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 about relevance of Arbcom or the position of the English Wikipedia itself, as a flagship. It is barely relevant to the facts of this case, without reaffirming or denying anything. Given the same set of diffs and information the Arbs were provided, I'm uncertain if their decision would not be repeated. 

I don't deny that what transpired, did not border on harassment for Fae. It did however generate a conflict between the involved parties. A conflict, that runs the risk of being prolonged and repeating itself, elsewhere. Some instance of it has already made its way to Meta, where I fear it can run a similar course. As it stands, any public post by Fae runs the risk of the same egregious history being brought up again, leading to further acrimony. This is an unfortunate situation without a doubt.

Aside from this contentious issue, the board should acknowledge and reaffirm the great work Fae has done, as several chapter members have already stated. But this actually affects Fae more than anyone else. Is he open to more acrimony, in more venues, if this issue drags out? He already went through a difficult time, and this might extend some of the acerbity, if he places himself into prominence. This is the implication Fae and indirectly WMUK need to consider. He should without a doubt, remain involved with the chapter and disprove all the naysayers, but the prominence being placed here, might not be conducive to the larger goal of the chapter or any future organization.

Anyway, My best wishes to Fae through this difficult time. 

Regards
Theo

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:47 AM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:


On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com> 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 Gerard's assessment of them.

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, and they have exposed the community to headlines along the lines of "Wikipedia responds to cyber-bullying by identifying and banning the victim."

Nice headline. I think the premise of many Wikipedia behaviour policies is to keep order. Therefore, oftentimes in such inflamed situation the only correct thing to do is to ban both sides of the harassment, both the harasser and the harassed. 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.

That sort of rough justice might work in a pub, and you could be right in your explanation of Arbcom's motives. But if so it is a crass way to run an intellectual endeavour. It is also far more toxic to the project to block the victim and thereby encourage the harassers than it would be to block  or Iban those who subsequently gang up on them.

WSC

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org