Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[Abd]

Give me a bit more time to mull over releasing those mails.

So, do I have this straight? It's "uncool" to publish public information about a public political figure. It's worth "mulling over" whether to publish private information from a private figure.

Do I have that right, Wil?

It sounds to me that you either have an ethical compass that points south, or you're being a bit hypocritical today.

Greg, you are having just as much difficulty understanding Wllm as the Wikipediots. He didn't say anything about "uncool." He simply wrote that he was "mulling over" the issue. It is something worth being careful about, and that ought to be obvious from years of history on this topic (the revelation of private email).

It's an issue of balancing benefit and harm, including consequences.

[Zoloft]

Split off-topic stuff about ADHD et al to here: link

[Peter Damian]

Before it disappears:

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
> All:
>
> In other Wikimedia-related forums, recent discussions have focused on some
> (alleged) comments at the Wiki Conference in New York. Apparently, some
> people suggested that the WMF's Executive Director should "dump" her
> significant other.[1] Many have expressed outrage about this. (For
> background, see this blog post from May 30.[2] What's described there has
> continued to play out in the weeks since, just not on this list.)
>
> I think we all share a concern about the amount of "drama" in our
> community-wide discussions. Expressing outrage (even though it's sometimes
> appropriate and necessary) can often be the fuel of "drama" -- and I think
> it's important to explore what's been going on in relation to that
> principle. So, a couple points:
>
> Point #1:
> Gossiping about personal relationships, including points like who should
> dump whom, is totally normal behavior in small group conversation.
>
> Not outrageous -- totally normal behavior. In pretty much every social
> context I've ever experienced.
>
> I think that much is easily enough to explain and excuse any of the
> comments people are complaining about. But in this case, there's of course
> more going on:
>
> Point #2:
> The ED of the WMF can influence the world in significant ways, and we all
> have a stake in how that goes. Her first day on the job was completely
> overshadowed by her partner's aggressive pursuit of his own agenda. In the
> weeks since, that has only intensified.
>
> When the ED responsible for the largest online community in the world
> declines to take decisive and effective action on something this
> significant, and declines to take ownership of her own introduction and
> priorities, many people -- both on this list and in the wider world -- will
> take notice, and will talk about what might, or could, or should happen
> next. That is the natural way of things.
>
> One obvious "decisive action" she could take would be to "dump" her
> partner. Her partner underscored that their connection was a legitimate
> point of discussion by choosing to introduce himself entirely in reference
> to her in his first email to this list,[3] and by then continuing to talk
> about their relationship.
>
> When the idea that she might "dump" him comes up, I doubt the main intent
> is ever to meddle in anybody's personal life. I have (of course) made
> comments like this, in many private discussions, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if it comes up again. It's a comment that comes up while talking
> about possible outcomes, and ones that might stand a chance of resolving
> this mess. "Dumping" is rarely a central topic of interest, simply because
> nobody I've talked to knows much about the relationship beyond the baffling
> and frightening dynamic that has played out in public.
>
> Right now, those who care about Wikimedia are in an incomprehensible
> situation. The ED's partner, not the ED, is driving highly visible and
> influential discussions. Of course all kinds of things are being said about
> it, in all kinds of places. Anybody who acts surprised about that is in
> some kind of denial, and -- probably unintentionally -- further fueling the
> drama with their expressions of outrage.
>
> Commentary about a high profile relationship is normal, and while it's
> *possible* for it to be mean-spirited, it often isn't. Anyone who wants to
> abolish gossip doesn't have a problem with Wikimedians' sense of propriety,
> they have a problem with a basic aspect of normal, human social
> interactions, and/or with the dedication of a worldwide community that
> deeply values our projects, and prioritizes their well-being. So please,
> let's let this one go. Let's keep our attention on more important matters
> -- for instance, how we can build the health, productivity, and diversity
> of our communities.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.

I really can't imagine what you hoped to achieve by sending such an e-mail
to this list. Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:

1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
private personal life is acceptable
2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing
list is appropriate

Needless to say, I disagree and I imagine many others will as well. The
only utility of your post seems to be as an illustration of your moral
compass. I seriously doubt any further good can come from this thread, so I
would be perfectly happy for a moderator to kill it.
Nathan Sun Jun 15 15:19:54 UTC 2014

[neved]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

[dogbiscuit]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

It's a demonstration of when you play the game of Wikipedia you can lose sight of real world morals and ethics. Pete mistakes a real situation affecting real people as some hypothetical scenario role playing nonsense.

What a pillock.

[TungstenCarbide]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

Hmmm, the young man certainly thinks a lot of himself, making pompous comments like that. He seems to relish strutting across the community stage, back and forth, opining on this and that while displaying what he must think is considerable wisdom.

On the surface Pete is usually very polite, but this latest post betrays what a vicious little snake he is.

> Point #1:
> Gossiping about personal relationships, including points like who should
> dump whom, is totally normal behavior in small group conversation.
>
> Not outrageous -- totally normal behavior. In pretty much every social
> context I've ever experienced.
>

My god, he hasn't entered adulthood yet. How old is this guy?

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

Hmmm, the young man certainly thinks a lot of himself, making pompous comments like that. He seems to relish strutting across the community stage, back and forth, opining on this and that while displaying what he must think is considerable wisdom.

On the surface Pete is usually very polite, but this latest post betrays what a vicious little snake he is.

Allusions to Worm That Turned (T-C-L)?

[TungstenCarbide]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

Hmmm, the young man certainly thinks a lot of himself, making pompous comments like that. He seems to relish strutting across the community stage, back and forth, opining on this and that while displaying what he must think is considerable wisdom.

On the surface Pete is usually very polite, but this latest post betrays what a vicious little snake he is.

Allusions to Worm That Turned (T-C-L)?

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with 'Worm That Turned'. If you're saying I'm imitating his mannerisms of speech, it's more likely the other way around.

[Zoloft]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

Hmmm, the young man certainly thinks a lot of himself, making pompous comments like that. He seems to relish strutting across the community stage, back and forth, opining on this and that while displaying what he must think is considerable wisdom.

On the surface Pete is usually very polite, but this latest post betrays what a vicious little snake he is.

Allusions to Worm That Turned (T-C-L)?

Sorry, I'm not really familiar with 'Worm That Turned'.

I read it as more:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[TungstenCarbide]

I read it as more:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

the why point to User:Worm That Turned?

[Sweet Revenge]

I read it as more:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

the why point to User:Worm That Turned?

Maybe because the other wllm also wrote:

To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back,
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.

[neved]

And he is not done yet
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72694.html

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
>

I don't think you read my message very carefully.

>
> 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
> private personal life is acceptable
>

No, inaccurate. Rather: "Private speculation about other people's personal
lives is to be expected, and for the most part is neither vicious nor
hurtful."


> 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
> manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
>

No, I never ascribed intent, and am confident the intent to fuel drama is
not there.


> 3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing
> list is appropriate
>

No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is
that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some
kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody
else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the
first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's
appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be having a
strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.

Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important
dynamics.

-Pete

and more http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72688.html

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Austin Hair <adhair at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you sum up what you're trying to accomplish in one sentence
>

Well, fairly close to one sentence:

English Wikipedia is seeing a shift in how many longtime banned users are
regarded, commanding substantial valuable attention from WMF trustees,
staff, and volunteers. This has been brought about largely by a single
individual, whose megaphone was his ability to trade on the new Executive
Director's name. Instead of addressing that, many people -- some in
leadership positions -- are wringing their hands over minor personal
slights (i.e., the suggestion that somebody somewhere commented on
somebody's personal relationship.)

or refrain from dragging this list through yet another round of this topic?


Regardless of whether this list gets dragged through it, the English
Wikipedia community, some of the WMF Board of Trustees, and some of the WMF
staff are already getting dragged through it, and I don't see any signs of
that changing. I don't think it's a good idea to ignore this apparently
escalating situation on this email list.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[TungstenCarbide]

And he is not done yet
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72694.html

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
>

I don't think you read my message very carefully.

>
> 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
> private personal life is acceptable
>

No, inaccurate. Rather: "Private speculation about other people's personal
lives is to be expected, and for the most part is neither vicious nor
hurtful."


> 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
> manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
>

No, I never ascribed intent, and am confident the intent to fuel drama is
not there.


> 3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing
> list is appropriate
>

No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is
that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some
kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody
else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the
first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's
appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be having a
strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.

Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important
dynamics.

-Pete

Pete is effectively importing the vicious nasty gossip into the mailing list. The little shit needs to be kicked.

[Vigilant]

And he is not done yet
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72694.html

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the ethical principles I think you're espousing:
>

I don't think you read my message very carefully.

>
> 1) Vicious, hurtful gossip and speculation about a female executive's
> private personal life is acceptable
>

No, inaccurate. Rather: "Private speculation about other people's personal
lives is to be expected, and for the most part is neither vicious nor
hurtful."


> 2) People who point out that this is a ridiculous position are
> manufacturing "outrage" to fuel drama
>

No, I never ascribed intent, and am confident the intent to fuel drama is
not there.


> 3) Recapping the whole sordid situation on a public, international mailing
> list is appropriate
>

No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate is
that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some
kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody
else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the
first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's
appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be having a
strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia.

Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important
dynamics.

-Pete

Pete is effectively importing the vicious nasty gossip into the mailing list. The little shit needs to be kicked.

Peter Forsyth, doing his best to cornhole wikipedia from the inside.

Has someone invited him to post here?

I hope not, we have standards.

[Peter Damian]

Since this seems to be the most heated issue at the moment, I want to point out: I am not the one who made these allegedly nasty comments public; the person who made them public, and then proceeded to discuss them in numerous public forums, was Wil Sinclair. If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of the victims are one and the same person. Yes, I mentioned it here first, but only after it had been widely discussed in other prominent forums (links in my next email). Again. I am not the person who made these comments public.
Pete Forsyth Sun Jun 15 19:19:18 UTC 2014

So after being told to ‘back the fuck off’ by Gorman, and after being told that “more than a couple people in NYC, including in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet”, it is Wil’s fault for having published this?

WTF.

[dogbiscuit]

Since this seems to be the most heated issue at the moment, I want to point out: I am not the one who made these allegedly nasty comments public; the person who made them public, and then proceeded to discuss them in numerous public forums, was Wil Sinclair. If making them public is the problem, then the aggressor and one of the victims are one and the same person. Yes, I mentioned it here first, but only after it had been widely discussed in other prominent forums (links in my next email). Again. I am not the person who made these comments public.
Pete Forsyth Sun Jun 15 19:19:18 UTC 2014

So after being told to ‘back the fuck off’ by Gorman, and after being told that “more than a couple people in NYC, including in positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the Wikimedia world yet”, it is Wil’s fault for having published this?

WTF.

Did you expect any better? You really must be the absolute epitome of an optimist if you did.

It is really a variation of SOFIXIT: if there is a problem, the problem is highlighting it rather than solving it yourself (in this case by leaving your partner and children).

[Peter Damian]

Did you expect any better? You really must be the absolute epitome of an optimist if you did.

Well I was surprised. I get quickly bored with soaps and series of all kinds, because of the way they are so formulaic and quickly run out of new ideas. True blood e.g..

But Wikipedia always changes in ways that are surprising. It’s like the producer says ‘So, ratings are falling, chief scriptwriter do something’. Scriptwriter: “So, let’s have a new executive director”. Producer “So?”. Scriptwriter: “So, we will make her a woman, but this time she will have a partner who signs up with the sworn enemy of Wikipedians everywhere. Wikipedians will send him hate mail, tell him to back the fuck off, will try and persuade the ED to dump him. You’ll see , plenty of drama all right”. Producer “No. No one will believe that”.

[The Adversary]

I could not have even imagined how stupid Peteforsyth (T-C-L) really is...

For once I agree 100% with you; neither could I...

Peter Forsyth, doing his best to cornhole wikipedia from the inside.

Has someone invited him to post here?

I hope not, we have standards.

Message to Peter Forsyth from all "Hasten the day"-members of Wikipediocracy:
Please, please do continue to post on Wikimedia-l!
Do *not* listen to spoilsports like GerardM !

[lilburne]

Do *not* listen to spoilsports like GerardM !

He didn't.

[dogbiscuit]

Pete Forsyth has a strange definition of public anyway. The person who made them "public" was Mr Gorman, who gloated about this issue, Wil reported this to the mailing list.

Wikipedians are verbally incontinent and do not grasp the meaning of "what goes on tour, stays on tour" - if you are going to snigger behind people's backs, then it is best not to do it to their face.

Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

[Peter Damian]

Pete Forsyth has a strange definition of public anyway. The person who made them "public" was Mr Gorman, who gloated about this issue, Wil reported this to the mailing list.

Wikipedians are verbally incontinent and do not grasp the meaning of "what goes on tour, stays on tour" - if you are going to snigger behind people's backs, then it is best not to do it to their face.

Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

Wikimedia has a problem right now, and in the absence of any effective intervention, it appears to be escalating, not receding.

The problem, in a nutshell: Wil Sinclair, the partner of Wikimedia's new Executive Director Lila Tretikov, has taken strong, even radical positions on what is needed for Wikipedia's future well-being; and owing (by all accounts, unintentionally) to his connection to her, his views are receiving a much higher degree of attention than they would otherwise, and having significant impacts on our community. Lila, whose name and position are a key ingredient in the notoriety and influence Wil has so quickly gained -- and who is therefore in a uniquely responsible and uniquely influential position in this matter -- has made only one public statement on the matter, stating that she intends to do nothing about it.[1] But this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

As Milos Rancic has said, "Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago." The issues he's raised, by and large, are ones that have been widely discussed many times; we see people bring them up often, and they generally don't get much traction or lead to 100+ comment discussion threads.

The key difference, I am confident, is best exemplified with the first words Wil ever spoke on this list: "I'm Wil Sinclair, Lila Tretikov's significant other."[2] Regardless of his intentions, his introductory message to this list garnered "welcome" messages from three WMF staff, and also from three others, and many people (as I have confirmed in many offline conversations) made a mental note that here was somebody it would be worthwhile to keep on the radar. These 6 prompt messages foreshadowed the disproportionate amount of attention he would receive in the coming weeks. I believe this unusual level of attention derived almost entirely from his connection to Lila. (I don't know any way to prove that, but if any longtime subscribers think the attention he got was typical of a new list contributor without Wikimedia experience, I'd be interested to know.)

Wil soon parlayed that popularity into other forums. He's now had extensive discussions on Wikipedia (WP), where 166 of his 400 edits are to his own User Talk page;[3] and Wikipediocracy (WO)[4] where he's posted 283 messages in maybe a dozen topic threads; and relaunched his personal blog.[5] His blog's stated goal is to end what he calls the "Wiki War" between WP and WO; in the 10 days since he launched it, he's published 3 blog posts, all on this topic, and collected about 70 comments. He also launched a petition on change.org,[6] calling for better treatment of (arguably) English Wikipedia's most notorious banned user.

So although he is no longer posting multiple messages per day on this particular email list, his daily efforts to shape the direction of the Wikimedia movement has not slowed down.

This is true of many dedicated Wikipedians, of course; but in this case, he is getting a disproportionately high level of attention from influential people. His user talk page contains 25 comment threads full of advice from Wikimedia Trustees, longtime Wikipedians, former ArbCom members, Wikipedians in Residence, staff and board of affiliated organizations, etc. By contrast, I have students and clients who have made more edits, over longer periods of time, who have received little more than a {{welcome}} message on their page. Wil, or his activities, have also ended up in extensive discussions on Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' user talk page, most recently here.[7]

This level of influence is, to my eyes, clearly a function of his connection to Lila. Not exclusively -- he has of course demonstrated a knack for presenting himself in a way that attracts attention -- but his connection to her is a vital ingredient in his success.

But I'd like to get back to how he has used that influence. He has focused, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively on trying to stimulate discourse and reconciliation between the Wikimedia and Wikipediocracy communities.

For those who are not familiar with Wikipediocracy: I am not one of the people who would paint it as "bad" with a broad brush. It's a tremendously active forum dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and many well intentioned people say many useful things there. However, it is also a place that where *truly* mean-spirited and damaging things are sometimes said, and are frequently allowed to remain indefinitely.

An example, drawn from the recent controversy, may help:

A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9]

While we can all agree that discourse in Wikimedia spaces can be problematic, I do think that a vulgar, direct, personal attack like this -- especially launched from behind a veil of anonymity, addressed to a person's full name -- would generally not be tolerated here. So there is at least one good argument in favor of maintaining some distance between Wikimedia and WO.

I wouldn't say reconciliation between the WP and WO communities is necessarily a bad goal, but it is most certainly a *delicate* area. And Wil has exhibited, repeatedly and even explicitly, that delicacy is not his thing. His impact is, of course, hard to measure, as there are many judgment calls involved; but in my estimation, the discussions he's started or participated heavily in have (1) commanded a good deal of time from volunteers, staff, and Trustees who ideally would have something worthwhile to show for the time invested; (2) galvanized the community of, in some cases, the most disruptive banned users and critics of Wikipedia; and (3) created a central issue that, like it or not, will impact many parties' perception of Lila and her disposition toward community dynamics, at the expense of her ability to define that for herself.

I believe this is a substantial problem, and one that is growing, not shrinking, with every passing day. I do not know what the solution is, but I do believe that Lila is the one person (apart from Wil, who seems to pride himself on disregarding advice, and who of course has no professional obligation at all toward Wikimedia) with the most at her disposal to come up with an effective resolution.

I firmly believe that if Lila doesn't do something effective to address this problem soon, it will take on a life of its own, and encompass a lot more of the Wikimedia world we all care about than it has so far. If she doesn't do anything, yes, I think the rest of us need to address it somehow; I don't have a proposal for that, but I would be happy to discuss possibilities.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72059.html
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 71519.html
[3]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/in ... .wikipedia
[4] Wil, who today stated that he's done posting to Wikipediocracy,
previously posted to most of the recent threads in the "Governance" section
of Wikipediocracy: viewforum.php?f=14 and
also the parent topic area:
viewforum.php?f=8
[5] http://wllm.com/
[6]
http://www.change.org/petitions/wikiped ... -to-attend
[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... _attendees
[8] viewtopic.php?p=99887#p99887
[9] viewtopic.php?p=99937#p99937

Pete Forsyth Sun Jun 15 21:32:38 UTC 2014

[dogbiscuit]

Some interesting fallacies in Pete's arguments. The one I like is where he declares that Wil is a trouble maker for asking about issues that were closed several years ago. I would just observe that closed does not mean solved.

[Peter Damian]

Some interesting fallacies in Pete's arguments. The one I like is where he declares that Wil is a trouble maker for asking about issues that were closed several years ago. I would just observe that closed does not mean solved.

Already pointed that out on the list, mate, and got a very strange reply

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72702.html

[Peter Damian]

On 15/06/2014 22:32, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9]
<<

Oh come on, this 'longtime Wikipedian' (Kevin Gorman) was the one who told Sinclair to 'back the fuck off'. I can understand Sinclair's reaction, in those circumstances.
edward Sun Jun 15 21:52:14 UTC 2014

[lilburne]

Some interesting fallacies in Pete's arguments. The one I like is where he declares that Wil is a trouble maker for asking about issues that were closed several years ago. I would just observe that closed does not mean solved.

Already pointed that out on the list, mate, and got a very strange reply

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72702.html

There is another usage of 'closed' in computer speak. It means "the time and effort needed to fix this is more than we are willing to spend."

[dogbiscuit]

On 15/06/2014 22:32, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>A couple days ago, a regular, anonymous WO participant -- who has benefited from many friendly exchanges with Wil -- had the following to say about a longtime Wikipedian (who's not active on Wikipediocracy, to my knowledge) using their full given name: "[name elided], you're a cunt...You are the worst kind of coward" and then insults this person's physical appearance. Some forum participants objected to this comment,[8] and suggested it might be removed, but to date it hasn't been. Wil responded with light, good-natured scolding.[9]
<<

Oh come on, this 'longtime Wikipedian' (Kevin Gorman) was the one who told Sinclair to 'back the fuck off'. I can understand Sinclair's reaction, in those circumstances.
edward Sun Jun 15 21:52:14 UTC 2014

Kevin has been active on the forum - whether that is a deliberate use of the present tense for effect is another matter.

[TungstenCarbide]

... Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

Jesus what a snake that guy is.

[lilburne]

... Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

Jesus what a snake that guy is.

[Vigilant]

Even the mailing list has had enough or Pete "the snake" Forsyth.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72712.html

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth at gmail.com> wrote:
> My point was straightforward: I would certainly not be bringing this topic
> up in a public forum if it had not been widely and extensively discussed in
> public forums beforehand. It was brought up by Wil, not by me. His reasons
> for doing so -- that's another matter entirely, and one I'm not personally
> inclined to get into.

Okay, Pete.

Despite giving you ample opportunity to clarify your intentions, all
I'm taking away from this is "Let's all talk about Wil some more." The
consensus seems to be with me in my bewilderment.

The horse is dead. I've temporarily set your moderation bit while the
appropriate funeral arrangements can be made.

Austin

TL;DR - STFU, you dick.

[Vigilant]

His plumpness opines
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72711.html

Nothing useful is likely to come of this thread.

Newyorkbrad

[dogbiscuit]

His plumpness opines
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72711.html

Nothing useful is likely to come of this thread.

Newyorkbrad

BUt of course, NYB is wrong. We once again have the absolute ineptitude of Wikipedians logged for all time.

Perhaps Mr Forsyth has been taking lessons on how to succeed on Wikipedia from AvH.

[eagle]

Anne has such a nice way of saying "Oh shut the f*ck up." (to borrow Mr. Gorman's phrase):

I'm sorry to say that my reading of your postings to this list in the past
24 hours is that you are making numerous personal attacks and insinuating
yourself into the personal lives of individuals.

I ask you to stop this line of discussion entirely; if you do not do so, I
ask the moderators of this forum to start moderating your posts.

Just stop, Pete. And everyone else, please stop responding and let these
threads die.

Risker/Anne

link
She is right of course. It is too bad that I believe that the safe place policy cannot be read as justifying the exclusion of someone disruptive before they arrive at a WMF Conference. Because if a list of people who should be pre-emptively excluded could be compiled in an objective fashion, Peter would be at the top of the list.

[Writegeist]

Oh, lackaday, and shock horror. Will has chosen Jumbo Prawn's talk page as the venue for a brief announcement of his retirement from WO:

[Extract] "For what it's worth, I told them today that I didn't think such doxxing behavior was OK for cases where they aren't exposing abuse (YMMV) and some of them did not like it at all. Then I reasserted that they are being asshats when they're making snarky comments about others. And, surprisingly enough, for completely separate reasons, I've stopped posting on WO altogether."

Sorry if this has already been reported elsewhere, or if this is the wrong thread for it; I've got my country casual weekend brain on.

[Cla68]

What is Pete Forsyth's relationship with Wikipedia and the WMF? Sorry, I can't keep track of these people.

[TungstenCarbide]

What is Pete Forsyth's relationship with Wikipedia and the WMF? Sorry, I can't keep track of these people.

Used to be a WMF employee, then went into business for himself as a paid editor.

[dogbiscuit]

I would just note this post of mine from before the conference.

[EricBarbour]

... Adding:Pete is really getting his teeth into this - with footnotes!

Jesus what a snake that guy is.

I must save that one.

Forsyth is one of the most toxic Wikipedians I've ever studied, yet this is one of the very few times he's been told to muzzle it. Because he's normally sneaky and cowardly.

Here's a classic Wikipedia buddy photo. With David Shankbone.

[eagle]

What is Pete Forsyth's relationship with Wikipedia and the WMF? Sorry, I can't keep track of these people.

Used to be a WMF employee, then went into business for himself as a paid editor.

*He started editing in 2006, so he had to work his way into the inside circle. link
*Although he lives on the west coast, he became a dues-paying member of Wikimedia DC so that he could in-fight there.
*He was a WMF Fellow from June 2009 to April 2011 where he did some of the background work on launching the Public Policy Initiative link
*He has received funding from WMF for a number of GLAM-Camp conferences. link (At one such CAMP, he befriended Laurahale (T-C-L), and became one of her outspoken advocates.)
*He has been one of the male advocates of addressing "Gender Gap".
*Since leaving WMF, he picked up Consumers Union as a client to give them advice on relations with Wikipedia. Consumers Union then sponsored a panel discussion at the Newseum during Wikimania 2012, and Peter Forsyth volunteered to be the greeter at the reception/name tag table. He wanted everyone to know that he was a "player" in the relationship. (Consumers Union was also a co-sponsor of 2014 WikiConference USA.)
*Major player (Advisory Group Member) in the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium link
*Shared a $140,000 grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to improve the visibility of Open Educational Resources.link

Here I list major projects:

In 2012-2014, I am leading Communicate OER. This project aims to build the Wikipedia community and the quality of Wikipedia content. I generally do very little editing in article space in connection with this project. When I do, it is in order to assist and train new Wikipedia contributors (not to advance an editorial objective). Currently I am teaching this online course on editing Wikipedia, as part of CommOER: Wikipedia:School of Open course

In addition, I have a business relationship with the charitable organization Consumer Reports, and I make occasional Wikipedia edits in connection to this work. See WP:Consumer Reports, and the announcement on my blog, for more about this project.

His income stream depends on (a) continuing to gain funding for his conferences from WMF, and (b) convincing his clients that he is in the good graces of WMF.

Given his accidental posting of a private email to the entire l-list,link as well as getting off on the wrong foot with Wil, his email outburst today is not surprising, since both (a) and (b) are now widely called into question.

[Cla68]

His income stream depends on (a) continuing to gain funding for his conferences from WMF, and (b) convincing his clients that he is in the good graces of WMF.

Given his accidental posting of a private email to the entire l-list,link as well as getting off on the wrong foot with Wil, his email outburst today is not surprising, since both (a) and (b) are now widely called into question.

He sure shot himself in the foot with those mailing list posts making him look like an immature jackass. I wonder what he's going to do now to try to reestablish his credibility with the WMF people.

[eagle]

His income stream depends on (a) continuing to gain funding for his conferences from WMF, and (b) convincing his clients that he is in the good graces of WMF.

Given his accidental posting of a private email to the entire l-list,link as well as getting off on the wrong foot with Wil, his email outburst today is not surprising, since both (a) and (b) are now widely called into question.

He sure shot himself in the foot with those mailing list posts making him look like an immature jackass. I wonder what he's going to do now to try to reestablish his credibility with the WMF people.

Unfortunately, the classic answer is to shoot the monarch and his/her consort. One could read the last set of emails as a feeble effort to build consensus toward that end.

[dogbiscuit]

His income stream depends on (a) continuing to gain funding for his conferences from WMF, and (b) convincing his clients that he is in the good graces of WMF.

Given his accidental posting of a private email to the entire l-list,link as well as getting off on the wrong foot with Wil, his email outburst today is not surprising, since both (a) and (b) are now widely called into question.

He sure shot himself in the foot with those mailing list posts making him look like an immature jackass. I wonder what he's going to do now to try to reestablish his credibility with the WMF people.

Keep digging, he's down so deep he must come out the other side.

[eagle]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

[neved]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72705.html

This is true of many dedicated Wikipedians, of course; but in this case, he
is getting a disproportionately high level of attention from influential
people. His user talk page contains 25 comment threads full of advice from
Wikimedia Trustees, longtime Wikipedians, former ArbCom members,
Wikipedians in Residence, staff and board of affiliated organizations, etc.
By contrast, I have students and clients who have made more edits, over
longer periods of time, who have received little more than a {{welcome}}
message on their page. Wil, or his activities, have also ended up in
extensive discussions on Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' user talk page,
most recently here.

(my bolding)
"influential people"? And I thought all members of wikipedia community are equal.
Does anybody else believe that Peteforsyth (T-C-L) is simply jealous for attention Wil is getting?

[eagle]

Does anybody else believe that Peteforsyth (T-C-L) is simply jealous for attention Wil is getting?

I think that Peter is threatened by the fact that it took Peter years to build up connections with influential people, some of whom (like Sue Gardner) may no longer have clout. In contrast, Wil has gained that overnight.

This happens in Washington DC repeatedly. A bunch of lobbyists give a lot of campaign contributions to the Republicans or the Democrats and then peddle their services on K Street. After power in Congress changes hands to the other party, those lobbyist don't have the access and clout that brought them clients, and the clients move on to new lobbyists who are tied to the new leadership.

[Silent Editor]

[...]And I thought all members of wikipedia community are equal.
Does anybody else believe that Peteforsyth (T-C-L) is simply jealous for attention Wil is getting?

I'm sure he imagines all the problems could be solved if Lila simply dumped Wil, and married Pete instead.

[Vigilant]

Looks like there's a fissure on wikimedia-l.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72714.html

I am looking for a productive mailing list that discusses matters of
importance to the Wikimedia community. That the people on such a list can
have these discussions politely, respectfully, and with concern for others
in that the words that say, and attitudes taken. I want to see
announcements, I want to see a higher quality of conversation on what
should be a flaglist in the mailing list space of Wikimedia.

We don't have it. One gets to the point of utter frustration with this
list, and it is time that the backstabbers, frontstabbers, bitchfighters,
venal, conceited, etc. need a place to kill each other with as much venom
as possible, but not under the more impressive and specific name of
wikimedia-l. So please rename this list, and take all its people to
something befitting the behaviour seen. Then please produce a clean list
for those who don't have to have the antics of these unbearable,
egotistical, and apparently intolerant and chauvinistic people, and please
don't let them join that list. They can have their shithole and revel in
it. They know who they are and they would feel ashamed if they had a
modicum of interest outside of themselves.

If that is not possible, then those of who us who want a higher quality
discussion will unsubscribe, and be unrepresented and unheard. Another win
for the trolls, and a sad reflection on the direction.

Regards, Billinghurst

There'd be nobody on the new list.

[Silent Editor]

Looks like there's a fissure on wikimedia-l.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wi ... 72714.html

If that is not possible, then those of who us who want a higher quality
discussion will unsubscribe, and be unrepresented and unheard. Another win
for the trolls, and a sad reflection on the direction.

Regards, Billinghurst

There'd be nobody on the new list.

Of course, the proper response to those who want "higher quality discussion" is to invite them to Wikipediocracy...

[thekohser]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

This is important, because the New York Law School has formally denied (to Peter Damian) that they were carefully aligning with the policies and goals of the WikiConference. The way the travel scholarships were awarded also flies in the face of the advertised ambition for the conference to welcome the "skeptical".

[Midsize Jake]

...So please rename this list, and take all its people to something befitting the behaviour seen. Then please produce a clean list for those who don't have to have the antics of these unbearable,
egotistical, and apparently intolerant and chauvinistic people, and please don't let them join that list.

There'd be nobody on the new list.

I'd subscribe!

In a heartbeat! WP'ers with no unbearable egotism and intolerance? Heck, I'd be all over that thing like a cheap suit! It's the best idea they've had in years! Who's with me? Wikipedians? Any of you out there...? Hello...? Is this mic on... Testing, 1, 2, 3...

[Randy from Boise]

Nobody has yet posted the link to the WikiConference USA budget: link The New York Law School waived "over $48,000" in venue costs.

Should anyone believe the claim that New York Law School had nothing to do with the conference:

Jennifer Baek, Secretary of Wikimedia NYC, successfully organized the 2013 Free Culture Conference at New York Law School and has a working relationship with the administrative staff of the venue.

Kirill Lokshin (T-C-L) was in charge of handing out $22,000 in WMF travel scholarships.

Scholarship applicants will be surveyed on their experience and attitudes on Wikimedia projects as part of the application process. Scholarship recipients will then be surveyed six months following the conference to determine the impact of the conference on their Wikimedia activities.

So it was as it appeared to me — both a very economical conclave and a WMF travel boondoggle at the same time...

tim

P.S. What the fuck does "...experience and attitudes..." mean???