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@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni geniice@gmail.com 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 thereafter.”
This is incompatible with him remaining chair and for that matter a board member.
No it isn't in any legalistic sense. It is also not "incompatible" with Fæ getting on with serious work for the chapter while the enWP situation, involving a high degree of mischief-making, calms down.
To try to make the point concisely: ArbCom makes judgements of this kind, "what, all considered, is the best thing to do about this mess/wrangle/farrago we have been asked to sort out?" Quarrels gets dumped in its lap, and it has to make a call about where next. To take its remit, which is solely about enWP, to be wider, is a sort of mistake of reading too much in.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org