[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Is editing for payment a fundamentally a problematic conflict...

[Rob Smith]

Two instances as illustrations:

1)  Stephan Kinsella, like Brandt, did not become a Wikipedian voluntarily,
registered an account to defend himself against questionable content and is
the subject of the "Mercy" ruling which is part of WP:BLP. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#_note-0 >  A high profile Administrator
then used material from David Duke to rebut Kinsella's efforts to defend
himself.  <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute&diff=19397326&oldid=19384341
 >

2 ) Yesterday in response to a request SlimVirgin privately agreed to
remove an inappropriate link to the CODAH website, only to promptly place
another link back to the same questionable source in a less visible place. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laird_Wilcox&diff=113130787&oldid=110987454
>



These are two examples of high level Administrators using what is by policy
questionable sources with a grave potential for severe harm to the
subjects in articles of living persons.  And in both instances, neither
subject can be "linked" to David Duke and/or this organization, or the
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODAH).

This pattern of action -- which extends to numerous other living persons --
warrants review.  And ArbCom has done nothing to mitigate circumstances such
as these even after they have been brought to their attention.