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 removed Tony from the ban list of the mailing list. In retrospect, moderation might have been the better avenue to take, so I apologise for my part in the drama that my actions caused. I've asked someone independent to be the administrator for this list, and David Gerard has agreed to it. I've also removed Charles and myself as list admins. He will be the one who decides to moderate people if required for the time being. I encourage members to participate on the members list if desired. I emphasize that we should keep in mind the best way to interact with each other either here or on Wikipedia, and will endeavour to do the same. Thanks, Steve On 18 March 2014 10:26, Bruce White bruceant...@yahoo.com wrote: Hey all Public stoush about the extent to which corporation rules have or have not been strictly complied with is NOT appreciated This list/forum would NOT seem to be the right list to attempt to resolve what is essentially internal corporate members (past, present, future) only matters Below signalled Australia Chapters effective disengagement from it's non-member friends and support base, via this list (or any other list] would seem to be a sorry outcome of an essentially internal members only stoush , ,that should perhaps have been moderated and continue to be moderated by the Chapter/corporation in the way 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, Steven Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 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 here, contact CAV and dispute their decision. Continuing to dispute their decision and subsequent actions made by the committee as a result of their decision is not productive. It had been noted several times the actions that can be taken if the decision of CAV is disputed, yet instead of doing so the decision was made by people to continue to bring it up on this list and disrupt it. This, combined with the numerous complaints we received regarding their conduct, is why the decision was made to remove Tony from the list. He would have received an automatic unsubscription notification via email, it is set up to do so in the list settings and was tested yesterday. Given the circumstances we felt this was adequate. There are now two mailing lists - wikimedia-au-members, and wikimedia-au-announce, one a discussion list for chapter members, the other for announcements. I'll ask for someone independent to take on administering this list, then remove myself and Charles as list admins. This will be my last post here on this matter, as I will be unsubscribing from this list. I recommended others consider the same. Steven Zhang President - Wikimedia Australia steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au On 18/03/2014 2:35 am, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 March 2014 14:56, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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 contributions, who are not banned on any project and have made useful contributions to the chapter, from the mailing list without notice, and left them on the ban list for months without telling anyone? i.e. put their email address on the mailman 'ban_list'? No, I neither said nor meant that. I meant more broadly, moderating or kicking sufficiently disruptive users as needed. Well you said such circumstances, and I have described the current circumstances in which the ban occurred. The organisation has now created a private mailing list with Steven and Craig as the list admins, and subscribed all financial members to it. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-au-members Big sigh. fwiw, I've now removed myself as list admin of this public list. -- John Vandenberg
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 them also involves legal threats, something that is -- iirc -- banned on-wiki at Wikimedia projects. ___ 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 Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm 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 of two instances of such attacks in this thread? One of them also involves legal threats, something that is -- iirc -- banned on-wiki at Wikimedia projects. 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. One of the key differences is that while WMF hosts the list, the emails are effectively immediately distributed across the global and the contents cant be centrally modified as they are on a wiki. User disputes onwiki are typically not included in google search results. However nasty things said on this mailing list are googlable and cant be hidden. Another difference is that List administrators have complete control of every aspect of the mailing list, they can change individual list members' settings, moderate senders, change settings of the list, and more. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists And the list admins can play with any setting and there is no logs for list members to inspect. I think we should note the behavioural guidelines of this list on the mailman listinfo page, which is mentioned in the footer of every email from this list. I am also scratching my head about whether the WMF mailing lists are covered by the WMF terms of use. Perhaps not. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#What_services_are_covered_by_the_terms_of_use -- 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
On 18 March 2014 10:49, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 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 in the general case a kicking offence, for the same reason as on the wikis. (ATM I appear to be the listadmin. Bitten by my own law: The reward for a job well done is another three jobs. I don't even live in Australia, so I'm probably not the best person to be sole admin - any volunteers? Perhaps you, John ...) I am also scratching my head about whether the WMF mailing lists are covered by the WMF terms of use. Perhaps not. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#What_services_are_covered_by_the_terms_of_use I'd be amazed if not explicitly listing the mailing lists meant that blatantly antisocial behaviour - such as we're witnessing here - was just fine. - 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
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 jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 March 2014 10:49, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 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 in the general case a kicking offence, for the same reason as on the wikis. (ATM I appear to be the listadmin. Bitten by my own law: The reward for a job well done is another three jobs. I don't even live in Australia, so I'm probably not the best person to be sole admin - any volunteers? Perhaps you, John ...) I'd rather not David; I dont think it would help matters. There are active members of our community who are suitable. Typically it isnt much work - usually approving one over-sized email per month is the amount of work required, and managing a dispute once a year. I am also scratching my head about whether the WMF mailing lists are covered by the WMF terms of use. Perhaps not. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#What_services_are_covered_by_the_terms_of_use I'd be amazed if not explicitly listing the mailing lists meant that blatantly antisocial behaviour - such as we're witnessing here - was just fine. In the paragraph before the one you quoted, I said I think we should note the behavioural guidelines of this list on the mailman listinfo page. Do you have any thoughts on that? IMO, the terms of use would be an excellent document to refer to as the baseline for behaviour on the WMF mailing lists, but only if the WMF legal team intended for it to be used in that manner, or at least dont object to it, which is why I have asked the question on meta. Sorry that I wasnt more clear in my last email. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
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 violate the first sentence. Per the second sentence, I've just put Tony on moderation (not kicked, but on moderation); no more legal threats or anything like one will be let through. Note the third sentence. Now, let's take this opportunity to be lovely to each other! - 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
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. -Original Message- From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David 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 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 violate the first sentence. Per the second sentence, I've just put Tony on moderation (not kicked, but on moderation); no more legal threats or anything like one will be let through. Note the third sentence. Now, let's take this opportunity to be lovely to each other! - d. ___ 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 18 March 2014 22:33, Lyle Allan lylea...@bigpond.net.au 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 all social spaces. - 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
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 steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: 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
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 russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com 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 Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: 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
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 who has valid concerns. I would suggest that at least those questions are answered, or I will contact the relevant regulatory authorities myself and lodge an official complaint. Scotty On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:02 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Steven's answer looked complete and apposite to me. On 17 March 2014 12:49, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com 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 Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: 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
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 Wikiquettehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette, making personal attackshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacksand legal threats on the mailing lists. Yes the block was discussed by the committee prior to any action being taken, blocking someone from our primary method of communication should never be taken lightly. We are also responsible to ensure our members arent intimidated, or threaten in anyway nor should they be subject to bullying, offensive language or other such activities from others that prevent them from participating in our decision processes. Should members have any questions involving details of any other member they should be directed to c...@wikimedia.org.au a public mailing list not the appropriate forum, its even less appropiate to append a legal threat when asking questions because it ties the hands of those responding. If you find it necessary Scotty http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/clubs-and-not-for-profits here is the relevant regulatory authority. In light of discussions here about responsibilities/ownership it is appropriate to rescind the decision of the previous committee to suspend WMAU lists and make this one its primary form of communicationhttp://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal:Suspending_the_private_mailing_list-- WMAU will need to return to operating its own mailing lists. As the committee does have a meeting scheduled for this weekend I envisage that a formal statement from the committee will be sent to this list, and to members directly explaining what methods of communication will be used in the future. On 17 March 2014 21:28, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 who has valid concerns. I would suggest that at least those questions are answered, or I will contact the relevant regulatory authorities myself and lodge an official complaint. Scotty On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:02 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Steven's answer looked complete and apposite to me. On 17 March 2014 12:49, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com 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 Zhang steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au wrote: 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
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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 contributions, who are not banned on any project and have made useful contributions to the chapter, from the mailing list without notice, and left them on the ban list for months without telling anyone? i.e. put their email address on the mailman 'ban_list'? I checked this lists ban list, and the other 49 entries are all addresses who have never, ever, posted to any wikimedia list that I have seen - i.e. they are spammers and the usual crazy emails, usually from the King of some recently declared micronation who isnt getting adequate coverage on Wikipedia. Did you look at Tony's emails in January? I have seen similar emails on the Wikimedia UK list, and the posters haven't been banned. For list administration, I note that wikimediauk-l is explicitly a list for Wikimedians in and interested in the UK and is not specifically the chapter's list per se (and this distinction is important to some people). So the wikimediauk-l admins are jdforrester (WMF staff), dgerard (volunteer), richard.symonds (WMUK staff) and thehelpfulonewiki (volunteer). James and I were adminstering it since the days of WMUKv1, which we were both on the board of, but we're not actually affiliated with the current WMUK. 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 agree with your suggestions there. The Wikimedia Australia list also predates the organisation by a long time. It has always had the purpose stated to be Mailing list for discussing Wikimedia Australia but has often been a Wikimedians in and interested in Australia list. Nathan Carter was the only list admin since the beginning IIRC. Nathan was instrumental in setting up the chapter, and was part of the inaugural committee, but that was only a short period. -- 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
None of my questions have been answered by the committee (or by David Gerard, who seems to think it's worth it to chime in without evidence) The critical questions are where I have been uncivil, repeatably not respectingWikiquette, or making personal attacks, according to Gideon (Gnangarra). That itself is looking like a personal attack when unaccompanied by links to these putative infractions of English Wikipedia policy. Linking to those policy pages appears irrelevant without showing specific examples of these infractions. Or is criticism of the committee's illegal actions and failures to abide by the Victorian Act now interpreted as personal attacks or abuses of wikiquette? Again, Putin's Russia? Still waiting for evidence of this. Still waiting for a reason I wasn't informed of the blocking. Still waiting for answers to my 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, 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 contributions, who are not banned on any project and have made useful contributions to the chapter, from the mailing list without notice, and left them on the ban list for months without telling anyone? i.e. put their email address on the mailman 'ban_list'? I checked this lists ban list, and the other 49 entries are all addresses who have never, ever, posted to any wikimedia list that I have seen - i.e. they are spammers and the usual crazy emails, usually from the King of some recently declared micronation who isnt getting adequate coverage on Wikipedia. Did you look at Tony's emails in January? I have seen similar emails on the Wikimedia UK list, and the posters haven't been banned. For list administration, I note that wikimediauk-l is explicitly a list for Wikimedians in and interested in the UK and is not specifically the chapter's list per se (and this distinction is important to some people). So the wikimediauk-l admins are jdforrester (WMF staff), dgerard (volunteer), richard.symonds (WMUK staff) and thehelpfulonewiki (volunteer). James and I were adminstering it since the days of WMUKv1, which we were both on the board of, but we're not actually affiliated with the current WMUK. 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 agree with your suggestions there. The Wikimedia Australia list also predates the organisation by a long time. It has always had the purpose stated to be Mailing list for discussing Wikimedia Australia but has often been a Wikimedians in and interested in Australia list. Nathan Carter was the only list admin since the beginning IIRC. Nathan was instrumental in setting up the chapter, and was part of the inaugural committee, but that was only a short period. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
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] 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] 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
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
[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 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
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 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
