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
It would also be interesting to understand why everyone (for
reimbursements, grants, scholarships etc.) is required to send and
receive money to/from the USA bank or PayPal accounts although there is
an EU bank account and bank transfers within EU are mostly free, while
PayPal has very high
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
The ban is not infinite. Will Beback is free to appeal the ban after six
months. I recall having positive interactions with Will Beback in the
past, however, the English Wikipedia community is more than capable of
taking care of itself. Thanks.
anirudh
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM, James
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
Hi.
Those who have been following along the fundraising and funds dissemination
talks know that Sue has been preparing a set of recommendations for the
Board on these subjects, at their request. After some time and
consideration of her draft document, she has finished her final
recommendations.
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
Oic, you can create your own account on the labs site.
My thoughts:
- The choices use the article wizard, create a draft, create this
article myself are a bit confusing. Especially the first two - that's
a really unusual distinction that doesn't make much sense to me. I'd
expect the
There is really no point posting something like this without giving a
link to the images and discussions in question. The best posting here
is going to do is attract more attention to the question and get a
more vigorous discussion about it, but it can't do that if you don't
give a link.
I don't
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
It would also be interesting to understand why everyone (for
reimbursements, grants, scholarships etc.) is required to send and receive
money to/from the USA bank or PayPal accounts although there is an EU bank
On 11 March 2012 13:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't that be because the WMF, and the bulk of its spending, is based in
the U.S.? It would seem logical, then, that most of its funding is needed
there as well.
The bulk of its spending might be in the US, but a large minority
isn't.
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
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, a question. Slide 31 says that in the future the WMF will run
Worldwide convenings of highly active contributors in mature Wikipedias.
I know the noun a convention and I know the verb to convene but I
don't
recognise the
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:15 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Great now if only that where true. With the vote being 8:4 and my
understanding of the situation I am fairly certain it is not. The editors
with a medical background on the committee did not support the ban of Will.
As this controversy surrounded medical content their positions should be
given
James, perhaps a more appropriate place to have this conversation is either
at the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee noticeboard, or alternately
if you want a different audience, the Wiki-en-L mailing list. Your issue
is project-specific and there are more appropriate venues for you to
And yet on the other hand, we have myself, User:Rodhullandemu, who has/had
over 1000,000 edits, including 6 GAs and 21 DYKs, not only blocked, but also
banned, on the basis of a dispute with one editor which has been
subsequently vindicated in part by ArbCom, and some airy-fairy nonsense
Hi James,
I'd like to respond your point about procedure.
Just as we in the United States refer difficult court cases to the Supreme
Court and not to the electorate, it seems to me that there is good reason to
refer difficult conduct cases to a deliberative body, which in the case of
English
The UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions is due to
release its report shortly.
Evidence submitted to it over the past months is now available online on
the UK Parliament's website, at
21 matches
Mail list logo
