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
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wikimedia Australia Chapter"
To:"Wikimedia Australia Chapter"
Sent:Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:23:18 +0800
Subject:Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this
"Please respect Wikiquette  and avoid personal attacks  on the
mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to
be repeated by those replying."
It's in black and white.
On 16 March 2014 17:18, K. Peachey wrote:
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/wikimediaau-l .
And what and which foundation staff members where involved in this?
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l mailing list