Tom, you know I respect your opinion, but I think you're trying to read more
into the board's statement than is there and you're misinterpreting it in a way
that supports your view.
The issues surrounding Fae on enwiki were well known at the time of the AGM,
and the membership re-elected Fae by a healthy margin. It is disingenuous to
pretend that the issues were significantly less mature at the AGM than they
were days later when the arbitration case in question (the second on the issue
- of which the first was declined) was filed.
It is not within the remit of the board to investigate half-baked allegations
of on-wiki misconduct, especially when nobody making the allegations appears
(and do correct me if I've missed something) to have substantiated them with
conclusive evidence. Nor is it within its remit to determine what sort of
editing instruction Fae can undertake. He can ask for help if he's running an
event that requires editing, and if the line between training and proxying for
a banned user, he can seek clarification from ArbCom or the community.
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________
From: Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Friday, 27 July 2012, 8:23
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van
Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK
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.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
