On 12/3/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
Purely by the by, personally I am willing to entertain the conceit that there may be fora or sites that speak of me in less than flattering tones, but which I will never have the opportunity address for purposes of clarification or rebuttal, not even merely due to their secrecy/privacy/obscurity, but solely by virtue (or otherwise) of them being sites that I would *choose* to not to frequent.
It is more than conceivable that in consequence I will suffer some false or at the least misleading characterisations of myself spreading and taking root in the mind of not merely the mischevious but of the gullible.
To me this is not unacceptable at all. YMMV, but nobody promised me a rose garden when I began to edit wikipedia, nor even at the stage when I began to get more deeply involved in the machinations of it. (I wasn't even promised a shrubbery.)
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.
I doubt there is much usefulness to be gained from such public lists that are not currently served by the on-wiki pages such as the /workshop subpage. If such were needed, just add a new protected page in the mix.
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.
The argument has been made repeatedly, and I think correctly, that arbs (and for that matter all simians), need comfort zones where they need not watch every step they make, every gesture and word tossed out in the emotion of the moment. Cohesion is an innate feature of the way humans structure social groups, and that is greatly facilitated by trust which can only be engendered by "exposing" ones real true self to the group, without fear of being rejected for it, or paying a price for it.
There can be an argument made that the arbcom membership is now evolving to the stage where they are by virtue of their membership becoming public persona, and as such afforded less protection of their privacy. I reject the argument, but it can be made. The best guarantee of accountability, in my view, _at this stage_, is to make sure we *elect* people who we know wouldn't act disgracefully within chambers.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the community's trust. 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.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]