Austin and all,
I'm just coming back to this, and see that I have indeed been widely
interpreted as having spoken from personal animosity. My one comment on
this, which I hope will be allowed through, is that I carry absolutely no
personal animosity toward anybody I mentioned, and if any of them d
> I understand now why this would come across this way, and will put together
> a more focused summaryYou've done enough. Have you no sense of decency?
> From: petefors...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] On relationship go
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> My point was straightforward: I would certainly not be bringing this topic
> up in a public forum if it had not been widely and extensively discussed in
> public forums beforehand. It was brought up by Wil, not by me. His reasons
> for doing
On 15/06/2014 22:33, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, edward wrote:
If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of the
victims are one and the same person.
You are saying that Sinclair is the aggressor here?
Not at all -- you'll note that my statem
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 1:19 PM, edward wrote:
>
> >>If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of the
> victims are one and the same person.
>
> You are saying that Sinclair is the aggressor here?
>
>
Not at all -- you'll note that my statement, quoted above, was conditiona
On 15/06/2014 20:19, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Since this seems to be the most heated issue at the moment, I want to point
out: I am not the one who made these allegedly nasty comments public; the
person who made them public, and then proceeded to discuss them in numerous
public forums, was Wil Sinclai
On Jun 15, 2014 10:07 PM, "edward" wrote:
>
> On 15/06/2014 20:08, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>> Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that,
>> not under ED mandate.
>
>
> In what sense were these issues 'closed'? 'Closed' usually means
'resolved'. As far as I know, they
On 15/06/2014 20:08, Milos Rancic wrote:
Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that,
not under ED mandate.
In what sense were these issues 'closed'? 'Closed' usually means
'resolved'. As far as I know, they were not resolved.
___
Hoi,
Please don't
Thanks,
GerardM
On 15 June 2014 21:19, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm puzzled of those emails.
> >
>
> Christophe, thank you for explaining how this looks from your en
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm puzzled of those emails.
>
Christophe, thank you for explaining how this looks from your end. I
understand now why this would come across this way, and will put together a
more focused summary
On 15 June 2014 19:13, Christophe Henner wrote:
> From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around
> specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't
> going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is
> generating fruitless discuss
Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that,
not under ED mandate.
Everything else in his behavior was behavioral problem, not substantial one.
Thus, quite irrelevant. Just if Lila opens the same questions -- and I am
sure they are far from her focus -- that would beco
Hi,
I'm puzzled of those emails. Especially melting organisational discussions
and private issues.
Who sleeps with whom is of no importance actually. What you seem to
describe is someone using a personal relationship with a leader of our
movement to push forward its POV.
This asks for an organis
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan wrote:
>
> No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is
> that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some
> kind. I think the ED has far more opti
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
>
I don't think you read my message very carefully.
>
> 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
> private personal life is acceptable
>
No, inaccurate. Rathe
On 15/06/2014 17:11, Austin Hair wrote:
>>Are we subscribed to the same list? It looks to me like everyone else
here has moved on. I urge you to do the same.
Charles Ainsworth (en:user:cla68) mentioned to me an incident from his
army days when a soldier got drunk and drove a Hummer into the m
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
> private personal life is acceptable
> 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
> manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
> 3) Recapping the whole sordid situ
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
> it doesn't explain what you want.
>
For that part, read this again, which you misinterpreted. Parentheses to
clarify, this time:
> I don't think it's a good idea to [ignore (this apparently escalating
> situation) on this email list].
>
The
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
>
>> Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence
>>
>
> Well, fairly close to one sentence:
>
> English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are
On 15/06/2014 16:51, Pete Forsyth wrote:
English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are
regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trustees,
staff, and volunteers. This has been brought about largely by a single
individual, whose megaphone was his a
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
> Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence
>
Well, fairly close to one sentence:
English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are
regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trus
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I think we all share a concern about the amount of "drama" in our
> community-wide discussions. Expressing outrage (even though it's sometimes
> appropriate and necessary) can often be the fuel of "drama" -- and I think
> it's important to exp
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
> All:
>
> In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some
> (alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some
> people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should "dump" her
> significan
All:
In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some
(alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some
people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should "dump" her
significant other.[1] Many have expressed outrage about this. (For
background
24 matches
Mail list logo
