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
Hoi,
This would in my opinion be more appropriate on the Wikipedia-l. This list
is for foundation related subjects.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 March 2012 12:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from
posting and responding
On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote:
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).
Editing on
Or, more precisely, the English Wikipedia list:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l .
This list is for movement-wide issues. An ArbCom exists only in some
language projects and is not a movement-wide issue.
2012/3/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
This would
On 11 March 2012 11:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
