Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
People, get real.
Danny
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
People, get real.
Danny
By the same token you don't tell 800 people. Anything that is too secret to be in the public domain should not be told to 800 admins. -- geni
This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
It is not a good idea to have hundreds of people on a mailing list intended for "confidential flow of information".
You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
Wikipedia has been extremely open about its weak points from its very beginning. Many of us think that is a good thing. Security through obscurity may be a worse option in the long run.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
People, get real.
Danny
Well, to be fair, Fred didn't present this idea as a form to cover sensitive legal information and troll and vandal fighting techniques.
Its pretty mean to call people unprofessional, irresponsible and un-real for their reponse to a proposal that you've since reshaped.
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing list and IRC channel? The point of having an admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are posted publicly (which has been discussed on this thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really not any less transparency.
-Hermione1980
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 slytherinchaser49@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too.
No. some arbcom discussions need to be private.
Tony Sidaway (f.crdfa@gmail.com) [060123 10:13]:
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 slytherinchaser49@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too.
No. some arbcom discussions need to be private.
What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence, e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world. Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of list he's talking about.
- d.
On 1/22/06, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Tony Sidaway (f.crdfa@gmail.com) [060123 10:13]:
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 slytherinchaser49@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too.
No. some arbcom discussions need to be private.
What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence, e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world. Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of list he's talking about.
- d.
Well perhaps all the new sub comittes will fill that role.
For dealing with the misquotes and trying to comuncate with the comunity by press release problems we have the Communications committee
-- geni
David Gerard wrote:
What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence, e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world. Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of list he's talking about.
Some things do need to be kept confidential, but an organization needs well-defined rules for when things must be kept in-camera. Trying to apply that to a list of 800 would be ludicrous.
Ec
Ray Saintonge (saintonge@telus.net) [060123 11:28]:
David Gerard wrote:
What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence, e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world. Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of list he's talking about.
Some things do need to be kept confidential, but an organization needs well-defined rules for when things must be kept in-camera. Trying to apply that to a list of 800 would be ludicrous.
Well, yeah. But from discussions on IRC today, I think that's what Danny actually needs - stuff that's causing Foundation-level trouble. So if the required level of cabalism isn't admin, perhaps a higher level!
(On my user page, I list all my Wikipedia jobs and my criterion for cabalism: If you are accused of being in the Cabal, count how many Wikipedia jobs you have. If it's ten or more, you are.)
- d.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 slytherinchaser49@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be
warned.
I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too.
No. some arbcom discussions need to be private.
And no admin discussions need to be private? I think I see what you're getting at, but I don't think you're going about it the right way. I also don't have any better suggestions, so ignore me, whatever. :-)
-Hermione1980
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm not actually sure about that, however because it is confidential, it contains some confidential material. Material not necessarily related to arbitration decisions. Jimbo uses it to chat about issues for example.
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 slytherinchaser49@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too.
No. some arbcom discussions need to be private. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hermione1980 wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing list and IRC channel? The point of having an admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are posted publicly (which has been discussed on this thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really not any less transparency.
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis. They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to whether their own statements are defamatory.
This list does in fact get frequent complaints from someone who was blocked, but most of those threads don't last long. When an eMail from a person that I don't know begins with "I was blocked ..." I have no problem finding the delete key on my keyboard.
Ec
I don't know if this will help the discussion at all, but unless I'm missing something, the admin list isn't even listed with all the other mailinglists. Can the public archives really be a big deal if you can't just accidentally stumble upon them?
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Hermione1980 wrote:
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If ever admitted to any mailing list for administrators only I will publish all contents on my public blog. Be warned. I will not tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing list and IRC channel? The point of having an admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are posted publicly (which has been discussed on this thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really not any less transparency.
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis. They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to whether their own statements are defamatory.
This list does in fact get frequent complaints from someone who was blocked, but most of those threads don't last long. When an eMail from a person that I don't know begins with "I was blocked ..." I have no problem finding the delete key on my keyboard.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
There is no such list. We are discussing creating one.
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Jay Converse wrote:
I don't know if this will help the discussion at all, but unless I'm missing something, the admin list isn't even listed with all the other mailinglists. Can the public archives really be a big deal if you can't just accidentally stumble upon them?
On 1/22/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
There is no such list. We are discussing creating one.
Fred
A-ha! I feel dumb now. Thanks for that.
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Right. Admins are selected on their ability to be popular, not on their ability to be discreet. This is similar to the reason why we don't let all admins have CheckUser rights.
Kelly
How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially every action you take can be looked at later?
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially every action you take can be looked at later?
There are other situations where discreetness may be called for. Direct emails for example.
-- geni
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when
essentially
every action you take can be looked at later?
There are other situations where discreetness may be called for. Direct emails for example.
That's true... I'm still kinda going down the line of thought that you can't be selected for discreetness. Unless every single person who votes for someone at RfA has had to make some confidential dealings, how can that be the basis upon which they were made an admin?
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
geni wrote:
On 1/23/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially every action you take can be looked at later?
There are other situations where discreetness may be called for. Direct emails for example.
I support the notion that spammers should be more discreet.
Ec
On 1/22/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
How can anyone be selected for discreetness on Wikipedia when essentially every action you take can be looked at later?
I do lots of things in relation to Wikipedia that you can't easily look at. Not everything that happens in Wikipedia takes place on the wiki.
Kelly
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis. They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to whether their own statements are defamatory.
As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians or otherwise).
I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real problems (private). Danny can use the second list to feed action items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with them in a responsible and discreet manner.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis. They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to whether their own statements are defamatory.
As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians or otherwise).
I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real problems (private). Danny can use the second list to feed action items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with them in a responsible and discreet manner.
It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this. Discretion is not been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status. A person in Danny's position needs to be able to evaluate the capacity of an individual (who may or may not be an admin) to be discrete. He also needs to be able to decide who is best capable of handling a specific question.
Ec
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this. Discretion is not been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status.
Right. Admins are selected on their ability to be popular, not on their ability to be discreet. This is similar to the reason why we don't let all admins have CheckUser rights.
Kelly
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
I thought most of us were amateurs. Maybe there should be two such mailing lists: a private one for the professionals, and an public one for the amateurs. :-)
Ec