:
> Is this going to be published somewhere other than on this list, which
> recently became a non-public list?
>
Yes, it forms part of the minutes of our board meeting this evening, which
are normally published on our wiki shortly after the meeting.
Regards,
Chris
_
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 July 2012 01:21, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> It isn't public. The software considers it private. Emails to the
>> list can be claimed to have been sent under the assumption that it
>> isn't going to be published on the web.
>
> Who ca
I have forwarded the statement to wikimedia-l.
Seddon
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:23:41 +0100
> From: thomas.dal...@gmail.com
> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van
> Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK
>
> On 27 July 2012 0
On 27 July 2012 01:21, John Vandenberg wrote:
> It isn't public. The software considers it private. Emails to the
> list can be claimed to have been sent under the assumption that it
> isn't going to be published on the web.
Who cares what the software thinks? Anyone can subscribe and get
insta
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 July 2012 00:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l says its a
>> private list
>
> It says: "This is a private list, which means that the list of members
> is not available to non-membe
On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote:
>
> Yes Fæ is the victim, but I believe arbcom made
> their ruling on the grounds that if Fæ sticks around too many people will
> continue to gang up on him and distract everyone else from the project.
It's really hard to see how you could possibly come t
On 27 July 2012 00:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l says its a
> private list
It says: "This is a private list, which means that the list of members
is not available to non-members."
That is a very specific meaning of "private". It only refe
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l says its a
private list
On Jul 27, 2012 6:16 AM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote:
> On 27 July 2012 00:10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> > Is this going to be published somewhere other than on this list, which
> > recently became a non-public list?
>
>
If I may interject here for a moment. I'm a supporter of WMUK, and I hope
I'm not overstepping any bounds by stating something here. I have heard
nothing but good things about Fae, and I hope I don't need to acknowledge
his good work.
I saw this discussion devolve into more generalized topics abou
On 27 July 2012 00:10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Is this going to be published somewhere other than on this list, which
> recently became a non-public list?
It is a public list. Anyone can subscribe.
The archives are restricted to list members, despite a clear consensus
being established that the
Is this going to be published somewhere other than on this list, which
recently became a non-public list?
On Jul 27, 2012 5:03 AM, "Michael Peel"
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sending this statement on behalf of the WMUK Board:
>
> --
>
> As some members of Wikimedia UK will know, our Chair, Ashley Va
On 26 July 2012 18:12, geni wrote:
> Oh. Spelling flames.
No.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://
On 26 July 2012 23:17, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
> On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote:
>
>> On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>
>>> It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had
>>> said to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour
On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said
>> to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I
>> would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I
On 26 July 2012 23:05, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 17:55, geni wrote:
>> On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> The issue is messy enough without people engaging in game playing.
>
> "...use Wesh [sic] or your preferred version of Gaelic". PKB.
>
Oh. Spelling flames.
--
ge
*Bzzzt*
Repetition.
:)
On 26 July 2012 23:05, Stevie Benton wrote:
> Yes, but there's no need to spread it.
>
> On Jul 26, 2012 11:02 PM, "Richard Symonds"
> wrote:
>>
>> And all we're really doing is churning out one-liners...
>>
>> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2012 11:00 PM
Yes, but there's no need to spread it.
On Jul 26, 2012 11:02 PM, "Richard Symonds" <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> And all we're really doing is churning out one-liners...
>
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
> On Jul 26, 2012 11:00 PM, "James Farrar" wrote:
>
>> On 26 July 2012 22:58,
On 26 July 2012 17:55, geni wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote:
The issue is messy enough without people engaging in game playing.
"...use Wesh [sic] or your preferred version of Gaelic". PKB.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Hi all,
I'm sending this statement on behalf of the WMUK Board:
--
As some members of Wikimedia UK will know, our Chair, Ashley Van Haeften, user
name Fae, has been the subject of sanctions by the Arbitration Committee of the
English Wikipedia (Arbcom), the volunteer committee that exists to p
And all we're really doing is churning out one-liners...
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 26, 2012 11:00 PM, "James Farrar" wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 22:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 26 July 2012 22:54, Deryck Chan wrote:
> >> May I propose a toast...
> >
> > Ah, now there I have to agree
On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said
> to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I
> would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I now find myself almost
> agreeing with David Gera
On 26 July 2012 22:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 22:54, Deryck Chan wrote:
>> May I propose a toast...
>
> Ah, now there I have to agree with Mr Mulla. If you're going to have
> toast, it really does have to be butter...
We've got into a bit of a jam...
On 26 July 2012 22:54, Deryck Chan wrote:
> May I propose a toast...
Ah, now there I have to agree with Mr Mulla. If you're going to have
toast, it really does have to be butter...
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.w
On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In view of the nature of your error, I was using Simple English.
If there is a point you wish to make please do so in a direct and
straightforward manner. The issue is messy enough without people
engaging in game playing.
--
geni
_
May I propose a toast...
On 26 July 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> The problem seems to be spreading.
>
> I'll get my coat...
>
>
> On 26 July 2012 14:12, Richard Symonds
> wrote:
> > I'll look into this tomorrow. After I've dealt with non-dairy subjects.
> >
> > Richard Symonds, Wikimedia U
On 26 July 2012 17:14, geni wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote:
>>
>>> Fae is banned from wikipedia.
>>
>> No he isn't.
>
>
> “Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language
> Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six mont
On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote:
>
>> Fae is banned from wikipedia.
>
> No he isn't.
“Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language
Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after
the enactment of this remedy, and every
On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote:
> Fae is banned from wikipedia.
No he isn't.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia
On 26/07/12 20:59, Thomas Dalton wrote:
An assertion is not an argument. It can be contradicted. It cannot be countered.
Didn't Karl Popper say that?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/l
David Gerard will explain all on BBC TV and radio in the morning
And there will be no "drooling morons" or "batshit insanity".
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wi
>
> I did read the case, and the only accusation that has any evidence (or
> is even coherently made) is the misuse of multiple accounts. That
> doesn't warrant an indefinite ban. The ban is because he had the
> audacity to speak to a member of Foundation staff while waiting for a
> lift... (there
On 26 July 2012 20:59, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> An assertion is not an argument. It can be contradicted. It cannot be
> countered.
Which is why my initial assertion was backed up by a number of lines
of argument.
--
geni
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
On 26 July 2012 20:58, geni wrote:
> Well do don't really know since no attempt has been made to counter my
> arguments. In part this may be because I was well aware of the most
> likely issues that people would bring up so formulated my arguments so
> they would stand regardless of those issues.
On 26 July 2012 20:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 20:39, geni wrote:
>> Fae is banned from wikipedia. Again if you read my opening post you
>> will find that the mechanism is quite quite irrelevant.
>
> Your opening post contains a number of unsubstantiated assertions.
> Clearly the p
On 26 July 2012 20:51, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> There are several appeals possible. Jimmy has indicated that he wants to be
> replaced as the appeal route for Arbcom decisions, and that he will be
> giving up some of his Founder powers later this year. So Fae could appeal to
> Jimmy now, or wait
There are several appeals possible. Jimmy has indicated that he wants to be
replaced as the appeal route for Arbcom decisions, and that he will be
giving up some of his Founder powers later this year. So Fae could appeal
to Jimmy now, or wait for an alternative appeal process later this year, or
wa
On 26/07/2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote:
To my mind the worst thing about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision
was that Arbcom agreed that Fae had been harassed, but they banned him
anyway. In my view Arbcom has made the wrong decision,
On 26 July 2012 20:39, geni wrote:
> Fae is banned from wikipedia. Again if you read my opening post you
> will find that the mechanism is quite quite irrelevant.
Your opening post contains a number of unsubstantiated assertions.
Clearly the people disagreeing with you disagree with those
asserti
What is the governance structure of ArbCom?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 26 July 2012 20:37, David Gerard wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 20:33, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general
>> Wikimedian doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion.
>
>
> "This body you've never heard of and don't care about banned Fae, so
> we
On 26 July 2012 20:33, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general
> Wikimedian doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion.
"This body you've never heard of and don't care about banned Fae, so
we had to fire him."
- d.
On 26 July 2012 20:31, David Gerard wrote:
> Everyone else thinks the arbcom is insane too, AFAICT. If WMUK says
> "um, no" to such obvious railroading, it will certainly not be to
> WMUK's discredit.
The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general
Wikimedian doesn't know enough abou
On 26 July 2012 20:14, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> It could create some
> negative PR for the movement generally due to internal conflict, but
> we can survive that.
Everyone else thinks the arbcom is insane too, AFAICT. If WMUK says
"um, no" to such obvious railroading, it will certainly not be to
On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> My suggestion would be that Fae use the available appeal processes, and that
> hopefully Arbcom can be reformed or brought to its senses.
What appeal processes? Arbcom aren't going to just change their minds.
The community isn't going to reach a c
The problem seems to be spreading.
I'll get my coat...
On 26 July 2012 14:12, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I'll look into this tomorrow. After I've dealt with non-dairy subjects.
>
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
>
> On Jul 26, 2012 6:49 PM, "Firozali A Mulla" wrote:
>>
>> Margarine is made from p
On 26/07/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I demand that WMUK immediately disclose all funds that have gone to
people that might have spent it on margarine. The members deserve to
know the truth!
The truth is Rotten.
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said
to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I
would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I now find myself almost
agreeing with David Gerard's assessment of them.
To my mind the worst thing abou
I demand that WMUK immediately disclose all funds that have gone to
people that might have spent it on margarine. The members deserve to
know the truth!
On 26 July 2012 19:38, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Exactly! We're talking about plastic, apparently.
>
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
>
> On Jul 2
Exactly! We're talking about plastic, apparently.
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 26, 2012 7:27 PM, "Theresa Knott" wrote:
> But it is a non dairy subject. We are not talking about butter here ;-)
> On Jul 26, 2012 7:12 PM, "Richard Symonds" <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
On 26 July 2012 19:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> You have to use the same definition for numerator and denominator...
Not for Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.
Charles
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://m
On 26 July 2012 19:26, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Yes, but. EnWP really only has 3500 active editors, and saying it has
> 35K is grossly misleading. In any case I was taking 4000 "active on
> the English Wikipedia in a significant way" editors for my 5%. (I so
> didn't want to get involved in this
But it is a non dairy subject. We are not talking about butter here ;-)
On Jul 26, 2012 7:12 PM, "Richard Symonds"
wrote:
> I'll look into this tomorrow. After I've dealt with non-dairy subjects.
>
> Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
> On Jul 26, 2012 6:49 PM, "Firozali A Mulla" wrote:
>
>> Margarin
On 26 July 2012 19:19, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the
>> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the
>> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across
On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews wrote:
> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the
> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the
> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across all projects,
> and the proportion of those active on
I'll look into this tomorrow. After I've dealt with non-dairy subjects.
Richard Symonds, Wikimedia UK
On Jul 26, 2012 6:49 PM, "Firozali A Mulla" wrote:
> Margarine is made from plastic MARGARINE, when first produced, is a grey,
> smelly plastic. It needs ... a grey, smelly grease. Yet many heal
On 26 July 2012 18:19, Martin Peeks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews
>> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the
>> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the
>> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across a
Margarine is
made from plastic MARGARINE, when first produced, is a grey, smelly plastic. It
needs ... a grey, smelly grease. Yet many health ...There you are you eating
plastic? Is that why we need more plastic bottles? The only reason people but
this instead of butter is butter is high in cholest
Firozali A.Mulla DBA P.O.Box 38100 Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>> Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a
>>> rather different view earlier in this thread. In brie
On 26 July 2012 17:45, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Is there the possibility of WMUK making a statement to denounce the position
> of the Olympic Committee in relation to this - it might get press interest.
Without having even attempted to persuade the OC to change their
minds, going to the press would
On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
> By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the
> WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own
> goal as far as future relations with other Chapters are concerned.
Fae didn't put himself forward, he
On a couple of points of fact:
The motion to ban Fae was not presented by ArbCom until Monday 16 July and
came as a complete surprise to those of us who had been following the case.
Prior to that Fae had voluntarily resigned his sysop and declared that he
would not seen another RfA for at least 12
Hmmm, they took the time to look at them all for potentially
defamatory material, but didn't bother to filter/mark all the
completely empty forms sent back (mainly from universities, colleges,
and local councils it seems). How annoying.
Some interesting stuff all the same. I for one never realised
On 26 July 2012 17:51, Deryck Chan wrote:
>
>
> On 26 July 2012 17:30, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>
>> On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
>>
>> > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of
>> the
>> > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already sc
On 26 July 2012 17:30, Charles Matthews wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
>
> > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the
> > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own
> > goal as far as future relations with other Ch
There's a thread on wikimedia-l at the moment about Photography at the
Olympics. I realise it is somewhat late in the day but is is possible to
add this onto the agenda for the directors meeting tonight?
Is there the possibility of WMUK making a statement to denounce the
position of the Olympic Co
On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews
> wrote:
>> Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a
>> rather different view earlier in this thread. In brief, enWP is not
>> the centre of the WMF universe.
>
>
> To those
On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
> Unfortunately the WCA did not do so when electing its chair. Fae failed to
> warn those present that he was the subject of an Arbcom case which had
> reached its proposed decision stage that already had substantial support
> for a number of motions criti
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a
> rather different view earlier in this thread. In brief, enWP is not
> the centre of the WMF universe.
To those outside the movement, and probably most of those withi
On 26/07/12 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
Unfortunately the WCA did not do so when electing its chair.
Fae, Chaire? News to me! And I a member of World Cube Association!
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimed
On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote:
> By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the
> WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own
> goal as far as future relations with other Chapters are concerned.
Deryck Chan, who was at the releva
In-Reply-To: <5010fb35.9010...@pobox.com>
> I was recently involved in the interviews for the position of Chair
> of a large body (much bigger than Wikimedia UK). This was a public
> appointment, since the body is funded by government funds (but it
> is not a registered charity).
>
> Every cand
DFT? or DFC?
Anyway, I don't think the issue should be was the ANI decision right
or wrong, or even if it was felt to be outwith their proper
jurisdiction, but what is the best thing for WMUK and hopefully for
Fae. With all the hard work Fae has done and hopefully will continue
to do, the ban itsel
On 26 July 2012 15:53, geni wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell wrote:
>> It would be a grave error for the WMUK board to allow its decision making to
>> be dictated by the whims and fancies of ArbCom.
>
> Again no one is suggesting that. I don't think ArbCom have made any
> comment on
On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, there is no issue with the chair being banned,
> particularly by a body that has strayed so far from its remit as the enwiki
> ArbCom.
Again if you read my opening post you will find that that your opinion
of arbcom is quite ir
On 26 July 2012 15:04, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I suggest that anyone who wants to know a bit more about ArbCom, and how it
> works "behind the scenes", have a chat with Charles Matthews or James
> Forrester - both previous arbitrators. I was an arbitrator too - and would
> still be if I had not t
As far as I'm concerned, there is no issue with the chair being banned,
particularly by a body that has strayed so far from its remit as the enwiki
ArbCom.
That committee levelled (or regurgitated) a series of allegations against Fae,
and when it was pointed out that most of those either couldn
On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews wrote:
> No it isn't in any legalistic sense.
That is something of a strawman although I suspect those interested in
that line of argument could make a case based around the object " to
promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and
Time to read
...and comment.
Dear stakeholder,
We're writing to inform you that today, Thursday 26 July 2012, the
Government published the responses it received during its consultation on
Copyright. The Government received 471 responses from interested parties.
The submitted responses, with
I suggest that anyone who wants to know a bit more about ArbCom, and how it
works "behind the scenes", have a chat with Charles Matthews or James
Forrester - both previous arbitrators. I was an arbitrator too - and would
still be if I had not taken this job - but I'm not going to get involved in
th
Fae
I don't know you well - I've met you a few times - and I don't know the
details of the dispute however:
* Arbcom is the highest court on en.wikipedia
* Arbcom only only ban a few people each year
* Arbcom have criticised your behaviour and banned you from Wikipedia
In view of the above I bel
There is bound to be a Postcode for that Freepost address, and if you write
to Wikimedia UK at that Postcode then I would be surprised if it was not
delivered.
WSC
On 26 July 2012 14:36, Deryck Chan wrote:
> Considering that most organisations simply have a Freepost address which
> is a jumble
Considering that most organisations simply have a Freepost address which is
a jumble of random letters, we've come very far!
On 26 July 2012 12:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I love you guys, and I love this list :-)
>
> OK, so: it's Wikipedia with a P, because hardly anyone donates to anything
> e
On 26/07/12 12:26, Thomas Dalton wrote:
That sounds very cool. Wikipedia with a "p"? Is that likely to reduce
or increase confusion compared with having Wikimedia? Is having both
too expensives?
And having just changed the name at the AGM to "Wikimedia UK".
Gordon
On 26 July 2012 12:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how likely the Royal Mail are to just deliver it
> anyway if it has one letter wrong?
Well, there's only one way to find out -- send a letter to FREEPOST
WIKIMEDIA and see what happens. And if it does arrive at the WMUK
office they
On 26 July 2012 12:45, Richard Symonds wrote:
> I love you guys, and I love this list :-)
We love you too.
> OK, so: it's Wikipedia with a P, because hardly anyone donates to anything
> except Wikipedia (although Commons gets about 3% of mentions in donors
> letters at a guess, and Wikinews/Wiki
I love you guys, and I love this list :-)
OK, so: it's Wikipedia with a P, because hardly anyone donates to anything
except Wikipedia (although Commons gets about 3% of mentions in donors
letters at a guess, and Wikinews/WikiSource maybe 1%), and the address is
designed for non-Wikimedians who eit
*cue discussion on trademark we should identify ourselves to the public
with*
On 26 July 2012 12:26, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> That sounds very cool. Wikipedia with a "p"? Is that likely to reduce
> or increase confusion compared with having Wikimedia? Is having both
> too expensives? (I have no id
That sounds very cool. Wikipedia with a "p"? Is that likely to reduce
or increase confusion compared with having Wikimedia? Is having both
too expensives? (I have no idea what the split between fixed and unit
costs are for freepost accounts.)
On 26 July 2012 11:53, Richard Symonds wrote:
> All,
>
On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies wrote:
> And to put this in a human context the board is without a chair on this
> issue as Fae is, quite properly, staying out of the discussions. This is
> making reaching a consensus quite time consuming.
Then, rather obviously, they need to appoint a temporar
All,
Just to let you know that you can now write "FREEPOST WIKIPEDIA", in
capitals, on an envelope, and pop it in the post - it'll come to the
office. There's no need for a stamp.
This is mainly designed to make it easier for donors to contact us, but it
will work fine for volunteers, too, obviou
On 26 July 2012 10:34, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Ok. I will lay out my thinking. Fae, it appears, genuinely has been
> harassed.
True.
>Some of the concerns I have:
>
> * Allegations of behind the scenes movement to avoid scrutiny, for which
> Arbcom banned him. This is probably not the sort of
On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies wrote:
> This is a healthy debate to have and one that I can assure you staff and
> trustees have been engaging in too.
>
> What I would caution against is too much dogmatism. "This is what must
> happen...' etc to paraphrase.
>
> This is a *very* complicated iss
I've already told two people I'm withdrawing my miniscule monthly
contribution if Ashley remains an official, on the grounds that geni
stated at the beginning of this thread.
Doug
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jon Davies wrote:
> This is a healthy debate to have and one that I can assure you s
This is a healthy debate to have and one that I can assure you staff and
trustees have been engaging in too.
What I would caution against is too much dogmatism. "This is what must
happen...' etc to paraphrase.
This is a *very* complicated issue with years of background.
As Chris Keating, a trust
I was recently involved in the interviews for the position of Chair of a
large body (much bigger than Wikimedia UK). This was a public
appointment, since the body is funded by government funds (but it is not
a registered charity).
Every candidate was asked the same question (at the end of t
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni wrote:
> Those who read the signpost or follow arbcom for whatever reason will
> know that “Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language
> Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after
> the enactment of this remedy, and every six months t
97 matches
Mail list logo
