The message below went without response on the list, but there was a significant off-list response.
Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to praise this one, but missed its main points: * There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work through disagreements * Jimmy Wales had *even worse* things to say about James Heilman than he has said in public. I won't repeat those words on a public list, but I am unimpressed with the tactic of moving personal attacks off list. Jimmy's message was sent 48 hours ago, and I immediately told him the things I've said here, but there has been no response. We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's > encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this > part: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for >> "The >> board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term >> strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I >> have provided evidence that refutes this claim here >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus > > > As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it > seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not > especially make us worry: > > Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what > constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not. > > For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me > as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted > strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind, > without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not > ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world. > > But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James > told a lie. > > That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does > exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly > assaulting James' reputation. > > I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to > figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do > this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language > patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like > "long term strategy." > > A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an > excellent resource for working through stuff like this. > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
