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.
The English wikipedia is by far the most significant project WMUK is involved with and having a board member blocked from it causes a number of problems.
Firstly within the Wikimedia community. Its bit much to ask English wikipedia editors to work with an organisation who's board members include someone banned from the project. Other chapters are also likely to take the pragmatic approach of avoiding dealing with any other chapter that could be considered to have problematic board members. While non en.wikipedia projects may continue to work with us the working with a banned user aspect would in all probability be used by those members of such projects to assert their “not en-wikipedia” status. This is something it would be deeply unwise for WMUK to get involved with.
Outside the Wikimedia community it also present a number of issues. Obviously there are the public relations issues. It simply doesn't look good and can be used against WMUK, en.wikipedia and the wider project. This is not consistent with WMUK's goals. But that aside consider the Society of Biology Wikipedia workshop on the 29th. Fae is as a banned user will be limited in the extent he can show people how to edit en.wikipedia and if the issue does arise it is likely to be more than mildly disruptive to the session to say the least. Asking Fae not to attend such sessions isn't really a solution as a chair of the board we can't be seen in public with isn't a good place to be.
On a purely technical level looking at the Articles of Association Fae can resign. Alternatively its possible that he could be removed by a general meeting (although it isn't entirely clear) Since the AGM is 10 months away an EGM would be required. A final option is that the directors could remove him as a member which has the effect of removing him as a director. Takes 21 days mind.
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On a purely technical level looking at the Articles of Association Fae can resign. Alternatively its possible that he could be removed by a general meeting (although it isn't entirely clear) Since the AGM is 10 months away an EGM would be required. A final option is that the directors could remove him as a member which has the effect of removing him as a director. Takes 21 days mind.
The power of the members to remove a director by ordinary resolution comes from the Companies Act 2006, rather than the Articles. The power definitely exists, though. Calling an EGM would require either a board resolution or 5% of members to request it.
Personally, I'm waiting to see what Fae and the board do before I decide how to proceed with this situation.
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On a purely technical level looking at the Articles of Association Fae can resign. Alternatively its possible that he could be removed by a general meeting (although it isn't entirely clear) Since the AGM is 10 months away an EGM would be required. A final option is that the directors could remove him as a member which has the effect of removing him as a director. Takes 21 days mind.
The power of the members to remove a director by ordinary resolution comes from the Companies Act 2006, rather than the Articles. The power definitely exists, though. Calling an EGM would require either a board resolution or 5% of members to request it.
Personally, I'm waiting to see what Fae and the board do before I decide how to proceed with this situation.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit insane these days. Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as ill-advised.
- d.
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@gmail.com wrote:
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit insane these days. Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as ill-advised.
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 25 July 2012 23:41, Deryck Chan deryckchan@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.
Trying to narrow it down to arbcom is a mistake. The reality is that for any particular arbcom decision to sit they need to maintain the active support of most of the highly active admins and the passive support of a decent majority of the admin/editor community. At the present time they do.
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.
It would rather clash with the object " to promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature or of similar utility to the general public, in particular the Open Content supported and provided by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., based in San Francisco, California, USA."
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.
Well that's something of a misstatement of my argument.
On 25 July 2012 23:12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit insane these days.
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.
Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as ill-advised.
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).
On 25/07/2012 23:12, David Gerard wrote:
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit insane these days. Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as ill-advised.
I'm sorry David, but one can't have an organisation that's so closely associated with said project and then just completely ignore the project's community recognised dispute resolution body whenever we feel like it. If you believe the decision is incorrect in this instance, then address the issue at hand and why it's in WMUK interest for Fae to remain where he is.
KTC
We have a board phone call tomorrow evening, where we will inevitably be discussing this.
If people have views on the matter, please do make them known (in public or in private, as you feel appropriate), preferably before the meeting so we can take account of them.
Thanks,
Chris
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.
That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (though portrayed as one).
Even if it were a matter of fact, as there is no requirement for board members to disclose their username(s) it is impossible to prevent banned users from standing for election to the Board.
On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (though portrayed as one).
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.
Even if it were a matter of fact, as there is no requirement for board members to disclose their username(s) it is impossible to prevent banned users from standing for election to the Board.
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.
On 25 July 2012 23:55, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (though portrayed as one).
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.
Deliberately so; given my position it is inappropriate for me to take sides on the matter.
Even if it were a matter of fact, as there is no requirement for board members to disclose their username(s) it is impossible to prevent banned users from standing for election to the Board.
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.
As may be.
On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Deliberately so; given my position it is inappropriate for me to take sides on the matter.
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.
On 26 July 2012 00:14, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Deliberately so; given my position it is inappropriate for me to take sides on the matter.
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.
What nonsense. I was merely pointing out that there is no automatic bar on banned users serving on the Board. The rest of the legal position has been summed up quite nicely by Thomas Dalton, so I didn't see the need to repeat it.
I would note that your use of the phrases "common English" and "English as its [sic] commonly understood" remind me not a little of Humpty Dumpty.
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
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
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
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 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.
On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
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
-- 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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
On 26 July 2012 10:34, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok. I will lay out my thinking. Fae, it appears, genuinely has been harassed.
True.
<snip>
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.
This is where over-interpretation of ArbCom findings can lead to flawed conclusions. If the ArbCom thinks that someone should be off enWP for the general good, that is within their remit: they have to keep order, to the extent that that can be done, on that one project. Hanging further conclusions on that decision is a bad idea.
<snip>
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.
Well, that reads much better the other way round, doesn't it? Fae has had a torrid time, but can now employ his time for the chapter's benefit.
Charles
On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk 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 temporary chair for this discussion... I shouldn't need to point that out...
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't be proven or were outside of ArbCom's remit, they watered down the wording but not the sanction.
I am not about to pretend I always agree with Fae, nor defend everything he has done, but I would ask that those calling for his head remember that he was comfortably elected as a trustee at the last AGM, unanimously elected chair by his fellow trustees, and uncontroversially (despite the best efforts of a small number of trolls to engineer a controversy after the fact) elected chair of the WCA. All while the issues surrounding Fae on enwiki were going on, and the last days before the conclusion of the "arbitration case" (read: show trial).
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.
Fae has my full support, for whatever it may be worth, to remain as a trustee and as chair. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 12:15 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk 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 temporary chair for this discussion... I shouldn't need to point that out...
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com 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 irrelevant. The arguments would apply just as well if Fae had been community banned on AN/I.
I am not about to pretend I always agree with Fae, nor defend everything he has done, but I would ask that those calling for his head remember that he was comfortably elected as a trustee at the last AGM, unanimously elected chair by his fellow trustees, and uncontroversially (despite the best efforts of a small number of trolls to engineer a controversy after the fact) elected chair of the WCA.
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.
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 if Fae should remain on the board or remain chair of WMUK.
On 26 July 2012 15:53, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com 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 if Fae should remain on the board or remain chair of WMUK.
We could just say that the gamut of possible WMUK reactions runs from OMG to DFT. I'm quite close to the latter view; and I'd be surprised if many arbs disagreed at the personal level.
Charles
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@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 26 July 2012 15:53, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com 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 if Fae should remain on the board or remain chair of WMUK.
We could just say that the gamut of possible WMUK reactions runs from OMG to DFT. I'm quite close to the latter view; and I'd be surprised if many arbs disagreed at the personal level.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com 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 contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature or of similar utility to the general public, in particular the Open Content supported and provided by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., based in San Francisco, California, USA."
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.
I'd say it largely has calmed down unless the signpost decides to run another article.
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.
Which is why none of my arguments were based on the premise of reading anything into the arbcom decision.
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 believe that you should resign as chairman of WMUK.
If you believe Arbcom have acted in error then the appropriate course is to appeal that decision or to call for the restructuring of Arbcom..
I am very sorry that it has come to this and I hope this issue is resolved but, until it is resolved, I believe it is not appropriate for you to occupy such a prominent position in WMUK.
Yours.
Joe
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 this discussion. Do talk to James or Charles if you have any questions though - they really know their stuff.
And apologies to any ex-arbs on the list who I've not mentioned!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 26 July 2012 14:52, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
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 believe that you should resign as chairman of WMUK.
If you believe Arbcom have acted in error then the appropriate course is to appeal that decision or to call for the restructuring of Arbcom..
I am very sorry that it has come to this and I hope this issue is resolved but, until it is resolved, I believe it is not appropriate for you to occupy such a prominent position in WMUK.
Yours.
Joe
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 26 July 2012 15:04, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk 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 taken this job - but I'm not going to get involved in this discussion. Do talk to James or Charles if you have any questions though - they really know their stuff.
And apologies to any ex-arbs on the list who I've not mentioned!
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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org