[WikiEN-l] Arbcom mailing lists need shredded

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

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