I was going to say that I was somewhat surprised that WMUK elected someone who was at ArbCom at the time, but then looked it up and noticed there was a two week period between Fae's election and the opening of the case. It seems to me that Ashley was elected on the basis of competence, experience and professional skills offline, all qualities he presumably still has despite the findings of the Arbitration Committee about his behaviour on-wiki. That behaviour has been punished, I don't see why WMUK need be plunged into chaos if he's still doing a good job, though I don't work with him so I'm not qualified to judge. If the issue is one of confidence, perhaps we should have a recall vote (as Fae was open to recall for admin rights), and Ashley can choose to resign or not from that - it would save a lot of legal hassle, at any rate. Sarah ----------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dev920 On 25 July 2012 22:51, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

It is in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement that different projects and communities within the movement make decisions independently, and decisions on one project need not affect another. Therefore, I'm with David and many others in the opinion that the en.wp arbcom ban need not imply that Fæ must step down as WMUK chair. However, if Fæ does remain as WMUK chair, we will inevitably be making a stance of antagonism towards en.wp. The Chapters Association can afford to take such a stance because it's a multicultural association and few in its active community are heavily involved with en.wp; but with en.wp being the single largest Wikimedia project WMUK members also participate in, we might want to rethink. A board resolution or an EGM reconfirmation vote will let us make ourselves clear as to whether we want to say "screw you en.wp arbcom, we love Fæ", or "we want to be nice, be risk-averse, and avoid a PR crisis". However, we as WMUK must make our position clear on this. Not taking a stance would be the worst PR disaster we can create for ourselves at this point. Deryck On 25 July 2012 23:12, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 25 July 2012 23:12, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your personal disagreement with them does not equate to being "batshit insane". The reality is that any group exhibiting that tendency wouldn't survive within wikipedia political environment while in a position to wield power for any non trivial length of time. Furthermore a fair chunk of them were elected as recently as this year with more vote than WMUK has memebers which is not really something someone exhibiting features of "batshit insanity" would be able to pull off. It really matters very little as long as the ban holds (and so far there is no evidence that it won't; I've seen community overturns of arbcom decisions they involve more than a few talk page comments an attack on the signpost and a rather meta thread at the village pump). My arguments apply pretty much regardless of the banning mechanism (well other than an WP:OFFICE). -- geni

On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Within common English it is an accepted way of stating a firmly held opinion and it was backed up by a number of arguments which you have failed to address. Firstly someone doing it in secret would present a very different political situation. Secondly in practice the pretty much standard question between wikipedians meeting in meatspace is what is your usename. Not answering would make getting elected difficult. You in any case appear to be attacking a strawman. -- geni

On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: They you probably shouldn't have made you initial post. Within English as its commonly understood by making even a not very effective attempt to counter my post you were taking sides. -- geni

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 the interview). I paraphrase.... "Is there anything in your past which, if were it to come to light, would harm yourself or this organisation?" I believe this is standard practice for public appointments. Gordo

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 trustee, has said, let me know what you think, in confidence if you would prefer, and I will continue to report your feelings. 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. The board meets tonight so any thoughts, preferably in the proper Wikipedian spirit, to me by then. Jon Davies Chief Executive. On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>wrote;wrote: -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513 Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). It is an independent non-profit organization with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: Ok. I will lay out my thinking. Fae, it appears, genuinely has been harassed. He has also got some significant problems on Wikimedia Foundation projects; Arbcom have some findings in this regard. They retracted the finding that he misused his position in WMUK to try and influence their decision (which, if it had stood I think would have been grounds for immediate resignation). One of the major findings, though, is that he has struggled to separate criticism from harassment and has been abusive to a number of individuals (quite understandably in some circumstances, as I believe he has been feeling very stressed). 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 behaviour the chair of a public charity should be undertaking, or seen to be undertaking. I understand Fae disputes this particular finding - but nothing conclusive has been presented to lay these allegations to rest. * There are allegations of Copyright issues - both historically and more recent. Arbcom declined to address this as outside their remit - although Silk Stork did indicate he thought they seemed minor matters. However it is certainly something for WMUK to consider investigating, especially given Fae's particular interest in GLAM work. * There was evidence of various campaigns against people who have been rude about him offsite; i.e. taking the disputes on-wiki, trying the push for disclosures on Wiki & attacks on people levelling criticism as being under the influence of people with whom Fae has a personal dispute. There is also the problem that Fae's apparent desire to lead an anonymous editing career is at odds with the prominent public position he holds. I am confident that Fae, as any sensible individual would, will be offering his resignation tonight. The directorship and chair position are distractions from the work he is undertaking within the movement. My first concern is for his own safety and well being; continuing to hold these prominent positions is only going to increase the pressure and scrutiny on him. A break from that situation can only be a good thing; Arbcom banned Fae to give him space to resolve these personal issues, for example. As someone who suffered severe online/offline harassment - one of the key ways of stopping the cycle is removing yourself from it. This seems unfair, and it is, but it really is the only aspect you have control over. My second concern is for the charity and its public image - it is important that we maintain a good working relationship with English Wikipedia and other public bodies. Plus our public image is a concern. Unfortunately, "Wki UK Charity head is banned from Wikipedia" is a headline. Plus we have an issue with things like editathons & training sessions; En.Wiki has pretty staunch rules about editing on behalf of a banned editor - it's probably unfair for Wiki-Newbies to be put in the position that their tutor is restricted from editing. The board needs to consider all of these things. I'd suggest that one approach to be taken might be to set up a small panel to investigate the matter on a wider remit than Arbcom had - specifically looking at the copyright and privacy concerns. It may be that the membership decides to stand behind Fae - but I believe that should only be after a full and frank internal look at the matter. One of the problems the Arbcom case suffered from was a variety of knee jerk reactions. One reason I am stating this all publicly is that several WMUK members I have spoken to recently have expressed many similar concerns - but have also indicated that they are wary of making public statements because of a fear of being accused of harassment. I am attempting not to stray too far into territory which distresses Fae, and I am aware of his personal upset over these matters, but equally the reputation of the charity is an important consideration. But with all that said; I believe Fae will do the right thing this evening. Tom

On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: Then, rather obviously, they need to appoint a temporary chair for this discussion... I shouldn't need to point that out...

On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell <hjmitchell(a)ymail.com> wrote: Again if you read my opening post you will find that that your opinion of arbcom is quite irrelevant. The arguments would apply just as well if Fae had been community banned on AN/I. First two were pre opening of arbcom case and the third, well are you seriously trying to describe argue that [[User:The ed17]] is a troll? The data we have suggests that the WCA being a largely non en project (their official language is esperanto) wasn't aware of the situation and we don't know how they are going to react now. Again no one is suggesting that. I don't think ArbCom have made any comment on if Fae should remain on the board or remain chair of WMUK. -- geni

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 itself is going to be problem enough for him (and WMUK0, without his staying on in an official capacity. I think it would be in everyone's interest if Fae resigned and was thanked for his hard work by the Board, without any hint of blame being put on anyone. Doug On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: -- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk

On 26 July 2012 15:04, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: More than happy to do that; NB David Gerard was an Arb briefly, and then participated on the Arbitration list for a long time, so also has the background. Geni as OP having said something I agree with about the content of the decision, I'm left roughly where I was. I think the more familiarity people have with the way the Arbitration Committee operates, the less they will find it relevant, in itself, to the chapter. Of course talk is free: I expressed my personal opinion on this business to a Board member a little while ago, and to Jon Davies again today. Charles