User talk:Peter Damian: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:
I have left an answer to your question on my talkpage. Regards, [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have left an answer to your question on my talkpage. Regards, [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
: Thanks for your answer (namely to the question, who was involved in the 26 September UKCC submission).  Obviously I can't reply on your page.  Can you clarify if the board agreed to this block?  I originally asked Roger Bamkin the same questions by email, but he refused to reply, saying that I should put all my questions via this page [[Talk:2012_Activity_Plan]].  Someone called 'the Land' (i.e. Keating, another director) then deleted the relevant parts of that page, clearly not having communicated with Bamkin.  I then expressed concern about misrepresention to the UKCC.  I made no allegations, merely expressed concern. Now I am blocked. Surely you can see, or at least one of the directors can see, that this is not a sensible approach?  The UKCC requires that plaintiffs take up their case with the charity in the first case.  I will tell that that I was blocked when I did so, but this is not helping your case, such as it is.  Can you clarify the reason for the block, please? [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
: Thanks for your answer (namely to the question, who was involved in the 26 September UKCC submission).  Obviously I can't reply on your page.  Can you clarify if the board agreed to this block?  I originally asked Roger Bamkin the same questions by email, but he refused to reply, saying that I should put all my questions via this page [[Talk:2012_Activity_Plan]].  Someone called 'the Land' (i.e. Keating, another director) then deleted the relevant parts of that page, clearly not having communicated with Bamkin.  I then expressed concern about misrepresention to the UKCC.  I made no allegations, merely expressed concern. Now I am blocked. Surely you can see, or at least one of the directors can see, that this is not a sensible approach?  The UKCC requires that plaintiffs take up their case with the charity in the first case.  I will tell that that I was blocked when I did so, but this is not helping your case, such as it is.  Can you clarify the reason for the block, please? [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
==Discussion moved from [[Talk:2012 Activity Plan]]==
=== How is this money being spent? ===
I have looked carefully at this page but it is not clear exactly how the money is going to be spent. In particular, is all spending consistent with the objectives of Wikimedia UK?  And is it consistent with what donors ''expect'' their money to be spent on?  Given that donors are likely to have come via the WMUK banner reached from Wikipedia, they will expect their money to be spent on Wikipedia itself.  Which is not the case. See my post on ''Beyond Necessity'' [http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/11/want-to-donate-to-wikipedia.html today]. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
:I think the plan is pretty clear. If you let us know which parts are difficult to understand, I'm sure the board would be happy to clarify them. WMUK's objectives are [[Articles_of_Association#Objects|here]] (they were recently re-written to make it clearer how our work is charitable under UK law and the members approved the new version at [[EGM 2011|an EGM]]) and I think everything in the plan falls within those objectives. Are there any specific planned activities that you think aren't within those objectives? A very large proportion of WMUK's spending is intended to improve Wikipedia or to help people make better use of Wikipedia (both through funding the WMF and through direct spending in the UK). Some things are a little more general and support free and open content on more than just Wikipedia, but they are still in keeping with the movement donors are choosing the support. This plan was published to that donors could see what we plan to do with their money, so if donors don't like what we're planning to do they are welcome to just not donate. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
::Are you a board member?  I would prefer someone from the board to start the dialogue, or someone acting for the board.  Are you acting for the board?  I wrote to Roger Bamkin twice, no reply.  I also have contacted the trustees via Stone King, WMUK solicitors.  Objective one: agree that the dialogue can be started.  I am happy to visit WMUK offices (Leonard St) any time.  Best [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 08:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Hi Peter. Tango isn't a current board member, but he's very knowledgeable about what WMUK has been doing, and is planning to do - so it's worth listening to what he's saying. I think he's replied to your questions above, so I won't duplicate what he's already said. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:: Another separate question I have is why Stone King's press release said that "Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that it had high standards for controlling and monitoring the content of Wikipedia so that it was not easily open to abuse".  This seems to contradict the statement on your [[Main Page]] that "we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, ''and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects''. This disclaimer was added by Mike Peel in [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=4000 June 2009]. But, as I say, we need to start the dialogue first. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 08:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
::: That quote isn't in [http://www.stoneking.co.uk/news/articles/-/page/1244/ Stone King's press release]; it appears to come from [http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/go/governance/article/1102747/wikimedia-uk-granted-charity-status/ the article in ThirdSector], and it is a misquote. It should have said something more along the lines of 'Wikimedia UK had to demonstrate that high standards were in place for controlling and monitoring' etc. - the control and monitoring is done by the online community, and by the Wikimedia Foundation where needed - obviously not by Wikimedia UK. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 10:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: OK that makes more sense.  Well, slightly more.  So WMUK only has to ''demonstrate'' that high standards are in place for controlling and monitoring, and not to ''ensure''. Correct?  How does it "demonstrate" this though? BTW I suggested to Bamkin on Commons that we continue the discussion more formally, now that you know what I am asking about. Can you suggest a venue? [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 13:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Peter, I'm not sure where these two emails to me are. I have searched my email account for your surname and not found them on a note addressed to me. I have found your comment on my account on Commons but I see that Mike has addressed your concern above over the Stone King announcement. Would it be a good idea to keep these discussions in one place? Could I suggest here. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Hi I sent to roger.bamkin{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk.  Is that not correct?  Note also the correct surname in my signature below, to avoid all confusion. Mike has addressed the first question, but has not answered the second, namely to clarify whether WMUK still has to ''demonstrate'' hat high standards are in place for controlling and monitoring.  Happy to keep the discussion here, but there is a bit still on your page at Commons.  Regards [[User:Peter Damian|Edward Buckner]] 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The Charity Commission has approved WMUK's application, so they clearly feel that WMUK has sufficiently demonstrated that high standards are ensured. That involved explaining, and providing evidence for, what processes exist to ensure high standards (most of which are processes implemented by and performed by the volunteer community, with a few extra processes handled by the WMF over certain legal matters). I am unclear on why you feel a more formal discussion is required. WMUK's charity status is a matter between WMUK and the Charity Commission. You have no formal involvement in it. In the interests of transparency, I and the WMUK board are happy to answer your questions (as I believe we have now done here), but a formal discussion would suggest that WMUK has some formal duty to explain these things to you, which it does not. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: You are free not to discuss it, of course.  I will then simply send my own submission to the Charity Commission without consulting WMUK.  (Adding that WMUK did not want to discuss it, of course).  I am still happy to consult with you first, though. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
So far though, none of you is scoring very high on "willingness to disclose basic information to the public" [http://www.gunncpa.com/uploads/Wise_Giving_Alliance_Standards_for_Charity_Accountability.pdf].  Public utility was the key to getting charitable status for WMUK.  That requires satisfying the Charity Commission on the 'high standards and controls' of Wikipedia.  Are you saying that the Commission simply took Wikipedia's word about the high standards?  Or was information provided to the Commission to satisfy them?  If so, I would like to see that information.  That is what I call "basic disclosure to the public".  I am a UK taxpayer, by the way.  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 21:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
:I should clarify, I wasn't saying we wouldn't discuss the matter with you. This is, after all, a discussion about it. I was saying that I don't understand your request for a "formal" discussion. I'm not aware of any formalities that exist for this kind of discussion, since there is no legal requirement for us to enter into it at all. I'm happy to continue this discussion, though. As I said above, WMUK gave the Charity Commission detailed explanations and evidence about the standards and controls on Wikipedia. Those standards and controls are all publicly available in the project namespace on Wikipedia and they are well known to you, since you've been involved in Wikipedia for a long time. I don't know if WMUK can publish the actual submissions to the CC (that would probably require the permission of the lawyers that write them), but I'm sure the board will publish them if they can. If might help, however, if you explained your concerns. Are you concerned that Wikipedia is not of a high enough standard to be of public utility? If so, then please rest assured that the Charity Commission gave that question a lot of very careful consideration and asked lots of questions about it. They wouldn't have given us charity status if they hadn't been completely satisfied that we were charitable under UK law. If you think the CC has erred, however, you are welcome to contact them. I doubt you can raise any issues they haven't already considered, though, since they considered pretty much every conceivable issue. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
::Damian, what are you submitting to the charity commission? --[[User:Bodnotbod|Bodnotbod]] 11:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Please see below.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 18:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
===Questions from Edward Buckner===
====Draft of the summary of my proposed submission to the UK Charity Commission====
Here is a draft of the main points of my submission to the Charity Commission, which I will send later this month, or in December.  This summarises why I don't think Wikipedia serves as a 'general public utility', backed up by detailed appendices.  It will be supported by detailed appendices (not supplied here).
#'''Wikipedia has limited controls over slanderous BLPs''', for four main reasons.
##Victims of BLP abuse have no right or ability to redress.  WMF and WMUK have no power to control Wikipedia. 
##'Outing' by anonymous editors has always been part of the culture of Wikipedia, and would be difficult to eradicate without alienating a significant and vocal part of the community. (I give three examples of senior or once-senior Wikipedians who are guilty of this.
##BLP violations are difficult to spot anyway.  I have numerous examples of violations that were only recently spotted, or have not been spotted at all!
##Wikipedia's administration takes an aggressive attitude towards whistleblowers. Serious or severe criticism is frequently treated as disruption or 'personal attack', and the whistleblowers are blocked or site banned.  (As you know, there are interesting examples of that).
#'''Wikipedia has limited control to ensure the quality of serious encyclopedic content'''.
##One reason is well-known, outlined by Larry Sanger briefly [http://larrysanger.org/2011/06/is-there-a-new-geek-anti-intellectualism here], and in more detail in [http://blog.larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/FateOfExpertiseAfterWikipedia.pdf an article published in ''Episteme''].  "... many Wikipedia articles, especially outside more technical and “hard” disciplines, are persistently mediocre. The cause, I claim, is ultimately that the know-nothings can drive off the know-somethings in the inevitably many content disputes over such “soft” topics. It seems that the failure of Wikipedia to vest experts with any decisionmaking authority partly explains the intractability of disputes in Wikipedia and the allegedly observed tendency of expert-crafted articles to deteriorate over time – to descend to the level of mediocrity with which the most persistent Wikipedians feel comfortable, as it were." 
##This hypothesis will be supported this by informal but expert evaluations of articles in my specialist area (philosophy and medieval philosophy), as well as by attestations from the subject matter experts still working on Wikipedia.
##I will also give numerous examples of fringe groups gaming the system, and of serious errors that took months or even years to pick up. 
##There are also many examples of members of the administration 'gaming the system' to produce significant bias.
#'''Wikipedia has a monopoly on knowledge''', which is detrimental to the general public interest.
##I will explain the 'Google effect' to the Charity Commission.  For example, Googling 'Aristotle' returns the Wikipedia article, in preference to the IEP and Stanford articles, even though it is grossly inferior, and inaccurate in parts. Similarly for William of Ockham, Duns Scotus etc.  The article on Wittgenstein's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus Tractatus] contains a gross inaccuracy introduced by an editor three months ago, and which I am watching with interest to see by who and when it will be spotted.  But it is returned first by Google.
##Wikipedia favours outbound links to other non-profit Wiki projects, and also commercial wiki projects such as Wikia, and has even been known to delete links to other free content projects that do not fall under the 'Wikipedia' model of open (i.e. freely editable) content. This will deter those who want to provide free content, but outside Wikipedia.
##Wikipedia has no recognised watchdog, even though it is relied on as the main source of information for billions of people.  As noted above, it is hostile to criticism, and is a closed community, with an administration promoted from 'within the ranks'.  This applies to the trustees of WMUK, in my view [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=463125226&oldid=463108577].
Please note it is still in draft.  Comments welcome. [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 17:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you for sharing this with us. I believe your points are all either irrelevant to WMUK's charity status or have already been considered by the Charity Commission and deemed not to be a block to that charity status. I don't think there is any point in us trying to argue against the points you make, since they are generally factually accurate (albeit with a lot of spin on them) and the only thing we disagree on is the interpretation of them and their relevance to charity status under UK law. Therefore, I suggest you simply submit your thoughts to the Charity Commission and let them decide if they have merit. Please note, I do not represent WMUK and that is simply a personal opinion. The WMUK board may wish to engage in further discussion with you - that is their choice. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:: Each of the three points is clearly relevant to public utility. It is not in the public interest to have slanderous biographies published in an encyclopedia, without controls. It is not in the public interest to have poor and biased information on serious educational subjects. It is not in the public interest to have a single, closed organisation controlling content that is #1 in a Google search.  We need to find out what the Charity Commission thinks, but I suspect they have only seen evidence presented by WMUK, which may not have mentioned the BLP problem, or the quality problem etc. [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Certainly, the public would be better served if problematic BLPs didn't exist and if all the articles were of excellent quality, but there is no requirement in UK charity law for a charity to be perfect. Wikipedia being of public utility simply means that it is useful to the public. The Charity Commission gave a lot of consideration to whether Wikipedia is of sufficient quality to be considered useful and clearly their conclusion was that it is, since they granted us charity status. I haven't seen the final submissions by WMUK, but I did see the Charity Commission's response to the initial application and it was full of questions about quality, so there is no way WMUK could have chosen not to provide evidence on that. I can't remember if BLPs were specifically mentioned by the CC, but I would be very surprised if WMUK hadn't mentioned the BLP policies when they were explaining the controls that are in place (a member of the board can confirm that). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: "I haven't seen the final submissions by WMUK" well that is exactly what I would like to see.  Regulators like the CC rely entirely on good-faith submissions by regulated entities.  Of course WMUK has a vested interest in not mentioning the BLP problem.  The fact that only you are replying to this immediately suggests they haven't. This is all about public disclosure.
:::: Also, it's not just about "problematic BLPs" ''existing''.  It's that the whole structure and legal responsibility of WMUK and Wikipedia is problematic, and provides no appropriate control.  That is far more telling.  Do the UK CC fully understand this? When will I get a reply from WMUK, who are carefully ignoring all these questions? I appreciate eventually they will block me for asking these questions, as is Wikipedia culture, but that's not going to stop me asking. [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think you need to have a little more faith in the ability of the CC to do its job. If they had just trusted WMUK to be telling them the truth and telling them everything they needed to know, it wouldn't have taken 3 years to get charitable status. It took that long because the CC were very reluctant to recognise us as a charity until they completely understood everything about us. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 21:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
*Peter, you seem to have a few misconceptions which I (as a member, but no official representative of WMUK) would like to discuss. The first is that you seem to be expecting some embodiment of WMUK to descend from the heavens. That's not going to happen because there is no such person—you're talking to several WMUK members and I gather you've had at least some conversation with three board members, so to say that WMUK are "carefully ignoring all these questions" is simply not true. I'm not privy to the letters between WMUK and the Charity Commission, but I would think that the CC has enough experience at what it does to not grant charity status where the requirements are not fulfilled, and I gather that some of the letters spanned multiple sheets of paper, so they were obviously keen to make sure that everything was in order. Most of the rest of what you have to say looks like bitter rambling to me. I haven't looked into the circumstances surrounding your involuntary departure from the English Wikipedia, so you may or may not have a legitimate grievance, but it has nothing to do with WMUK's charity status. I will, however, attempt to address your specific points in order:
#"limited control"
##Speaking as an OTRS agent, I can tell you they have a mechanism to get the problem fixed. The courts are a final avenue through which to seek redress, and it's telling that no BLP dispute (to the best of my knowledge) has ever got beyond the stage where it can be resolved through communication with the WMF or through OTRS.
##Bollocks. There may be a few examples of that in ancient history, but it's far from common practice, and I've personally blocked editors for that sort of behaviour before.
##Yes, they are, and many volunteers work their arses off trying to head those sorts of problems off or resolve them once they get noticed, but nobody patrolling recent changes is going to know everything about every one of Wikipedia's ~500k living subjects. Gross errors have also been known to occur in the news media and conventional encyclopaedia—it's a fact of life that something is going to go wrong somewhere, and I think it speaks well of Wikipedia that BLP violations (however seemingly trivial) are removed on sight and that we have editors who devote a lot of their own time to investigating more complicated BLP issues.
##I think you may be letting perceptions of your own treatment on Wikipedia (about which I don't know enough to make a judgement) cloud your judgement, or you may be recalling the days when Jimmy Wales effectively ran the project. If you have recent examples that a neutral person would think typify Wikipedia's attitude toward "whistleblowers", I'd be curious to see examples.
#Quality
##Yes, it's true, many Wikipedia articles are far from the standard they could be, or would be in a conventional encyclopaedia written by professionals, but I think the overall quality is remarkably good, especially when one considers that it was written by volunteers in their spare time. And Larry Sanger is hardly impartial—he makes an occupation out of moaning about Wikipedia to anybody who'll listen.
##See previous.
##My comments above about BLPs apply to your comments about quality 
##That some people chose to abuse Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's fault, not the WMF's fault, and not WMUK's fault and Wikipedia is far from the only public utility that has ever been abused. I've addressed the "serious errors" part above, I think.
##"The administration"? That sounds like a euphemism for "cabal" to me, and that's a load of rubbish—the project works on the basis of consensus. As for the alleged abuse of Wikipedia by The Administration™, see my previous point.
#"Monopoly on knowledge"
#:That's plainly not true. If you want to read a scholarly source of information, search a scholarly database instead of Google; if you don't want to read a Wikipedia article, filter your search engine results, read a book or find some other way of getting your knowledge. A monopoly on knowledge is the antithesis of Wikipedia's aim.
#We're discussing WMUK's charity status, not Google's. Your complaint would be better taken up with Google, because, to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't manipulate search engine results (and Google is no the only search engine that will return a Wikipedia article in its top five results for man searches).
#Again, I'm struggling to see the relevance of this to WMUK's charity status (and many Wikipedians would say that's a ''good'' thing, not a bad one). "Hostile to criticism", you may have a legitimate complaint, but not one relevant to charity status; "closed community" is bollocks&mdash;I've run several events recently for WMUK explicitly aimed at attracting new editors, and new editors join al the time; again with The Administration&trade; "this applies to WMUK trustees", they're elected from the candidates who put themselves forward and I would point out that half of the trustees don't hold any sort of position on Wikipedia&mdash;the board is elected by the membership on merit as trustees/directors and not appointed by men in grey suits in some smoke-filled room as you seem to be implying. I note with interest though, that you readily associate yourself with a website whose members are currently treating one such trustee in a manner deserving of nothing but utter contempt, and that you would criticise Wikipedia for being at least an attempt at a serious educational product while you're happy for one of its volunteers to be treated in such a way really suggests that you are on a petty, spiteful, and vindictive campaign against Wikipedia and anyone or anything associated with it rather than raising legitimate concerns which is probably why the reception you have received here thus far has been so frosty. [[w:en:User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]  22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
====Thanks for the comments, but====
Thanks for the comments above. The submission will be supported by appendices.  My main puzzle is that no one seems to know what was in the application, or what the CC asked. As far as I know, the CC does not make any independent investigation or audit, and relies entirely on the submission of the applicant, and any supporting correspondence. Let's start with the simple question of whether the CC asked about the BLP problem at all.  That is surely easy to answer.  [[user:Peter Damian|Edward]] 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
* I have located the [[Charity Commission application|application in 2009]], which apparently failed.  There must be a more recent application which refers to the 'monitoring and controls' aspect, and particularly the controls over BLPs.  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
**As I'm sure you are aware some respected law firms were involved in the submission. Are you suggesting that they would be involved in any attempt to mislead the charity commission?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Peter/Edward - I am surprised by your tone. You have placed here long detailed documents which have been answered to the best of people's ability. I have asked that we discuss this here but you are still leaving notes to me in several places. I can see that you may feel that you are not getting the attention that you deserve but I think that the Charity Commission would be surprised to find how quickly that the majority of your enquiries are being addressed. I realise it may be rhetorc but saying things like "no one seems to know what was in the application" is obviously incorrect and undermines other information you offer. The lawyers who received it, the CC and the many people who prepared the application were obviously aware. If you want a quick guess answer then you can have it now. If you want a more precise and cited reply then this will take time. Please show some patience. (I have asked you before). This may be very important to you, but we do have other items and people to serve. At the moment I have three urgent sounding requests in three different places to deal with and they are all from you I believe. Please be patient. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: Ahem, nothing has been answered at all.  The people who did reply (Tango, HJ Mitchell) both say they were not privy to any correspondence between CC and WMUK, so nothing they say could be relevant. Why can't this correspondence be published, in the interests of public disclosure?  I simply want to understand what due diligence was performed by the CC, via the WMUK solicitors, and how it was answered. On the question of whether the solicitors "were involved in any attempt to mislead" - the solicitors will rely on WMUK to answer all questions in good faith.  To be blunt, did WMUK mislead its solicitors and the charity commission?  Why can't WMUK supply any form of documentation, or at least say what was in it?  Is WMUK really committed to openness and transparency and public disclosure?  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's private correspondence, so I assume one would need the permission for its release from the author(s) and addressee(s), and only then if WMUK's lawyers felt it was in the charity's best interest. That's not going to happen overnight, so I can only suggest you follow Roger's advice. [[w:en:User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]  14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)   
:::::: Why on earth would it not be in the charity's best interest? [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
<------------ See the link [http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/iqs/dbitemid.1015/sfa.view/news_from_2010.html here] about the UK council for psychotherapy publishing their entire correspondence with the charity commission "following nearly five months of selected quotes from the correspondence being published and circulated questioning our position with the Charity Commission and damaging our reputation".  "This was done in a spirit of openness and transparency".  Presumably their commitement to "openness and transparency" is not shared by WMUK, despite their public commitment to 'free and open knowledge'. The point is that the longer WMUK refuses to publish any of this correspondence, the more the public will be wondering why they don't want to. We still don't even know who the correspondence was between.  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:Two points here: first, "following nearly five months..." would seem to back up my above suggestion; second, ''you'' "don't even know who the correspondence was between"&mdash;please don't assume that others have paid such little attention or done such obviously little research. [[w:en:User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]]  14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I mean we, the taxpaying public don't know.  Clearly someone knows, at least on the assumption that no one has not lost the correspondence. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:: On having to wait for 5 months, do we really have to go through 5 months waiting for WMUK to find bits of correspondence with its lawyers, or obfuscating or delaying or having people like you give irrelevant replies to my questions. Very well, but it seems a complete waste of time for us taxpayers. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
==== The hallmarks of a good charity ====
Set out by UKCC [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc10.aspx here].  A good charity
*complies with its legal obligations (and best practice), as set out in the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP), to produce annual accounts and a report which includes an explanation of what the charity has done for the public benefit during the year
*explains in its Annual Report the extent to which it has achieved its charitable purposes ''in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand''
*has well-publicised, effective and timely procedures for dealing with complaints about the charity and its activities. These should explain how complaints and appeals can be made, and give details of the process ''and likely timescales'' ["be patient" I think is not enough. Giving a process and a delivery date would be fine ]
*can show how it involves beneficiaries and service users in the development and improvement of its services; the contribution may have been by way of the appointment of beneficiaries as trustees or their involvement through discussion, consultation or user group input;
*has a communications plan which ensures that accurate and timely information is given to everyone with an interest in the work of the charity, including the media, donors and beneficiaries.
[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:You are misrepresenting the CC guidance. Those are not the hallmarks. Those are a breakdown of one of the hallmarks ("Accountable and Transparent"). However, it is important that WMUK meets that hallmark, so let's take them one at a time.
:#The annual report for 2010/2011 is here: [[:File:Wikimedia_UK_accounts_31_January_2011.pdf]] (I'm not sure why that file is called "Accounts" and is on the "Finances" page, it's actually the annual report, of which the accounts are only one part - I'll boldly sort that out in a minute).
:#There is section in the report explaining what the chapter has done, although it is fairly brief. Now we have paid staff, it should be possible to devote the time to future annual reports that stakeholders deserve.
:#That's a good point. Do we have a published complaints procedure? If so, I can't find it. I suggest the Board instruct the CE to make sorting this out a top priority, if it isn't already (I know the CE is already prioritising sorting out our policies and procedures, so this one may well already be on his to-do list).
:#Our beneficiaries and users are, essentially, the 400+ million unique visitors to the Wikimedia sites each month. Involving them is a little tricky, since there are just too many of them. We do, however, have a very open policy on who can join the chapter and the entire board is elected by the members in a completely open election. That tends to mean we're involving our volunteers rather than our beneficiaries, since it's normally editors rather than readers than join. I don't really see how we could do much better on this point, but I would be interested in any suggestions you may have.
:#Gemma Griffiths, who has provided the chapter with a lot of pro-bono communications consulting, did put together a communications plan while I was on the board, if memory serves. I'm not sure if that was ever published (although the hallmark doesn't say it needs to be, it probably wouldn't hurt to do so) and I don't know if it has been updated since then. I do know Jon, our new CE, is planning to hire someone to concentrate on communications (with the press, volunteers, donors, etc.) soon (I can't see it being advertised yet, but I don't think it will be long) so you can expect a lot of improvement on this point.
:So, in summary, we seem to be doing fairly well in terms of accountability and transparency and in those areas where we are falling short there is either a good reason or a plan to improve the situation (or both). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I cannot open the pdf.  In any case, it is not enough to say what the chapter has done, it must "explain in its Annual Report the extent to which it has ''achieved its charitable purposes'' in a way that people with an interest in the charity can understand".  On the beneficiaries of Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not by WMUK.  How are the activities of WMUK (which do not involve running Wikipedia) achieving the charitable objectives?  Thanks [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:::The PDF works for me, could you try it again? I just moved it to a new name, so perhaps you tried to access it while it was mid-move and something went wrong. There is an "Objectives and Activities" section and a "Achievements and Performance" section, which are intended to show how we've furthered our objects but, as I mentioned, they are extremely short due to the board having limited time. I'm sure the 2011/2012 report, which should be published by the AGM (which seems to be planned for May, although I can't see an exact date announced yet), will be much more detailed now we have staff to help out. As the report says, WMUK's objects are primarily achieved by supporting and promoting Wikipedia. While WMUK doesn't run the site, it does support it, both through direct activities and by donating a large portion of its budget (roughly 50%) to the WMF. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::I'd like to add to my comment about the lack of published complaints procedure: while there isn't a policy anywhere I can find, our Office Administrator, Richard, has recently (at my request) started summarising what complaints the charity is receiving and what is being done with them. You can find the summary [[Office Correspondence Log|here]], particularly in the linked notes at the bottom. I think that is an excellent example of the charity behaving transparently, so thank you very much, Richard. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Thanks. I will take a look.[[User:Peter Damian|Ed]]  23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Tried, but still can't open it. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
::::[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/uk/9/97/Wikimedia_UK_annual_report_31_January_2011.pdf Here] is a direct link to the PDF. If that doesn't work, then I guess there is something wrong at your end - can you open other PDFs? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
===BLP===
I have managed to have a brief conversation regarding whether BLP policy was raised in our conversations with the Charity Commission and I can confirm that it was. We certainly mentioned the case of John Seigenthaler and the Commission would have been able to find [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP our improved BLP policy]. Can I also take this opportunity to thank Harry and Tango for the patient way they are dealing with your enquiries. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] 17:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
:Who raised the question please?  Was it the UKCC?  You mentioned the case of Seigenthaler.  This was some time ago.  Did you mention that BLP problems have persisted?  Or did you say that controls and a policy had been implemented, as you say above, giving the misleading impression that the controls had fixed the problem?  I am talking at the moment with a member of the Joint Committee who has suffered problems with their own biography so I will be interested in what you have to say here.  Thanks to everyone for their patience, but these questions should not be hard to answer.  The first replies were simply evasive, implying I shouldn't be asking these questions at all.  The follow ups are equally evasive.  Why can't we all just see the correspondence? Why is it all so secret?  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Oh yes and who did you have the 'brief conversation' with, mentioned above. '''WHY THIS SECRECY'''. Sorry for the caps.  I hate secrecy, and I prize openness and transparency.  [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian (Edward)]] 22:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:::We are not being intentionally secretive, it's just that answering your questions fully with the kind of evidence and detail that you want would take a significant amount of time and we are all busy people with better things to be doing. It is obvious that you are not actually here to learn more about the chapter; you are here to push an agenda. If you genuinely think the Charity Commission erred in granting WMUK charity status then tell them so. I am not going to continue wasting time trying to convince you otherwise when you are clearly not open to the possibility that you may be wrong. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't see how claiming I am on an "agenda" and that (per Mitchell above) I am on "a petty, spiteful, and vindictive campaign against Wikipedia" is any help here.  Of course I have an agenda, namely forcing Wikipedia to be more open and honest. I am a UK taxpayer.  It should not take a significant amount of time to answer my question: who had the 'brief conversation' with Roger Bamkin?  It's not whether UKCC was right or wrong, it's about the evidence that was provided to them. [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 09:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
<-----------------------
Obviously I can send a Freedom of Information request to the UKCC, but I see that as a last resort.  Don't you think it's a bit embarrassing for an FOI to be sent in relation to a Wikipedia enterprise?  You know, FOI, as in information must be free? [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
:Tango, It seems to me that Peter Damian has, as you said, an agenda here however that does not change the fact that the entire negotiation with the charity commissioners has been done behind closed doors. As I understand it this had to be so because the first few go rounds with the Charity Commissioners, with WMUK trying to lead the commissioners down a new path, had led nowhere. WMUK, as I understand it, changed tactics, in order to bring the process to a close in time for the fundraising drive, changed direction and tried to make their application more like every other application.
:That is however just my impression, based on hints in various discussions. I think it would be worth while to publish more solid information for WMUK members, for UK taxpayers, for other WMF chapters, for other non WMF wikis which might want charity status, for future historians, for me and for Peter Damian. --[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 10:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I wish you wouldn't use the word 'agenda', which has a pejorative sense, implying objectives that are any different from my stated ones.  I have always had a concern about the way Wikipedia is run, and I have always been open and honest about those concerns.  Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, tend to address any kind of concern about financial or moral irregularities as 'trolling'.  See e.g. the comment here [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-August/001966.html]("I, amongst others, have been seeing these calls for additional information as very close to trolling").  Ironically, it was Thomas Dalton (Tango) who that was addressed to.  If there is nothing to hide, please publish it. You know, assume good faith.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 12:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
:::You are not interested in transparency. You already know all the details about Wikipedia and BLPs, so there is no need for us to do lots of work finding that information for you. You are just trying to cause trouble by picking holes in our charity application. If you genuinely think the CC made a mistake, then tell them so. They can then decide if they think you are right and, if they do agree, they can decide whether their initial mistake was due to dishonesty on the part of WMUK. You don't need to see the communications between WMUK and the CC, since you already know all the relevant facts about the Wikimedia movement. You aren't requesting to see those communications because you want the information they contain, you just want to go through them with a fine tooth comb and find one insignificant error or omission that you can blow out of all proportion and feel all clever about. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
::In fact, the change of strategy was to stop trying to make the application like others and just accept that we're a new type of charity and approach it from that direction. The first application, which I was involved in, was under the heading of a charity furthering education, but it turns out that was a very narrowly defined box that we couldn't quite make ourselves fit into. The second application, which was successful, was under the generic heading of a charity for the public benefit and, as I understand it, addressed the issues of being charitable from first principles rather than by comparing us to existing charities. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
:::OK So even I who have paid some attention to this have completely got the wrong end of the stick. I don't think it unreasonable that WMUK post a copy of the final approved submittal to the Charity Commissioners. This should not take more than an hour of someones time. If someone involved in the process could do a narrative summary of the process that would be the bare minimum that could be expected. Personally I can see no reason why copies of all the correspondence with the lawyers and the commissioners shouldn't be posted but if the WMUK board disagree then I guess it won't happen. --[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
<------
*"You already know all the details about Wikipedia and BLPs"
**Let's just stop there. I don't know anything at all. You haven't told me anything whatsoever.  Stop pretending that you have given me any information at all. Roger said there had been 'a brief conversation' about BLPs, but refuses to say who the conversation was with, or what else it concerned. 
*"if the WMUK board disagree then I guess it won't happen"
**I want them to say specifically that they are not going to supply the information, and not endlessly obfuscate. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 22:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
*"You aren't requesting to see those communications because you want the information they contain, you just want to go through them with a fine tooth comb and find one insignificant error or omission "
** I'm not bothered by insignificant errors or omissions.  Please understand that. To every single one of my simple questions there has been delay and obfuscation. This makes me far more suspicious of bad practice than I ever I was before I began. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 22:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
**:You don't need me to tell you about Wikipedia and BLPs. You have been around long enough to know as much as I do about them. That is my point. You don't actually want information. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
*** I don't want you to tell me about BLPs. ''I want you or someone to tell me what WMUK told the UKCC about BLPs''.  UKCC recognised WMUK as a charity because of assurances given that there were sufficient control over BLPs.  I want to know what those assurances were.  In any case, I will now be asking UKCC for those documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  What a supreme irony.  An organisation whose charitable purpose is that information should be free, is refusing to comply with a legal requirement for transparency and openness. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
=== Freedom of information request ===
The UKCC have replied to our request and sent us a set of documents.  These make it clear that BLP and quality issues are a concern to the charity commission.  I will have more questions on that later.  Meanwhile, some questions relating to the authorship of the documents.  It is clear that the solicitor (Jonathan Burchfield) was acting as an intermediary.  There was a long and detailed document written by someone from WMUK, sent by Burchfield to the Charity Commission on 26 September 2011.  I have extracts from this, but not the whole document. Who wrote it?  Clearly none of the people (Dalton, Mitchell, Bamkin) who have been contributing to this page.
I think in the interests of transparency WMUK should make this document available, together with the identity of the trustee who wrote it. Why is this being kept secret?  Why were the other trustees not involved?  [[User:Peter Damian|Edward Buckner]] 09:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:Edward, Perhaps you could post what you received from the UKCC here. That would be a good start.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 14:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:: As I am working with a group of people I will need to get their permission, and perhaps I had better check with the UKCC themselves that it is OK to post. But yes, I will aim to do that.  Thanks [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 15:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Hi Peter. You've hit on exactly the same issue that WMUK faces with making the documents public - as I understand the situation, WMUK needs to make sure that it has permission from the CC and the lawyers before they can be released (particularly if they are released under a free license). Nothing can happen on this until the new year. The trustees will be discussing this at the [[Agenda 3Jan12|board meeting on 3 Jan]]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:The minutes of the 18 September board meeting (which are publicly available on this wiki, as is the norm for WMUK minutes in keeping with the key principle of transparency) mention what must have been the 26 September letter: [[Minutes_18Sep11#Review_of_charity_application_status]]. The trustees decided to request the assistance of the community in answering the CC's questions. Fae sent an email to wikimediauk-l on 19 September [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-September/006479.html] making that request. Information was then gathered [[Charity status application/help wanted|here]]. Somebody (I don't know who) then collated that information into the letter that you have been sent extracts from. That's what I can find from a few minutes looking at publicly available information, as you could have done. I admit not everything you wanted to know is readily available publicly, but it's fairly clear that you haven't even tried to look for it. If you aren't going to make the effort to look at everything WMUK has already made public, why should we help you by publishing additional items? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I think this answers the original question here... [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
====Covering letter====
Actually I can post this, since it is already public (on Wikipedia Review).  This omits a detailed appendix that hasn't been published.  Even in the short letter below, we are puzzled about the number of admins (which in truth is closer to 800, at least for active admins), and particularly the claim about 144,000 editors 'having responsibility for a watch list of articles
[[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 15:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks Edward. I think this should probably get it's own page here.
:You published a draft of your letter to UKCC above. Will you post your final letter to UKCC on this wiki too so we can see what the UKCC is responding to?--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 16:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:: In the interests of transparency, absolutely everything will be published at some point!  Thanks and happy Christmas [[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 16:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It would, indeed, be useful to see what they are replying to. I am very impressed with how well the CC seem to understand WMUK and Wikipedia - congratulations to those from WMUK that did the exceptional job of explaining everything to them. You are right that the CC (or, whoever at the CC responded to that FIO request, which is probably someone more junior than whoever made the final decision about WMUK's charity status) doesn't seem to realise how many admins aren't active and has some slightly odd ideas about how much responsibility editors have for their watchlists. However, I don't think either of those cast serious doubt on their final decision. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia:Administrators]] states that "The English Wikipedia currently has 1,515 administrators." It's difficult to figure out how many of those are actually active without putting in a lot of work, and the exact number isn't really important here. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
====So where are we now?====
*The links that Tango has provided do not answer the question of who compiled the information into the document that I obtained under FOI.  That is much longer and more complex than what is publicly available.
*There are also a number of other letters and documents referred to which I do not have yet.
*On the point that UKCC "doesn't seem to realise how many admins aren't active and has some slightly odd ideas about how much responsibility editors have for their watchlists. " that is because they are regurgitating these figures from the 26 September document written by someone at WMUK, we don't know who but I now have a shrewd guess.
*On Mike's point that we don't know how many active admins, this information is on the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active here].  'Active' means having made 30 or more edits during the last two months (which is not actually very active, in my view).  I counted 685 on my last trawl, October 2011.  This number is currently eroding at about 100 a year.
*I note that Fae has deleted my question from his talk page.
*On whether a public release of all documents is possible, I am quite happy to receive documents sent privately by email.  Roger Bamkin has my email address.  I promise to respect confidentiality, where this is demonstrably necessary.
[[User:Peter Damian|Edward]] 22:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
:Edward, just so you're aware: it may take a while for the trustees to reply to this request and the letter we've received from another of your group. This is because we're all on our Christmas/New Year breaks at the moment. [[User:Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry]] 22:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
:If WMUK is prevented, for whatever reason, from publishing the documents, why would they be able to send them to you privately? If the contents are confidential, then agreeing to keep them confidential isn't enough; they could only be revealed on a "need to know" basis and you don't need to know (except, perhaps, as a member of the public, but if the public interest angle were enough they could just publish everything). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 02:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
::I would much prefer a professional approach where we either agree "No, on principle we won't provide any information to you" or "Yes, we will, but it will take us n weeks to come back to you with a reasonable reply". What I don't prefer is this unprofessional approach where there is no formal agreement about how we can deal with the matter, where different and conflicting reasons are given for not dealing with it, and where different people pop out of the woodwork to make random comments.  What is particularly frustrating is that most of the replies have been from people who by their own admission do not have access to the correspondence in question.  And we still don't know who ''did'' have access to it. Who sent the 26 September letter to the UKCC? We don't know. Who authorised it? Who discussed it? Which board members or which meeting approved it?  We don't know. To Tango's point that it may be confidential, that is laughable and absurd. If I or any member of the public can get it via a Freedom of Information request, why shouldn't WMUK send it?  Why should the identity of the person who sent the submission, or of those who authorised it, be a secret? Why should an organisation like WMUK and others who belief as a matter of principle in transparency and openness, accountability etc. be keeping all this stuff secret?  The reasons you are giving for keeping it secret - confidentiality, the fact that the information may be used to criticise WMUK etc - are the very reasons that governments tend to give to prevent access to all types of information.  It's a failure of all organisations that they quickly lapse into secretive and defensive behaviour.  WMUK is no exception, it seems.[[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I have tried to be as patient and helpful as I can, but I will not tolerate you putting words into my mouth. You brought up confidentiality - I was commenting on the hypothetical scenario that you raised. No-one has suggested that the documents should be kept secret to avoid criticism. You have already been told that this matter will be discussed at the board meeting early in the new year. I suggest you wait and see what comes out of that meeting. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 10:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for your interest Tango but you have not seen any correspondence yourself, nor are you a member of the board.  Were you delegated by the board to answer questions?  Please say who this was.  In any case, I would like someone from the board to confirm who was involved in the submission. Specifically: who authorised it, who discussed it, which board members or which meeting approved it?  That does not need a board meeting to approve, surely.  On Richard Symond's point about everyone being on holiday, this has not stopped user 'Fae' from [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=17481&oldid=17480 deleting] my question, saying that his talk page is not "a soap box for self promotion or speculative allegation".  Ahem, it is not an allegation it is a question about whether or not Fae was involved in the 26 September email.  Why can't trustees of a well-known charity answer such simple questions?  Why should anyone be secretive about this?  On the board meeting, I don't see this specifically in the minutes, except by inference. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 12:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------
''Thank you for your e-mail of 24 November concerning Wiki UK Limited.''
''In your e-mail you ask to see exactly how the Charity Commission was presented with the argument that Wikimedia UK had editorial control. We are considering your request in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.''
''Wiki UK is concerned with promoting, improving and supporting the resource and facility provided by Wikimedia Foundation, a US not-for-profit organisation with tax exempt status. Although it may act to encourage the improvement of the content in a particular subject area, it does not itself directly control the content.''
''Wiki UK has confirmed to us that a range of measures have been introduced to control information since 2005 to remove “vandalism” (the addition, removal or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity) and have a continual process of improvement of articles to remove or improve inaccurate material.''
''There are policies of Verifiability, Neutrality and No Original Research which control material that does not live up to basic editorial principles. This is in addition to Recent Changes Patrol, which monitors new edits.''
''The policies are enforced in a number of ways, notably by deletion which happens on a daily basis. There are approximately 144,000 registered editors, each having responsibility for a watch list of articles. In addition, there are approximately 1,500 administrators (for English Wikipedia) who investigate any areas of dispute and have the power to delete and block users from editing. Software is also available to detect blocked users. The controls and processes are overseen by a regulatory committee. ''
''I have attached an appendix to this e-mail which includes the relevant extracts from correspondence received from Wiki UK (“WMUK”) and their solicitors in relation to the above.''
''In your e-mail you say you are considering a complaint about the charity. May I refer you to our publication CC47 – Complaints about Charities, available on our website at http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc47.aspx which sets out the sort of issues which we will and will not become involved in, together with the sort of information you would need to provide us with. Any complaints should be sent in the first instance to Charity Commission Direct (see our website for their contact details). If you have any queries about the complaints process please call Charity Commission Direct on 0845 3000 218.''
''I hope this is of assistance.''
---------------------------------------------

Revision as of 23:31, 28 December 2011

Hello. I have moved this conversation here as it's not really got anything to do with the 2012 Activity Plan. Regards, The Land 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Just to repeat what I said here, if you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. The Land 15:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Block rationale

(moved here from Talk:Contact Us ) User;Fæ locked his user talk and then his user page. He wrote, "Emailing is available on the left of this screen, if you need a free soapbax)"[1] – I'm confused about the soapbox thing, but also I can't see any email, I think this may only be avaiable for non-IPs?67.168.135.107 10:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Email addresses for all Board members are available here. Though I don't know why you haven't logged in, Edward, or why you're pretending to be confused. The Land 14:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If you check that IP you will see it is nothing to do with me. Quite a few people are apparently interested in this case of possible misrepresentation to UKCC. And thanks for moving that whole thread, which was intimately related to the Activity Plan, to my talk page. You are all doing your little bit to cover this up, aren't you. Peter Damian 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If you make another allegation along the lines of "you are covering up a case of misrepresentation to the Charities Commission", you are very quickly going to be blocked from this wiki. Regards, The Land 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, I said this is a case of possible misrepresentation to the UKCC. I stand by this, without reservation. It is not certain, it is clearly possible. Everything I have seen so far, from the continuing obfuscation and misrepresentation by various members of this wiki, to the failure to supply any information about what we know exists, suggests something is not right at all. You are still, after several weeks, unable to supply the names of those involved in the submission itself. It is beyond belief. As regards blocking or banning, I have been blocked for over two years from Wikipedia.en for my allegations of conflict of interest, so I have no difficulty with that. It merely strengthens my case. Edward Buckner 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Courts don't have much time for people who argue that the weasel word "possible" takes the content out of a defamatory statement, and nor do I. You are not welcome to post such allegations on this Wiki, and accordingly I am blocking you from editing. The Land 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris/The Land, could you please clarify upon what authority you have made this block? Was it a decision of the board, or was it done in a personal capacity? --Tango 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, it can be taken as evidence of a coverup, which put TheLand in serious jeopardy. It was a really bad move and would actually aid in Edward's claims that this is not a charity. 184.221.65.31 18:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am including the details of this block in my own submission to the UKCC, hopefully completed by the weekend. Peter Damian 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


I am not alleging fraud

Just so we are clear. I am not saying any fraudulent activity has taken place. I merely have some questions about the recent submission to the UK charity commission, and I raised some doubts about whether that submission, part of which I have seen but not published, correctly represents the facts about Wikipedia. It's extraordinary these questions should result in a block. And I second Tango's question. Is WMUK blocking these questions? Did the board sanction this block? Peter Damian 21:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have restored your few questions (actually, not just a few questions, some 60kb of them) below. I am not sure why you removed them. I think it is important that people see the lengthy responses you have already received on this site from both Board members and other volunteers. As you stand by your comments yesterday, I stand by my reaction to them. And just to be clear, I am not "blocking you from asking questions", merely blocking you from using this site to post allegations that we have misled the Charities Commission and are engaging in a cover-up, which seems to continue to be your position. The Land 19:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not alleging that you have misled the Charity Commission. I continue to express concern that you have misled the Charity Commission. Allegations and expressions of concern are entirely different. Please note I was expressly asked by Roger Bamkin to put my concerns on the page from which you have deleted my questions (which remain unanswered). Peter Damian 22:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
AND IT WAS YOU WHO REMOVED THE QUESTIONS [2]. Peter Damian 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
AND THOSE PITIFUL RESPONSES DID NOT ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS. Peter Damian 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

To /Archive 1 (however I do not have permission, oh well). Please move the deleted questions [3] to the archive above. I do not have permission to create that page, owing to the punitive block.Peter Damian 22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have left an answer to your question on my talkpage. Regards, AndrewRT 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (namely to the question, who was involved in the 26 September UKCC submission). Obviously I can't reply on your page. Can you clarify if the board agreed to this block? I originally asked Roger Bamkin the same questions by email, but he refused to reply, saying that I should put all my questions via this page Talk:2012_Activity_Plan. Someone called 'the Land' (i.e. Keating, another director) then deleted the relevant parts of that page, clearly not having communicated with Bamkin. I then expressed concern about misrepresention to the UKCC. I made no allegations, merely expressed concern. Now I am blocked. Surely you can see, or at least one of the directors can see, that this is not a sensible approach? The UKCC requires that plaintiffs take up their case with the charity in the first case. I will tell that that I was blocked when I did so, but this is not helping your case, such as it is. Can you clarify the reason for the block, please? Edward 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&oldid=17603"