Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review? By Robert Alvarez
QUOTE
Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from
posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on
Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting the
opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against
Wikipedia contributers by banned users.
I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).
One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.
posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on
Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting the
opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against
Wikipedia contributers by banned users.
I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).
One might argue that Arbcom members have a right to free speech, however
this seems to cross the boundaries into undermining the fundamental
principles and the values of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Will Beback By James Heilman
QUOTE
We appear to have a problem with Arbcom. We have an editor who has
contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the previous 7 years, making
more than 100,000 edits and generating a couple of featured articles. Than
in a vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a
specific religious movement.
The foundation is spending large sums in an attempt to attract productive
editors to the project. Arbcoms actions seem counterproductive to these
efforts. Is it time that we look at rearranging how arbcom works? Issues
that have a significant effect on Wikipedia should not be left to a group
of 12 but should go to the community for consensus.
contributed significantly to Wikipedia over the previous 7 years, making
more than 100,000 edits and generating a couple of featured articles. Than
in a vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a
specific religious movement.
The foundation is spending large sums in an attempt to attract productive
editors to the project. Arbcoms actions seem counterproductive to these
efforts. Is it time that we look at rearranging how arbcom works? Issues
that have a significant effect on Wikipedia should not be left to a group
of 12 but should go to the community for consensus.