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