Talk:Call for EGM 2012

Obviously, what will happen during such a meeting is that the ArbCom decision itself will be discussed and then you get a polarized discussion between two camps where one side will say that you have to just accept that decision as correct even if it isn't, while others will say that ArbCom caused the problem by banning Fae when normally people are only banned when their behavior is such that they really cannot contribute to Wikipedia by any reasonable measure. Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Fae will do the right thing and resign from the board. The board can then issue a statement thanking him for his service and hoping he will continue to be involved. By not resigning as chair immediately after the ArbCom decision was announced I am afraid that Fae made an error which can now only be corrected by his resignation from the board altogether. It doesn't matter if we think arbcom was wrong - we weren't elected to arbcom, our opinions are irrelevant. Filceolaire (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If Arbcom erred, and I'm not the only one who thinks they did, then yes it does matter that in recognising that he was harassed but banning him anyway they got this wrong. As for the idea that simply resigning as chair would have defused things and let him continue as a trustee, sadly I don't think that would work. He withdrew from the topic of gay pornstars because his editing there was contentious, but that didn't stop his critics. He quit as admin despite no-one criticising his admin actions, but that didn't stop what had by then become harassment. If he were to quit as chair of WMUK despite no-one criticising his actions as chair do you seriously think he would have been left in peace to continue serving as a trustee? If he ceases to be a trustee what confidence can we have that he could continue his GLAM work without harassment starting against him being active in that? At some point he is entitled to stop retreating. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I argee that ArbCom erred, but not in the way you suggest. Being the victim of harassment does not make one infallible... why would the fact that he was harassed automatically make the ban a wrong decision? They erred because they sentenced him based on vague and unsubstantiated claims, rather than on what there was actually evidence for. There is very clear evidence that Fae did some things wrong, but nothing ban-worthy. --Tango (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't any harassment. Sharing and discussing facts and opinions isn't harassment. Judging from posts in the mailing lists, Wikimedia UK doesn't even like it when the news shares facts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? So why do you think arbcom banned you from the English Wikipedia? Creating a critical page about a gay man on a website that tolerates homphobia is harassment. You personally didn't add the "faggot" bits to that page, but as an admin on that site you should have known that was acceptable there. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of sheep means allowing people to say things that you or I dislike, and simply saying despicable things isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Dramatica article doesn't say that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't threaten or encourage violence against Fæ or any homosexual person. It doesn't include Fæ's home address. It doesn't commend readers to send Fæ hate mail. The ED article isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

WSC nails it. This is sounding uncomfortably like Whitehall politics. There's no dispute that Fae is the right person for the role: informed, absolutely dedicated to our values, great with partner organisations, with the right background and track record that WMUK needs. I haven't seen a complaint against his ability to do what WMUK requires him to do, except the question over him training newcomers, which seems to require an oddly legalistic interpretation of "editing on behalf of a banned user". It makes total sense that the board would give him unanimous backing. But some members think we need to debate our confidence in him because of... what? Because of headlines? Because of how his situation can be spun? This is something I associate with party politics or corporate PR: I hope, perhaps naively, that Wikimedia UK is something different and meritocratic. I wish the people who think it obvious that Fae should stand down would recognise that it isn't obvious, and spell out what the action is be supposed to achieve. (e/c) Specifically I agree that stepping down won't stop the harassment. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Public perception is something that has very real impact. PR is PR, whether you are in politics, the for-profit sector or the non-profit sector. Whoever you are, it matters what people think of your organisation, regardless of whether they are right to think it. Just to be clear, the goal of the EGM isn't the stop the harassment of Fae. It is to discuss the situation with respect to Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia UK should support any member of the UK community who is facing harassment, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't also consider its own interests and the interests of the wider movement. --Tango (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin; he's got issues understanding copyright (pertinent to GLAM work), launches vicious online attacks against people he dislikes and manoeuvres behind the scenes to evade scrutiny and recruit sympathy. That is not a fit person to lead this charity. As rose-tinted as the boards spectacles are here, it's ludicrous that his behaviour has escaped all of your notice... or even that you are unconcerned about it! --ErrantX (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm not exactly a fan of Arbcom's decision in this case but Arbcom decided 8 3 that he hadn't been accused of infringing copyright. Of course that was Arbcom at their silliest - he clearly had been accused of infringing copyright, and if you read the individual postings the eight were responding to the allegations not the actual wording of the section heading. But on investigation the allegations either didn't stick up or they wound up like this debate about chroming and freedom of panorama. He and I are on opposite sides on that discussion, but there is a big gulf between borderline freedom of panorama issues like that and the badfaith copy and paste stuff that we block people for. WereSpielChequers (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would have preferred not to have to comment, but I can't let that attack stand without challenge. Where is the evidence of "issues understanding copyright" or of "vicious online attacks against people he dislikes"? I've read the entire ArbCom case more than once, and I know full well that if any such issues existed, they would be noted in those pages. There was no finding of fact corresponding to the charges that you make and you need to either justify your allegations with concrete evidence or fully retract them. I might also remind you that ArbCom did conclude that "Fæ has been the target of a sustained campaign of criticism and some harassment" in FoF 3 and that unsupported allegations of the kind made above simply have the effect of extending that campaign beyond the bounds of fair criticism. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's one GLAM related example. [Added: it seems reasonable to consider this - and other issues - of importance in relation to his role in working with institutions]. There has been strong evidence of misusing flickr accounts to upload copyrighted images - so called "Flickr washing". Unfortunately Ashley appears to have been able to cover this matter up and it is no longer possible to piece together the full evidence of this. As to vicious online attacks; I was one example. In addition he levels accusations of harassment at a number of peoples on Commons with regularity. And made staunch attempts to impose restrictions of people involved in off-wiki websites he is in dispute with. [Added: I don't consider this the end of the world - and I am coloured against him as a person due to our interactions, but it should surely be worrying behaviour] With respect to harassment; I am sympathetic to this problem, having been harassed significantly (physical and internet-based) myself. However a) Ashley confuses ridicule with harassment and b) there is no evidence, with one exception, that anyone involved at this stage is harassing Ashley. He has suggested he received threats etc. which would constitute harassment - but no one has accused anyone here of perpetrating that. --ErrantX (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

On balance I removed/refactored one accusation as it's a bit unfair of me to pursue as I can't prove anything. --ErrantX (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" EGM?

I find it confusing to see this:

• Please note, by signing you are not expressing an opinion about whether Ashley should remain on the Board. You are simply saying that you want to have a General Meeting so that we members can discuss the matter and reach a decision, whatever that decision may be.

When the request itself says this:

• Is it our intention to move the following resolution: "This meeting resolves, pursuant to Section 168 of the Companies Act 2006, to remove Ashley Van Haeften [...]

Deryck Chan (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to remove a director pursuant to Section 168 of the Companies Act 2006 requires special notice be given of such a resolution. As such, the above notice has to be given if the resolution are to be available as an option for the EGM. That doesn't mean the meeting will actually move such a resolution. KTC (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. We wouldn't be able to vote on it if it notice wasn't given. I will move the resolution so that we can get a definitive decision made, but I don't know what that decision will be (I don't even know how I'll vote). --Tango (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that people will only sign if they want him to stand down. Pretending that the recall itself is not a recall petition just seems a bit shabby to me. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you like, but I can tell you that I haven't made up my mind how to vote. This is not a recall, this is call for an EGM. As the call says repeatedly, the EGM will be to discuss and then vote. There isn't much point having a discussion if everyone has made up their minds in advance. I think there is significant advantage to the members making a decision, whatever that decision may be. If the meeting rejects the motion and shows that it has confidence in Fae, then he will have a clear mandate to continue in his position and we can make it clear to the press that it is a decision of the charity members. Either way, we will have a little closure on the whole thing. --Tango (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from Chief Executive

Moved here from call itself. --Tango (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this matter with Fae this morning. He is keen that there should be no division in the WMUK community over his role as Chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as Chair. A board meeting, already scheduled for this evening, will see the election of a new Chair. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. The EGM is intended to discuss Fae's place on the board, rather than his position as chair (in my opinion, decisions about the chair are for the board to make, not the membership), so it is still relevant. --Tango (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)