Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this part:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for "The board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I have provided evidence that refutes this claim here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_foc...
As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not especially make us worry:
Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not.
For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind, without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world.
But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James told a lie.
That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly assaulting James' reputation.
I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like "long term strategy."
A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an excellent resource for working through stuff like this.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]