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

Reply via email to