[WikiEN-l] Arbcom mailing lists need shredded

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

doc wrote

> charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>   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).
> > 
> >
> 
> I have every sympathy with arbcom - however, I think the paranoia at the 
> moment is incredibly damaging. Arbcom works because we trust you - we 
> have to - I do. But if that goes, for legitimate or illegitimate, 
> reasons wikipedia is screwed.
> 
> If the arbcom mailing list is essentially simply an essential 
> conversation, like IRC or real life, then that's fine. We elected you 
> and trust you to have that conversation - and in private *where 
> necessary*. (Although actually, there's a bit in RfArbss for arbiter 
> discussion that's underused!)
> 
> But in that case, it should not have a longlife archive. Conversations 
> don't generally get archived and then made available to non-parties in 
> the future. When you've got that type of information on file, you've 
> moved from a necessary conversation to a dossier - which essentially 
> contains a permanent record of people you've discussed.

Well, I disagree. The workload increases, the cases not necessarily being more numerous but rising in complexity (as the simpler cases of problem users are taken on in other ways). The "dossier" issue is of a certain sensitivity, but it comes down to this: no one can in fact remember even a fraction of things that the AC has to remember. 

And it is all very well people saying we should work faster. The newly-elected Arbitrators - how are they to get up to speed? In an earlier part of my life, I joined a typical committee with meetings having an agenda of 40 items. I remember well how hard it was to register enough "and who is he?" and "where is that?" and "what is this other organisation?" and if "it's been tried before", when was that and what actually was the outcome.

Pah. If all the AC did was judicial work, you'd have some sort of point. We do have to vet CheckUsers, for example, and it is better to have a record saying "allegations made" against a vettee, which is specific and means that matters can be put privately. And so on and on. enWP has to have some sort of space where this toxic stuff is handled.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam