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 religious movement.
The foundation is spending large sums in an attempt to attract productive
editors to the project. Arbcoms actions seem counterproductive to these
efforts. Is it time that we look at rearranging how arbcom works? Issues
that have a significant effect on Wikipedia should not be left to a group
of 12 but should go to the community for consensus.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian