing the high school teacher ofwould corruption fit the accusations? Isn't corruption exactly the same thing that you have accused others of on numerous occasions, including in the subject of your initial email. Wouldn't this open you up to legal action? So Tony, take your threats of legal action and shove em where the sun don't shine. You really are your worst enemy! Scotty On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM, wrote: Dear subscribers I reply to comments in this thread: To Scott Bibby (Russavia): Thank you for your in-principle support; your argument was compelling and well expressed. However, I find the personal attack in public belittling and hurtful. Please note the recent Australian court judgement in which a schoolboy was ordered to pay his former school teacher $110,000 in damages for what he said about her on the internet. Calling me an a-grade twit on a public list exposes you to the risk of legal action. It's interesting that Steven Zhang, as an administrator of the mailing list, chose to let this attack pass without mention, while at the same time accusing me of having engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number of individuals. No evidence of personal attacks by me has been provided. I am careful not to insult or belittle anyone in public. Accusing the committee of neglect or wrongdoing in their official capacity is quite a different matter—if we try to censor criticism of legal propriety and governance, we're better off in Putin's Russia, and we certainly don't deserve to use the WMF trademark. So where exactly are the are the personal attacks I've made on this mailing list, aside from raising uncomfortable questions about governance and transparency? I, too, would like to know who the WMF staff member was. Did Zhang explain the actual situation to them properly? Was I maligned in communications with them? For the Foundation to support what amounts to the maladministration of one of its mailing lists needs to be investigated. Transparency is required in the way the WMAU committee does business. I raised several issues concerning governance and transparency in the post that seems to have prompted Steven Zhang to ban my email address from the list. Rather than responding to the issues I raised, there was a blunt refusal to do discuss them. This should be of concern to all members of the WMF movement. There is an implicit expectation that the ways in which $80,000 in donors' money is spent should be open and accountable. What recent spending decisions have been made? Are all members of the committee consulted about financial decision-making? Was Andrew Owen legally a member of the chapter when he stood for election last November? Did he pay his renewal fee in advance on or before 1 July as required by chapter by-law 4(12)? If not, was his cessation of membership recorded on the members' register by 14 July, as required by section 56(3) of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012? Did the committee approve his application for membership that was made just before the November election in which he stood for the position of secretary? (Formal approval is required under chapter by-laws 4(5) and 4(6).) If not, I believe that neither his membership nor his position on the committee is legal. Tony - Original Message - From: Wikimedia Australia Chapter To:Wikimedia Australia Chapter Cc: Sent:Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:23:18 +0800 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists [4] Please respect Wikiquette [5] and avoid personal attacks [6] on the mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to be repeated
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Drama
Craig, Can you possibly explain how John doing the RIGHT thing would be a wheel war. If we were to apply on-wiki rules here, John undoing Steven's action would be normal practice. If Zhang were to come along and undo John's action, then this would be wheel warring. The exception to this is if Zhang were to do an admin action under authority of Arbcom, and John came along and undid. That would be wheel warring. Of course, you being an admin would know this, so I am unsure why you are totally misinterpreting what a wheel war is. God help anyone on en.wp who might come across your use of the tools if your lax understanding of basic concepts is like this in actual practice. No-one gave the WMAU committee authority over this list, and I expect Steven Zhang to answer the questions which have been raised of him. I would also expect, if he expects to remain an admin of this list, to undo the kill himself. This is an absolute disgrace that dissenting voices within this community are silenced, and that this silencing is done with the blessing (or at least the silence) of some in the community. This type of rubbish is what actually brings this community and our projects into disrepute. Scotty On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: On 16 March 2014 19:18, wikimediaau-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: John, given that you were not involved in this and you have integrity, would you care to undo what Steven and Charles done to Tony. Cheers Scotty I trust that John has the good sense not to do the mailing list equivalent of getting involved in a wheel war. Cheers, Craig ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Drama
On 16 March 2014 16:25, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Can you possibly explain how John doing the RIGHT thing would be a wheel war. Personally I'd kick you both off and say so, but that's just speaking as a third-party observer. It's not a *right* to post to a Wikimedia list. - d. ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Tony and everybody else. I have had enough. I do not want to remain a member of a volunteer organisation where this kind of drama goes on. I will not renew. I am an officer of two other incorporated associations and in the past have been an officer or committee member of several more. There is always a recognition that we do the best we can in often difficult circumstances and bend rules occassionally in the interests of the members and the association. We are volunteers. We can not be totally rigid. When I became a founding member of WMAU and Public Officer, I expected that is how it would work, and it did for a while. However this drama is just one of many and one too many for me. Brian. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:26:07AM +0800, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Warning, Russavia: you are coming perilously close to being sued. Keep repeating your behaviour and I'll have no choice to be file a case. If the list administrators are prepared to accuse me without basis of making personal attacks while letting other members personally attack me, they will probably be involved in the litigation too. Tony - Original Message - From: Wikimedia Australia Chapter To:Wikimedia Australia Chapter Cc: Sent:Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:17:01 +0800 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list Tony, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and I will call people out on it whenever I see it. Seriously, if you feel belittled and hurt by me calling you an a-grade twit, then might I suggest you stop acting like, well, an a-grade twit. If you can't do that, then I have nothing more to say to you but toughen up princess! Oh Tony, by the way, the case you mentioned involved a student who posted comments on facebook about a music teacher at Orange High School, accusing her of being responsible for her father leaving the school -- his father used to be the music teacher. There is a vast difference between me expressing my personal opinion of you being a twit, and the student essentially accusing the high school teacher ofwould corruption fit the accusations? Isn't corruption exactly the same thing that you have accused others of on numerous occasions, including in the subject of your initial email. Wouldn't this open you up to legal action? So Tony, take your threats of legal action and shove em where the sun don't shine. You really are your worst enemy! Scotty On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM, wrote: Dear subscribers I reply to comments in this thread: To Scott Bibby (Russavia): Thank you for your in-principle support; your argument was compelling and well expressed. However, I find the personal attack in public belittling and hurtful. Please note the recent Australian court judgement in which a schoolboy was ordered to pay his former school teacher $110,000 in damages for what he said about her on the internet. Calling me an a-grade twit on a public list exposes you to the risk of legal action. It's interesting that Steven Zhang, as an administrator of the mailing list, chose to let this attack pass without mention, while at the same time accusing me of having engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number of individuals. No evidence of personal attacks by me has been provided. I am careful not to insult or belittle anyone in public. Accusing the committee of neglect or wrongdoing in their official capacity is quite a different matter—if we try to censor criticism of legal propriety and governance, we're better off in Putin's Russia, and we certainly don't deserve to use the WMF trademark. So where exactly are the are the personal attacks I've made on this mailing list, aside from raising uncomfortable questions about governance and transparency? I, too, would like to know who the WMF staff member was. Did Zhang explain the actual situation to them properly? Was I maligned in communications with them? For the Foundation to support what amounts to the maladministration of one of its mailing lists needs to be investigated. Transparency is required in the way the WMAU committee does business. I raised several issues concerning governance and transparency in the post that seems to have prompted Steven Zhang to ban my email address from the list. Rather than responding to the issues I raised, there was a blunt refusal to do discuss them. This should be of concern to all members of the WMF movement. There is an implicit expectation that the ways in which $80,000 in donors' money is spent should be open and accountable. What recent spending decisions have been made? Are all members of the committee consulted about financial decision-making? Was Andrew Owen legally a member of the chapter when he stood for election last November? Did he pay his renewal fee in advance on or before 1 July as required by chapter by-law 4(12)? If not, was his cessation of membership recorded on the members'
[Wikimediaau-l] Scotty, Tony and Steven
What a total load of self-serving bullshit. * Tony - if you bleat and whine and attack, these things happen. What is the surprise? Such is life. Grow up. * Scotty - really, find a bitch fight and join in. Grow up. * Steven - poor list administration. Make a decision and tell them. Grow up. * Billinghurst - why in the hell do you stay here. Unsubscribe, they won't grow up. You don't seem to have the best interests of the wiki, wiki for Australians, nor WMAU, it is all about each of you, and your climb through politics. All of you need to stop your personal self-satisfaction in public. What a disgraceful public performance from each of you. Regards, Billinghurst - unsubscribing ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
Has anyone in Australia ever been sued for calling someone else something hurtful? If this is possible, imagine how much money politicians celebs could make. Terms like twit are really best avoided, but that's not for legal reasons, AFAIK. I found this thread by accident - I filter this list from my inbox, I'm happier for that. On 17 March 2014 03:26, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Warning, Russavia: you are coming perilously close to being sued. Keep repeating your behaviour and I'll have no choice to be file a case. If the list administrators are prepared to accuse me without basis of making personal attacks while letting other members personally attack me, they will probably be involved in the litigation too Tony - Original Message - From: Wikimedia Australia Chapter wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Sent: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:17:01 +0800 Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list Tony, I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and I will call people out on it whenever I see it. Seriously, if you feel belittled and hurt by me calling you an a-grade twit, then might I suggest you stop acting like, well, an a-grade twit. If you can't do that, then I have nothing more to say to you but toughen up princess! Oh Tony, by the way, the case you mentioned involved a student who posted comments on facebook about a music teacher at Orange High School, accusing her of being responsible for her father leaving the school -- his father used to be the music teacher. There is a vast difference between me expressing my personal opinion of you being a twit, and the student essentially accusing the high school teacher ofwould corruption fit the accusations? Isn't corruption exactly the same thing that you have accused others of on numerous occasions, including in the subject of your initial email. Wouldn't this open you up to legal action? So Tony, take your threats of legal action and shove em where the sun don't shine. You really are your worst enemy! Scotty On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: Dear subscribers I reply to comments in this thread: To Scott Bibby (Russavia): Thank you for your in-principle support; your argument was compelling and well expressed. However, I find the personal attack in public belittling and hurtful. Please note the recent Australian court judgement in which a schoolboy was ordered to pay his former school teacher $110,000 in damages for what he said about her on the internet. Calling me an a-grade twit on a public list exposes you to the risk of legal action. It's interesting that Steven Zhang, as an administrator of the mailing list, chose to let this attack pass without mention, while at the same time accusing me of having engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number of individuals. No evidence of personal attacks by me has been provided. I am careful not to insult or belittle anyone in public. Accusing the committee of neglect or wrongdoing in their official capacity is quite a different matter--if we try to censor criticism of legal propriety and governance, we're better off in Putin's Russia, and we certainly don't deserve to use the WMF trademark. So where exactly are the are the personal attacks I've made on this mailing list, aside from raising uncomfortable questions about governance and transparency? I, too, would like to know who the WMF staff member was. Did Zhang explain the actual situation to them properly? Was I maligned in communications with them? For the Foundation to support what amounts to the maladministration of one of its mailing lists needs to be investigated. Transparency is required in the way the WMAU committee does business. I raised several issues concerning governance and transparency in the post that seems to have prompted Steven Zhang to ban my email address from the list. Rather than responding to the issues I raised, there was a blunt refusal to do discuss them. This should be of concern to all members of the WMF movement. There is an implicit expectation that the ways in which $80,000 in donors' money is spent should be open and accountable. What recent spending decisions have been made? Are all members of the committee consulted about financial decision-making? Was Andrew Owen legally a member of the chapter when he stood for election last November? Did he pay his renewal fee in advance on or before 1 July as required by chapter by-law 4(12)? If not, was his cessation of membership recorded on the members' register by 14 July, as required by section 56(3) of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012? Did the committee approve his application for membership that was made just before the November election in which he stood for the position of secretary? (Formal approval is required under chapter by-laws
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Scotty, Tony and Steven
I think banning someone is ridiculous. John Vandenberg is a very competent administrator and former President, and has done an extremely good job. I think we should take notice of what he says. Tony has something to say on the list, and is entitled to be heard. I believe him to have the interests of Wikimedia at heart. Lyle -Original Message- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Monday, 17 March 2014 8:14 AM To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter Cc: billinghu...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Scotty, Tony and Steven Can I just concur with all the below. - d. On 16 March 2014 21:10, billinghurst billinghu...@gmail.com wrote: What a total load of self-serving bullshit. * Tony - if you bleat and whine and attack, these things happen. What is the surprise? Such is life. Grow up. * Scotty - really, find a bitch fight and join in. Grow up. * Steven - poor list administration. Make a decision and tell them. Grow up. * Billinghurst - why in the hell do you stay here. Unsubscribe, they won't grow up. You don't seem to have the best interests of the wiki, wiki for Australians, nor WMAU, it is all about each of you, and your climb through politics. All of you need to stop your personal self-satisfaction in public. What a disgraceful public performance from each of you. Regards, Billinghurst - unsubscribing ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
[Wikimediaau-l] Jetstar relicences photos under CC-BY-SA
Hey all, I have been quite active in recent months in getting photos on Flickr relicenced, and have been quite successful in this. Aside from individual photographers, some of the organisations which have relicenced their photos after my request include Maersk Line, Austrian Airlines, Bahrain International Airport, Brussels Airport, Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uri Tours (North Korean tour agency), amongst others. These photos are now on Wikimedia Commons. This morning, after months of persistence (using their words), Jetstar Airways, the Qantas low-cost subsidiary, kindly relicenced their photos on their Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jetstarairways/ from CC-BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA, thereby allowing the usage of their photos on Wikimedia projects. The airline has also changed its default licence so that future Flickr uploads will be CC-BY-SA. I have taken the liberty of uploading their stream to Wikimedia Commons and their photos are now available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Jetstar_Airways. There will, of course, be a lot of categorisation work and cleanup to be done on these images, which I will be getting done. I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank Jetstar for relicencing their photos and in turn supporting the free culture movement. Cheers Scotty ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Jetstar relicences photos under CC-BY-SA
Now that's a pretty damn cool release! Just looking through the flickr stream I can see some pics that we will have no use for (staff Halloween party, anyone?) but a *whole bunch* that we can - individual airframes, maintenance work underway, plane interiors (inc. the cockpit) and fittings, ground equipment, security/emergency drills... Useful for much more than just articles specifically relating to Jetstar itself. I've often advocated to commercial organisations that since the *point* of their taking marketing photos is to get people to use them, making them available to us to potentially use is a big opportunity. While we don't use them in an directly promotional way, surely having *your* product being available to be used as the canonical visual representation of its category on the relevant Wikipedia (in this case for example a Boeing plane painted in your company colours) is a good business-case to make to their marketing and legal teams! Congratulations on making this argument successfully Russavia. wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 17 March 2014 13:38, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have been quite active in recent months in getting photos on Flickr relicenced, and have been quite successful in this. Aside from individual photographers, some of the organisations which have relicenced their photos after my request include Maersk Line, Austrian Airlines, Bahrain International Airport, Brussels Airport, Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uri Tours (North Korean tour agency), amongst others. These photos are now on Wikimedia Commons. This morning, after months of persistence (using their words), Jetstar Airways, the Qantas low-cost subsidiary, kindly relicenced their photos on their Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jetstarairways/ from CC-BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA, thereby allowing the usage of their photos on Wikimedia projects. The airline has also changed its default licence so that future Flickr uploads will be CC-BY-SA. I have taken the liberty of uploading their stream to Wikimedia Commons and their photos are now available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Jetstar_Airways. There will, of course, be a lot of categorisation work and cleanup to be done on these images, which I will be getting done. I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank Jetstar for relicencing their photos and in turn supporting the free culture movement. Cheers Scotty ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Jetstar relicences photos under CC-BY-SA
Indeed, this is a great achievement :) I look forward to seeing how it improves our aviation articles on Wikipedia. Steve On 17/03/2014 2:03 pm, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Now that's a pretty damn cool release! Just looking through the flickr stream I can see some pics that we will have no use for (staff Halloween party, anyone?) but a *whole bunch* that we can - individual airframes, maintenance work underway, plane interiors (inc. the cockpit) and fittings, ground equipment, security/emergency drills... Useful for much more than just articles specifically relating to Jetstar itself. I've often advocated to commercial organisations that since the *point* of their taking marketing photos is to get people to use them, making them available to us to potentially use is a big opportunity. While we don't use them in an directly promotional way, surely having *your* product being available to be used as the canonical visual representation of its category on the relevant Wikipedia (in this case for example a Boeing plane painted in your company colours) is a good business-case to make to their marketing and legal teams! Congratulations on making this argument successfully Russavia. wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 17 March 2014 13:38, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I have been quite active in recent months in getting photos on Flickr relicenced, and have been quite successful in this. Aside from individual photographers, some of the organisations which have relicenced their photos after my request include Maersk Line, Austrian Airlines, Bahrain International Airport, Brussels Airport, Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uri Tours (North Korean tour agency), amongst others. These photos are now on Wikimedia Commons. This morning, after months of persistence (using their words), Jetstar Airways, the Qantas low-cost subsidiary, kindly relicenced their photos on their Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jetstarairways/from CC-BY-NC-SA to CC-BY-SA, thereby allowing the usage of their photos on Wikimedia projects. The airline has also changed its default licence so that future Flickr uploads will be CC-BY-SA. I have taken the liberty of uploading their stream to Wikimedia Commons and their photos are now available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Jetstar_Airways. There will, of course, be a lot of categorisation work and cleanup to be done on these images, which I will be getting done. I wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank Jetstar for relicencing their photos and in turn supporting the free culture movement. Cheers Scotty ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
