I'll note that WMF has provided a statement here:

I find WMF's justifications for its actions to be unpersuasive. WMF's
policies can (within some legal limits) be changed by WMF, so using WMF
policy is not a sufficient justification. I also am troubled that WMF
states that it lacked confidence in Arbcom's ability to handle a case but,
as far as I know, WMF did not present evidence of Arbcom's problems to the
ENWP community so that the community could address them. If there is a
problem with Arbcom then that is first and foremost for us as a community
to address, and WMF almost likely should not have bypassed Arbcom in an
individual case. An analogy would be the U.S. President bypassing U.S.
Federal courts in an individual case because he/she does not trust the
courts to handle the case in the manner that the President wants.

At the same time, I would not approve of criticizing someone for
communicating a concern to WMF. Sometimes people don't know where to
communicate their concerns, and someone might have had a legitimate concern
about Arbcom's ability to handle a case in an impartial manner. I think
that WMF should have handled this differently than it did, but that does
not mean that any original concern about Fram and/or Arbcom were invalid.

I would not sanction someone who communicated a concern to WMF for doing
that. However, if I had the authority to do so, I would consider applying a
sanction against WMF for its handling of this matter.

( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to