On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies <jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk> 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 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.
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