doc wrote
Two issues have recently brought the questions of the
arbcom mailing
lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its
allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by
their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano
question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on
arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what
he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed
great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about
Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them?
He should be able to read the archives.
And for that
matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
You should be able to read them; but you shouldn't read them.
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and
deeper issues remain.
1) Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always
more transparency.
2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have
access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the
archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean
that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next
few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives
used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power.
Obviously, here. Of course some uses of such power are more simply described:
"blackmail" does quite well.
3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the
right to see any
records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of
error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal
comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice
minds for years to come.
4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information -
checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of
information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal
deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists,
however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily
confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be
sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee
confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there
may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject
cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has
been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive
retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an
expectation of confidentiality.
Our system depends on a concept of "trusted person". I would ask, when could it
ever not?
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list
for discussing
cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through
moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive.
This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs
really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or
private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years
from now.
We have to discuss people "behind their backs". We have to discuss a number of
other sensitive issues, also. In fact we are constantly asked to deal with fairly ugly
stuff, from "he said she said", to stalking, and matters impacting on people who
have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But
it should only be
used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly
neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed
to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely -
perhaps 12-24 months only.
It is possible in principle that any list archive should be vetted, and things removed. A
better solution would actually be to digest the old mails. Give us a salaried archivist
and plenty could be done. To give you an idea, the AC list is on a typical day less
active than wikien, but not every day. Scale enters here.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and
destroying the
community's trust.
I deny that.
It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to
defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses
the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Plenty of public comments made about individual Arbitrators are unfair, and unfair
generalisations about the ArbCom, and the AC list membership, also do get made. Often the
needs of confidentuality mean that some accusations are better not answered at all.
That's life. The ArbCom is not a PR machine. The AC list is primarily a way to gather
up information and opinions. Remember, we don't meet at all in real life, and yet are
sometimes "in session" on the list 24 hours a day (100 mails in a day is not
uncommon).
In summary: Give us a break. Most Arbitrators would be happy to be franker, but we
can't be.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam