Sorry, that of course should have read:
"I'd appreciate some sort of response from you Michael that does NOT include ad hominem attacks."
I guess I've been a Wikimedian so long that ad hominem attacks are often the norm, rather than the exception. Or it could have just been a brainfart. I'll let the reader decide.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Michael,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name wrote:
I regret that Fae has thought it necessary to bring his personal grievance against the UK chapter and one specific individual over to the Wikimedia-l mailing list now that he is unable to make such comments on the Wikimedia-UK list or the WMUK website. I would hope that the moderators will consider whether providing a platform for this type of attack is conducive to the health of the Wikimedia movement.
Best regards
Michael
I don't really see any sort of attack in what Fae has written; but is posting his opinion and information gained from his own time as trustee of Wikimedia UK. If you want to refute what he has to say, then do so. But what you are essentially asking for is an echo chamber.
A question has been raised on this list as it relates to WMUK, so all and sundry should be able to provide information relating to it.
Perhaps, you as Chairman of WMUK, could explain to us all publicly why the WMF is willing to forego approx $500,000 in gift aid and has pulled WMUK's ability to accept donations, and therefore still be eligible for that gift aid. Fae was essentially blamed, at least in the public eye, for all the failings of WMUK in the past, however the decision by the WMF is only a recent one, so there are still obvious failings at WMUK, and it can't be attributed to Fae. It is absolutely right that questions be asked; but your solution is to ban those who are asking the questions. That is not on.
I'd appreciate some sort of response from you Michael that does include ad hominem attacks. Refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement... for where we should be (the top) and where we're at.
Regards,
Russavia