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.
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 Heilman jmh649@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 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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:15 AM, James Heilman jmh649@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 vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a specific religious movement.
Reading between the lines of the Arbcom decision - necessary because most/all of the evidence is secret an off-Wikipedia - Will Beback framed an editor he opposed over content issues, got him banned indefinitely, and tried to cover it all up.
Regardless of whether you have 10k edits or 100k edits, this is indef-ban worthy behavior.
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 attributable only to malice based on forged Usenet posts and a complete failure to assume good faith. To coin a phrase, "something is rotten in the state of ArbCom", and the sooner this becomes more widely realised the better. The Foundation should take responsibility for abuse of power at the highest level in any of its projects, including Jimmy Wales.
Will Beback was entitled to at least mitigation on the basis of his sterling contributions to a project in which he believed; so was I, but I didn't get any.
Thank some deity or other that I can still contribute to Commons when I am able to do so, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the lunatics *have* taken over the asylum.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gwern Branwen" gwern0@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Will Beback
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 6:15 AM, James Heilman jmh649@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 vote of 8 to 4 he is block indefinitely for issues related to a specific religious movement.
Reading between the lines of the Arbcom decision - necessary because most/all of the evidence is secret an off-Wikipedia - Will Beback framed an editor he opposed over content issues, got him banned indefinitely, and tried to cover it all up.
Regardless of whether you have 10k edits or 100k edits, this is indef-ban worthy behavior.
-- gwern http://www.gwern.net
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org