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)

Discussed hatted. Take this to another wiki. Seddon (talk) 02:43, 3 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)

The trouble is that such things are in effect recall petitions, so when five people signed it he resigned as chair. If that wasn't your intention then that's a real shame. But we've now lost our Chair. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:39, 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)

The EGM statement says Fae is chair of the board. It needs to be updated, or the message from the Chief Executive re-instated. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Very briefly, as I'm at work. I believe Fae has taken the right decision, in the circumstances, to step down as Chair. However, I believe he still has a valuable role to play on the Board. If we do have an EGM with a motion to remove Fae as a trustee, I will speak against the motion. But I hope that members will consider Fae's resignation as Chair to be the end of the matter, and that we can avoid having the un-necessary distraction entailed by an EGM. The Land (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with The Land. Media attention seems to be quieting down. The EGM push seemed to be a response to that attention. Fae has now stepped down as Chair to facilitate focusing on the work of Wikimedia UK. It could be prudent to wait until the next media cycle is complete before calling an EGM. Jess T (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Chris on this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed that the only consideration here seems to be about the media. This person has been banned from Wikipedia! For six months! How can he remain in the executive of any Wikipedia-related organization? DevilShamer (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's banned indefinitely. He can appeal in 6 months. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Point of order (without taking sides): He's no longer the Chair, so he's not in the executive. The Executive consists of the Chief Exec, the Chairman, the Treasurer and the Secretary. Richard Symonds (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think DevilShamer meant senior leadership, rather than specifically the executive subcommittee of the board - an imprecise use of terminology, perhaps. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be amazed. Wiki-politics unfortunately creates a number of such spats and splits. Fae is still an editor in good standing on Commons where he has 294K edits, nearly 4 times the 77K he has on English Wikipedia. WMUK is an independent organization, and having spent time a year ago assuring and re-assuring the Charity Commission of this, which was one of their major concerns, I am very firmly opposed indeed to the idea that the Arbitration Committee or WMF or anyone else has the ability to control, select or deselect the WMUK board, which is a matter entirely for the membership of WMUK itself. Nor have either the Arbcom or the Foundation said, publicly or privately, anything about Fae's WMUK positions (which would indeed be very improper of of them). Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The independence of WMUK is imperative. When spin gets media attention it's a shame. As the media lose interest external pressures will abate. The hard work by the volunteers and staff of WMUK will continue to enrich the mission of the WMF and society. Jess T (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph, who first reported the ban, have now reported the resignation as well: [1]. It's a pretty good article. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn, better be careful what you say on this page, or you'll end up quoted by the Telegraph. Although they really shouldn't assume that everyone commenting here is necessarily a "Wikimedia UK member". BabelStone (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)}