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.
 

I hope the UK chapter does not broaden the damage to the movement by dumping Fae as Chair.

My suggestion would be that Fae use the available appeal processes, and that hopefully Arbcom can be reformed or brought to its senses. In the mean time I would suggest that anyone who calls for Fae to resign should first read that Arbcom case very carefully.

WSC



On 26 July 2012 18:19, Martin Peeks <martinp23@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks <martinp23@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews
>> <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> 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 within, it
>> is, isn't it?
>>
>
> 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 the English Wikipedia in a
> significant way would be about 5%, I think. So in terms of the
> movement as a whole, enWP drama is not actually more than a cable
> channel?
>
> Charles

Possibly worldwide, on aggregate, yes. Does the 80,000 represent
"active" editors across all projects to the same standard of
"activity"?

However, more importantly for the broader issue (perhaps less so for
the WCA side-line) is that for WMUK's intended (or actual/most
relevant) audience - ie UK residents - enwp is by far and away the
primary project.

Martin

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


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