On 27 July 2012 08:23, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> The Board points out that the editing issues were fully public before, and >> during, the recent elections to the board, and were openly and publicly >> discussed. Our membership placed their trust in him by electing him as a >> Trustee. He was then elected unanimously as Chair of the Board. He continues >> to have the full support of the Board. >> > > Just to be clear; is the board here admitting knowledge of Fae's problematic > behaviour prior to the election? > > Why was this not investigated or mentioned at that point? > > What about the problematic editing history post-election which is what > ultimately led to the Arbcom case? > > Did the board, as I suggested, consider looking into the copyright > allegations - which are clearly of great pertinence to e.g. GLAM & WMUK. > > Did the board discuss, and adopt a stance, in relation to how Fae would be > able to function when in situations where people were editing Wikipedia > (i.e. obviously he cannot participate or assist anyone in doing so). > > Unfortunately, although I admire the support you have shown him, I can't > help feeling that there is more of a knee jerk gathering of the caravans > here, rather than the full, frank independent investigation I suggested.
OK, you can properly pursue this matter here, or offline with Board members, or in conjunction with the next Board elections and AGM, and so on. But I suggest you assume good faith in so doing. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
