Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
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 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. Bob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
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 behalf of banned users used to be a blocking offence. Presumably this has changed. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
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 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 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. Bob ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
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 as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner). Editing on behalf of banned users used to be a blocking offence. Presumably this has changed. To my knowledge, that has always been interpreted to allow editing on the suggestion of a banned user, but you have to decide for yourself whether it is a good edit and the responsibility for the edit lies entirely with you. There is nothing wrong with a banned user pointing out that there is a spelling mistake in an article and you going and fixing it. What is John Vandenberg alleged to have done for Edward Buckner? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
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. Bob I haven't been there for a few years, but when I was an active arbitrator I read some of WR and posted a little bit. Occasionally, besides the slime, there are people posting there who have legitimate complaints, or are, at least, owed an explanation. Also, occasionally, news about a crisis of some sort that affects Wikipedia breaks there. Bottom line, this a long standing practice. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
