Fred Bauder wrote:
> It's the same problem we have with Biographies of Living Persons. We don't
> want to republish bullshit. Especially after we've clearly identified it.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
The argument for the status-quo here seems to be "there's a lot of
necessarily confidential discussion on the list"
But if you read back to my opening post, you'll see I accept that. There
ought to be a closed list for confidential information to be circulated
and appropriately commented upon. I'm not questioning that.
Not knowing what's on the list, perhaps there's a hell of a lot more
"necessarily confidential" stuff than I ever guessed. I'm certainly not
questioning what I'm being told in that regard. And I don't want to
undermine this important facet of arbcom.
But my concern was with:
a. the archives: how useful are they (in fact not theory), compared to
the potential for future harm they might cause?
b. any discussions about established users that have no need for privacy
and could perfectly well be held in a readable list (or, better, on
wiki). Now, I need to make an apology here - I've been assuming that the
list is used for discussion that would not fall under the heading of
"necessarily confidential". I'm happy to be told otherwise.
Question:
Have the closed lists been used for the discussion of cases where there
is no confidential information or privacy concerns? (I am NOT asking for
details here. I'm NOT hunting for offenders or victims!). If the answer
is no, I'll drop the whole thing.
Doc
On 12/1/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> The problem is not the diagnosis that this was an experienced
> Wikipedia user; by his own admission, he was. The problem is
> assumption of bad faith. A lot of assumption of bad faith,
> liberally distributed.
And I've been guilty of that myself when I've seen AFD nominations on
the first edit.
Ever since Usenet was started in the late 70s, old timers lamented
that newbies didn't [[RTFM]], didn't read FAQs, and made the same old
mistakes over and over again and that experienced users were answering
the same questions over and over again. Oh how nice it would be if
newbies would step back and learn how things worked before diving in.
(or as we like to call it "being bold")
So when did this trend of suspecting editors who don't have a history
of "newbie mistakes" of being potential troublemakers start? I can
think of several good faith explanations for this...
The "newbie" might be a long time anon editor who finally took common
advice and registered an account.
The "newbie" might have experience on other wikis.
The "newbie" might have started out using his real meatspace name,
which is common on some classic wikis such as Meatball but thought
twice about it due to net.kooks who like to make trouble for people in
real life.
Alec Conroy alecmconroy at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 04:33:08 UTC 2007
... Now at least two arbiters decided, long before this case started, that
not only was a "secret investigations" list appropriate,but they
actively participated in it. Any ruling against addressing whether
"secret investigations lists" are appropriate is commenting just as
much on Flonight and Morven as it is on Durova ...
Members of hte Secret Investigations List shoudl have been recused
from the get go. They shouldn't have been even participating, they
should have been parties.
-------------------------------
Alec, you're mixing up so many issues, it's hard to know where to
begin. Some points:
1. There is no suggestion that Durova, or anyone else, mentioned !! on
the Investigations list.
2. I can confirm that no ArbCom member took part in the thread that
Durova started with her case study of !! on the cyberstalking list.
There is therefore no evidence that ArbCom members even saw it. The
list can sometimes be high traffic, and not everything gets read. You
wouldn't want to be held responsible for everything that happens
subsequent to posts on this mailing list just because you subscribe to
it.
3. I'm again confirming that Durova didn't propose to block !! on the
cyberstalking list.
4. You're trying to create a "secret lists" meme, just as others tried
to create a BADSITES one. Fact: there are no secret lists. There are
public ones and private ones. The existence of the private ones is not
a secret. It's just that the membership and the discussion is not
posted. Just as your private inbox not being open to the public
doesn't mean that your use of e-mail is a secret.
Sarah
doc wrote
> It's the worst secret on the wiki that arbcom are a disparate bunch of
> folk - some of whom personally can't stand each other.
The first I can vouch for. The second I can't.
By the way, if this thread is really a toe in the door to bring up individuals and roast them, I would see that as grossly off-topic. And of course rather counterproductive, seeing as the AC elections have just started. If you want decent people on the ArbCom, don't treat Arbitrators as ducks in a shooting range. You'll end up with elephant-hided power freaks.
> If we had a
> decent Featured Article for every time I've heard one arb badmouth
> another on IRC.... And I've had stuff leaked to me on several occasions.
I don't go on IRC. It has always seemed like a good decision. Being someone who is anti-leaking, I think people who are leakers and leakees probably go straight to hell. In which I don't believe, but anyway.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"David Gerard" wrote
> Not really IMO.
Realistically, though. If there were no central archive, someone would keep a full private one, anyway. They would not be accountable in the same way. How would that help with the issue being raised? Scenario on the list:
A: What about X? That name came up before, maybe eighteen months ago.
B: Yup, we checkusered X and it was inconclusive.
C: Well, I said then that I thought X and Y might have been meatpuppets. "Nothing was ever proved".
A: What were the details? Anyone have the mails.
B: I have some of them. Here's the crucial bit: [...]
C: Wasn't there that other angle, though? And then there was the odd mail we got relaying some other suspicions, that we didn't pay any mind at the time ...
etc., etc.
So you get another thread - and the list is cluttered up with information exchanges. (This is actually perhaps not a very realistic conversation, deliberately. If you think this is all too shocking, try not to get elected.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
doc wrote
> charles.r.matthews(a)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
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
I have 'Heather Mills' watchlisted and noticed this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.13.188.247
Is there an email address banned users can report such stuff to?
I'm also interested in the broader ethical question - this vandalism isn't
the nastiness I've seen, but were it much worse, would it be a terrible
thing for me to log off and fix the problem? Can banned users have a
recourse to IAR if they're accused of breaching their ASBOs? (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBO)
best,
PM
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:46:05 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12/2/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
>
> > Exactly how are newbies *supposed* to act?
>
> Thank you sir may I please have another. (Just kidding)
Please, sir, can I have some more? -- Oliver Twist
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/