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