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 25 July 2012 22:40, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those who read the signpost or follow arbcom for whatever reason willNo it isn't in any legalistic sense. It is also not "incompatible"
> 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.
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