On 26 July 2012 08:55, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@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. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
