On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top
level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user
page with the following content:
"Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across them. I depend on Wikipedia
and I'm happy I can help improve it in at least a small way."
That was absolutely false as a description of how User:Wikitedium had
operated in the preceding four years. The user account's edits had been
almost entirely devoted to expanding content related to Zack Exley and his
career. It was a bad decision to create that user page -- specifically, a
bad decision for somebody seeking to set the direction for how the
Wikimedia Foundation would build its relationship to community.
After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly,
yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or
disclose his connection to it. In my view, another bad decision.
And now, close to 24 hours after all this has been brought up, neither
Zack, nor anybody at the WMF, has addressed this on the wiki. Now, this is
looking to me like a *really* bad decision.
<snip>
There is one incorrect fact and one bad faith assumption in what you've
written. Zack described his activity on his userpage; you have no way to
assume that all of his "minor typo" fixes were made under the Wikitedium
account. Personally, I often don't login when I'm making very minor edits.
Moreover, edits summarized as "typo" actually form a large portion of the
Wikitedium account contributions. So wrong all around here, Pete.
The incorrect fact, which you have not acknowledged, is your assertion that
Zack never disclosed his connection to the other account. I suppose it
might be slightly challenging to connect Wikitedium to Zack Exley, rather
than the other way around. He did disclose it. While it was two years after
he was hired by the WMF, the Wikitedium account was editing at the rate of
a handful of edits per year. Incidentally, the Zackexley account has made
less than 15 edits ever.
You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of
violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to
"pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry
policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals
that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly
have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have
indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further
involvement.
Hopefully we can drop discussing Zack and move on to whatever this thread
is supposed to be about.