> > 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
