> 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
