Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

That would make an interesting project, Tom. I don't know how big the UK community is (or how we'd define it), but I do try to encourage meetups around the country as much as I can. We ought to have a recruitment drive to convert interested editors into members and try to engage them in a broader

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 27 July 2012 16:35, e-mail freezetag wrote: > Of course another way of looking at the "tedious numbers" discussion is that > less than 0.5% of the active users on the English Wikipedia bothered to vote > in the ArbCom elections. Having something like 1 in 200 of the eligible > electorate turnin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

Of course another way of looking at the "tedious numbers" discussion is that less than 0.5% of the active users on the English Wikipedia bothered to vote in the ArbCom elections. Having something like 1 in 200 of the eligible electorate turning out to vote is an interesting comparison with the WMUK

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 27 July 2012 12:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote:> > Everybody > > on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so does > the > > entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

It is absolutely vital to remember, for reasons that are global and legal, that the Chapter does not have a purview over individual's on-wiki behaviour. The board has accepted the Arbcom judgement - it is their business. I could write up pages of the discussion from last night but we would risk tu

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

> > I am not going to say "let's move on", because the topic of the thread > is a legitimate one for members of the chapter to discuss. I am not > myself a WMUK member, and I have things to do now, as do the Board and > Fae. I have my own views on framing the issue, which have to some > extent appe

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 27 July 2012 12:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> >> The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions > > > I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Perhaps you would be less surprised if you had been

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions > I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

http://www.copytrader.net On Thu Jul 26 17:14 , geni sent: On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote: > >> Fae is banned from wikipedia. > > No he isn't. “Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote: > > Yes Fæ is the victim, but I believe arbcom made > their ruling on the grounds that if Fæ sticks around too many people will > continue to gang up on him and distract everyone else from the project. It's really hard to see how you could possibly come t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

If I may interject here for a moment. I'm a supporter of WMUK, and I hope I'm not overstepping any bounds by stating something here. I have heard nothing but good things about Fae, and I hope I don't need to acknowledge his good work. I saw this discussion devolve into more generalized topics abou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 18:12, geni wrote: > Oh. Spelling flames. No. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 23:17, WereSpielChequers wrote: > > On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote: > >> On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: >> >>> It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had >>> said to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan wrote: > On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: > >> It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said >> to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I >> would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 23:05, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 26 July 2012 17:55, geni wrote: >> On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > The issue is messy enough without people engaging in game playing. > > "...use Wesh [sic] or your preferred version of Gaelic". PKB. > Oh. Spelling flames. -- ge

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:55, geni wrote: > On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote: The issue is messy enough without people engaging in game playing. "...use Wesh [sic] or your preferred version of Gaelic". PKB. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: > It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said > to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I > would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I now find myself almost > agreeing with David Gera

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett wrote: > In view of the nature of your error, I was using Simple English. If there is a point you wish to make please do so in a direct and straightforward manner. The issue is messy enough without people engaging in game playing. -- geni _

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:14, geni wrote: > On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote: >> >>> Fae is banned from wikipedia. >> >> No he isn't. > > > “Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language > Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six mont

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote: > >> Fae is banned from wikipedia. > > No he isn't. “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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 15:39, geni wrote: > Fae is banned from wikipedia. No he isn't. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26/07/12 20:59, Thomas Dalton wrote: An assertion is not an argument. It can be contradicted. It cannot be countered. Didn't Karl Popper say that? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/l

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

David Gerard will explain all on BBC TV and radio in the morning And there will be no "drooling morons" or "batshit insanity". Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

> > I did read the case, and the only accusation that has any evidence (or > is even coherently made) is the misuse of multiple accounts. That > doesn't warrant an indefinite ban. The ban is because he had the > audacity to speak to a member of Foundation staff while waiting for a > lift... (there

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:59, Thomas Dalton wrote: > An assertion is not an argument. It can be contradicted. It cannot be > countered. Which is why my initial assertion was backed up by a number of lines of argument. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:58, geni wrote: > Well do don't really know since no attempt has been made to counter my > arguments. In part this may be because I was well aware of the most > likely issues that people would bring up so formulated my arguments so > they would stand regardless of those issues.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:43, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 July 2012 20:39, geni wrote: >> Fae is banned from wikipedia. Again if you read my opening post you >> will find that the mechanism is quite quite irrelevant. > > Your opening post contains a number of unsubstantiated assertions. > Clearly the p

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:51, WereSpielChequers wrote: > There are several appeals possible. Jimmy has indicated that he wants to be > replaced as the appeal route for Arbcom decisions, and that he will be > giving up some of his Founder powers later this year. So Fae could appeal to > Jimmy now, or wait

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

There are several appeals possible. Jimmy has indicated that he wants to be replaced as the appeal route for Arbcom decisions, and that he will be giving up some of his Founder powers later this year. So Fae could appeal to Jimmy now, or wait for an alternative appeal process later this year, or wa

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26/07/2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: To my mind the worst thing about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision was that Arbcom agreed that Fae had been harassed, but they banned him anyway. In my view Arbcom has made the wrong decision,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:39, geni wrote: > Fae is banned from wikipedia. Again if you read my opening post you > will find that the mechanism is quite quite irrelevant. Your opening post contains a number of unsubstantiated assertions. Clearly the people disagreeing with you disagree with those asserti

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

What is the governance structure of ArbCom? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:37, David Gerard wrote: > On 26 July 2012 20:33, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general >> Wikimedian doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion. > > > "This body you've never heard of and don't care about banned Fae, so > we

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:33, Thomas Dalton wrote: > The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general > Wikimedian doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion. "This body you've never heard of and don't care about banned Fae, so we had to fire him." - d.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:31, David Gerard wrote: > Everyone else thinks the arbcom is insane too, AFAICT. If WMUK says > "um, no" to such obvious railroading, it will certainly not be to > WMUK's discredit. The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general Wikimedian doesn't know enough abou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:14, Thomas Dalton wrote: > It could create some > negative PR for the movement generally due to internal conflict, but > we can survive that. Everyone else thinks the arbcom is insane too, AFAICT. If WMUK says "um, no" to such obvious railroading, it will certainly not be to

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: > My suggestion would be that Fae use the available appeal processes, and that > hopefully Arbcom can be reformed or brought to its senses. What appeal processes? Arbcom aren't going to just change their minds. The community isn't going to reach a c

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

It is a deeply unfortunate situation. A few months ago if anyone had said to me that Arbcom were capable of some of their recent behaviour then I would have been inclined to defend Arbcom. But I now find myself almost agreeing with David Gerard's assessment of them. To my mind the worst thing abou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 19:31, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > You have to use the same definition for numerator and denominator... Not for Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 19:26, Charles Matthews wrote: > Yes, but. EnWP really only has 3500 active editors, and saying it has > 35K is grossly misleading. In any case I was taking 4000 "active on > the English Wikipedia in a significant way" editors for my 5%. (I so > didn't want to get involved in this

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 19:19, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the >> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the >> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews wrote: > The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the > Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the > figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across all projects, > and the proportion of those active on

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 18:19, Martin Peeks wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews >> The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the >> Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the >> figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews >> wrote: >>> Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a >>> rather different view earlier in this thread. In brie

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own > goal as far as future relations with other Chapters are concerned. Fae didn't put himself forward, he

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On a couple of points of fact: The motion to ban Fae was not presented by ArbCom until Monday 16 July and came as a complete surprise to those of us who had been following the case. Prior to that Fae had voluntarily resigned his sysop and declared that he would not seen another RfA for at least 12

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:51, Deryck Chan wrote: > > > On 26 July 2012 17:30, Charles Matthews > wrote: > >> On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: >> >> > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of >> the >> > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already sc

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:30, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: > > > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the > > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own > > goal as far as future relations with other Ch

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a >> rather different view earlier in this thread. In brief, enWP is not >> the centre of the WMF universe. > > > To those

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: > Unfortunately the WCA did not do so when electing its chair. Fae failed to > warn those present that he was the subject of an Arbcom case which had > reached its proposed decision stage that already had substantial support > for a number of motions criti

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a > rather different view earlier in this thread. In brief, enWP is not > the centre of the WMF universe. To those outside the movement, and probably most of those withi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26/07/12 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: Unfortunately the WCA did not do so when electing its chair. Fae, Chaire? News to me! And I a member of World Cube Association! Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 17:21, Peter Cohen wrote: > By allowing Fae to go ahead in having himself put forward as chair of the > WCA, the Chief Executive and Trustees of WMUK have already scored an own > goal as far as future relations with other Chapters are concerned. Deryck Chan, who was at the releva

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

In-Reply-To: <5010fb35.9010...@pobox.com> > 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 cand

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 itsel

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 15:53, geni wrote: > On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 15:31, HJ Mitchell 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 ir

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 15:04, Richard Symonds 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 t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

chair.    Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell From: Thomas Dalton To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012, 12:15 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair On 26 July 2012 09:17,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 bel

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies 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 temporar

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 10:34, Thomas Morton wrote: > Ok. I will lay out my thinking. Fae, it appears, genuinely has been > harassed. True. >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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 09:17, Jon Davies 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 iss

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 wrote: > This is a healthy debate to have and one that I can assure you s

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 trust

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni 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 t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 00:14, geni wrote: > On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar 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 pos

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:41, Deryck Chan 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 t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:55, geni wrote: > On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar 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 yo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar 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 wer

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:12, David Gerard 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 w

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 mus

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni 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 t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni 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 fina

[Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

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 r