I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet. This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered, detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in LessWrong.[1] No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion with assertions that James is disconnected from reality. Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving, intentionally, and if this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have signed up for them. And if you instead don't understand why this sort of message is chilling and terrifying and incredibly problematic, you need to step back from all of these discussions for a time and go find someone who wants to explain it to you. Because this is not productive, and this is not how leaders behave. I appreciate you think you *have* to participate as some kind of movement moral compass, but, you aren't, and you don't. And even if you did, the morality demonstrated by that email is, I suspect, not something any of us want a part of. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting [1] for other examples of this kind of language, and the thing my brain immediately jumped to, see how ultrarationalists deal with people asking if individuals could please stop harassing them for disagreeing with an idea http://lesswrong.com/lw/lb3/breaking_the_vicious_cycle/bnrr On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Oliver I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating the community. IMO, this came to a boil in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and other things. I'm glad that community people are now revisiting those early days and trying to figger out how it all happened so secretly and without a whimper from the community reps on the BoT who we entrusted to protect our stake in our work,and who let us down very badly. David [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/ On 3/10/16, Oliver Keyes &lt;ironholds(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault threats show up in my inbox.

And this, /this/, is genuinely the most horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet.

This email is not a good faith email. it is not, despite the neutrality of its language, a civil email. It's the kind of blinkered, detached, ultrarationalist gaslighting[0] I associate with people in LessWrong.[1] No assumption of good faith. No discussion of the issues. No admission that different people can legitimately and normally interpret things in different ways. The framing of things so that the options are that James is a liar, stupid, or suffering from PTSD. Whether deliberately or not, it is deeply manipulative and frames the entire discussion with assertions that James is disconnected from reality.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 29. ​I'm a firm believer in two wrongs not making a right. This email has zero context aside from what the reader would like to infer, as we (the reader) are not the audience. Publishing this email was just as, if not, more irresponsible than Jimmy was in sending it. Those that wish to continue histrionics, take pause before *you* hit send.​ -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with Google is bonkers.

Gerard, et al On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing machine with a view to buying himself a new jet? Warm regards, Ruslan Takayev _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances. But this isn't how we should move forward.

> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not > arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances. > But this isn't how we should move forward.

Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)wikia-inc.com&gt; wrote: ... Those ideas never got traction and never made it to the board level. ...

On 10 Mar 2016, at 5:18 PM, Erik Moeller &lt;eloquence(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Pete, regardless of Jimmy's words in this email, like others, I fail to see how it's okay to share a private email to this list. I can think of a few instances where this might be ethically defensible -- like actual fraud being committed -- but this is not one of them. It's totally fair for people to ask Jimmy to clear the air on stuff himself, but this crosses the line, at least from my point of view. This comes down to giving a person you're corresponding with an honest, open channel by which they can apologize, clarify, and make things right. By violating that private channel you're making it implicitly impossible to have that kind of conversation.

On 10 Mar 2016, at 8:25 PM, Jimmy Wales &lt;jimmywales(a)wikia-inc.com&gt; wrote: On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote: I agree completely. My email, which seems so horrifying to a few people, was meant exactly as that. The truth is, I am genuinely bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.

There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether emotion has blinded him. When so many other people who know the facts are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and reflect.

And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other options in that email. I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a formal statement of position to be analyzed in public. I invite people to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.

Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the expectation they will not be held accountable for their words. Erik, thank you for articulating your views. As for my own actions, you have either made some incorrect assumptions about the background, or you operate on a set of principles that I don't entirely share. I'm pretty sure it's the former. I carefully considered whether to publish this email before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will be positive in the end as well. Jimmy Wales sending this email, in my view, tends to damage our project. It's worthwhile for those who care about Wikimedia's future to know. I agree very much with what you said in reply to SarahSV. You present a very useful overview of how things could or should go in the future. Thank you for that. Specifics about my choice to release the email below: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller &lt;eloquence(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: it.) Erik, Jimmy Wales and I have never had a working relationship, or an ongoing email correspondence. I'd guess we've exchanged under a dozen emails since 2008 or so, and spoken in person fewer times than that. I cannot think of a single example of an exchange where we came to an agreement. The much more common theme is that, the moment I express any kind of disagreement, he vanishes without a word. So the "private channel" you mention has never existed between Jimmy Wales and myself. There has never been an agreement, either explicit or implied, between us about whether our communications are private. Given our past interactions, if he were to request of me that I keep our communications private, I would refuse without hesitation. Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with you. It would take a very high bar (like fraud) for me to release such communications publicly. We would simply work through any differences together. I of course have this kind of communication all the time, as you know. This situation is nothing like that, though. Jimmy and I have no such relationship. And the bar is, indeed, pretty high: I read this as manipulative communication, at odds with Jimmy's publicly expressed goals, about things that impact the future of Wikimedia. I did reply to Jimmy's email, and since my role is apparently something people are interested in, I'm including my reply below. You'll see that I was suggesting some of the same things you do, Erik. Jimmy never replied, though. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pete Forsyth Date: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:49 AM Subject: Re: A conversation? To: Jimmy Wales, James Heilman Jimmy, thanks for following up -- and James, thanks for alerting me of this (it went to an old email address I no longer check. Good reminder though, I am putting an auto-reply on there.) I see that we have three things under discussion, and I want to reiterate that I strongly urge the first: 1. JW and JMH have a private conversation with the support of an independent, skilled facilitator 2. JW and JMH have a truly one-on-one conversation 3. JW and JMH have a conversation with PF as informal facilitator I appreciate being looped in here, but I want to say very clearly: I don't have the professional skills to serve as a facilitator here, even if I did I am too involved to do it well, and I also don't really have the bandwidth. However, I'm sure the WMF's HR department could refer you to some excellent people. (I could give referrals, but I'm sure the HR department is better equipped for that.) I think that the value of professional facilitation/mediation/ombuds/whatever is well known, so I won't go into the details of why I think this is a good idea unless asked. In the meantime, I would very strongly urge you, Jimmy, to cease making speculative statements about James' honesty or state of mind. James is probably much less volatile than me, but personally I would probably freak out if somebody was saying stuff like that about me, either publicly or privately. It's highly inflammatory. I would also request that you address (publicly, I hope) my main question about your interpretation of the board vote about "discussing long term strategy" as evidence of James' dishonesty. I think that is a point you could, and should, walk back without much drama. I think it's safe to say that it's highly obvious that you two agree about what constitutes "long term strategy," and that's fine -- but the fact that it's become a referendum on somebody's integrity is not, in my view, fine at all. I think it would help things a great deal if you could publicly acknowledge that point. I'll leave the other points to be dealt with between you, ideally with professional support. I really can't play the mediator role here. -Pete _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman &lt;kgorman(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: with ability something or ​Kevin, You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World terms: Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in place not just for this board, but for any semi-professional organization that exists because personal opinion does not matter in the eyes of the law. ​Multiple people are asking why James was removed. The answer has been given: the Board felt that they were unable to work with James, and due to the privacy of Board work, nothing can be disclosed further. While this answer is frustrating in a movement where we demand transparency for trust and collaboration (as we should), for Jimmy or anyone else to comment further would be - as an understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure Counsel would drop their jaw over, if not outright resign their position. If you were in the same position, you'd do the exact same thing. If you didn't, you'd be opening up a hole for a lawsuit that you can drive a truck through. And that lawsuit and hole, friends, is what will be the death of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not this. -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Pete, On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: will ​It's hard to argue with this statement one way or the other (when you are sure, but you cannot prove.) From experience we have seen that Wikimedia is a big ​ and distributed​ Movement and the impact of such actions on the Movement is unlikely to be noticeable ​.​ ​ Specifics about my choice to release the email below: wrote: it's ​It is problematic that you have checked with James but not Jimmy prior to publishing this email. The content of the email does not justify this action for me. Wales implied, There are norms that people follow in online communications. It is expected that you check with the sender of the email before publishing his/her email. People expect private conversations to stay private, and the definition of a private conversation is not complicated in most of the people's minds: if a conversation doesn't happen in a public channel, it's considered private. Where I do have a healthy line of communication with someone, I agree with ​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy, you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you, but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share with others. I hope you think about what you did here, and you decide to take a different course of action in the future. Best, Leila -- ​​Leila Zia Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation ​ this though, I don't did asked. freak think _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 11 Mar 2016, at 6:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell &lt;keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ​Kevin, You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World terms: Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in place not just for this board, but for any semi-professional organization that exists because personal opinion does not matter in the eyes of the law. ​Multiple people are asking why James was removed. The answer has been given: the Board felt that they were unable to work with James, and due to the privacy of Board work, nothing can be disclosed further. While this answer is frustrating in a movement where we demand transparency for trust and collaboration (as we should), for Jimmy or anyone else to comment further would be - as an understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure Counsel would drop their jaw over, if not outright resign their position. If you were in the same position, you'd do the exact same thing. If you didn't, you'd be opening up a hole for a lawsuit that you can drive a truck through. And that lawsuit and hole, friends, is what will be the death of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not this.

On 11 Mar 2016, at 9:24 AM, Leila Zia &lt;leila(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: ​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy, you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating and/or participating in conversations about someone when you cannot have a healthy conversation with that person won't be beneficial. You will end up being in a position that you cannot improve things between the two of you, but you will have extra information that you will feel burdened to share with others.