On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:35 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
as i overrun my monthly limit of mails allowed on this list already, and i do not want an unrelated discussion on a public mailing list, this in private:
nathan, would you be so kind to invest a little bit more thought into your mails? i pay bandwith for receiving your mails, and thousands of others also. just a couple of questions you might consider answering for yourself before contributing to a discussion about ticket prices on wikimania:
- do you edit wikipedia, and how much?
- if you do not edit, why? and why you use the time to write emails?
and make others read your emails?
- do you give money to wikimedia, and how much?
- do you write software for wikimedia, and how much?
- do you participate in conferences, meetings, and how many?
- do you know accounting, and are able to calculate "the price of
attending"?
- if paid persons help organizing, this means a conference in UK is
much more expensive than say in tansania?
- should we host conferences then only in low wage, good connected
cities, like mumbai?
- if you go, what persons you want to meet there? beggars? subsidized
people? not price sensitive people?
- if you give money, would you like to attach a string, like "only for
server operations"?
- did you ever think that subsidizing people who need is a government
business in many countries?
- do you think i missed some angles in the above list?
i even did a little research before sending this email. if you look at your stats, you write minimum 10-20 mails to "the movement" every month:
- http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Nathan.html
- http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/_PowerPosters.html
and by writing such emails, you even earn recognition:
http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-wiki-wankers-2-nathan-...
i'd be really glad to see mails from you where i can notice that you put some work into that mail, which helps me to learn new things, get new angles, and progress. and i even would not care if, instead 20, i only have to read 2 a month.
best regards and a happy sunday, rupert.
Hi Rupert,
I've been reading and responding to the list since 2007. I edit the English Wikipedia from time to time, under my name or anonymously, although not nearly as much as I used to... but I remain a believer in and supporter of the Wikimedia movement, and I try to keep current on its progress. Once in awhile I offer my thoughts on one of the mailing lists, and I have donated money in the past (but not since WMF revenue crested into the tens of millions). I do attend conferences, and I am familiar with the principles of accounting.
It is true that sometimes I get "recognition" of the type you link to, where a banned user researched my background, discussed it on his blog, labeled me a psychopath and suggested I be fired from my job. Along with an old threat of a lawsuit from an Italian megamillionaire, I consider such interactions the price of supporting Wikimedia under my real identity. Yet though I have answered your questions, I no more need to justify how I use my time to you than I do to the "sciencepolice" blogger. If you would prefer not to waste bandwidth on receiving my posts, feel free to filter them out. I won't return the favor, because telling people I disagree with to sit down and shut up just isn't my style.
Have a great rest of the weekend yourself, Nathan
I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate.
Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of "saving bandwidth" and faux concern. Cut it out.
MZMcBride
Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no?
I just don't get it.
M. El 23/03/2014 04:33 p.m., MZMcBride escribió:
I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate.
Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of "saving bandwidth" and faux concern. Cut it out.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.vewrote:
Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no?
I just don't get it.
M.
While in general that is the goal (private emails staying private) I would say that in a case like this, no, you have no expectation of privacy when you go 'off list' to, in my opinion, harass and intimidate someone about what they did on the list. I think Nathan was completely reasonable to bring it back on list and that MZs comment is completely correct. It's like 'taking it outside' of a bar to have a fight, the bar is completely reasonable in banning you for it and it's still illegal.
Rupert's email was completely unacceptable and I'm glad Nathan brought it to our attention rather then either getting into a prolonged off-list debate that helps no one or letting it lie so that no one else was aware of the attacks.
James
El 23/03/2014 04:33 p.m., MZMcBride escribió:
I just wanted to chime in here to say that, at least in a vacuum, I found
Rupert's e-mail to be highly inappropriate and I found Nathan's response to it to be wholly appropriate.
Rupert, I hope to never see a repeat of this incident, in which you attempt to badger a list participant and Wikimedia volunteer off-list with uninformed and irrelevant questions under the guise of "saving bandwidth" and faux concern. Cut it out.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain." Carlos Manuel Colina Vicepresidente A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela RIF J-40129321-2 +972-52-4869915 www.wikimedia.org.ve
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:47 AM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Carlos M. Colina maorx@wikimedia.org.vewrote:
Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how related it is to the thread. Private discussions between two people should remain that, _private_, no?
I just don't get it.
M.
While in general that is the goal (private emails staying private) I would say that in a case like this, no, you have no expectation of privacy when you go 'off list' to, in my opinion, harass and intimidate someone about what they did on the list. I think Nathan was completely reasonable to bring it back on list and that MZs comment is completely correct. It's like 'taking it outside' of a bar to have a fight, the bar is completely reasonable in banning you for it and it's still illegal.
Rupert's email was completely unacceptable and I'm glad Nathan brought it to our attention rather then either getting into a prolonged off-list debate that helps no one or letting it lie so that no one else was aware of the attacks.
James,
In the past you have supported a hardline position regarding publishing of private correspondence, and in circumstances when the reasons for publishing the private correspondence were of greater importance to the community than Rupert's private questions to Nathan, and lots of drama value too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Prop...
IMO if Nathan felt that a peaceful and private resolution couldnt or shouldnt be achieved via one-on-one email exchange, I think the appropriate response is to forward it privately to the list admins.
Rupert should also have taken his concerns about Nathan to the list admins, or started a public discussion about top posters to Wikimedia lists who have more opinions on mailing lists than contributions to the projects, without directly focusing on a single individual.
It is unfortunate that we still do not have a dispute resolution body for issues of this nature, that occur somewhere other than on a wiki with an arbcom or similar dispute resolution methods, or even an ombudsman to review decisions of the list admins.
On a bit of a tangent, last week I was wondering whether the new Terms of use apply to all WMF infrastructure, or just the wikis? I havent seen a reply to that.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#What_services_are_covered_...
-- John Vandenberg
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.comwrote:
IMO if Nathan felt that a peaceful and private resolution couldnt or shouldnt be achieved via one-on-one email exchange, I think the appropriate response is to forward it privately to the list admins.
Rupert should also have taken his concerns about Nathan to the list admins, or started a public discussion about top posters to Wikimedia lists who have more opinions on mailing lists than contributions to the projects, without directly focusing on a single individual.
-- John Vandenberg
Sounds like the split here depends on whether you agree with Rupert or not. In any event, points taken and further posts in this thread on this topic are probably unnecessary.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.comwrote:
James,
In the past you have supported a hardline position regarding publishing of private correspondence, and in circumstances when the reasons for publishing the private correspondence were of greater importance to the community than Rupert's private questions to Nathan, and lots of drama value too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Prop...
Just to be clear for the record, that was James Forrester, not James Alexander.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
James,
In the past you have supported a hardline position regarding publishing of private correspondence, and in circumstances when the reasons for publishing the private correspondence were of greater importance to the community than Rupert's private questions to Nathan, and lots of drama value too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Prop...
Just to be clear for the record, that was James Forrester, not James Alexander.
Thanks Ben,
As emufarmers points out (sorry, I would have earlier but gmail compresses this thread into the wikimania-l thread... I missed your email), but that wasn't me. I stand by my opinion (knowing that not everyone agrees).
James
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org