Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Hi all, I've received an enquiry regarding the below email when I mentioned that I consulted with a WMF staffer about the action taken on the mailing list. As how this sentence has been interpreted and was hoped to be interpreted are different, I wish to clarify. I asked the staffer after this th

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On 18 March 2014 22:33, Lyle Allan wrote: > Surely there should be a right of appeal. Just removing someone from a list > on the sayso of one person is something that should not be acceptable. That's why a second admin would be an idea. OTOH, "don't be a dick" is the fundamental meta-rule of a

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Gerard Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2014 3:05 AM To: Australian Wikimedians mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list For now I've put the following text on the listinfo page: "Posters are expected to conduct themselves in a decorous manner appr

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

For now I've put the following text on the listinfo page: "Posters are expected to conduct themselves in a decorous manner appropriate to a working list. Posters not doing so may be moderated or removed. The list moderators' decision is final." I'd expect personal attacks or legal threats would v

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

There used to a be a good document on TS wiki for their mailing lists we could link to. On 18 March 2014 21:59, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:16 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > On 18 March 2014 10:49, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > > > >> While legal threats are banned on

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:16 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 18 March 2014 10:49, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > >> While legal threats are banned on the wiki projects, the mailing lists >> are managed differently, and there are differences in expectations of >> behaviour (and dispute resolution) for

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On 18 March 2014 10:49, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > While legal threats are banned on the wiki projects, the mailing lists > are managed differently, and there are differences in expectations of > behaviour (and dispute resolution) for the mailing lists. Personally I'd consider legal threats

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Gryllida wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, at 20:41, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> Steven, you don't put someone on moderation because they're asking >> uncomfortable questions. You provided no evidence of your accusations >> of "personal attack". > > Just by evidence o

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, at 20:41, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Steven, you don't put someone on moderation because they're asking > uncomfortable questions. You provided no evidence of your accusations > of "personal attack". Just by evidence of two instances of such attacks in this thread? One of the

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

quot;Australian Wikimedians mailing list" To:"Wikimedia Australia Chapter" Cc: Sent:Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:07:18 +1100 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list Hi all, Given the response we have received from some and after some discussion, I have

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

y other such lists are > moderated > > Good cheer, hoping to get back to some editing on Aboriginal Australian > articles (especially for North Queensland) in the near future > > Bruceanthro > > > > > ------------ > On Tue, 18/3/14

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

media Australia Chapter" To: Cc: Sent:Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:38:27 +1100 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, at 2:34, to...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Dear subscribers > I reply to comments in this thread: > To Scott Bibby (Rus

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Zhang wrote: Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list To: "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" Received: Tuesday, 18 March, 2014, 6:22 AM All, We have on numerous occasions explained the reasons we reshuffled our committee, which we submitted to CAV, the

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, at 2:34, 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

All, We have on numerous occasions explained the reasons we reshuffled our committee, which we submitted to CAV, the regulator, who accepted these changes both over the phone and in writing. If anyone disagrees with the decision, as previously mentioned on the old members list and I will mention h

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

lieve it should stop if WMAU has any > self-respect. > > Tony > > > > > - Original Message - > From: > "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" > > To: > "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" > Cc: > > Sent: > Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:10:16 + > &

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:10 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 March 2014 14:56, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: > >>> FWIW, kicking people off the list in such circumstances has generally >>> been acceptable on Wikimedia lists, with or without

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

MAU has any self-respect. Tony - Original Message - From: "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" To:"Wikimedia Australia Chapter" Cc: Sent:Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:10:16 + Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list On 17 March 2014 14:56,

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On 17 March 2014 14:56, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> FWIW, kicking people off the list in such circumstances has generally >> been acceptable on Wikimedia lists, with or without notice. Though >> notice is nice and adds to transparency.

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

questions about governance and transparency. Tony    - Original Message - From: "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" To:"Wikimedia Australia Chapter" Cc: Sent:Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:56:31 +0700 Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list On Sun,

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: > FWIW, kicking people off the list in such circumstances has generally > been acceptable on Wikimedia lists, with or without notice. Though > notice is nice and adds to transparency. Really? You guys have banned regular Wikimedia contributio

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

The questions have been answered previously but for clarity Tony wasnt blocked for asking about Andrew that is a question raised just a day ago, Tony was blocked for repeatably not respecting Wikiquette, making personal attacks

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Actually, he hasn't answered ANY questions that have been asked of him, either by myself, nor by Tony. His "killing" Tony's subscription because Tony has valid questions in relation to Andrew Owens' position on the Committee seems like a bit of a cover up, and a stupid attempt to silence a person

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Steven's answer looked complete and apposite to me. On 17 March 2014 12:49, Russavia wrote: > Moving on, and bringing it back to what is important, Steven, can you please > address the questions which have been asked of you. > > Cheers > > Scotty > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Steven Zh

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Moving on, and bringing it back to what is important, Steven, can you please address the questions which have been asked of you. Cheers Scotty On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Steven Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Just to confirm, this was a deliberate removal and not a technical error. > Two

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

>> 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

uot;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 >

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

-- > 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 bull

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

ormal 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: > "

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On 16 March 2014 15:45, David Gerard 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

FWIW, kicking people off the list in such circumstances has generally been acceptable on Wikimedia lists, with or without notice. Though notice is nice and adds to transparency. For list administration, I note that wikimediauk-l is explicitly a list for "Wikimedians in and interested in the UK" an

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

ralia 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://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists [1] "Please respect Wikiquette [2] and avoid persona

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists "Please respect Wikiquetteand avoid personal attackson the mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to be r

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On 16 March 2014 17:50, Steven Zhang 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/wik

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

Wow John, this is quite the indictment on not only Steven and Charles, but also the WMAU committee and also the unnamed WMF employee. Some questions for those involved, but especially to Steven Zhang. 1. Who was consulted at the WMF and had no problem with this decision? 2. As Tony rightly mentio

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 mad

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Sam Wilson 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 active

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 yo

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 emai

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

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

[Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list

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