[WikiEN-l] Arbcom mailing lists need shredded

[Nick]

I would certainly support the archives being deleted every December, and I'm
sure, given the fact that all of the existing Arbitrators will have copies
of the previous messages, if there is anything that needs to be distributed
around to the new members of the committee, this will not be difficult to
arrange. It would perhaps be unwise for new arbitrators to involve
themselves in matters arising from incidents prior to their appointment
however.

Now, I certainly trust all the potential new members of the committee, but I
don't like the fact we could see a situation where someone with a vendetta
or two could sneak into the running and be appointed to the committee, with
the sole intention of finding out what's in the archives and acting upon
that, possibly together with any tools they might acquire through their
presence on the committee. I'd prefer if such temptation to run was removed
entirely, and that all new com members would tend to only be able to access
e-mails after they're appointed. Clearly there's less of a problem with
existing clerks and they could be entrusted with logs for relevant cases
prior to their appointment as they may have contributed material to the
case.

I'm probably looking for problems that don't exist though.

On 03/12/2007, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> 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? And for that
> matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
> Doc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Nick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick