On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: To those outside the movement, and probably most of those within, it is, isn't it? Martin

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 months. Fae was elected Chair of WCA on Wednesday 11 July (if I recall correctly). Here's the diff to the PD page at the end of that day: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Ca… Nobody reading that could conclude that Fae was getting any more than a "slap on the wrist". Yet the motion to ban came without any further presentation of evidence, or discussion at the workshop. It's easy to criticise with 20/20 hindsight, but it is very unfair to suggest that Fae was concealing anything significant when he stood for election at WCA. Besides all that, he's made a good job of it. Secondly, enwp is not the centre of the world for many editors - and Fae is one of them. He has three times as many edits to Commons as he has to enwp. There is still plenty of work for him to do within the other Wikimedia projects, not least of which is the excellent work he continues to do in the GLAM field. -- Doug On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>wrote;wrote:

On 26 July 2012 18:19, Martin Peeks <martinp23(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Can't answer the question, but the basis was for year-on-year editor figures and presumably comes out of the WMF analytics, now a team of three. That's a fairer point than dragging the WCA into it. I'm tempted to say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" re enWP: those most likely to be at the OMG end of my proposed scale are those who know enough to be able to say what the ArbCom is; but not enough to know what it actually has to cope with (e.g. give some satisfaction some of the time to the guys wearing the black hats, because the system has to have integrity). Charles

On 26 July 2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote: What appeal processes? Arbcom aren't going to just change their minds. The community isn't going to reach a consensus on anything this divisive. Does Jimmy even hear appeals any more? If he does, I don't have any more faith in his judgement than I do Arbcom's. 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 was only hearsay that the conversation was at all inappropriate). My view is that either Fae should resign in order to save WMUK from having to deal with this, or we should have an EGM and let the members decide. If a majority of members at the meeting vote in support of Fae, then he'll have a renewed mandate to continue on the board (which he continues as chair is entirely the board's decision - I don't think the members should interfere in that). I think that renewed mandate should prevent most negative PR for the chapter. It could create some negative PR for the movement generally due to internal conflict, but we can survive that.

On 26 July 2012 20:31, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: The general public don't know ArbCom exists, and the general Wikimedian doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion.

On 26 July 2012 20:37, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Fae is banned from wikipedia. Again if you read my opening post you will find that the mechanism is quite quite irrelevant. -- geni

On 26 July 2012 20:43, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> 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. -- geni

On 26 July 2012 20:59, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which is why my initial assertion was backed up by a number of lines of argument. -- geni

David Gerard will explain all on BBC TV and radio in the morning.... And there will be no "drooling morons" or "batshit insanity"......... Gordo

On 26 July 2012 21:48, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: “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.” If you are going to quibble over my missing the word "english" when we all know which wikipedia I'm referring to could you at least have the decency to use Wesh or your preferred version of Gaelic. -- geni

On 26 July 2012 22:43, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: 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

On 26 July 2012 23:05, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: Oh. Spelling flames. -- geni

What is the governance structure of ArbCom? Gordo

On 26 July 2012 20:51, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote: A solution that takes 6 months isn't really a solution at all... if the situation is resolved (from WMUK's point of view) in 6 months, then it will have been extremely badly handled by all involved...

On 26/07/2012 20:01, WereSpielChequers wrote: Just because someone is a victim in some situation doesn't mean they can do no wrong.... KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

On 26 July 2012 23:00, Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors The English Wikipedia (actually it just says "English", but whether or not it includes the sister projects will make minimal difference) represents about 40% of active editors (ie. logged in editors with more than 5 edits in a given month).

On 26 July 2012 19:26, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: You have to use the same definition for numerator and denominator...

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: 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 so does the entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. ArbCom had a number of reasons for their decision to ban Fae. These included that he operated about a dozen different accounts, refused to disclose all of them to ArbCom, and had in their view attempted to deceive both the Wikipedia community and ArbCom itself. Fae used commercial porn sites as biographical sources in Wikipedia. In one case in June last year, he linked directly to a video clip showing the biography subject, a black woman author, having sex (these were scenes from a video she had tried to suppress), and vigorously defended that BLP sourcing. He has since apologised for this error in judgment, but this must be seen against the backdrop that it was Fae who, only a few weeks later, told Parliament and the Charity Commission that the English Wikipedia had an effective BLP policy, which was being effectively maintained by the site's administrators, such as himself. Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation.

Ok, fair enough - to frame it somewhat differently. I'm aware that as a party who was subjected to Fae's behaviour on-wiki by views are somewhat coloured - but I don't see such a lack of substance in the allegations. And certainly the copyright issue is pertinent to the chapter activities; enough to make an internal investigation to clear (or otherwise) his name important. With regards to this statement; my concern stems from the fact that the statement does not make any notes about the extent to which the board has examined the matter. It simply says that they have noted the case and the ban, and are happy for Fae's continued membership/directorship. They have not: a) Addressed any of the specific concerns raised by members on this list (which seems entirely relevant) b) Made any attempt to suggest they have examined the case and allegations and found them insubstantial enough for action. e.g. "We have spoken with the relevant parties and are happy that nothing has occured that makes Fae's position untenable" (I'm not expressing this well; but the point I am making is the statement sounds cursory) Tom

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that each individual arbitrator was voted into office with 300 to 600 Wikimedians' support votes, vs. three or four dozen for each Wikimedia UK board member. ArbCom represents a significantly greater Wikimedia electorate (probably even within the UK) than the WMUK board. But no matter. I agree arguments about numbers are tedious. Fair enough, Charles. Let me add that, like everyone else, I don't agree with every detail of every ArbCom decision either. That's only natural; the arbs don't even always agree among themselves. But on the whole I believe the committee as a group get it right, and significantly more so than the community average as expressed at a free-for-all venue like ANI. If ANI were all Wikipedia had, all hope would be lost. Even where I wish ArbCom had decided differently in a specific case, I can still see that the decision they made was made in good faith, and within the realm of what's reasonable. One can't ask for more than that.

On 27 July 2012 16:35, e-mail freezetag &lt;freezetag(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; wrote: Yes, but what proportion of the UK community has joined WMUK? Not a particularly large proportion.

On 26 July 2012 17:30, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt;wrote;wrote: Indeed. I think no-one among the few en.wp editors at the WCA meeting shouted "danger" because we all felt that Fæ's competence to get WCA moving outweigh potential problems caused by an ongoing arb case. It should be pointed out that only five days after Fæ was elected as WCA chair was the "Fæ indef-banned" motion drafted into the arb case's proposed decision by SirFozzie. Deryck